INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document hove 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 peges 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 hend 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. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North ZMb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 I I 74-27,440 LEONE, Leslie Leonard, 1946A STUDY OF THE EXPECTATIONS OF ENGINEERING FRESHMEN AND THE PERCEPTIONS OF ENGINEERING UPPERCLASSMEN AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1974 Education, higher U niversity M icrofilm s, A XERQKCompany, A nn A rbor, M ichigan A STUDY OF THE EXPECTATIONS OF ENGINEERING FRESHMEN AND THE PERCEPTIONS OF ENGINEERING UPPERCLASSMEN AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Leslie L. Leone A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1974 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE EXPECTATIONS OF ENGINEERING FRESHMEN AND THE PERCEPTIONS OF ENGINEERING UPPERCLASSMEN AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Leslie L. Leone In this age of great technological demand, engineering educators must prepare the quality graduates who will be able to contribute to the solution of society's most critical problems. They must provide a program which is both topical and relevant for faculty, society at large. students, and To be most effective, it is important an engineering college keep abreast of student attitudes, expectations and perceptions. A study of the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen can provide some valuable infor­ mation about an engineering student body, their needs and attitudes towards their academic programs. It was the purpose of this study to compare the expectations of entering engineering students with the p e r ­ ceptions of upperclass engineering students in relation to their academic programs. This was accomplished through a study of freshmen expectations, upperclass perceptions, and Leslie L. Leone a use of the resultant data for comparative purposes. The data generated by upperclassmen was used as the realistic standard of measure for determining the academic environ­ ment of engineering students at Michigan State University. A comparison with freshmen data identified the extent to which freshmen expectations were impractical or unrealistic. The population of this study was defined as all male and female students enrolled in the College of E n g i ­ neering at Michigan State University during Fall quarter 1973. The sample was comprised of two groupsr-freshmen and upperclassmen. The freshmen were defined as those members of the population who were attending college for the first time in Fall 1973. All had been classified by the University as "engineering--no major," even though many did have a major in mind when they came on campus. The upperclassmen were defined as those students who had previously enrolled for courses at Michigan State and had accumulated enough credits to be categorized as "juniors" or "seniors." Students representing six engineering majors participated in the study. A questionnaire was developed to test seven null hypotheses relevant to the students' in the College of Engineering. academic environment Each hypothesis stated "no difference will be found between the expectations of Leslie L. Leone entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen" in the following categories: 1. Faculty-Student Relationships 2. Student-Student Relationships 3. Teaching-Learning Environment 4. Personal Attention 5. Difficulty of Material 6. Discussion Opportunities 7. Career Outcomes. The same questionnaire was administered to both freshmen and upperclassmen with one minor change. All of the questions in the freshman instrument were worded "I expect that . . ." (i.e., faculty members are interested in a student's personal problems). In the upperclass question­ naire, a special section was created to obtain information concerning sex, major, and class. This information was used to gather major/sex differences on responses to the instru­ ment. Each question was tested using the chi-square statistic. The chi-square method of analysis was chosen since there were two independent population samples with a sufficiently large number of respondents. A computer p r o ­ gram was selected to perform the necessary calculations for each of the questions and variables in the questionnaire. A level of significance at the .05 level was used. Leslie L. Leone Results of computer analyses on each of the seven hypotheses made it possible to reject the null hypotheses in each case. It was found that freshmen were more positive in their responses than were upperclassmen in each of the seven categories. Using the perception scores of upperclass engineering students as the standard measure of reality, it was concluded that the expectations of entering engineering students were impractical and unrealistic. Four additional computer analyses were performed on the data. The first test computed overall percentages for each response on the thirty-eight questions. On the basis of these results, ten items were removed from further consideration, as no statistical differences were found. Three additional tests were performed to analyze the results by freshmen-upperclass differences, major field of study, and sex. Twenty-four items proved to be significant in the freshmen-upperclass categories, fourteen were significant in the major field analysis, and two were significant when computed by sex. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special mention should go to the many people who have been instrumental in the completion of this thesis. Dr. Walter Johnson, who served as committee chairman, has been helpful and supportive of my efforts. and assistance is greatly appreciated. His guidance Dr. George Van Dusen has provided many practical and insightful sug­ gestions. His counsel and encouragement these past few years have been invaluable. Sincere appreciation also goes to the other dedicated members of the guidance c o m ­ mittee: Dr. George Ferree, Dr. James McKee, and Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker. Special thanks is due my professional colleagues: Mr. William Abbett, Ms. Use Burke, Mr. Jack Pitts, and Mr. Jerry Stonewater for their assistance, support, and helpful comments. The author is especially indebted to Mr. Steve Olejnik and Ms. Mary Jamison for their efforts in ana­ lyzing the data and providing computer programming assistance. Sincere appreciation must go to Ms. Susan Leone for her many substantive contributions to this project. Her suggestions and assistance are gratefully acknowledged. A special note of gratitude is given tp my parents Bertha and Leonard, and my sister Paula, for their support and encouragement. Their loving kindness will forever serve as my inspiration. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................... vi LIST OF F I G U R E S ......................................... xi CHAPTER I. THE P R O B L E M .............. Introduction .................................. Statement of Problem ................ . . . . .................................. Purpose Hypotheses .................................... Scope of the S t u d y ........................... Limitations of the S t u d y .................... Overview of the S t u d y ......................... II. REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .................. College Attendance and Choice of Major ... Characteristics of the Engineering Major and Engineering Students .................. Academic Expectations of Entering College S t u d e n t s ................................. . Entering Academic Expectations of Michigan State University Engineering Freshmen . . . Differences Between Freshmen and Seniors . . Use of Environmental S t u d i e s ................ S u m m a r y ......................................... III. IV. 1 1 8 8 9 10 12 13 15 17 22 24 29 31 33 34 DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y .............................. 38 The Population and theS a m p l e ................. The I n s t r u m e n t ................................ Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . Analyzing the D a t a ........................... S u m m a r y ........................................ 38 39 47 48 49 ANALYSIS OF R E S U L T S .............................. 51 Report of F i n d i n g s ........................... Category A. Faculty-Student Relationships. Category B. Student-Student Relationships. Category C. Teaching-Learning Environment. Category D. Personal Attention ........... 56 56 66 £6 87 iv Page CHAPTER Category E. Difficulty of Material . . . . 97 Category F. Discussion Opportunities . . . 104 Category G. Career Outcomes .............. 114 S u m m a r y ........................................... 122 V. S U M M A R Y .................. ........................ 127 F i n d i n g s ......................................... 131 Discussion and Recommendations ............... 136 Implications for Further Research ............ 141 B I B L I O G R A P H Y .................. ........................... 143 A P P E N D I C E S .................................................. 152 APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX A B C D FRESHMEN PRE-TEST .................... UPPERCLASSMEN PRE-TEST ............... FRESHMEN QUESTIONNAIRE ............... UPPERCLASSMEN QUESTIONNAIRE ........ v 152 158 164 169 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Description of respondants to the questionnaire. 39 4.1 Repeated-measures ANOVA test for interaction effects ...................................... 53 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4. 7 . A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "faculty members in the College of Engineering are interested in the student's personal problems" ............................. 59 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "faculty members in the College of E n g i ­ neering are interested in a student's personal problems" ............................. 60 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "faculty members in the College of E n g i ­ neering are interested in discussing career opportunities with students" .................. 62 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "faculty members in the College of E n g i ­ neering are interested in discussing career opportunities with students" .................. 63 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "faculty members in the College of Engineering are available when they are needed" ......................................... 65 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "faculty members in the College of E n g i ­ neering are available when they are needed". 67 vi . Table 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 Page A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "fellow students in the College of Engineering are a closely-knit group" . . . . 69 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "fellow students in the College of E n g i ­ neering are a closely-knit g r o u p " ........... 70 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "fellow students in the College of Engineering participate in many social activi­ ties t o g e t h e r " .................................. 72 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "fellow students in the College of E n g i ­ neering participate in many social activi­ ties together" .................. . . . . . . . 74 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the que s­ tion "fellow students in the College of Engineering have a definite voice in deter­ mining policies and programs which affect other s t u d e n t s " ................................ 75 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "most classes stress the theoretical rather than the p r a c t i c a l " .................................. 80 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "mathematics is the most important element for success in my engineering c o u r s e s " ......................................... B1 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "mathematics is the most important element for success in my engineering courses" . . . . 82 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "laboratories are an important part of the engineering c u r r i c u l u m .................. . 84 vii Table 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 Page A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "there are adequate opportunities for me to do research and study in an area I am interested i n " .................................. 85 A comparison of the responses of male and female engineering students on the question "there are adequate opportunities for me to do research and study in an area I am inter­ ested in" . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 86 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "I feel like a person and not a number in the c o l l e g e " ................................ 88 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "I feel like a person and not a number in the c o l l e g e " ......................................... 90 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "most of my professors and fellow students know my n a m e " ......................... 91 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "most of my professors and fellow students know my n a m e " ........................................... 92 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "people take the time to listen to my p r o b l e m s " .................................... . 94 A comparison of the responses of male and female engineering students on the question "people take the time to listen to my p r o b l e m s " ...................................... 94 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "people take the time to listen to my p r o b l e m s " ...................................... 95 • # « Vlll Table 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 Page A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the qu es­ tion "it is difficult to pass a course w i t h ­ out a great deal of s t u d y i n g " ................ 99 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the que s­ tion "most classes require a lot of p r e p a r a r tion and study before going to class" . . . . 101 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "an important ingredient for success is knowing the right people" .................... 102 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q ues ­ tion "an important ingredient for success is learning the 'ropes.'" ......................... 103 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "professors like to be challenged on .................... their ideas during class" 107 4.31 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "professors like to be challenged on their ideas during c l a s s " .............................. 108 4.32 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "class time is set aside each meeting for questions and for d i s c u s s i o n " .............. 110 4.33 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "class time is set aside each meeting for questions and for d i s c u s s i o n ................................ Ill 4.34 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "class discussions are usually stimu­ lating and i n t e n s e " .............................. 112 4.35 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "class discussions are usually stimulating and i n t e n s e " ........................................... 113 ix Table Page 4.36 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "student discussion can make a professor change his m i n d " .................................. 115 4.37 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "the required engineering courses will adequately prepare me for a job when X graduate" ............................ . . . . . 117 A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "the required engineering courses will adequately prepare me for a job when I graduate" . . . . 118 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "an engineering program gives the stu­ dent a well-rounded education" ................ 119 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "an engineering education teaches a student how to get along with other people", . 121 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "I know what an engineer does on the j o b " ............................................122 4.42 A summary of statistically significant f i n d i n g s ....................................... 124 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1 Mean scores for the seven categories of study . . 54 4.2 Mean scores for the seven categories of study with revised mean for measure f i v e ............ 55 xi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The accelerating pace of technological change in all nations and the growing emphasis on industrialization in those slowly emerging from economic chaos are both real and important phenomena of our time. One c o n s e ­ quence of both is that the engineering profession will have an increasingly important, increasingly visible, and much broader role to play in all future world societies--or none. As that profession concerned principally with the use of knowledge to deal with (to 'solve* if you will) the constantly changing problems of the real world within which we function, it represents one of man's oldest professional inter­ ests. But there will now be many new demands on and new responsibilities assigned to the engineering p r o ­ fession plus new degrees of accountability to be considered. The present cry that engineers d e m o n ­ strate more concern for the socio-economic impact of their technologies is only one manifestation of this trend. For engineering educators, these new demands will require that we prepare our students in new ways to meet the challenges of the future. H. E. Hoelscher [41] Modern technology is truly on the brink of change and development, and at a period in history when mankind may be facing some of its most serious and pressing crises. The problems of the cities, of effective transportation, of pollution, of food production and distribution, and the productive and efficient utilization of the world's energy supply are some of the critical issues with which engineers 1 2 of the present and future must be equipped to deal. Today's engineer has available a variety of methods and tools to assist in these quests. The advent of the computer and other high-powered technological instruments have added new dimensions to the modern problem-solving approach. Each year a tremendous sum of money is spent on research a cti v­ ities. But, despite the tools and the dollars, the p roblem­ solving process in these areas is, at times, painfully slow. It is important that engineering educators prepare the quality graduates who will be able to contribute to the solution of these sensitive issues. The training and e x p e ­ riences which are given these students will determine, to a large degree, how effectively they will be able to handle these challenges. To this effect, engineering schools around the country are developing new majors and implement­ ing new and unique teaching methods. Programs such as Michigan State University's interdisciplinary Engineering Arts major and the new biomedical engineering option are indicative of innovative efforts at various engineering schools. Computerized instruction, self-paced learning, and modern audio-visual techniques are changing many tradi­ tional teaching-learning concepts. Despite new engineering programs, the optimistic future for technology, and the opportunity for students to interface with the critical challenges of the future, engi­ neering is suffering from a severe decline in enrollments. 3 Approximately 50,000 engineering graduates were placed in jobs last year, yet projections for engineering graduates in 1976 are expected to be only about 30,000. low enrollments, attrition In addition to (defined as all losses from E n g i ­ neering for whatever reason) continues to be a major source of concern for engineering schools. Many qualified students are leaving engineering programs each year to pursue another major of interest. of Engineering, In the Michigan State University College the attrition rate is more than thirty p e r ­ cent every year. While engineering schools have done a respectable job of preparing graduates, developing new courses and implementing new research and teaching programs, only a comparatively modest effort has been made to understand today's engineering student. Current and relevant litera­ ture is especially weak in the areas of the perceptions of engineering students toward their academic programs. Even less has been written about entering freshmen engineering students, and their expectations of their academic programs. In the Augustine study it was found that: Non-persisters cite a variety of reasons for chang­ ing out of engineering. Those most frequently mentioned in clude: a) Students had mistaken impressions of the eng i­ neering field. b) Students were dissatisfied with the content of required courses. c) The student's scholastic performance did not meet his self-expectations.[6] 4 A lack of accurate knowledge about the engineering field and a set of unrealistic and impractical expectations are significant problems to the entering engineering s t u ­ dent and an eventual contributor in part, to the high attrition rate. It has been found that family, friends, high school teachers, and counselors are most instrumental in the s t u ­ d e nt’s decision on whether to go to college and to their choice of major. Sandeen Research done by Stanfel and Watts [76], Dole [85], and Stern [25], Shill [82], Roberts it is these same people who help the student gather information, formulate opinions and and ultimately develop a set of expectations about the college environment. College catalogs, personal experience, correspondence, hearsay reports, opinions, [74], Soper [88], point out that besides choice of major and college intentions, attitudes, [87], aid parents, and glorified teachers, counselors, and of course, the student in forming the basis of the information which goes into these various input processes. Students who choose engineering as a major are oftentimes a distinct group. D ’Oyley Gallessich [32] , Khan and [48], and Kinloch [50] are among many who have found a high correlation between choice of engineering as a field of study and good high school grades and test scores. Engineering students typically represent the best groups of high school graduating classes. Heckler 5 et a l . [39] found the best predictor of success in engineering to be grades and test scores in high school mathematics and science courses. Engineering freshmen have been found by researchers such as Hammond [38] , DeFiore and Rose [24], Bennigson [10] , Elton [27], to be oriented in a materialistic, practical, vocational, conservative and intolerant manner. They are highly motivated toward career training, getting the degree and a job, and making money. Heckler et a l . [39] found that 91 percent of engineering freshmen have definite ideas about the career they want before enrolling for their first course. Yet as pointed up by Augustine [6], engineering students admit that their expectations exceeded reality. Heckler et a l . [39] in the previously mentioned study found that of the 91 percent who had definite career ideas, 23 percent changed their minds after one term on campus. As studied by Buckley Berdie [15], Ouay and Dole [12], Standing and Parker [70], Caple [86], and Pate [16], [66], idealistic expectations for the new student seem to be the rule, rather than the exception. toward professors, students, Pre-college attitudes the classroom and non-classroom environment are consistently viewed in a positive and idealistic manner. Yet, different attitudes held by freshmen and seniors show that significant change can and does take 6 place over a four-year college career. Newcomb [29], Sanford [78], Lehmann studied this phenomenon. Feldman and [52] and others have Seniors become more outer- directed, can think critically better, and are less m a t e ­ rialistically and vocationally oriented than freshmen. Seniors also feel that college does more than prepare one for a career. But, as pointed out by many of those who study college environments, such as Astin Pace [63], environmental effects, [2], Stern [88], and attitudes and perceptions can vary from one university to another and from one major to another on the same campus. It follows that an eng i­ neering student at X university is apt to be quite di ffer­ ent in interests, background and outlook on life than a liberal arts major from the same campus. Therefore, it is important, in this age of great technological demand, that engineering educators continue to provide a program which is both relevant and topical for the faculty, students, and society at large. A study of the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen can provide some valuable information about an engineering student body and attitudes toward their academic programs. There is a critical need to assess those areas and ideas of entering engineering students which are being idealized, and what unrealistic expectations about the engineering program they 7 are bringing with them. There is also a need to obtain information on those views of upperclass engineering stu­ dents toward their educational program, the faculty, the teaching-learning process and their fellow students. The College of Engineering at Michigan State University prides itself on its personal contact and services for the student. An ongoing advising program staffed by professionals, small classes, a helpful and knowledgeable faculty, semi-annual open houses, an e f f e c ­ tive orientation program, and a great deal of communication serve to help make this goal a reality for the college. Yet, a viable program cannot rest on its laurels. remain effective, To it is of great importance the College keep abreast of student attitudes, expectations, and p e r ­ ceptions. These data will provide a means of gauging effectiveness, and perhaps give the impetus for further change and development. This information will be of tre­ mendous importance to the C o l l e g e ’s efforts in communicating with high schools and community colleges, working with faculty and advisors, and planning the open houses and orientation programs. It will also provide valuable input for curriculum structure, Ultimately, and academic program development. these data will be a step toward filling the void which exists in research about engineering students, their attitudes, expectations, academic program. and perceptions of their 8 Statement of Problem Their is evidence to indicate that the expectations of the entering engineering student need to be analyzed and evaluated. There is also a need for a critical exami­ nation of the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen towards their academic programs. An analysis and compari­ son of this information will provide valuable input to engineering educators as they attempt to prepare engineer­ ing graduates to meet the challenges of the future more effectively. Purpose The primary purpose of this study is to compare the expectations of entering engineering students with the perceptions of upperclass engineering students in relation to their academic programs. This will be accomplished through a study of freshmen expectations, upperclass p e r ­ ceptions, and a use of the resultant data for comparative purposes. The data generated by upperclassmen will be used as the realistic standard of measure for dtermining the academic environment of engineering students at Michigan State University. A comparison with freshmen data will identify the extent to which freshmen expectations are impractical or unrealistic. Four objectives consistent with the purpose of the study were established to guide the research: 9 objective 1 : To identify the expectations held by entering engineering freshmen toward their academic programs. objective 2 : To identify the perceptions held by engineering upperclass students toward their academic programs. objective 5 : To determine those expectations held by freshmen which are impractical or unrealistic when compared against the environment as perceived by upperclass engineering students. objective 4 : To make recommendations on the basis of this research to faculty, administrators, advisors and other engineering educators to facili­ tate the planning and implementation of courses, programs, and policies. Hypotheses The following group of null hypotheses have been derived on the basis of relevant literature, with due c o n ­ sideration given to the statements of problem and purpose. Hypothesis 1 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Faculty-Student Relationships. Hypothesis 2 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen 10 and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Student-Student Relationships. Hypothesis 3 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Teaching-Learning Environment. Hypothesis 4 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Personal Attention. Hypothesis 5: No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Difficulty of Material. Hypothesis 6 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Discussion Opportunities. Hypothesis 7: No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Career Outcomes. Scope of the Study The following areas of the students' academic experience have been included in the questionnaires: 11 a) Faculty-student relationships--This category explores the expectations (or perceptions) that students have concerning their out-of-class r e l a ­ tionships with faculty members. Areas include encouragement for out-of-class contact, availabil­ ity, opportunities for out-of-class discussion of class material, career options, and interest in the student's personal problems. b) Student-student relationships--This area focuses on the expectations (or perceptions) that students have concerning interactions with their fellow students. Interest will focus on out-of-class contact, cohesiveness, helpfulness with class assignments and interest in personal problems. c) Teaching-learning environment--This category examines the expectations (or perceptions) that students have concerning the presentation of material, the method of teaching, research o p p o r ­ tunities, and the importance of theory, mathematics, logic, and laboratories in an engineering education. d) Personal attention--This area measures the exp ec­ tations (or perceptions) that students have c o n ­ cerning the kind and quality of interaction they have in the College. Areas will focus on the ease of getting to know faculty and students, 12 getting help when they need it, feeling like a person instead of a student number, and having someone available to listen to personal problems. e) Difficulty of m at erial--This section deals with student expectations (or perceptions) concerning the difficulty of the engineering curriculum and chances for their success in the program. Specific interest will focus on the amount and type of effort needed to succeed, the difficulty of e x a m i ­ nations, f) and the level of competition. Discussion opportunities--This area probes the s tudent’s expectations room interaction. (or perceptions) for c la s s­ Included will be opportunities to ask questions, challenge the professor and offer new ideas during class time. g) Career outcomes --This category focuses on the expectations (or perceptions) the student has c o n ­ cerning the practicability of an engineering e d u c a ­ tion, including preparation for job solving problems and generally getting along in the world around us. Also examined will be the student's understanding of what an engineer does on the job. Limitations of the Study Certain limitations within the study, as conducted, must also be considered. This research was conducted in 13 one college within one institution, the Michigan State University College of Engineering. Inferences derived from these results are applicable only to similar populations. The data for this study were obtained through an instrument developed solely for this project. As is the case with similar surveys of this nature, student responses may not reflect the true intensity or depth of attitudes, perceptions, or expectations. In addition, student p a r t i c ­ ipation in this project was purely voluntary, solely dependent upon their willingness to take time to answer the survey form. Overview of the Study In Chapter II, literature relevant to this topic will be reviewed. Included will be pertinent material on the student's choice of college attendance, career d e c i ­ sions, academic expectations, and differences between freshmen and senior attitudes toward the academic experi­ ence. Where possible, attempts will be made to focus on engineering students in general and Michigan State U n i v e r ­ sity engineering students in particular. The design of the study will be examined in Chapter III. design, Among the categories will be the methodology, and approach to the analysis of the data. An analysis of the results of the survey data will be presented in Chapter IV. Differences by engineering 14 major will also be given special attention on the basis of the results obtained from the upperclass questionnaires. Chapter V will include summary and conclusion remarks, with significant discussion directed towards impli­ cations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The way in which an individual makes decisions to attend college, choose a career, and thereby develops a set of expectations and attitudes, influenced by many variables. is a complex process Through the development of a variety of testing instruments it has been possible to measure expectations, college environments. attitudes, and perceptions of various The use of these same instruments has permitted researchers to measure differences between freshmen and senior viewpoints of their collegiate en vi ron­ ment . Most research of this type has not focused ex c lu ­ sively on academic environments, but on the overall campus climate. Studies of engineering students, in particular, have not dealt with the expectations and perceptions of their academic programs. What little has been done, is oftentimes outdated and not relevant to the engineering student of the mid-1970's. A current examination of these areas is important for planning, program development, evaluation by engineering educators. 15 and 16 This study has used relevant literature as a basis for the development of this current investigation of the expectations of engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen toward their academic envi ron­ ments. This chapter is devoted to a review of literature instrumental in the development of this study. The m a t e ­ rial has been divided into the following categories: a) College attendance and major choice--This section examines the processes and influences that have an impact on going to college, and choosing a major. Data from surveys conducted at Michigan State University are also presented. b) Characteristics of the engineering major and its students--An overview of research relevant to engineering majors, their attitudes and c h ar acter­ istics is presented in this area. Also examined are some attitudes of entering Michigan State University engineering freshmen. c) Expectations of entering college students--This category probes the variety of academic expecta­ tions the freshman student brings to college. The variables which influence these attitudes will also be investigated. Michigan State University e n g i ­ neering data are evaluated as well. 17 d) Freshman-Senior differences--This topic covers some of the different views held by freshmen and seniors toward their college environment and the types of changes which occur in students during their four years in college. e) Use of Environment Scales--This section identifies various environmental scales, their purposes, and usefulness to studies similar to this one. College Attendance and Choice of Major A student's arrival on a college campus is the culmination of a variety of variables, some of which have had impact throughout the individual's lifetime. Certainly, a single isolated factor cannot account for this decision. One must realize that this process is the intertwining of many variables over a long period of time. One such factor, documented in the literature, the influence of the Social-Economic-Status ground of the individual. Marshall is (SES) and ba c k­ Researchers such as George and [35] have identified the SES home level as an important factor in college attendance. Those students labeled as "college-bound" were found to have a high need for achievement and leadership, which the authors attribute to the SES home variable. Another study by Meyer [56] found the SES level of the high school to have a strong effect on college plans. 18 It is reported that this factor is an even stronger influence than the quality of the educational program in the high school. The glamour of a college education is especially attractive to those youth of a lower SES background. stated by Sanford As [78], To young people of lower social status, the d e c i ­ sion for college may be a more conscious and problematic one. On the borderline of economic ease one expects to find motivational factors most clearly distinguishing those who do and do not enter college. We have seen that for many of these less privileged youngsters, college represents the golden path to social mobility, the chance to increase their share of social and economic rewards. Probably the most potent influence on college attendance is the multi-variables of parents, peers, high school teachers, by Soper and counselors. Studies such as the one [85] show that family influence is the strongest variable in college attendance; with peer, teacher, and counselor variables ranking behind. He also found that a higher educational level by the parents will increase chances of college attendance by their children. It is interesting to note in this same study that parents p r e ­ ferred to have the school produce more input into their child's decision. In research done by Juola [77], Kandel and Lesser [45], Sandell and Rossman [46] , and Brody and Marin strong influence by parents, [14] the and then peers and high school personnel on college attendance is also confirmed. 19 Combining SES with parental influence, Rhodes [71] found the mother was the key determinant of college aspira­ tions in low SES youth, with school climate again a weak agent in the formulation of plans. Werts [95], on the other hand, discovered the father as the important influ­ ence on college attendance in the semi-professional and professional classes. Students who were asked why they were going to college provided some interesting insights. Dole [25] found that freshmen and seniors both felt that the impor­ tance of the degree toward getting a job was the strongest motivation for a college education. Ranked next in impor­ tance for freshmen was, being a success in life; satisfac­ tion with their career interests and preparation for specialization within this particular career. seniors, looking back four years, peers were also going to college; However, cited factors such as, it was important to the family reputation; and the decision had been made for them for as long as they could remember. Similar findings by Brody and Marin [14] show students identifying two basic reasons for going to college; to improve their self-image and to orient them towards a career. Juola [44], in a study of entering Michigan State freshmen comments further " . . . the decision to attend college has been a long time expectation (571). Only nine 20 per-cent indicate having made this decision after the start of the senior year of high school." The choice of a major for the student is oftentimes a result of many of the same influencing factors which brought him to college initially. However, the process is more complex and involved than the ones identified in a college attendance decision. Intensive studies of individuals indicate that choice of major is the outcome of an interaction of dispositions in the student and forces in his i mmedi­ ate environment such as pressures from his family, his friends, and the college departments. Such studies show that majors are chosen on different bases and in different ways, and they suggest that the basis and manner of choice are related to the student's fate in the major, and later on. Sanford [78] goes on to suggest that personality traits and college image are also involved in the major cho ice. It is interesting to note that Northby [59] found that 86 percent of the freshmen in his study had a major in mind when they first came to campus, and a majority had decided on that major on the average of twenty-six months before enrolling. It appears, therefore, that many of these same influences had at least some impact on the stu­ dent's initial choice of career study. There are undoubtedly certain features of an e n g i ­ neering program which appeal to students and affects their selection of engineering as a major. Uppermost among these factors is the vocational orientation and the heavy 21 curricular emphasis on math and science. and D'Oyley Findings by Khan [48] point out that engineering students test very high nationally on math and science exams. correlates with Roberts' This [74] finding that engineering students have a high positive entering attitude toward mathematics. A study done by Heckler, Krampen and Handa [39], reiterates that math and its practical application was the most attractive feature to high school students choosing engineering. This was followed in rank order by the practical coursework offered by engineering, and the high earning potential of an engineering career. Entering freshmen engineers have been measured as being high in intellectual and applied interests [24], and are quite often the best students from high school g r a d ­ uating classes [78]. Kinloch [50] in a similar finding reports the highest reason for engineering attendance is related to challenging intellectual variables. interesting to note that in a study by Baird It is [7] , a higher percentage of engineering freshmen predicted they would graduate than of any other major. Not surprisingly, it was these same factors of high school rank, grade point average, and math abilities which were identified as high correlates of engineering success [33], [48]. 22 It appears, therefore, that individuals choose an engineering career for the appeal of math, science, pr a ct i ­ cality of the coursework, vocational orientation, intellectual challenges of the curriculum. with the influential variables of family, counselors, and teachers, and the When interfaced friends, an understanding of the factors which motivate a student to select engineering as a major becomes clearer. Characteristics of the Engineering Major and Engineering Students Through the use of a variety of assessment tech­ niques, researchers have been able to identify other characteristics which tend to typify engineering students and the program. A study by Vreeland and Bidwell pinpoint some of these traits. [92] attempted to It was found that eng ineer­ ing students rank high in technical goals, occupational preparation, and structured discipline. On the other hand, these same individuals scored quite low in moral goals and human development types of goals. It was interesting to note that engineering faculty rank higher in interest in the engineering program per se than in interaction with students. They also found more engineering faculty con­ cerned with recruiting competent students than in working with students currently enrolled. 23 This coincides with research by Beall and Bordin [9] who report that engineers have an overdeveloped in t er ­ est in material objects and an underinvestment in people. A study by Elton and Rose [27] helps to identify other personality characteristics of engineering students. According to the authors, engineering students tend to have practical interests; be dependent upon authority; unable to rebel against family, school, church or state; unlikely to protest infringements of rights; inflexible and intolerant. Sanford [78] found that engineering students, while ranking very high in intellectual areas, are the least liberal-oriented group of students. He goes on to report that engineering is the only field which does rank high in intellectualism and low in liberalism. Grande and Simons [36] point out the good engineer­ ing student has a strong need for achievement, reinforced by a strong motivation to work and study hard. They report the importance of the pre-college peer group in the forma­ tion of personal attitudes and values. This is illustrated in the characteristic that engineering students exhibit a greater degree of self-control in such areas as partygoing, drinking, and smoking. In the Juola [45] studies of Michigan State U n i v e r ­ sity entering freshmen many of these same variables were in evidence. Entering engineering freshmen ranked high in 24 job orientation, money motivation, their socio-economic status. and the desire to improve These same individuals ranked quite low in such goal-oriented categories as becoming more cultured, to meet new and interesting people, to enhance social development, and cultures, Juola to become aware of different philosophies and to be of service to mankind. [44] was also able to pinpoint some background information on these same students which provides additional insight to the Michigan State University engineering fresh­ man. Level of education is lowest for mothers and fathers of entering engineering students. Lowest family income was also reported for engineering student families. Engineering freshmen score lowest in non-classroom experiences such as school politics, writing poetry, vitamins. typing homework, library work, dating, smoking, visiting an art gallery, and taking Not surprisingly they also ranked lowest in accomplishments in the literary, arts, and humanities areas. As might be expected, engineering freshmen rated very high in all areas of science accomplishments. Academic Expectations of Entering College Students In general terms, the freshman in college is a novice in an unfamiliar social organization, and is therefore confronted with the values, norms, and role structures of a new social system and various new su b ­ systems. Such an experience usually involves d es ocial­ ization (pressures to unlearn certain past values, attitudes, and behavior patterns) as well as soc iali­ zation (pressures to learn the new culture and 25 participate in the new social structure). The uncertainties of this learning period often are c o m ­ pounded by the frustrations involved in moving from a system where one is an established member--the former high school and home community--to a system where one is only a novice. Therefore, regardless of the degree to which the new college environment matches what the entering freshman expected, he faces a variety of expected and unexpected academic, intellectual, and social challenges. He must come to grips with both formal and informal demands, with both a public c u r ­ riculum and, as Synder (1966b) puts it, an "invisible curriculum." A new set of adult role models is av a il ­ able, often very different from the models provided in his home environment. He may find that they represent a wider variety of psychological and social types than he has known. He may meet challenges to attitudes and values that served adequately enough in high s c h o o l . [29] The expectations of the entering college student is a topic which has been covered quite thoroughly in the literature. Most researchers seem to agree that the freshman student is much more optimistic and idealistic about their expected campus environment. Berdie [12] reports that freshmen anticipate a high degree of intellectual stimulation in college. sion professors as motivating and exciting. They e n v i ­ They also expect the coursework to be challenging and rewarding. This conflicts with the survey taken of sophomores on the same campus. stimulation, Those individuals felt little intellectual and saw the faculty as oftentimes dull and uninteresting. They perceived much of the coursework to be tedious and not really as tough as they had expected. In research by Standing and Parker [86] it was found that freshmen do have an idealistic outlook towards 26 college. They anticipated a high degree of achievement, understanding, and objectivity in the campus climate. coincides with the findings by Walsh and McKinnon This [93] who found, using the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) that the freshman expectation score was higher than the perception score reported by the student already enrolled. It is interesting to note that Pate Buckley [66] and [15] found these same unrealistic expectations, besides being held by freshmen, are also similar to those attitudes of new transfer students. Student expectations are especially high in the areas which involve faculty members. Smithers' [83] research explains that students expect professors to know the subject, be able to teach it, give a structured lecture, and be available for discussion and meetings with students. Coyle [22] similarly reports that students expect strong faculty assistance in developing study habits, help with academic problems, and helping those students afraid to participate in class discussion. The element of change in student expectations has been researched. It was found that most of these changes take place in the first two years on the college campus. In a study by Caple [16] , it was explained that signifi­ cant change in student impressions of the college begins to take place about five months after being on campus. 27 Students were less positive in their view of the college after the five month period. They were also less v o c a ­ tionally oriented after this period of time. Berdie [12] discovered that those freshmen who were most active in campus affairs had their CUES score change the most in a negative direction. Quay and Dole [70] conclude in their findings that satisfaction with college seems to be related to narrowing the gap between expectations and perceptions. What factors are influential in the development of these unrealistically positive expectations? Many of the same variables are important as in the cases of college attendance and choice of major. A study by Sandeen [76] found that attitudes toward college are related to a high concept of self, which is strongly influenced by parents, peers, counselors, and teachers. Parents, according to Seymour and Richardson [81], hold positive reactions about the role of faculty, o p p o r ­ tunities available to students, and academic excellence. leadership possibilities The authors conclude that many of these same feelings are passed on to the entering student. This is similar to research done by Kelly and Hart [47] who find parents of college students rating the "character-building" role of faculty as important as their 28 teaching role and much more valuable than their research role. Shill [82] identified the high school teacher as being quite influential in helping the student develop expectations and aspirations. [37] and Seymour Yet, Guilliams and Dollar [80] found that high school counselors and teachers were not accurately tuned into the true campus environment. Their idealistic perceptions existed even in schools which were in close proximity to the college. Stern [88] reports that parents and teachers some­ times admit to idealizing to their children about college. The most frequent reason given usually relates to trying to motivate the individual to do well in college. Stanfel and Watts [87] feel that freshmen ex pecta­ tions are the result of being misinformed by parents, counselors, begin with. and teachers who have the wrong information to They suggest that the culprit may, in fact, be the catalog produced by the university. agrees with this opinion. Stern [88] The glorified and ambiguous statements in these publications seem to naturally lend themselves to misinterpretation. In fact Stern categorizes the college catalog as "the publication which is as sincere as a seed catalog." It is interesting that the people most often r e ­ sponsible for the college catalog and other publications of this type are often as idealistic as the freshmen student. Lynch [53] found a great deal of similarity in viewpoints 29 between college administrators and the entering student. Both groups tended to idealize most of the actual programs, facilities, quality, and curricula which existed on campus. A similar study by Stern [88] showed that faculty and upperclassmen are tuned into the realities of the campus environment but administrators and underclassmen were not. Research findings by Donato and Fox [26] point out that admissions officers view the college in a much more positive light than do any other group on campus. The authors conclude that this group may be most responsible for the misinformation and unrealistic perceptions held by high school counselors. Entering Academic Expectations of Michigan State University Engineering Freshmen Since this thesis is in part concerned with enter­ ing students in the Michigan State University College of Engineering, it is helpful to get an insight into some of their academic aspirations. The research done by Juola [45] is especially helpful in providing some background data on the Michigan State University entering student. The goals and aspirations of engineering freshmen include the following points: a) Forty-two percent of engineering freshmen expect to obtain a B.S. degree, with 36 percent planning on a Masters and 14 percent, a Ph.D. This 30 indicates that 92 percent of engineering freshmen anticipate at least obtaining a B.S. degree with 50 percent aspiring to a graduate degree of some sort. b) English was the only subject with which engineering freshmen felt they would need tutoring help. In this category they ranked higher than (18 percent) any other major. c) Fifty percent felt they would be above average in class rank, while 38 percent anticipated being about average in class rank and 1 percent below average. d) Sixty-two percent of engineering freshmen felt they would be above average in their academic work, while 37 percent ranked themselves average and only 3 percent below average. e) High percentages of these same students indicated a desire for more discussion in class than writing, more student-student interaction in class, p r o f e s ­ sors who will spend out-of-class time with students, would like to be known by their first name, have tutoring help available and special honors programs available for high ability students. Data on Michigan State University engineering freshmen seems to be consistent with previous information 31 presented, especially in the areas of intellectual and academic aspirations. Differences Between Freshmen and Seniors Several researchers have surveyed both freshmen and seniors in an attempt to identify the types of changes which occur in students during their four years in college. In research done by Davis [23], it was found that most student change occurs when they find an environment which fits their personality. A study by Frantz [30] pointed out that most student change in college takes place in social areas with the least change affecting traditional beliefs, domestic habits and conformity. Seniors are seen as being more intellectually and culturally oriented, less idealistic, and more tolerant. Similar findings by Ivey and Wilson [42] show that seniors felt a lower degree of aspiration after four years. They saw the institution as being less concerned with social activities and less vocationally oriented than they had expected as freshmen. Lehmann's [52] research also indicated significant differences between seniors and freshmen. Seniors surveyed, were less stereotypical and more open to new ideas than freshmen. Seniors were more outer-directed and felt they could critically think better after four years. Money was 32 less important to seniors than freshmen and job satisfaction was valued more by seniors. After four years they agreed that college did more than prepare one for a job. Many of these same findings coincide with research done on engineering freshmen-senior differences. Olive [60] found senior engineering students more concerned with people* self-expression, their personal status. artistic beauty and nature, and Freshmen, on the other hand, were interested more in materialistic gains, with more emphasis on vocational preparation and religious activities. Fr esh­ men saw the engineering field as less people-oriented than did the seniors. Concurrent findings by Hammond [38] show that freshmen engineering students value prestige and money most, with people far down the list. Seniors, however, place more emphasis on people-type values and less on pres­ tige. A study by Webster were more flexible, [94] had similar results. less compulsive, Seniors tolerant, rebellious, and critical of authority than were freshmen. Galessich [32] also found engineering seniors to be more liberal in outlook than entering students. Bennigson [10] had done research in this area and also obtained parallel results. He found that freshmen see the curriculum as more human oriented than do seniors. They also felt the curriculum to be quite creative, whereas seniors thought an engineering education gave the 33 student a less broad educational background than other majors. Use of Environmental Studies A wide variety of methods and measurement tech­ niques have been developed to describe the environments in colleges and universities. struments, Through the use of these i n ­ it has been possible to prove the existence of institutional differences and that these differences are measurable. The use of these scales has provided much of the data concerning freshmen-senior differences presented earlier. Since the survey used in this research is modeled after some of these other instruments, a brief explanation of them seems in order. The existence of environmental assessment tech­ niques are a relatively new phenomena, with their full development not coming until the late 1950's. Pace [64] was one early pioneer in this area with his College and University Environment Scales (CUES). CUES is designed to measure total college environment and the campus atmosphere as perceived by students. Areas of the environment examined with this technique are faculty, curriculum, dent life, campus facilities, rules, stu­ and extra-curricular activities. Pace and Stern [63] theCollege Characteristics have also combined to develop Index (CCI). Similar to the 34 CUES, the CCI also attempts to assess campus environments. The CCI measures "press’'--the characteristic demand or features of an environment as perceived by those who live in that environment--and its influence on the policies and pressures of the institution that influence student de v el ­ opment. Trow [91] has identified four distinct student s u b­ cultures that are important to the measurement of en viron­ ment. These categories are the traditional, the academic, the consumer-vocational, and the non-conformist. Trow suggests that institutional environment can be determined by examining the proportion of its students in each of these four sub-cultures. Astin and Holland's [4] "Environmental Assessment Technique" is another instrument used to measure e n viron­ ment. Essentially this scale concentrates on examining eight characteristics of the student body and their r e l a ­ tion to major fields of study. Summary An attempt has been made in this chapter to present a developmental approach to understanding entering college students, their backgrounds, motivation, influences, expectations and the changes which take place between the freshman and senior years in college. Where possible, special emphasis has been given in this chapter to 35 relating these topics to engineering students in general, and Michigan State University students in particular. The literature reviewed has explored the college plans of students, and the influences and motivations behind this type of decision. It was reported that parents have the most influential effect on whether or not the student attended college. Ranked next in importance were peers, high school counselors, and teachers. Socio- «- economic-status was also found to be a variable--the higher the SES, the more likelihood of positive college intention. Students themselves rated the importance of getting prepared for a career as the most motivating influence on their future college plans. Also important was peer inf lu­ ence and the chance to improve their self-image. It was found that choice of major was oftentimes dependent on many of these same influential factors. Also important are certain personality traits and image of the college. Studies with engineering students show that choice of major is often determined by the vocational orientation and the large amount of math and science in the engineer­ ing curriculum. It was reported that engineering typically appeals to the student of high intellectual ability with interests in applied areas. Engineering students were found to be m a t e r i a l ­ istically oriented, practical, dependent upon authority, 36 unable to rebel against traditional values, inflexible and intolerant. They also rank high in achievement, m o t i v a ­ tion and self-control. A study of Michigan State University entering freshmen found many of these same characteristics present in the results. The literature on the expectations of the entering college student is full of data emphasizing the idealistic attitudes these freshmen bring to college. a high degree of intellectual stimulation, They anticipate strong faculty interest in them, and challenging and rewarding coursework. None of these elements were perceived to a great degree by students who were on campus. It was found that parents, peers, counselors, and teachers were instrumental in the development of these expectations. Apparently misinformation derived from college publications and university officials helps to contribute to their unrealistic perception of campus climates. A study of entering Michigan State University freshmen showed that most are intellectually oriented and anticipate stimulation and challenges in their coursework. Most differences between freshmen and seniors point out a more culturally-oriented, tolerant attitude for seniors. hand were money-oriented, less idealistic and Freshmen on the other idealistic and traditional. 37 These findings coincide with research done on engineering students by several authors. A final section of the chapter was devoted to an explanation of instruments used to assess environmental differences. The existence of these various methods and techniques permits researchers to study and measure institu­ tional differences, climate. attitudes, and perceptions of the campus CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY In this chapter, an in-depth investigation and description of the population, ment will be presented. the sample, and the instru­ Procedures for collecting and analyzing the data are explained. The Population and the Sample The population of this study can be defined as all male and female students enrolled in the College of E n g i ­ neering at Michigan State University during Fall quarter 1973. The sample was comprised of two groups--freshmen and upperclassmen. The freshmen were defined as those members of the population who were attending college for the first time in Fall 1973. All had been classified by the University as "engineering--no major," even though many did have a major in mind when they came on campus. The upperclassmen were defined as those students who had previously enrolled for courses at Michigan State and had accumulated enough credits to be categorized as "juniors" or "seniors." Students representing six 38 39 engineering majors participated in the study. Table 3.1 lists the totals of those participating in the study, including a classification by major. Table 3.1. Description of respondents to the questionnaire. Number of SeniorJunior Maj ors Number Part ici­ pating in Study Degree of Upperclass Majors in Study Degree of Total in Study 1. Chemical Engineering 72 21 29.14 4.9% 2. Civil Engineering 210 37 17.6% 8.6% 3. Computer Science 175 35 20.0% 8.1% 4. Electrical Engineering 195 52 26.6% 12.1% 5. Mechanical Engineering 189 43 22.7% 10.0% 28 13 46.4% 3.0% TOTALS 869 201 23.1% 46. 7% FRESHMEN 346 230 66.5% 53,4% 6. Metallurgy Note: Figures based on Fall term 1973 enrollment data. The Instrument A survey instrument was developed for the sole p u r ­ poses of this study, in concert with the goals and o b j e c ­ tives set forth in Chapter I. objective 1 : They were stated as follows: To identify the expectations held by entering engineering freshmen toward their academic programs; 40 objective 2 : To identify the perceptions held by engineering upperclass students toward their academic p r o g r a m s ; objective 3 : To determine those expectations held by freshmen which are impractical or unrealistic when compared against the environment perceived by upperclass engineering students; objective 4 : To make recommendations on the basis of this research to faculty, administrators, advisors and other engineering educators to facili­ tate the planning and implementation of courses, programs, and policies. The instrument was designed to be similar in c o n ­ tent and style to the CUES and CCI environmental scales. One of the main reasons in developing a separate instru­ ment was to concentrate on the academic environment alone. The other assessment techniques incorporate environmental readings of multi aspects of the campus. To permit sufficient "try-outs" of the q ue s ti o n­ naire, a pre-test was administered to a selected group of engineering students during the Summer quarter 1973. This group consisted of twenty engineering students: first-term freshmen and upperclassmen, male and female. The purpose of the pre-test was to test for clarity, wording, and scope. A personal interview with each p r e ­ test participant was conducted when they completed their 41 written comments. Minor changes were made to incorporate the reactions and recommendations of this group. Copies of the pre-test are included in Appendix A and B. The same questionnaire was administered to both freshmen and upperclassmen with only one minor change. All of the questions in the freshman instrument were worded "I expect that . . ." (i.e........... faculty members are interested in a student's personal problems). A cover letter was stapled to each questionnaire explaining the purpose of the study and requesting the student's participation. Copies of each cover letter and the questionnaires are included in Appendix C and D. In the upperclass questionnaire, a special section was created to obtain information concerning sex, major, and class. This information was used to gather major/sex differences on responses to the instrument. Seven areas basic to the individual's academic experience were included in the questionnaire. The source and the rationale for each of these questions were based on the hypotheses created for this study. Category A . Faculty-Student Relationships. The hypotheses for this category may be stated as follows: Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the attitudes and expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the attitudes and 42 perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Faculty-Student Relationships. Alternate hypothesis: The attitudes and e x p e c t a ­ tions of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the attitudes and perceptions reported by e n g i n e e r ­ ing upperclassmen in the categories of FacultyStudent Relationships. This category focuses on the expectations perceptions) (or that students have concerning their out-of-class relationships with faculty members. Questions covered the encouragement for o u t - o f ­ class contact, availability, opportunities for out- of-class discussion of class material, career options, and interest in the student's personal problems. Category B . Student-Student Relationships. The hypotheses for this category may be stated as follows: Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the attitudes and expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the attitudes and p e r ­ ceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the c a t e ­ gories of Student-Student Relationships. Alternate hypothesis: The attitudes and ex p ec t a­ tions of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the attitudes and perceptions reported by 43 engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Student-Student Relationships. Explored in this section were the expectations Cor perceptions) that students have concerning interactions with their fellow students. Questions focused on out-of-class contact, cohesiveness, helpfulness with class assignments and interest in personal problems. Category C . Teaching-Learning Environment. The hypotheses for this category may be stated as follows: Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the attitudes and expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the attitudes and p e r c e p ­ tions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Teaching-Learning Environment. Alternate hypothesis: The attitudes and expecta­ tions of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the attitudes and perceptions reported by en g ineer­ ing upperclassmen in the categories of T ea c h i n g Learning Environment. Questions in this area examined the expecta­ tions (or perceptions) that students have concerning the presentation of material, the method of teaching, research opportunities, and the importance 44 of theory, logic, mathematics, and laboratories in an engineering education. Category D . Personal Attention. The hypotheses for this category may be stated as follows: Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the attitudes and expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the attitudes and p e r c e p ­ tions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Personal Attention. Alternate hypothesis: The attitudes and e x pecta­ tions of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the attitudes and perceptions reported by e n gineer­ ing upperclassmen in the categories of Personal Attention. Explored in this section were the expectations (or perceptions) that students have concerning the kind and quality of interaction they have in the College. Questions focused on the ease of getting to know faculty and students, getting help when they need it, feeling like a person instead of a student number, and having someone available to listen to personal problems. Category E . Difficulty of Material. The hypotheses for this category may be stated as follows: 45 Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the attitudes and expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the attitudes and p ercep­ tions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Difficulty of Material. Alternate hypothesis: The attitudes and expecta­ tions of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the attitudes and perceptions reported by engineer­ ing upperclassmen in the categories of Difficulty of Material. This area dealt with student expectations (or perceptions) concerning the difficulty of the engi­ neering curriculum and chances for their success in the program. Specific questions examined the amount and type of effort needed to succeed, the difficulty of examinations, and the level of competition. Category F . Discussion Opportunities. The hypothesis for this category may be stated as follows: Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the attitudes and expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the attitudes and pe r c e p ­ tions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Discussion Opportunities. Alternate hypothesis: The attitudes and expecta­ tions of entering engineering freshmen will exceed 46 the attitudes and perceptions reported by engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Discussion Opportunities. This section probed the student's expectations (or perceptions) for classroom interaction. Ques­ tions included the opportunities to ask questions, challenge the professor and offer new ideas during class time. Category G . Career Outcomes. The hypothesis for this category may be stated as follows: Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the attitudes and expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the attitudes and p e r c e p ­ tions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Career Outcomes. Alternate hypothesis: The attitudes and expecta­ tions of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the attitudes and perceptions reported by engineer­ ing upperclassmen in the categories of Career O ut c o me s . Questions in this category explored the e x p e c ­ tations (or perceptions) the student has concerning the practicability of an engineering education, including preparation for job-solving problems and generally getting along in the world. One question 47 also examined the st u dent’s understanding of what an engineer does on the job. Data Collection Procedures The instrument was administered to freshmen on two different occasions, both before the start of Fall classes. One group was surveyed during the engineering presentation as part of the Late Summer Orientation Program. Prior to making out their Fall schedules, each of the approximately sixty freshmen students present were asked to fill out one of the instruments. The remainder of the freshmen q ue s ti o n­ naires were distributed and collected during the engineering presentation for new freshmen as part of the Welcome Week program. Upperclass questionnaires were administered during Fall quarter. Academic advisors helped to distribute and collect these surveys. When students stopped by their office, they were given the option of filling out one of the questionnaires. These instruments were also di s trib­ uted in selected Senior courses. Attempts were made to try and get an even distribution by each engineering major. The numbers and percentages of students participating in each major was presented in Table 3.1. 48 Analyzing the Data Responses to each question were labeled as: "Strongly-Agree," "Agree," "Disagree," and "StronglyDisagree." No neutral option was given in order to try to force responses in a particular direction. Answers were then coded as being 1 (Strongly-Agree), 2 (Agree), 3 (Disagree) or 4 (Strongly-Disagree) for the purposes of computer analysis. Each question was tested using the chi-square statistic. The chi-square method of analysis was chosen since there are two independent population samples, with a sufficiently large number of respondents. A computer program was selected to perform the necessary calculations for each of the questions and variables in the question­ naire. A level of significance at the .05 level was used. In the major field of study analyses, some of the cell contributions to the Chi-Square test statistic contain less than five observations. The effect of this low number has been of concern to some statisticians, yet others such as Cochran [20] and Snedecor [84] feel differently. These men have researched this question and concluded that cell size is not a problem if either a) the frequency of cells containing less than five observations are fewer than 80 percent of the total number of cells; or b) the degrees of freedom are greater than five. All conclusions in the major field analyses of this study satisfy both conditions. 49 Summary A questionnaire was designed and administered to two groups of Michigan State University engineering st u ­ dents: entering freshmen, and upperclassmen of both sexes and six majors within the College. The instrument was developed to be consistent with the objectives of the study set forth in Chapter I. Freshmen questions were worded "I expect that . . while upperclass items were phrased "I think that . . . " in relation to seven areas of their academic experience. The seven designated categories included a) Faculty-Student Relationships; b) Student-Student Relationships; c) Teaching-Learning Environment; d) Personal Attention; e) Difficulty of Material; and g) Career Outcomes. f) Discussion Opportunities; Hypotheses were established for each of these seven areas consistent with the objectives of the study. The surveys were given to two groups of freshmen on two different occasions prior to the start of Fall Term classes. Upperclassmen were administered the question­ naire throughout a period of weeks during Fall Term. Responses to each item were analyzed through the use of the chi-square statistic, with a computer program doing the necessary calculations. at the .05 level was used. A level of significance 50 In Chapter IV the data will be presented and analyzed. Data obtained for each engineering major, and a classification by sex of the respondent will also be examined. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS In the preceding chapter an outline of the objectives, the problem, and hypotheses for this study was presented. The approach and statistical design for the data analysis was also identified. A classification of respondents in the sample was presented in Table 3.1. Five computer analyses were performed on the data. The first test computed overall percentages for each response on the thirty-eight questions. these results, On the basis of ten items were removed from further c o n ­ sideration, as no statistical differences were found. Three additional tests were performed to analyze the results by freshmen-upperclass differences, major field of study, and sex. Twenty-four items proved to be significant in the freshmen-upperclass categories; ficant in the major field analysis; fourteen were signi­ and two were significant when computed by sex. A final analysis was performed to test for int er­ action effects, among groups, in each of the seven c atego­ ries of study. The presence of interaction effects would qualify some conclusions of this study. 51 The results of 52 this examination and the appropriate F test are given in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1. The conservative F test was used to prove that no interaction effects were present. In Figure 4,1 a graph of the mean scores for each category shows interaction occurring in unit five. Further investigation found that two of the questions in this unit were not consistent in their wording with the other thirty-six in the survey. positive response on these items, tive connotations. was performed. A in actuality, had n e g a ­ A reanalysis of the data for unit five The coding of the responses for the two questions was changed to reflect the different direction of the question. A M strongly-agreeM response was coded as "strongly-disagree," an "agree" response was coded as "disagree" and vice versa. The results in Figure 4.2 verify that these items did cause the interaction effect to appear in category five. The new mean scores are c o n ­ sistent with those in other categories. Using this revised analysis, it is possible to conclude there were no interaction effects throughout the seven units of study. In this chapter each of the seven basic hypotheses will be restated, and the statistical test results will be reported. A further classification will evaluate the data in terms of class, major and sex differences. Table 4.1. Repeated-measures ANOVA test for interaction effects Adjusted Degrees of Freedom Source D.F. Sum of Squares Mean Squares Conservative Estimated 1 51.74 429 241.38 Repeated Measures 6 85.31 14.22 88.955 (1.0 ; 429.0) (5.24; 2246.44) R.M.-Groups 6 18.41 3.07 19.195 (1.0 ; 429.0) (5.24, 2246.44) 2574 411.42 3016 808.25 Groups Subjects-Groups R.M.-SubjectsGroups TOTAL Note: F, = 5.15 1,429, 51.74 F 91.961 .5626 .1598 54 2.4 - M Figure 4.1. Key: • , M M M M M Mean scores for the seven categories of study. » * Freshmen •--------• = Upperclassmen * Faculty-Student Relationships M 2 =* Student-Student Relationships Mg = Teaching-Learning Environment * Perspnal Attention Mg * Difficulty of Material M^ * Discussion Opportunities My » Career Outcomes 7 55 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 8 .6 4 2 0 M Figure 4.2. M M Mean scores fpr seven categories of study with revised mean for measure five. ----- • » Freshmen i -----a a Upperclassmen M1 M2 M3 m4 = Faculty-Student Relationships = Personal Attention Difficulty of Material MS a Discussion Opportunities a Career Outcomes M6 M7 Student-Student Relationships 05 Teaching-Learning Environment = M 7 56 Report of Findings Category A. FacultyStudent kelationships The hypotheses established for this category were: Null h y p o t h e s i s : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and perceptions of engineering upp erclass­ men in the categories of Faculty-Student R el ation­ ships . Alternate h y po t he s is : The expectations of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the perceptions reported by engineering upperclassmen in the ca t e­ gories of Faculty-Student Relationships. This category explored the expectations tions) (or p e r c e p ­ that students have concerning their out-of-class relationships with faculty members. Areas included encouragement for out-of-class contact, availability, opportunities for out-of-class discussion of class material, career options, and interest in the student’s personal p roblems. The mean for freshmen was 1.748, while upperclassmen scored 2.026 Although both groups reported positive responses, the intensity of the freshmen responses was stronger. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The expectations of entering engineering freshmen exceeded 57 the preceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Faculty-Student Relationships. Computer analysis of the five questions in this unit found statistically significant differences for three items. Question Ala This item was phrased M I (expect or think) that faculty members in the College of Engineering enjoy talking with students on an informal basis outside of clasp time.^ With the first computer analysis, it was determined that this question was not statistically significant, fore additional investigation was unnecessary. and there­ It was found that 93.88 percent of all respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. It can be surmised that freshmen engineering s tu ­ dents expect faculty to spend time talking informally with students outside of class. It also appears that engineer­ ing upperclassmen, of all majors and both sexes, perceive this activity actually taking place. It therefore seems that freshmen expectations in this area are not idealistic. Question Alb This statement read "I (expect or think) that faculty members in the Cpllege of Engineering encourage students to come to them for help if they are having 58 difficulty with course material." The first computer analysis indicated that this question was not significant, so further evaluation of the data was not done. The results showed that 96.26 percent of all respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with this item. It seems that entering engineering students expect faculty members to offer their assistance and encouragement for students having difficulty with the course material. Engineering upperclassmen, of all majors and both sexes, perceive this to be a reality. It can be concluded that freshmen expectations in this area are not idealistic. Question Ale This item stated "I (expect or think) that faculty members in the College of Engineering are interested in a student's personal problems." The results confirmed this question to be statistically significant at the .05 level for freshmen-upperclass differences. As is evidenced by Table 4.2, entering freshmen engineering students are quite positive in their e x pecta­ tions in this area. A big difference in the responses can be seen in the "strongly-agree" cell where the cell-chi square number indicates a large contribution of responses to this question. Upperclassmen are more responsive in the "disagree" category, which, again, emphasizes a more p o s i ­ tive direction taken by the freshmen respondents. 59 Table 4.2. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the question "faculty members in the College of Engineering are interested in a s tudent’s personal p r o b l e m s ."* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 27 101 88 12 Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square 5.16 Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square 65 5 6. 23 ^Significant at the Note: 1.15 1.39 3. 25 .10 107 12 3.92 .12 .05 level. degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 21.323 It can be concluded that freshmen expect more faculty interest in their personal problems than the u p p e r ­ classmen, in fact, perceive. Therefore, it appears that this is one area in which the entering engineering student has some overly optimistic expectations when he comes to c ol lege. This question also proved to be statistically significant when analyzed by engineering major of the upperclassmen. The results, as illustrated in Table 4.3, show that Chemical Engineering students are more positive in their "strongly-agree" responses than any of the other 60 Table 4.3, A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "faculty members in the College of Engineering are interested in a student's personal problems."* Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Civil Engr. Computer Science Electrical Engr. Mechanical Engr. 3 Agree 7 9 1 .48 .06 19 1 11. 54 0.00 Frequency 0 14 Cell Chi Square .90 .46 Frequency 0 13 16 Cell Chi Square .93 .08 .73 Frequency 1 12 33 4 Cell Chi Square .08 . 78 .21 Frequency 1 11 26 0 .33 .94 2.41 8 4 0 Cell Chi Square 0. 00 Frequency 0 Cell Chi Square .32 Metallurgy 1.57 3.63 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: Disagree Strongly Disagree degrees of Freedom * 15 Chi Square value = 34.395 0. 00 1.15 .62 6 6.42 .76 . 61 majors. Metallurgy upperclassmen are somewhat more positive in their "agree" responses than other fields. Respondents from Computer Science indicate more "strongly-disagree" comments than any of the other majors. It can be surmised that Chemical Engineering and Metallurgy students perceive more faculty interest in their personal problems while Computer Science respondents p e r ­ ceive much less interest. A computer analysis of this question by sex c la s si ­ fication was not statistically significant. Therefore, there is no difference between males and females in their perception of a faculty m e m b e r ’s interest in a student's personal problems. Question Aid This question asked "I (expect or think) that faculty members in the College of Engineering are inter­ ested in discussing career opportunities with students." The analysis proved this item to be statistically sign ifi­ cant for freshmen-upperclassmen differences. Table 4.4 illustrates that freshmen engineering students are more positive in their expectations than is warranted according to upperclass perceptions. The biggest difference between the two groups is in the "stronglyagree" cell, where freshmen are much heavier in their responses. To lesser degrees, this point is also in 62 evidence in the "agree" and "disagree" cells where upper­ classmen were more responsive in a negative direction. Table 4.4. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q ue s ­ tion "faculty jnembers in the College of Engineering are interested in discussing career opportunities with students."* Strongly Agree Freshmen Frequency 110 Cell Chi Square 12. 33 Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square ' 36 14.47 Agree 113 3. 58 137 4.20 Disagree Strongly Disagree 0 7 3.94 1.62 3 20 4.62 1.90 •Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 46.654 Therefore, freshmen students expect more faculty interest in discussing career opportunities than the upper­ classmen perceive as actually occurring. This seems to be another expectation held by the entering engineering stu­ dent which is not accurate. Further analysis of this item found it to be sta­ tistically significant when classified and examined by engineering major. point. The data in Table 4.5 attest to this Chemical engineers were the most positive in their 63 Table 4.5. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "faculty members in the College of Engineering are interested in discussing career opportunities with students."* Strongly Agree J Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Civil Engr. Computer Science Electrical Engr. Mechanical Engr. Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 0 10 10 0 10.90 1.13 2.04 .31 Frequency 12 21 4 0 Cell Chi Square 3.99 .91 .01 .57 Frequency 4 27 3 0 Cell Chi Square .81 .44 .06 .52 Frequency 3 34 9 3 4. 00 0.00 3. 20 6. 75 Frequency 5 35 3 0 Cell Chi Square 1.06 .81 .44 .66 Frequency 2 1.0 1 0 Cell Chi Square .06 .09 .08 .20 Cell Chi Square Metallurgy *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 39.045 64 comments as can be seen in the "strongly-agree" cell. Other favorable responses came from Electrical Engineers and Civil Engineers, although neither were as strong as the Chemical Engineer group. The most negative comments were from the Electrical Engineers, where results in the "disagree" and "strongly-disagree" cells are fairly heavy. Therefore, Chemical Engineers perceive strong faculty interest in discussing career opportunities with the Civil Engineers not quite as strong. Electrical Engineers indicated both positive and negative responses to this item. No statistical significance was found for this question when analyzed by sex differences. Therefore, no differences exist between men and women in their pe r c e p ­ tions of faculty interest in discussing career o p po r tu ­ nities . Question Ale Students in this question were asked "I or think) (expect that faculty members in the College of E n g i ­ neering are available when they are needed." Analysis of the results found statistical significance on freshmenupperclass differences. In Table 4.6 the greatest discrepancy in the data is in the "strongly-agree" cell. Freshmen are again more 65 positive with their replies. Upperclassmen are more responsive in the "strongly-disagree" category. Table 4.6. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q ue s ­ tion "faculty members in the College of Engineering are available when they are needed."* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 86 120 22 0 2.41 3.76 35 7 2.79 4.35 13. 59 22 15.73 1.82 133 2.11 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom * 3 Chi Square value = 46.545 Freshmen engineers expect faculty members to be available more so than upperclass students perceive that they are. Again, this is another unrealistic expectation of college life which freshmen engineers bring with them to college. This question was also significant statistically when analyzed by each engineering major. A modest number of Chemical Engineers "strongly-agreed" with the statement, while a significant group from Electrical Engineering 66 ’’disagreed" or "strongly-disagreed." presented in Table 4.7. These results are It appears Chemical Engineers find faculty more accessible, while Electrical Engineering s t u ­ dents feel they are not as available when needed as they could be. An analysis by sex found no significant difference in the responses of men and women to this item. Category B. St udentStudent Relationships The hypotheses established for this category were: Null h y p o t h e s i s : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering u p p e r ­ classmen in the categories of Student-Student Relati onships. Alternate h y p o t h e s i s : The expectations of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the p e r ­ ceptions reported by engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Student-Student Relationships. Explored in this section were the expectations perceptions) (or that students have concerning interactions with their fellow students. Questions focused on out-of- class contact, cohesi v en e ss , helpfulness with class assignments and interest in personal problems. 67 Table 4.7. Chemical Engr. Civil Engr. Computer Science Electrical Engr. Mechanical Engr. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "faculty members in the College of Engineering are available when they are needed."* Strongly Agree Agree Frequency 5 14 Cell Chi Square 3.01 Frequency 3 Cell Chi Square . 26 Frequency 5 Cell Chi Square . 30 Frequency 3 1. 28 Cell Chi Square 0 24 0 24 Disagree 2 .80 8 .40 4 Strongly Disagree 0 .75 1 .06 2 .79 .46 28 16 4 1. 20 5. 31 2.64 .01 Frequency 6 30 Cell Chi Square .44 .19 Frequency 0 13 1.45 2.03 5 0 .72 1.46 0 0 Metallurgy Cell Chi Square *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 26.342 2. 31 .46 68 The mean for freshmen was 2.250 while upperclassmen scored 2.500. The freshmen score can be interpreted as basic agreement with these items, while the upperclass responses average as a neutral score. The null hypothesis was rejected since the expectations of entering engineering freshmen exceeded the perceptions of engineering upperclass­ men in the categories of Student-Student Relationships. Computer analysis of the five questions in this unit found statistically significant differences for three i tems. Question Bla This statement read "I (expect or think) that fellow students in the College of Engineering are a closely knit group." The results confirmed this question to be statis ­ tically significant for freshmen-upperclassmen differences. As is evidenced by Table 4.8, the upperclass e n g i ­ neering student is slightly more negative in response than are freshmen. This can be seen in the "strongly-disagree" cell where upperclass comments are heavier. This indicates that freshmen are expecting that students in the College of Engineering are a more closelyknit group than is perceived by the upperclass students. This appears to be another idealistic expectation which the entering engineering student holds about his future academic environment. 69 Table 4.8. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the qu e s­ tion "fellow students in the College of E n g i ­ neering are a closely-knit group."* Strongly Agree Freshmen Upper­ classmen Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Frequency 23 124 74 6 Cell Chi Square .33 1.64 1.2S 2.86 Frequency 15 82 83 16 Cell Chi Square .39 1. 90 1.45 3. 31 •Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 13.107 An examination of Table 4.9 shows a statistically significant difference in responses by major field of study. Chemical Engineers perceive more closeness among students than do the students from any of the other majors. Com­ puter Science respondents saw less closeness among students than did any of the other majors. No statistically significant differences were found between male and female upperclassmen in their perceptions of closeness of the student body. Question Bib This item was phrased "I (expect or think) that fellow students in the College of Engineering go out of 70 Table 4.9. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "fellow students in the College of Engineering are a closely-knit group."* Strongly Agree Chemical Engr. Civil Engr. Computer Science Electrical Engr. Mechanical Engr. Frequency 6 Cell Chi Square 13.05 Agree 10 .32 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree 0 2.36 1.63 15 1 Frequency 2 17 Cell Chi Square .17 .38 Frequency 1 14 Cell Chi Square .99 Frequency 4 15 Cell Chi Square 0 1. 88 Frequency 2 20 19 2 Cell Chi Square .51 .22 .03 .65 Frequency 0 6 7 0 Cell Chi Square .99 .06 .41 1.06 0 0 13 .14 25 .54 1. 21 6 3.75 7 1. 93 Metallurgy *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 32.281 71 their way to help other students with class assignments." This question was found to be not significant in class, major, or sex differences. Sixty-five percent, evenly divided between freshmen and upperclassmen, "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with the statement. It can be concluded that entering engineering students expect students to help one another with class assignments. This appears to be an accurate expectation based on the perceptions of upperclass engineering students. Question Blc This statement read "I (expect or think) that fellow students in the College of Engineering are interested in one another’s personal problems." This item was not statisti­ cally significant for class, major, or sex differences. Approximately even groups of freshmen and upperclassmen agreed or disagreed with the question with no clear-cut pattern established. Therefore, specific conclusions regarding the expectations of entering engineering students are not possible with this information. Question Bid This question asked "I (expect or think) that fellow students in the College of Engineering participate in many social activities together." On the basis of the computer 72 analysis, the data was determined to be statistically significant for the examination of freshmen-upperclassmen differences. The results as reported in Table 4.10 indicate that freshmen are more positive and less negative in their responses. The entering student comments are strongly in the "agree" cell while upperclass responses are heavier in the "disagree" and "strongly-disagree" cells. This shows that freshmen expect more student interaction in social activities than the upperclassmen perceive as actually taking place. It appears that this is another unrealistic expectation held by the new engineering student. Table 4.10. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "fellow students in the College of Engineering participate in many social activ­ ities together."* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 14 121 83 3.50 2 4. 00 6.20 60 7. 09 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 40.2 87 4.63 114 5. 30 Strongly Disagree 6 4.46 20 5.10 73 Table 4.11 presents the statistically significant results of the analysis by major field of study. It can be seen that Chemical Engineers are the most positive in their responses as evidenced by the figures in the "agree" cell. Electrical Engineers and Civil Engineers are also moderately positive in their agreement with the statement. Oddly enough, it is the Electrical Engineers who are the most negative on this item as their score in the "stronglydisagree" cell indicates. It can be concluded that Chemical Engineers and Civil Engineers perceive fellow students participating in many social activities together, while the Electrical E n g i ­ neering students are divided on this question. An analysis by sex found no statistical significance in the difference between men and women in their perceptions on this item. Question Ble This item was phrased "I (expect or think) that fellow students in the College of Engineering have a definite voice in determining policies and programs which affect other students." There was found to be s t atisti­ cally significant differences between the freshmen and upperclass groups of students. Table 4.12 shows the results which indicate a much more positive attitude on the part of the new engineering 74 Table 4.11. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "fellow students in the College of Engineering p artic­ ipate in many social activities together."* Strongly Agree Chemical Engr. Civil Engr. Computer Science Electrical Engr. Mechanical Engr. Agree Disagree Frequency 2 12 Cell Chi Square 14.88 4.83 2.23 Frequency 0 17 18 Cell Chi Square .37 Frequency 0 Cell Chi Square .35 Frequency 0 Cell Chi Square .52 Frequency 0 15 23 Cell Chi Square .42 .48 .03 Frequency 0 Cell Chi Square .13 3.24 8 . 56 6 5.92 2 7 .41 21 Strongly Disagree 0 2.14 1 1.95 5 .08 .68 35 10 .96 10 4.42 3 . 33 1 Metallurgy .98 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 46.768 .79 .08 75 Table 4.12. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the question "fellow students in the College of Engineering have a definite voice in deter­ mining policies and programs which affect other students."* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 37 138 45 Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square 14.09 0 Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square 16.85 Strongly Disagree 6 8.10 14.98 7.97 61 101 27 9.69 17. 91 9. 54 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 99.126 student in all four cells. The freshmen scores are high in the positive categories of "strongly-agree" and "agree" while the upperclass figures are higher in tfye "disagree" and "strongly-disagree" cells. It can be concluded that freshmen expect to have a definite voice in determining college policies and programs. Yet, the upperclass engineering students perceive very little of this activity occurring. Freshmen, therefore, have inaccurate perceptions concerning the area of student influence on college programs when they come to the campus. No statistical significance was found when tests were used to examine differences by upperclass major or 76 sex. This indicates fairly uniform perceptions, of field of study, regardless for males and females. Category C. TeachingLearning fenvironment The following hypotheses were established for this category: Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering u p p e r ­ classmen in the categories of Teaching-Learning Envi ronment. Alternate hypothesis: The expectations of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the perceptions reported by engineering upperclassmen in the c a te ­ gories of Teaching-Learning Environment. Questions in this area examined the expectations (or perceptions) that students have concerning the pres enta­ tion of material, the method of teaching, research op p or t u­ nities, and the importance of theory, logic, mathematics, and laboratories in an engineering education. The mean for freshmen was 1.710 while upperclassmen scored 1.964. Although both groups gave positive responses, the intensity of the freshmen responses was stronger. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The expecta­ tions of entering engineering freshmen exceeded the 77 perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Teaching-Learning Environment. Computer analysis of the seven questions in this unit found statistically significant differences for four items. Question Cla This statement read ” 1 (expect or think) that success in my engineering courses is dependent on a good grasp of the principles and theories from sciences and mathematics." After the initial computer analysis, this question was determined to be not significant by class, major, or sex. The results show that 96.27 percent of the sample "strongly-agreed" or "agreed" with this item. It seems that the entering engineering student does have a realistic expectation of the importance of math and science to engineering success as evidenced by the p e r ­ ceptions of engineering upperclassmen. Question Clb This question was phrased "I (expect or think) lectures are very important in the learning process." that This item was found to not be statistically significant based on the results of the first computer computations. It was found that 89.74 percent of the participants "stronglyagreed" or "agreed" with this question. 78 Freshmen expectations about the importance of lectures seem to be accurate and in line with the e n vi r on ­ ment as perceived by the upperclassmen Question Clc This item was stated "I (expect or think) that a clear, defined logic is important in engineering problem solving." On the basis of a primary computer analysis, this question was deemed not significant statistically. It was found that 97.67 percent of the sample "stronglyagreed" or "agreed" with the statement. It appears that the expectations which freshmen bring to college with them are accurate in relation to the importance of logic in engineering problem solving. Question Cld This statement was worded "I (expect or think) that most classes stress the theoretical rather than the p r a c ­ tical." This question was found to be not significant statistically when analyzed for freshmen-upperclassmen differences. A strong majority of each group responded "strongly-agree" or "agree." This indicates that freshmen expect a theoretical approach in their engineering classes. According to the perceptions of the upperclass engineering students this is a realistic expectation. 79 This item did prove to be statistically significant when a comparison of major differences was performed. As is evidenced in Table 4.13, the Electrical Engineering students gave the most positive responses as indicated in the M strongly-agree" cell. Moderately positive p e r c e p ­ tions were also given by the Civil Engineering group. The most negative comments were recorded by Mechanical E n g i ­ neers as can be seen in the "disagree" and "stronglydisagree" cells. It can be concluded that Electrical Engineers and Civil Engineers see more theory in the engineering c u r ­ riculum. On the other hand, Mechanical Engineers perceive a more practical approach being taken in their class. A test for differences by sex on this question was found to be not significant. Therefore, men and women see no difference in the theoretical versus practical approach of the coursework. Question Cle This item asked "I (expect or think) that m a t h e ­ matics is the most important element for success in my engineering courses." The analysis found this question to be statistically significant when tests for freshmenupperclassmen differences were performed. Table 4.14 illustrates that entering engineering students are more positive in their responses than are the 80 Table 4.13. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question Mmost classes stress the theoretical rather than the practical."* Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Frequency Civil Engr. Cell Chi Square Frequency Computer Science Electrical Engr. Mechanical Engr. 1. 71 3 3.62 8 8 .26 18 .09 22 .35 Frequency 12 22 Cell Chi Square .29 .17 0 9 1.23 ‘Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 37.597 2.06 1 .01 .87 23 3.18 13 .47 .74 Frequency Cell Chi Square 3. 20 1 0 .10 8. 27 9 Strongly Disagree 11 .01 Cell Chi Square Disagree 15 Cell Chi Square Frequency Metallurgy 2 Agree 7 2.77 5 2. 88 4 .17 0 1.33 3 3.47 0 .33 81 seniors and juniors. The "disagree" cell is evidence of this fact, as the upperclass score is much higher. The freshmen responses are moderately stronger in the "stronglyagree" cell. Table 4,14. Freshmen Upper­ classmen A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u es ­ tion "mathematics is the most important element for success in my engineering courses."* Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Frequency 62 123 38 4 Cell Chi Square 2.68 1.21 7.40 .88 Frequency 33 87 73 8 Cell Chi Square 3.02 1.37 8.36 .99 •Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value ** 25.910 Therefore, new freshmen students expect mathematics to be very important to engineering success, while the upperclass students perceive its role as being more sub­ dued. This is an area where freshmen are overly ideal in their expectations. This question was found to be statistically signifi­ cant when analyzed by engineering majors. It is reported in Table 4.15 that Electrical Engineers indicate more positive 82 Table 4.15. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "mathe­ matics is the most important element for success in my engineering courses."* Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Frequency Civil Engr. Cell Chi Square Frequency Computer Science Electrical Engr. Mechanical Engr. Metallurgy 2 8 .61 2 2. 73 4 Cell Chi Square . 53 Frequency 18 Cell Chi Square Agree 10.49 10 1 .13 .74 .03 13 22 0 .57 5.46 1.47 9 18 4 2.20 4. 88 2.50 28 1.34 Frequency 7 23 Cell Chi Square 0 1.03 Frequency 0 Cell Chi Square 2.13 degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 54.043 5 10.21 13 .44 1 .55 0 1. 71 6 5 2 .02 .02 4.25 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: Disagree Strongly Disagree 83 responses than any other major. Negative scores were given by students in Civil Engineering and Computer Science. Therefore, Electrical Engineers see math as most important in their coursework while Civil Engineering and Computer Science students perceive it not being so important. No differences on the test for statistical s i g ­ nificance were found between men and women with their perceptions of the importance of mathematics. Question Clf This question stated "I (expect or think) that laboratories are an important part of the engineering c u r ­ riculum." The results confirm this item to be statistically significant in terms of freshmen-upperclass differences. Table 4.16 presents data which suggests that fresh­ men are more positive than junior and senior engineering students. Upperclassmen were more negative, as can be seen in the "disagree" and "strongly-disagree" cells while fresh­ men responses were heavier in the "strongly-agree" cell. It can be concluded that new engineering students expect laboratories to be more important in the curriculum than upperclass students, in fact, perceive them to be. This indicates that freshmen expectations are idealistic in reference to this area when they came to campus. No statistical significance was found when analysis of the data was done by major field of study or sex. This 84 Table 4.16. Freshmen A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "laboratories are an important part of the engineering curriculum.11* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Frequency 80 133 14 Cell Chi Square 4.66 Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square . 71 38 99 5.32 .81 Strongly Disagree 0 12. 29 5.86 51 11 6.69 14.02 •Significant at the .OS level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 50.371 is evidence that men and women of all engineering majors perceive the same relative importance of laboratories in the engineering curriculum. Question Clg This statement read "I (expect or think) that there are adequate opportunities for me to do research and study in an area I am interested in." Computer analysis d e t e r ­ mined that the freshmen-upperclassmen differences for this question were statistically significant. Table 4.17 presents the results to this item. New engineering students were quite positive in their e xpecta­ tions as can be seen in the "strongly-agree" cell. 85 Upperclass students, on the other hand, scored in a negative direction as evidenced by the "disagree" and "stronglydisagree" cells. Table 4.17. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the qu e s­ tion "there are adequate opportunities for me to do research and study in an area I am interested in."* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 93 122 14 Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square 17.82 • 18 21.15 .04 107 .05 15.62 Strongly Disagree 0 5.97 11 57 18. 53 7.08 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom ■ 3 Chi Square value ■ 86.257 Therefore, it can be concluded that freshmen expect to be able to do more research than senior or junior e n g i ­ neering students have actually perceived taking place. This suggests that entering engineering students are too ideal­ istic in their research expectations. Also shown in Table 4.18 is the analysis by sex in which this question was found to be statistically signifi­ cant, It appears that males are more positive in their 86 responses than females. It should be explained that caution must be used when interpreting these results. Significant observations can break down where cell sizes are less than five. A modest conclusion would be that it seems that males perceive more opportunities to do research than do females. Table 4.18. A comparison of the responses of male and female engineering students on the question "there are adequate opportunities for me to do research and study in an area I am inter­ ested in."* Strongly Agree Frequency Male Female 14 Cell Chi Square .46 Frequency 4 Cell Chi Square 6.41 Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 101 54 11 .01 ,01 .05 6 3 0 .20 .18 .74 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 8.080 No statistical significance was found when an analysis of the data examined differences by major field of study. Therefore, all engineering majors hold similar perceptions in their views on this subject. 87 Category D. Personal Attention The hypotheses established for this category were: Null h y p o t h es i s: No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering u p p e r ­ classmen in the categories of Personal Attention. Alternate hy p ot h e s i s : The expectations of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the perceptions reported by engineering upperclassmen in the c a t e ­ gories of Personal Attention. Explored in this section were the expectations perceptions) (or that students have concerning the kind and quality of interaction they have in the college. Questions focused on the ease of getting to know faculty and students, getting help when they need it, feeling like a person instead of a student number, and having someone available to listen to personal problems. The mean reported for freshmen was 1.973 while upperclassmen scored 2.120. Although both groups gave p o s i ­ tive responses, the intensity of the freshmen responses was stronger. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected since the expectations of entering engineering freshmen exceeded the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Personal Attention. 88 Computer analysis of the five questions in this unit found statistically significant differences for three items. Question Dla This item asked "I (expect or think) that 1 (will) feel like a person and not a number in the college." The results proved this question to be statistically signifi­ cant when exploring freshmen-upperclassmen differences. New freshmen students were more positive in their responses than were upperclass engineering students as can be seen in the "strongly-agree" cell of Table 4.19. It appears that entering engineering students expect a more personable atmosphere in the college. upperclass responses, On the basis of it appears this is an inaccurate expectation on the part of these students. Table 4.19. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "I feel like a person and not a number in the college."* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 55 134 30 5.35 .59 1. 76 21 136 42 6.05 .67 1.98 •Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom ■ 3 Chi Square value * 19.317 Strongly Disagree 8 1.37 2 1.55 89 Statistical significance was also found when an analysis of the data was done on engineering major d i ff e r­ ences. Chemical Engineering students were the most positive of all majors, as is seen in the "strongly-agree" cell of Table 4.20. Electrical Engineers, and to a lesser extent, Mechanical Engineers, scored in a negative direction as evidenced by the "disagree" cell. These results suggest that Chemical Engineers do not feel like a student number, while Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering students perceive this attitude in the college. No differences were found between men and women in terms of this question. Question Dlb This statement read "I (expect or think) of my fellow students and professors that most (will) know my name." The results confirm this item to be statistically signifi­ cant in freshmen-upperclassmen student differences. Table 4.21 presents the figures which show senior and junior engineering students to be more negative in their responses and freshmen score more positively. The negative results are especially evident in the "stronglydisagree" cell while positive freshmen scores can be seen in the "strongly-agree" cell. This suggests that freshmen engineering students’ expectation that faculty and students know their name is idealistic based on upperclass p e r c e p ­ tions . 90 Table 4.20. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "I feel like a person and not a number in the c ol lege."* Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Civil Engr. 2 Cell Chi Square .90 Cell Chi Square Electrical Engr. Metallurgy 0 3.66 14 0 28 1 2.62 7 11 1 1. 86 1.22 1 .02 Cell Chi Square .03 2.40 7.68 6 34 2 Cell Chi Square .30 degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 37.883 0 23 20 Frequency . 21 . 37 26 .51 0 .07 5 Cell Chi Square Strongly Disagree .35 .83 11 .55 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: Disagree Frequency Frequency Mechanical Engr. 6.60 Frequency Frequency Computer Science 6 Agree 3 3.99 0 2. 72 .45 0 .43 0 .13 91 Table 4.21. Freshmen Upper­ classmen A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion ,fmost of my professors and fellow students know my name.1'* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Frequency 27 128 69 Cell Chi Square 1.25 .45 1.07 1. 59 Frequency 14 99 78 10 Cell Chi Square 1.41 1.21 1. 80 . 51 Strongly Disagree 4 ^Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value » 9.287 This question was also statistically significant when analyzed by engineering major differences. As i n d i ­ cated on the "strongly-agree" cell of Table 4.22, Chemical Engineers were the most favorable in their responses with moderately positive responses from Metallurgy students. Negative feedback was reported by Computer Science students. This indicates that Chemical Engineers and Metallurgy juniors and seniors feel the professors and students know their name, while Computer Science students feel some impersonality. An analysis by sejc differences was not statistically significant which suggests that males and females perceive a similar environment on this question. 92 Table 4.22. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "most of my professors and fellow students know my name."* Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Electrical Engr. 14 1 .97 .42 .01 .38 Frequency 1 8 22 4 Cell Chi Square .85 4.95 5. 22 Frequency 3 25 22 2 Cell Chi Square .11 .01 .16 .13 3 21 16 3 .0 ,0 .03 .35 1 11 1 .01 3.30 Cell Chi Square Frequency Metallurgy Cell Chi Square 1 .68 ^Significant at the .05 level. Note: 0 21 Frequency Mechanical Engr. 3 1.04 Cell Chi Square Computer Science 8.55 13 Disagree 3.25 Frequency Civil Engr. 5 Agree Strongly Disagree degrees of Freedom ■ 15 Chi Square value * 37.258 3. 24 2. 93 0 .65 93 Question Die This question posed "I (will) (expect or think) people take the time to listen to my problems." This item was found to be statistically significant when analyzing freshmen-upperclass student differences. The "strongly-agree" cell of Table 4.23 points out that freshmen are more positive in their responses. This suggests that new freshmen expect people to take the time to listen to their problems. This appears to be an inac­ curate expectation after examining the results of the upperclass data. Differences by major were also statistically sig­ nificant as indicated in Table 4.25. Chemical Engineers perceive that people will take time to listen to their probelms as can be seen in the "strongly-agree" cell. The results in Table 4.24 show that women perceive less attention with personal problems than do males. It should be mentioned that the small sample size of women can be a problem with any attempted interpretation. With cell sizes smaller than five, significant observations can break down. So, a tentative conclusion would be that males feel that people take the time to listen to their problems more than women feel such. 94 Table 4.23 A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "people take the time to listen to my p r o b l e m s ."* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 26 140 59 Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square 4. 23 Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square 6 5.06 .69 136 .82 .01 Strongly Disagree 3 •3?. 48 .01 1 .37 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 11.511 Table 4.24. A comparison of the responses of male and female engineering students on the question "people take the time to listen to my p r o b l e m s ."* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 6 125 45 0 . 04 .00 .01 0 11 3 .47 .01 .16 Frequency Male Cell Chi Square Frequency Female Cell Chi Square ^Significant at the Note: .05 level. degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 12.426 .92 1 10.81 95 Table 4.25. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "people take the time to listen to my problems."* Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. 15 3 8.30 .0 .98 Frequency 0 26 8 Cell Chi Square 1. 07 Frequency Computer Science Cell Chi Square Frequency Electrical Engr. Mechanical Engr. Metallurgy Cell Chi Square 0 1.10 0 1. 54 0 23 11 1 .15 .55 33 16 .10 29 Cell Chi Square .04 .05 Frequency 2 10 degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 27.520 .11 ,18 1 6. 20 0 . 03 Frequency Cell Chi Square Strongly Disagree .13 .06 ‘Significant at the .05 level. Note: Disagree 3 Cell Chi Square Civil Engr. Agree 1.10 9 .07 1 1. 57 3. 64 0 .26 0 .20 0 .07 96 Question Did This item asked "I (expect or think) that if I need help with a class assignment I (will) know where to get help in the college." This question was determined to not be statistically significant after the initial computer screening of the data. The results showed that 87.21 p e r ­ cent of the sample "strongly-agreed" or "agreed" with the sta tement. These results suggest that freshmen accurately expect that they will know where to get class help if they need it. Question Die This question stated "I I need general information, help in the college." (expect or think) that if I (will) know where to get After a preliminary examination of the results, this item was found to not be statistically significant. The data showed that 92.77 percent of the participants "strongly-agreed" or "agreed" with the q u e s ­ tion. It appears that the entering engineering student is not over idealistic in his expectation of the avail­ ability of assistance in the college. 97 Category E. Difficulty of Material The hypotheses established for this category were: Null hypoth es i s: No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering u p pe r ­ classmen in the categories of Difficulty of M at e r i a l . Alternate hypothe s is : The expectations of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the perceptions reported by engineering upperclassmen in the cate­ gories of Difficulty of Material. This area dealt with student expectations (or p e r ­ ceptions) concerning the difficulty of the engineering curriculum and chances for their success in the program. Specific questions examined the amount and type of effprt needed to succeed, the difficulty of examinations, and the level of competition. Initial computer analysis determined the mean for freshmen at 2.122 while upperclassmen scored 2.106. It appeared that there was essentially no difference between the groups in this category. However, tion found that two questions ("I further investiga­ (expect or think) that an important ingredient for success is knowing the right people.11 and "I (expect or think) that an important ingre­ dient for success is learning the ropes.11) were inconsistent 98 with the wording of the other items in the survey. positive response had negative connotations. of the data for unit five was performed. A A reanalysis The coding of the responses was changed to reflect the different d i r e c ­ tion of the question. A "strongly-agree" response was coded as "strongly-disagree," an "agree" response was qoded as "disagree" and vice versa. The new mean score computed for freshmen was 2.145 and 2.310 for upperclassmen. This indicates that freshmen did score in a more positive direction than did upperclassmen on this category. On the basis of these results the null hypothesis was rejected. The expectations of entering engineering freshmen exceeded the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the c a te ­ gories of Difficulty of Material. Computer analysis of the six questions in this unit found statistically significant differences for four items. Question Ela This statement read "I (expect or think) that it (is or will be) difficult to pass a course without a great deal of studying." This question proved to be statisti­ cally significant when examined for freshmen-upperclassmen differences. As indicated in the "disagree" cells of Table 4.26, junior and senior engineering students were more negative 99 Table 4,26. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "it is difficult to pass a course without a great deal of studying."* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 38 147 39 6 .12 2.15 4.24 .08 37 96 62 4 2.48 4. 90 .09 .14 •Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom * 3 Chi Square value = 14.189 in their responses. Entering students were more positive as evidenced by the results reported in the "agree" cell. It can be concluded that new freshmen expect the necessity of a great deal of studying to pass a course, contrary to the perceptions of engineering upperclass students. Freshmen appear to be too idealistic in their expectations of this situation. No statistically significant differences were found when computer analysis was done by major field or sex. Male and female upperclass students of all engineering majors have similar perceptions. 100 Question Elb This item asked "I classes (expect or think) that most (will) require a lot of preparation and study before going to class." When analyzed for freshmen-upperclass differences, this question was determined to be statisti­ cally significant. The results in Table 4.27 suggest that upperclass engineers are more negative in their perceptions as e v i ­ denced in the "disagree" cell. in the "agree" cell. Freshmen also score higher This indicates that freshmen expect to do a lot of preparation for classes, while the junior and senior engineering students seem to think that it is not that necessary. This is evidence that new engineering student expectations are inaccurate concerning the amount of pre-class studying necessary for success. An examination of the data by engineering majors and sex found no statistical significance indicating that men and women upperclass students perceive a similar en viron­ ment on this question. Question Elc This question stated "I examinations (expect or think) that most (will) require a thorough knowledge of the class material." After an initial analysis of the data it was determined that this item was not statistically significant. The results found that 97.45 percent of 101 Table 4.27. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion ’’most classes require a lot of preparation and study before going to class.” * Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 35 175 16 .19 26 .22 6. 03 3 22. 22 .36 76 98 6.87 Strongly Disagree 1 .40 25.32 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value - 61.614 the sample ’’strongly-agreed” or ’’agreed” with the s t a t e ­ ment. It can be concluded that freshmen students in e ng i ­ neering bring with them accurate perceptions concerning the amount of knowledge needed on examinations. Their ex pecta­ tions seem to coincide with the perceptions of the juniors and seniors. Question Eld This statement read ” 1 (expect or think) important ingredient for success right people.” (will) that an is knowing the The results of the data indicate this 102 question to be statistically significant on the basis of freshmen-upperclassmen differences. It can be seen in Table 4.28 that freshmen are more negative in their responses than are juniors and seniors. The "disagree" cell illustrates the freshmen attitudes while upperclass opinions are shown in the "agree" cell. These results suggest that freshmen engineers feel that success is not dependent upon knowing the right people. Yet, upperclass students perceive that this can be a way to achieve success. Freshmen seem to be idealistic in their expectation as it relates to this situation. Table 4.28. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "an important ingredient for success is knowing the right people."* Strongly Agree Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Agree 20 54 1. 04 3.44 27 76 1.19 3. 95 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 17.375 Disagree Strongly Disagree 124 28 3. 55 ,06 72 22 4.07 .07 103 No statistically significant differences were found when the data was analyzed by sex or engineering majors differ­ ences. This indicates similar perceptions for engineering men and women of all upperclass majors. Question Ele This question asked "I (expect or think) important ingredient for success the fropes."' that an (will be or is) learning The data analysis confirms this item to be statistically significant when testing for freshmenupperclass differences. The essential difference is in the "disagree" cell of Table 4.29. Freshmen score in a more negative direction, indicating they expect that learning the ropes will not be important. This is refuted by the results of the junior- senior perceptions. Freshmen expectations appear to be unrealistic in this situation. Differences between males and females and each en g i­ neering major were not statistically significant. This is evidence that the perceptions are fairly uniform among and across these groups on the importance of learning the ropes. Question Elf This item was phrased "I petition for grades (expect or think) the c om ­ (will be or is) intensive." This 104 Table 4.29. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "an important ingredient for success is learning the 'ropes.'"* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Agree Disagree 25 123 63 .72 Frequency Upper­ classmen Strongly Agree 31 Cell Chi Square .81 1.32 135 1.49 Strongly Disagree 9 4.60 1.74 28 2 5.16 1.95 ^Significant at the .OS level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 17.792 question was found to be not significant with any of the measureable variables. The majority of both freshmen en gi­ neers and upperclass students "strongly-agree" or "agree" with the statement. It can be concluded that entering students and juniors-seniors agree that the competition for grades in engineering courses is intensive. Therefore, freshmen expectations are accurate and realistic. Category F. Discussion Opportunities The hypotheses established for this category were: Null h ypothesis: No difference will be found 105 between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering u p pe r ­ classmen in the categories of Discussion O p po r tu ­ nities . Alternate h y po t he s is : The expectations of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the perceptions reported by engineering upperclassmen in the c a t e ­ gories of Discussion Opportunities. This section probed the student's expectations perceptions) for classroom interaction. (or Questions included the opportunities to ask questions, challenge the professor and offer new ideas during class time. The mean for freshmen was 1.907, while upperclassmen scored 2.395. Although both groups reported in a positive direction, the intensity of the freshmen responses was stronger. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected since the expectations of entering engineering freshmen exceeded the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Discussion Opportunities. Computer analysis of the six questions in this unit found statistically significant differences for four items. Question Fla This statement read "I (expect or think) that s t u­ dents are encouraged to speak out, ask questions, and offer alternatives during class." The first computer analysis 106 of this question found it to be not statistically significant. The results showed that 88.76 percent of the respondents indicated "strongly-agree" or "agree." Apparently, freshmen expectations are similar to those perceptions held by engineering upperclassmen. Fresh­ men are not idealistic in relation to their expectations to be able to ask questions and promote new ideas in class. Question Fib This question stated "I (expect or think) that professors like to be challenged on their ideas during class." This item was statistically significant when analyzed for freshmen-upperclass differences. Table 4.30 in the "strongly-agree" cell shows that freshmen are much more positive in their responses. The "disagree" cell shows the negative perceptions recorded by upperclass engineering students. Freshmen expect to be able to challenge professional ideas, while the juniors and seniors do not see this happening in reality. This is an inaccurate expectation on the part of the entering e n gi ­ neering student. It can be seen in Table 4.31 that there is statisti­ cally significant difference by engineering major. Electrical Engineers score most negatively in the "stronglydisagree" cell. Chemical Engineers gave the most positive responses as is indicated in the "agree" cell. It can be 107 Table 4.30. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the qu es­ tion "professors like to be challenged on their ideas during class."* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 47 116 52 10 .32 5.89 1.36 90 84 17 6. 76 1.56 13. 28 Frequency Upper­ classmen 5 Cell Chi Square 15. 24 .36 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 44.764 concluded that Electrical Engineers perceive that professors do not like to be challenged in class while Chemical E n g i ­ neers perceive that they do. No statistically significant difference was found between men and women, which suggests that both sexes p e r ­ ceive a similar environment in this area. Question Flc This item was phrased "I (expect or think) professors enjoy answering student questions." that The initial computer analysis of the data determined this question to be not significant. Results show that 88.81 percent of all respondents "strongly-agreed" or "agreed" with this statement. 108 Table 4.31. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question ’’professors like to be challenged on their ideas during class.” * Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Frequency Civil Engr. Cell Chi Square Frequency Computer Science Cell Chi Square Frequency Electrical Engr. Cell Chi Square Frequency Mechanical Engr. Cell Chi Square Frequency Metallurgy Cell Chi Square Agree 5 Strongly Disagree 0 0 16 .54 4.19 1. 78 1.82 1 16 18 1 .02 .43 14 18 .27 .60 1.37 18 21 12 .01 2 1.37 0 1.30 1. 25 .03 1.44 1 12.98 21 15 3 .00 . 38 .27 .06 1 5 7 0 .16 .37 1.13 1 1.35 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: Disagree degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 33.099 109 It seems that freshmen expectations are not overly idealistic in this regard. Their ideas are closely inte­ grated with those perceptions of senior and junior engi­ neering students. Question Fid This question asked "I (expect or think) that class time is set aside each meeting for questions and/or discussion." This item was determined to be statistically significant when tests for freshmen-upperclass differences were performed. Evidenced by the data in Table 4.32, freshmen were much heavier in their positive responses as shown in the "strongly-agree" cell. Upperclassmen scores were strongest in the negative cells. This suggests that entering en g i­ neering students expect class time to be set aside for questions and discussion. of juniors and seniors, On the basis of the perceptions this is an inaccurate expectation. Statistical significance was also found when an examination of major differences was done. As illustrated by the "strongly*agree" and "agree" cells of Table 4.33, the Chemical Engineering students scored the most positive on this question. Moderately positive responses were also recorded for Civil Engineers and Electrical Engineers. Strong negative comments were given by Electrical Engineers, as indicated in the "strongly-disagree" cell. Therefore, 110 Table 4.32. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u es ­ tion "class time is set aside each meeting for questions and/or discussion."* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 59 131 33 17.41 6 19.69 3.43 79 3.88 Strongly Disagree 2 19.18 5. 97 16 98 21.69 6.75 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 98.007 Chemical Engineers and Civil Engineers perceive class time set aside for discussion, while Electrical Engineers do not. No differences were found between males and females which suggest that they hold similar perceptions towards this situation. Question Fie This statement read "I (expect or think) discussions are usually stimulating and intense." that class This question was found to be statistically significant when a comparison of freshmen-upperclass responses was done. Ill Table 4.33. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "class time is set aside each meeting for questions and/or discussion."* Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Civil Engr. Computer Science Electrical Engr. Mechanical Engr. Metallurgy 3 14 8. 85 3. 85 Frequency 1 Cell Chi Square .01 Frequency 0 Cell Chi Square 4 0 1.69 22 5 2.7 7 1.03 1. 53 15 19 .09 .18 30 Frequency 0 13 Cell Chi Square 1. 57 2.83 Frequency 2 22 Cell Chi Square .43 Frequency 0 Cell Chi Square .39 . 75 17 1 1.17 9 5. 55 1 .66 1.67 7 6 0 .66 .03 1.05 1. 70 .05 level. degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value ■ 43,382 Disagree 3. 89 8 1. 06 *Significant at the Note: Agree Strongly Disagree 112 Each of the four cells of Table 4.34 show that the responses of entering engineering students are much stronger in a positive direction than are those of juniors and seniors. This indicates a strong expectation on the part of freshmen for stimulating class discussions. The expecta­ tion is overly idealistic as is shown by the responses of the upperclass Table 4.34. students. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "class discussions are usually stimulating and intense."* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 47 121 50 Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square 17.30 2 Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square 19. 32 *Significant at the Note: 7. 82 57 8.73 Strongly Disagree 2 17.56 6.93 120 18 19,61 7. 74 .05 level. degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 105.012 Differences by engineering major were also found to be statistically significant. The "agree" cell of Table 4,35 points out the positive attitudes of Chemical Engineers and Mechanical Engineers on this item. Electrical Engineers were found to be the most negative as seen in the 113 Table 4.35. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "class discussions are usually stimulating and intense."* Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Civil Engr. 5.78 .37 1.80 .44 25 4 .43 .15 2 .36 .97 1. 03 .45 11 31 8 .96 .00 1 19 20 .82 4. 29 .45 0 .13 1 2.03 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: 1 26 Cell Chi Square Cell Chi Square 1.12 8 Strongly Disagree 7 1 Cell Chi Square 7 Disagree 0 Frequency Frequency Metallurgy .21 Cell Chi Square Frequency Mechanical Engr. 12 0 Cell Chi Square Electrical Engr. 0 Frequency Frequency Computer Science Agree degrees of Freedom » 15 Chi Square value « 28.268 .99 10 .55 2.39 1 2.01 2 .56 114 "strongly-disagree" cell. It can be concluded that Chemical Engineers and Mechanical Engineers perceive stimulating class discussion while Electrical Engineers do not. No statistically significant differences were found on the basis of sex. Men and women apparently hold similar viewpoints on class discussions. Question Flf This question was phrased "I (expect or think) that student discussion can make a professor change his mind." When tests for freshmen-upperclass differences were p e r ­ formed, this item was found to be statistically significant. The "strongly-agree" cell of Table 4.36 shows that entering engineers are more positive. This indicates that freshmen expect that student discussion will make a p r ofes­ sor change his mind. The results of the upperclass engineer­ ing data do not support this and indicate that freshmen are idealistic in this expectation. No statistically significant differences were found for major or sex differences. This suggests that males and females of all engineering majors have similar attitudes on this question. The basic hypotheses established for this category were: 115 Table 4.36. Freshmen A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "student discussion can make a professor change his mind."* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Frequency 31 112 62 12 Cell Chi Square 9.69 .03 2.64 .03 98 83 12 .03 2.92 .03 Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square 3 10.69 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 26.033 Null h ypothesis: No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Career Outcomes. Alternate hy p ot h es i s: The expectations of entering engineering freshmen will exceed the perceptions reported by engineering upperclassmen in the c a t e ­ gories of Career Outcomes. Questions in this category explored the expectations (or perceptions) the student has concerning the p r ac t ic a ­ bility of an engineering education, including preparation for job-solving problems and generally getting along in the 116 world. One question also examined the student's u n d e r ­ standing of what an engineer does on the job. The mean for freshmen was 1.957 while upperclass­ men scored 2.392. Although both groups reported in a positive direction, the intensity of the freshmen responses was stronger. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The expectations of entering engineering freshmen exceeded the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in all the categories of Career Outcomes. Computer analysis found statistical significance for all four of the items in this unit. Question Gla This question was worded "I (expect or think) that the required engineering courses will adequately prepare me for a job when I graduate." The results confirm this item to be statistically significant when analyzed for freshmenupperclass differences. It can be seen in Table 4.37 that freshmen give more positive responses to this question. The "strongly-agree" cell is much heavier than the junior-senior score, while upperclassmen score strongest in the "disagree" cell. Upperclass engineering students are pessimistic about the educational preparation they are receiving. It can be c o n ­ cluded that entering engineering students expect their 117 Table 4.37. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "the required engineering courses will adequately prepare me for a job when I g ra duate."* Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 95 119 10 2 Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square 26.98 Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square 9 31.60 1.41 15. 94 127 1.65 51 18.67 1.24 6 1.45 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value ® 98.948 education to be more useful for a job. It appears this expectation is inaccurate. Statistically significant differences were found by engineering major. As illustrated in the "strongly-disagree" cell of Table 4.38, Electrical Engineers were the most n e g a ­ tive in their responses. This indicates that they perceive their education will not adequately prepare them for a job more than any other major group of students. No statistically significant differences were found for men and women indicating similar perceptions on this question. 118 Table 4.38. A comparison of the responses of students in six engineering majors on the question "the required engineering courses will adequately prepare me for a job when I graduate."* Strongly Agree Frequency Chemical Engr. Cell Chi Square Civil Engr. Computer Science Mechanical Engr. Metallurgy 1.40 .98 1 27 Cell Chi Square .24 Frequency 3 1.15 Frequency 2 Cell Chi Square . 07 Frequency 0 Cell Chi Square 1 3. 22 Strongly Disagree 0 .59 0 .68 .55 1.09 22 10 .05 .06 28 17 1.13 . 20 Frequency 1 10 Cell Chi Square . 35 .56 .05 level. degrees of Freedom = 15 Chi Square value = 26.894 Disagree 7 24 1. 87 *Significant at the Note: 16 Frequency Cell Chi Square Electrical Engr. 2 Agree .77 15 1.86 1 1.49 0 1.09 5 7.08 1 .05 0 .37 119 Question Gib This statement read "I (expect or think) an engineering program gives the student a well-rounded e d u ­ cation." This item was found to be statistically signifi­ cant when analyzed for freshmen-upperclass differences. As evidenced by the "strongly-agree" and "disagree" cells of Table 4.39, freshmen were much more positive in their responses, while upperclassmen were more negative. These results suggest that freshmen expect an engineering curriculum to give them a well-balanced educational b a c k ­ ground. On the basis of junior-senior results, this appears to be an idealistic expectation. Table 4.39. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "an engineering program gives the student a well-rounded education."* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 54 141 29 2 7. 96 .05 6.25 1.64 15 118 57 7 9.14 .06 7.17 1.88 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 34.152 120 No statistically significant differences were found when the data was examined for major or sex differences. This indicates that males and females of all engineering majors have similar perceptions in this area. Question Glc This item asked "I (expect or think) that an engi­ neering education teaches a student how to get along with other people." Statistical significance was found to exist for this question when tested for freshmen-upperclass differences. It can be seen in the "agree" and "disagree" cells of Table 4.40 that new engineering students are more p o s i ­ tive in their responses than are juniors and seniors. Freshmen expect to learn how to get along with people from their engineering curriculum when they come to college. This expectation is unrealistic based on the data results from engineering upperclassmen. When analyzed for major and sex differences, this question was not statistically significant. Males and females hold similar perceptions to this situation. Question Gld This question stated "I (expect or think) that I know what an engineer does on the job." results of the data analysis, Based on the this item was determined 121 Table 4.40. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the q u e s ­ tion "an engineering education teaches a student how to get along with other people."* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 21 114 84 1.99 8.09 8 50 2. 27 9.23 Strongly Disagree 7.68 7 .70 11 129 8. 77 .80 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom *» 3 Chi Square value = 39.52 2 to be statistically significant for freshmen-upperclass differences. An examination of the "strongly-disagree" and "strongly-agree" cells in Table 4.41 reveals a more p o s i ­ tive response by the group of entering engineering freshmen. The results suggest that these new students feel they know what an engineer does on the job. seniors indicate that they do not. Yet the juniors and This means that incoming engineering students probably do not really have a good conception of an engineer on the job. No statistical significance was found when the data was analyzed by major or sex. This suggests that 122 engineering upperclass students of both sexes hold similar viewpoints on this question. Table 4.41. A comparison of the responses of freshmen and upperclass engineering students on the qu e s­ tion "I know what an engineer does on the job."* Frequency Freshmen Cell Chi Square Frequency Upper­ classmen Cell Chi Square Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 40 126 50 Strongly Disagree 7 3.13 1. 01 1.67 6.32 17 91 63 26 3. 55 1.14 1. 89 7.15 *Significant at the .05 level. Note: degrees of Freedom = 3 Chi Square value = 25.850 Summary The analysis of the data and a report of the findings have been presented in this chapter. The expectations of entering engineering freshmen were compared to the p e r c e p ­ tions of engineering upperclassmen toward their academic environment. The following seven areas of the academic climate were surveyed: faculty-student relationships, student-student relationships, teaching-learning environment, personal attention, difficulty of material, discussion 123 opportunities, and career outcomes. In each category, freshmen were found to be more positive in their responses. When compared to the standard of reality as measured by upperclassmen data, the expectations of the entering e n g i ­ neering students were concluded to be impractical and unrealistic. four items. Significant differences were found on twentyA summary of these differences is listed in Table 4.42. Findings were also reported for differences by major field of study and sex. Computer analysis found fourteen questions to be significant when tested for differences by major. No engineer major was found to be consistently more positive than the others, although Chemical Engineers did seem to score in a more positive direction on questions regarding personal attention by faculty, fellow students, and the college in general. Only two differences were found when the data was analyzed by sex. Since the number of female respondents was so small, the conclusions were only cautiously offered. The results of these findings are summarized in Table 4.42. Of the seven hypotheses used in this study, the null hypotheses was rejected in each case. Special mention was made in category five, where a recomputation of the data was done to show a more positive freshman response. The importance of these findings, conclusions are discussed in Chapter V. and the subsequent 124 Table 4.42. Summary of statistically significant findings. Question Fresh/ Upper Difs. Maj or Difs. A. Faculty-Student Relationships 1. Faculty members in the College of Engineering . . . c. are interested in a student's personal problems. X X d. are interested in discussing career opportunities with students. X X e. are available when they are needed. X X a. are a closely-knit group. X X d. participate in many social activities together X X e. have a definite voice in determining policies and programs which affect other students. X B. Student-Student Relationships 1. Fellow students in the College of Engineering . . . C. Teaching-Learning Environment d. most classes stress the theoretical rather than the pr actical. X e. mathematics is the most important element for suc­ cess in my engineering course. X f. laboratories are an i mpo r­ tant part of the engineer­ ing curriculum. X X Sex Difs. 125 Table 4.42. Continued. Question g. there are adequate opportu­ nities for me to do research and study in an area I am i n ­ terested in. Fresh/ Upper Difs. Major Difs. Sex Difs. X D. Personal Attention a. I feel like a person and not a number in the college. X X b. most of my professors and fe l­ low students know my name. X X c. people take the time to listen to my problems. X X E. Difficulty of Material a. it is difficult to pass a course without a great deal of studying. X b. most classes require a lot of preparation and study before going to class. X d. an important ingredient for success is knowing the right people. X e. an important ingredient for success is learning the "ropes." X F. Discussion Opportunities b. professors like to be chal­ lenged on their ideas during class. X X d. class time is set aside each meeting for questions and/or discussion. X X X 126 Table 4.42. Continued. Question Fresh/ Upper Difs. e. class discussions are usually stimulating and intense. X f. student discussion can make a professor change his mind. X Major Difs. X G. Career Outcomes a. the required engineering courses will adequately p r e ­ pare me for a job when I graduate. X b. an engineering program gives the student a well-rounded education. X c. an engineering education teaches a student how to get along with other people. X d. I know what an engineer does on the job. X X Sex Difs. CHAPTER V SUMMARY There is evidence to indicate that the expectations of the entering engineering student need to be analyzed and evaluated. There is also a need for a critical examination of the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen towards their academic programs. Hence, the primary purpose of this study was to compare the expectations of entering engineering students with the perceptions of upperclass engineering students in relation to their academic programs. This was accomplished through a study of freshmen expectations, upperclass perceptions, comparative purposes. and a use of the resultant data for The data generated by upperclassmen was used as the realistic standard of measure for d e t e r ­ mining the academic environment of engineering students at Michigan State University. A comparison with freshmen data identified the extent to which freshmen expectations were impractical or unrealistic. The population of this study was defined as all male and female students enrolled in the College of E n g i ­ neering at Michigan State University during Fall quarter 1973. The sample was comprised of two groups--freshmen and upperclassmen. 127 128 The freshmen were defined as those members of the population who were attending college for the first time in Fall 1973. All had been classified by the University as "engineering--no major," even though many did have a major in mind when they came on campus. The upperclassmen were defined as those students who had previously enrolled for courses at Michigan State and had accumulated enough credits to be categorized as "juniors" or "seniors." Students representing six engi­ neering majors participated in the study. A questionnaire was developed to test the fol­ lowing seven hypotheses relevant to the student's academic environment in the College of Engineering: Hypothesis 1 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Faculty-Student Relationships. Hypothesis 2 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Student-Student Relationships, Hypothesis 3 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Teaching-Learning Environment. 129 Hypothesis 4 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Personal Attention. Hypothesis 5: No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Difficulty of Material. Hypothesis 6 : No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Discussion Opportunities. Hypothesis 7: No difference will be found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen in the categories of Career Outcomes. The same questionnaire was administered to both freshmen and upperclassmen with one minor change. All of the questions in the freshman instrument were worded "I expect that . . ." (i.e., faculty members are interested in a student's personal problems). questionnaire, In the upperclass a special section was created to obtain information concerning sex, major, and class. This infor­ mation was used to gather major/sex differences on responses to the instrument. 130 The instrument was administered to freshmen on two different occasions, both before the start of Fall classes. One group was surveyed during the engineering presentation as part of the Late Summer Orientation Program. making out their Fall schedules, Prior to each of the approximately sixty freshmen students present were asked to fill out one of the instruments. The remainder of the freshmen question­ naires were distributed and collected during the engineering presentation for new freshmen as part of the Welcome Week program. Upperclass questionnaires were administered during Fall quarter. Academic advisors helped to distribute and collect these surveys. When students stopped by their office, they were given the option of filling out one of the questionnaires. These instruments were also distributed in selected Senior courses. Attempts were made to try and get an even distribution by each engineering major. Each question was tested using the chi-square statistic. The chi-square method of analysis was chosen since there were two independent population samples with a sufficiently large number of respondents. A computer program was selected to perform the necessary calculations for each of the questions and variables in the question­ naire. A level of significance at the .05 level was used. 131 Findings Results of computer analyses on each of the seven hypotheses made it possible to reject the null hypotheses in each case. It was found that freshmen were more p o s i ­ tive in their responses than were upperclassmen in the categories of: faculty-student relationships, student- student relationships, teaching-learning environment, personal attention, difficulty of material, discussion opportunities, and career outcomes. Using the perception scores of upperclass engineering students as the standard measure of reality, it was concluded that the expectations of entering engineering students were impractical and unrealistic. Four additional computer analyses were performed on the data. The first test computed overall percentages for each response on the thirty-eight questions. On the basis of these results, ten items were removed from further consideration, as no statistical differences were found. Three additional tests were performed to analyze the results by freshmen-upperclass differences, major field of study, and sex. Twenty-four items proved to be significant in the freshmen-upperclass categories, cant in the major field analysis, fourteen were signifi­ and two were significant when computed by sex. The following questions were not statistically significant, i.e., no difference existed between the 132 expectations of entering engineering students and the perceptions of engineering upperclassmen. Category A. Faculty-Student Relationships. 1. Faculty members in the College of Engineering . . . a) enjoy talking with students on an informal basis outside of class time. b) encourage students to come to them for help if they are having difficulty with course material. Category B. Student-Student Relationships 1. Fellow students in the College of Engineering . . . b) go out of their way to help other students with class assignments. c) are interested in one an oth er’s personal problems. Category C. Teaching-Learning Environment a) success in my engineering courses is d epend­ ent on a good grasp of the principles and theories from sciences and mathematics. b) lectures are very important in the learning pr oc e s s . c) a clear, defined logic is important in e n g i ­ neering problem solving. d) most classes stress the theoretical rather than the practical. 133 Category D. Personal Attention d) if I need help with a class assignment I know where to get help in the college. e) if I need general information, I know where to go for help in the college. Category E. Difficulty of Material c) most examinations require a thorough k n o w l ­ edge of the class material. f) the competition for grades is intensive. Category F. Discussion Opportunities a) students are encouraged to speak out, ask questions, and offer alternatives during class. c) professors enjoy answering student questions. In each of the above areas, freshmen expectations are not different from the perceptions of upperclass e ngi ­ neering students toward their academic environment in the College of Engineering. Using the scores of the upperclass­ men as the standard measure of reality, it can be concluded that the expectations of entering engineering students are not impractical or unrealistic on each of the above items. The following questions were determined to be sta­ tistically significant on the basis of computer analysis. Differences were found between the expectations of entering engineering freshmen and the perceptions of upperclass engineering students. 134 Category A. Faculty-Student Relationships 1. Faculty members in the College of Engineering . . . c) are interested in a student's personal problems d) are interested in discussing career opportu­ nities with students. e) are available when they are needed. Category B. Student-Student Relationships 1. Fellow students in the College of Engineering . . . a) are a closely-knit group. d) participate in many social activities together. e) have a definite voice in determining policies and programs which affect other students. Category C. Teaching-Learning Environment e) mathematics is the most important element for success in my engineering course. f) laboratories are an important part of the engineering curriculum. g) there are adequate opportunities for me to do research and study in an area I am inter­ ested in. Category D. Personal Attention a) I feel like a person and not a number in the college. b) most of my professors and fellow students know my name. 135 c) people take the time to listen to my problems. Category E. Difficulty of Material a) it is difficult to pass a course without a great deal of studying. b) most classes require a lot of preparation and study before going to class. d) an important ingredient for success is knowing the right people. e) an important ingredient for success is learning the "ropes." Category F. Discussion Opportunities b) professors like to be challenged on their ideas during class, d) class time is set aside each meeting for questions and/or discussion. e) class discussions are usually stimulating and intense. f) student discussion can make a professor change his mind. Category G. Career Outcomes a) the required engineering courses will a d e ­ quately prepare me for a job when I graduate. b) an engineering program gives the student a well-rounded education. 136 c) an engineering education teaches a student how to get along with other people. d) I know what an engineer does on the job. For each of the above items, the expectations of entering engineering students were more positive directed. If the scores of the upperclass engineering students are used as the standard measure of reality, it must be c o n ­ cluded that freshmen are unrealistic in their expectations of their future college academic environment. Discussion and Recommendations The following discussion and recommendations have evolved from the findings of this study as they relate to the relevant literature presented earlier. 1. It has been found that family, friends, high school teachers and counselors are the most instrumental in the student’s decision on whether to attend college and to their choice of major. The results of the present study show entering engineering students hold many impractical or unrealistic expectations when they first arrive on campus. It must be concluded that family, friends, teachers and counselors are influential in the st ude nt’s formation of these expectations. Therefore, it is recommended the C o l ­ lege of Engineering develop new methods and refine old ones to ensure that parents, counselors, teachers, and students 137 receive accurate information about their future academic environment. Such methods could include: a) Continuation of the semi-annual engineering open houses. Through the use of lab demonstrations, faculty discussion, and examination of engineering equipment and facilities, the counselor, teacher, parent and student can gain a better understanding of the engineering field and the academic program at Michigan State. It is important that discussion include a realistic portrayal of facuJLtystudent relationships, student-student relationships, the teaching-learning environment, personal attention, d i s ­ cussion opportunities, difficulty of material, outcomes. and career Based on the positive responses reported by engineering upperclass students in this study, the MSU engineering program will sell itself if steps are taken to provide accurate information. b) An evaluation of the recruiting literature and informational material sent to high schools and community colleges by the College of Engineering should be undertaken. Since this written material is oftentimes the only communi­ cation the college has with a high school or community college, it is important that it be an accurate portrayal of the curriculum and academic climate in the College of Engineering. Unrealistic or impractical expectations 138 should not be formed on the basis of information distributed; by the college. c) The College of Engineering should consider the feasibility of going to high schools and community colleges on a regular basis to provide current and relevant informa­ tion about the academic programs in engineering. the use of engineering faculty, students, Through and organizations, in formal or informal settings, an accurate picture could be given to those most instrumental to a student's decision making process. d) The College of Engineering should continue to encourage parents, teachers, and counselors to visit the campus, talk with engineering educators and examine our facilities. This should help to provide a realistic view of the college and its programs. 2. Prospective engineering students have been found to have certain needs and traits that need to be met in a college environment. The College of Engineering should attempt to provide information to the student which will show how an engineering education could fulfill certain needs. This could be accomplished in the following ways: a) A continuation of the Summer High School E n g i ­ neering Institute in order to identify young students with interests in science and mathematics. This program has been especially beneficial in exposing science-oriented 139 individuals to the opportunities and advantages of directing their talents toward an engineering career. b) Prospective students should be encouraged to learn about the campus, the engineering field, particular. and MSU in Potential students should try to meet with engineers, MSU representatives, and visit the campus in order to better understand the type of program and climate they will be involved with. c) The College of Engineering should explore ways to maximize their effectiveness in the Summer orientation and Welcome Week programs directed at new students before the start of classes. These programs provide valuable interaction between the college and the entering student. This time could be used to help students identify needs and career plans and explore opportunities available in the college to help students fulfill them. Interaction with present students and faculty could also prove b e n e ­ ficial in these sessions. 3. It has been found that freshmen expectations are higher than the perceptions of reality as seen by upperclass engineering students. After the freshmen engineering stu­ dents have arrived on campus, it is important that steps be taken to bring their expectations closer in line with the thoughts of upperclassmen. Efforts should be undertaken to bring these two groups together for discussion, and the exchange of ideas. Through the medium of professional 140 clubs, seminars, the open house, orientation, welcome week, and other meetings, the freshmen could gain a better a war e­ ness of the College of Engineering and their academic programs. 4. The College of Engineering should assess the data on the expectations held by the freshmen who were included in this study, to determine whether any of these are worth considering for incorporation into the academic programs or other college related activities. Just because the p e r c e p ­ tions of engineering upperclassmen have been used as the standard measure of reality, it should not be assumed that they also represent quality and perfection in the academic program. Some of the expectations of engineering freshmen may be quite practical, and appropriate, by engineering educators. for consideration They may also give indications of any shortcomings by the college to provide the quality engineering education which is publicized in the catalog and other brochures and literature. Efforts should also be made to determine if e n g i ­ neering upperclassmen are satisfied with the quality of their education. These students may feel that many of their initial expectations, which they continue to hold as valid, were not met by the college. a means of gauging effectiveness, This would provide and perhaps, serve as an impetus for further programmatic change and development by the college. 141 5. In this age of great technological demand, engineering educators must continually assess and evaluate the relevancy of their program. An important part of this should be a yearly evaluation of student opinion, their attitudes and perceptions of their academic program. Con­ tinuous data of this sort will provide a means for gauging effectiveness and determining if change and development is necessary. Implications for Further Research The findings presented in this study suggest q u e s ­ tions which bear further attention and investigation. 1. Are the attitudes and expectations of entering e n g i ­ neering transfer students similar to those of engineering freshmen? 2. Do factors such as type of high school, geographical area, socio-economic status of the family, and having p a r ­ ents as engineers influence the formation of a different type of expectation than the findings suggested in this study? 3. Is the high attrition rate in engineering the result of a student's expectations not being fulfilled? a) If so, what non-engineering majors are likely to appeal to these particular students? 4. What are the perceptions of engineering faculty members and administrators toward the expectations of the entering engineering freshman student? 142 S. How important an influence is the informational literature and the college catalog in the formation of a st udent’s expectations? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Aleamoni, Lawrence M. ’’Student Attitude Inventory." College Student Journal, 6 (April-May, 1972), 100-11)5. 2. Astin, Alexander W. The College Environment. Washing­ ton D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968). 3. Astin, Alexander W. "Two Approaches to Measuring Students' Perceptions of their College Environ­ ment." Journal of College Student Personnel, -------------------12 (May, "rS7TJ7 T69-172. 4. Astin, A. W . , and Holland, J. L. "The Environmental Assessment Technique: A Way to Measure C o l ­ lege Environments." Journal of E ducational Psychology, 52 (December, 1961) , 3(18-3'l6. 5. Astin, Alexander W . , and Panos, Robert J. The E d u c a ­ tional and Vocational Development ot coiTe'ge S t u d e n t s . Washington, D . c . : American council on Education, 1969. 6. Augustine, Roger D. "Persistence and Change in Major Field of Academically Proficient Engineering Students at Three Midwestern Universities." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. 7. Baird, Leonard L. "The Degree Goals of College App li­ cants." College and University, (Spring, 1968), 308-327. ----- ------------------ 8. Baird, Leonard L. The Educational Goals of CollegeBound Y o u t h . Iowa dity, Iowa: American C o l ­ lege testing Program, Microfilm #ED012491 (April, 1967). 9. Beall, L . , and Bordin, E. S. "The Development and Personality of Engineers." Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 41 (1962) , ZIO-217. 10. Bennigson, Lawrence A. "The Engineering Student Image." Journal of Engineering Education, (September, i y 6 9 j , zo-24. 143 144 11. Berdie, Ralph. "Changes in University Perceptions During the First Two College Years." Journal of College Student Personnel, 9 (March, Ty68), 85-89. 12. Berdie, Ralph. "College Expectations, Experiences, Perceptions." Journal of College Student Pe rso n n e l , 7 (November, 1966), *30-345. 13. Braskamp, Larry A., and Flessner, Duane. "The C o n ­ gruency Between Parental and Entering Freshman Expectations." J ournal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , 12 (May, 1971), 179-1?^. 14. Brody, Lawrence, and Marin, Genaro. Why Do Teenagers Go to College? New York: City University of New Yolrk, Microfilm #ED035705 (July, 1968). IS. Buckley, H. Donald. "A Comparison of Freshmen and Transfer Expectations." Journal of Colleg Student Personnel, 12 (May, i8b-itJ§ 16. Caple, Richard B. "Freshman Student's Expectancy of the Campus Climate at a Community College." Journal of College Student Personnel, 12 (January,11971) ,2V-2'S’ .--------------- 17. Centra, John A. "Student Perceptions of Total Univer­ sity and Major Field Environment." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. and 18. Chickering, Arthur W. Education and Identity. Francisco: Jossey uass, iyoy, San 19. Chickering, Arthur W. "Undergraduate Academic Experi­ ence." Journal of Educational Psychology, 63 (1972), 134'-"143.-------- — -------- ------ 20. Cochran, William G. "The Test of Goodness of Fit." Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23 (1952), 51T-34T:--------------------- 21. Cole, David, and Fields, Beverly. "Student Percep­ tions of Varied Campus Climates." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 39 (February, ly oi) , 509'-510.-------------- 22. Coyle, T. Harrison. "Student Expect Teachers to Do More than Teach." Journal of College Student Personnel, 12 (January, l97 i), 58-61. 145 23. Davis, J. A. Undergraduate C a r e e r Decisions: Co r r e ­ lates of Occupational C h o i c e . Chicago: Aldine, i965. 24. DeFiore, Leonard. ”A Study in Incompatibility." Journal of Engineering Education, CDecember, 197T)",”"274-2TT6. --- &-------- 25. Dole, Arthur A. "Stability of Reasons for Going to College." Journal o f Educational Research, 63 (April, 1 9 7 0 ) , " 3 ' 7 T - 3 7 8 . ----------------------------- ---------- 26. Donato, Donald J., and Fox, Gary C. "Admissions Officer, Faculty, and Student Perceptions of Their College Environment." Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , 11 (July, I97’dj7~ 2/1-2/b. 27. Elton, Charles F . , and Rose, Harriett A. "Personality Characteristics of Students Who Transfer Out of Engineering." Personnel and Guidance Journal, (May, 1967), 911-3T5. 28. Feldman, Kenneth A. "Studying the Impacts of Colleges on Students." Sociology of E d u c a t i o n , 42 (Summer, 1969), 2U/-237. 29. Feldman, Kenneth A., and Newcomb, Theodore A. The Impact of College on S tudents. Vol. 1. San Francisco: J o s s e y - B a s s , 1^6^. 30. Frantz, Thomas T. "Student and Non-Student Change." Journal of College Student Personnel, 12 (January",' T9'7Y) , iT-TT.--------------- 31. "Freshmen Attitudes and Values." (April, 1969), 199. 32. Gallessich, June. "Characteristics of Engineering Students." Journal of Engineering Education (June, 19 70) , 1 ' C T T . ---- ----------- 33. Gallessich, June. "An Investigation of Correlates of Academic Success of Freshmen Engineering Students." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17 (1970), iTTTrr. --------- 34. Gamelin, Francis C. Cooperative Research Program Involving a Comparative study of the impact of Lentral states college Association Colleges on the Formation of Student Attitudes and O p i n i o n s . Washington : Office of1 Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, August 31, 1970. School and Society 146 35. George, Rickey L . , and Marshall, Jon C. "Personality of Young Adults: College Versus Noncollege." Journal of College Student Personnel, 12 (November, 1971 ) , 43 8-444. 36. Grande, Peter P., and Simons, Joseph B. "Personal Values and Academic Performance among Eng ineer­ ing Students." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 45 (1967), 585-588. 37. Guilliams, Donald L . , and Dollar, Robert J. " Percep­ tions of the Community College Environment by High School Counselors, Community College Counselors, and Community College Students." Journal of College Student Personnel, 13 (July, -------------------197107338-340. 38. Hammond, Marjorie. "Attitudinal Changes of 'Successful' Students in a College of Engineering." Journal of Counseling Psy cho log y, 6 (1959), 69-7TI 39. Heckler, T . ; Krampen, M . ; and Handa, V. K. "Guidance Questions for First Year Engineering Students." Journal of Engineering Education, 59 (November, ---- -----------19635 V"339-270. 40. Herr, Edwin L. "Student Needs, College Expectations, and Reality Perceptions." Journal of E d u c a ­ tional Re se a r c h , 65 (October, 1971), bl-56. 41. Hoelscher, H. E. "Education for an Engineering Future." Journal of Engineering Education, 62 (April, 1 9 7 2 ) , 7 8 2 - 7 8 8 . ---- -------- 6--------------------- 42. Ivey, Allen E . , and Wilson, Ray. "Perceptions of a College Environment: A Four Year Longitudinal Study." Journal of College Student Personnel, 12 (May, ' 1 97TT7^J7 7-178. -------------------- 43. Johnson, Richard W. "Effectiveness of SVIB Academic Interest Scales in Predicting College A c h i e v e ­ ment." Jo urnal of Applied P s y c h olo gy, S3 (August, 1969), 309-316. 44. Juola, Arvo E. The Entering Student at MSU: His PreCollege Status and Ex per ien ces , kast Lansing, Michigan: Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, No. 2, 1973. 147 45. Juola, Arvo E. College Perceptions and Expectations of Entering MSlr stu d e n t s . East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Office of Evaluation Services, No. 3, 1973. 46. Kandel, Denise, and Lesser, Gerald S. "School, Family, and Peer Influences on Educational Plans of Adolescents in the United States and Denmark." Sociology of E d u c a t i o n , 43 (Summer, 1970), T7TrrT H 7 v 47. Kelly, Richard, and Hart, B. Derrell. "Professor Role Preferences of Entering College Students and their Parents." Journal of Educational Research, 63 (December, 1969), 15d-XSi. 48. Khan, Sar B . , and D'Oyley V. R. "Prerequisite Abilities for Success in Engineering." Journal of E n g i ­ neering E d u c a t i o n , 64 (October” l9'73j , 43-45. 49. King, Howard, and Walsh, W. Bruce. "Changes in Environ­ mental Expectations and Perceptions." Journal of College Student Personnel, 13 (July, 1972) , 331- 137 '. ------------------------------------------------- 50. Kinloch, Graham C. "Social and Psychological Factors Related to Engineering Freshmen." Journal of Engineering E d u c a t i o n ,(September, lyoyj , i u . 51. Leafgren, Frederick A. "An Investigation of Images of the University and Student Role Expectations." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. 52. Lehmann, 53. Lynch, Robert C . , and Sedlacek, William E. "D iffer­ ences between Student and Student Affairs Staff Perceptions of a University." Journal of C o l ­ lege Student P erso n n e l , 12 (May, I S tT j , 17 3-176. 54. McFee, Anne. "The Relation of Student Needs to their Perceptions of a College Environment." Journal of Educational Psy cho log y, 52 (1961) , 25-29. 55. Meyer, John W. High School Effects on College Inten­ tions . Washington B.C.: office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, #ED036907 (February, 1970). Irving J. "Changes in Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values from Freshman to Senior Years." Journal of Educational Psychology, 54 (1963), 305-315.--------- ----------- ------ 148 56. Meyer, John W. "High School Effects on College Inten­ tions." American Journal of Sociology, 76 (July, i97TrrrT^7Tr:— “ ------------ 57. Nichols, Robert C. "Personality Change and the Col­ lege." American Educational Research Journal, 4 (May, T?57y,- 175-1W . ------------------------- 58. Noeth, Richard J . , and Dye, H. Allan. "Perceptions of a University Environment: Students and Student Personnel Workers." Journal of College Student Personnel, 14 (November, 1975;, sz7-5*1. 59. A Longitudinal Study of the 1965 Northby , Arwood S. Entering Freshman Class at the university of Connecticut. Connecticut University: Depart­ ment of Higher, Technical and Adult Education, March 1970. 60. Olive, Lois E. "Relationships of Values and Occupa­ tional Role Perceptions for Freshman and Senior Students in a College of Engineering." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16 (1969), 114-120. 61. Ommen, Jerome L. The Relation of High School Back­ grounds to Attitude fratterns~and to Patterns of Attitude Change buring the ^irst Two College Years. Concordia, Missouri: St. Paul's College, Microfilm #ED 034250 (1969). 62. Pace, C. Robert. The Influence of Academic and Student Subcultures in College and University Environ­ ments. Los Angeles: U.S. department of riealth, Education, and Welfare; Office of Education, Cooperative Research Program, 1964. 63. Pace, C. Robert, and Stern, G. G. College Character­ istics Index. New York: Syracuse Psychologi­ cal Research Center, 1957. 64. Pace, C. Robert. "Methods of Describing College Cultures." Teachers College Re cor d, 63 (January, 1962) , 2 67-277. 65. Panos Robert J . , and Astin, Alexander W. "A Profile of Entering 1965 College Freshmen." College and University, (Winter, 1967), 160-174. 149 66. Pate, Robert H. Jr. "Student Expectations and Later Expectations of a University Enrollment." Journal of College Student Personnel (November, T 97 U7T T5V- 462.--- -------------------- 67. Plans Beyond High School: A Report of a Statewide Survey of1 Florida High School Seniors, 1 9 6 8 . Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State university, Microfilm #ED033673, (October, 1969). 68. Plans Beyond High School: A Report of a Statewide purvey of Florida high School Seniors: Fall 1 9 6 9 . tallaha s s e e , Florida: Florida State Board of Regents, Microfilm #ED 044076, (June, 1970). 69. Purnell, Richard F . , and Lesser, Gerald S. Work-Bound and College-Bound Youth: A Study in Stereot ^ g e s , Washington b.C.: #Ebt)3l597, (April, 70. Quay, Alan T . , and Dole, Arthur A. "Changes in C o m ­ munity College Perceptions Before and After Matriculation." Journal of College ge Student b P e r s o n n e l , 13 (March, 1972), 120 nr 71. Rhodes, Albert Lewis. Effects of Parental E xpecta­ tions on Educational Plans of White and NonWhite Ad ole sce nts . railanassee, F l o r i d a : Florida State University, Washington D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Microfilm #ED027096, (September, 1968). 72. Richards, James M. Jr. "Life Goals of Freshmen." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13 (1966), 12-26. 73. Risch, Thomas J. "Expectations for the College Environment." Journal of College Student Pe rso nne l. (November, 1970), 463-4b6. 74. Roberts, 75. Romine, Berr H . , and Gehman, W. Scott. "Tension in Freshman and Senior Engineering Students." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 26 (19'66), 5 6 5 - 5 7T:-i ---------------- Fannie. "Attitudes of College Freshmen towards Mathematics." The Mathematics Teacher, (Januray, 1969), 25-27. 150 76. Sandeen, C. Arthur. "Aspirations for College." Per­ sonnel and Guidance Journal, (January, 1968) , 462-465. 77. Sandell, Sandra D . , and Rossman, Jack E. "College Freshmen View their Parents." Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 49 (June, 1971) , 821-826. 78. Sanford, Nevitt, ed. The American College. New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1^62. 79. Schweingruber, Donald Lee. "A Comparative Study of Electrical Engineering Alumni Concerning their Undergraduate Program." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. 80. Seymour, Warren R. "Student and Counselor Perceptions of College Environments." Journal of College Student Pe rso nne l, 9 (March"| 1^68) , 79-84. 81. Seymour, Warren R . , and Richardson, Morgan. "Student and Parent Perceptions of a University: A Generation Gap?" Journal of College Student Pe rso nne l, 13 (July"; I 97 Z J , 32b-330. 82. Shill, James F. "Educational Aspirations and E xpecta­ tions of Vocational Agricultural Students." Agricultural Education Magazine, (August, 1 9 W J , 3"4"-T bY 6- 83. Smithers, Alan. "What Do Students Expect of Lectures?" University Q u a r t e r l y , 24 (Summer, 1970), 330336. 84. Snedecor, George W . , and Cochran, William G. Statisti­ cal M e t h o d s . Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 19 61. 85. Soper, Edward L. A Study of Factors Influencing the Post-Secondary Educational and Vocational Decisions of Utah 'school Students. National Center for Educational kesearch and Development, 1971. 86. Standing, G. Robert, and Parker, Clyde A. "The College Characteristics Index as a Measure of Entering Students' Perceptions of College Life." Journal of College Student Personnel, 6 (October, 1964), T^TT. 151 87. Stanfel, James D. , and Watts, Frederick P. "Freshmen Expectations and Perceptions of the Harvard University Environment." Journal of Negro E d u c at ion , 39 (Spring, 1970}, 13if-138. 88. Stern, George G. "The Freshmen Myth." (September, 1966), 41-43 89. Stinnel, Nick, et a l . "Perceptions of College Students Concerning the Home Economics Profession and Major." Journal of Home Economics, 63 (November'," T Y7T )', '607-'6TO.--------- 90. Trent, James W . , and Medsker, Leland L. Beyond High School. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass I n c . , Y9S8T" 91. Trow, Martin. "The Campus Viewed as a Culture." Research on College Students. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, 1960, 105-123. 92. Vreeland, Rebecca S., and Bidwell, Charles E. "Classifying University Departments: An Approach to the Analysis of their Effects upon Undergraduate Values and Attitudes." Sociology of E duc a t i o n , 39 (Summer, 1966), 237-254. 93. Walsh, W. Bruce, and McKinnon, Richard D. "Impact of an Experimental Program on Student E nviron­ mental Perceptions." Journal of College Student Personnel, 10 (September, 1969), 311y n r --------------- 94. Webster, H. "Changes in Attitudes during College." Journal of Educational Psychology, 49 (1958), 10ST-TTt --------------- ------ 95. Werts, Charles E. "Parental Influence on Career Choice." Journal of Counseling Psychology, (1968), 4 8 -------------- ---- ------ NEA J o u r n a l , 15 96. Williams, Gerald D. "The Clark-Trow Viewpoints: Associated Personality Traits and Changes During the Freshman Year." Journal of College Student P ers onn el, 13 (July, 1972), 34Y-746. 97. Young, F. Chandler. "College Freshmen Judge their own Scholastic Promise." Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , (March, 1954)“ 399-403. APPENDICES APPENDIX A FRESHMEN PRE-TEST MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing - Michigan College of Engineering - Office of Student Affairs Engineering Building - Dear Engineering Freshman: The College of Engineering is interested in your expectations and attitudes as you begin your college career. The enclosed questionnaire is designed to help us in this purpose. The information obtained will be helpful to the college, the faculty, and the advising staff when modifying our programs and literature. In addition, this material will comprise the data for the completion of my own dissertation. Thank you for your co-operation with this project. Sincerely, Les L. Leone Specialist LLL/plc There are no right or wrong answers to the following questions. All of the questions pertain to your e xpecta­ tions and attitudes as you begin your program in the College of Engineering. Please check the one response for each question which best represents your present feeling. 152 153 A. Faculty-student contact 1. I expect that faculty members in the College of rH ID Engineering . . . bO U bo ft at O 0) O at 4> f-i in in t-l •H U -H 4-> bO bo co < CO Q < D SD A SA a) enjoy talking with students on an informal basis outside of class time. b) encourage students to come to them for help if they are having dif­ ficulty with course material. __ __ __ c) encourage students to come and talk with them during office hours. __ __ __ d) are interested in a student's personal problems. __ __ __ e) are interested in discussing career opportunities with students.___________ __ __ __ f) are available when they are needed. __ __ B. __ Student-student contact 1. I think that fellow students in the College of Engineering . . . a) are a closely-knit group. _ b) will go out of their way to help other students with class assign­ ments. _ c) are interested in one another's personal problems. __ d) will often engage in out-of-class discussion concerning class material. __ e) participate in many social activities together. __ __ _ 160 B. Student-student contact continued 1. (continued) College of Engineering I think that fellow students in the . . . f) participate in engineering clubs and organizations. g) have a definite voice in deter­ mining policies and programs which affect other students. C. Teaching-learning environment 1. I think that . . . a) success in my engineering courses will be dependent on a good grasp of the principles and theories from sciences and mathematics. b) professors will regularly refer to, and use, principles and theories from mathematics and science in their lectures. c) lectures will be very important in the learning process. d) a clear, defined logic will be important in engineering problem solving e) lectures will be stimulating, ch al­ lenging, and thorough. f) most classes will stress the theoretical rather than the practical. g) mathematics will be the most i m ­ portant element for success in my engineering course. SA A D SD __ __ __ __ D. Personal attention. 1. I think that . . . SA a) it will be easy to get to know faculty and students in the college. __ b) I will feel like a person and not a number in the college. c) most of my professors and fellow stu­ __ dents will know my name. d) people will take the time to listen to my problems.__________________________ __ e) people will try to understand my feelings. __ f) if I need help with a class as sign­ ment I will know where to get help in the college.__________________________ __ g) if I need general information, I will know where to go for help in the college. E. Difficulty of material 1. I think that . . . a) it will be difficult to pass a course without a great deal of studying. b) most classes will require a lot of preparation and study before going to class. c) most examinations will require a thorough knowledge of the class ma te r i a l . d) examinations will be fair and compre­ hensively cover most material p r e ­ sented in class. e) the amount of time and effort required to succeed in a class will not be much different from high school. E. Difficulty of material continued 1. (continued) I think that . f) an important ingredient for success will be knowing the right people. g) an important ingredient for success will be learning the "ropes." h) the competition for grades will be intensive. i) there will be a lot of homework and preparation required before going to class. F. Discussion opportunities 1. I think that . . . a) students are encouraged to speak out, ask questions, and offer alter­ natives during class. b) professors like to be challenged on their ideas during class. c) professors enjoy answering student questions. d) class time is set aside each meeting for questions and/or discussion. e) class discussions are usually stimulating and intense. f) student discussion can make a professor change his mind. G. Practical benefit 1. a) I think that . . . the required engineering courses will be of benefit when I am "on the job." 163 G. Practical benefit 1. I think that . . . b) the engineering curriculum will adequately prepare me for a job when I graduate. c) getting to know the faculty and students will make the program easier for me. d) an engineering education teaches students how to solve problems. e) an engineering program gives the student a well-rounded education. f) an engineering education teaches a student how to get along with other people. g) I know what an engineer does on the job. APPENDIX C FRESHMEN QUESTIONNAIRE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing - Michigan College of Engineering - Office of Student Affairs Engineering Building Dear Engineering Freshman: The College of Engineering is interested in your expecta­ tions and attitudes as you begin your college career. The enclosed questionnaire is designed to help us in this pu rpose. The information obtained will be helpful to the college, the faculty, and the advising staff when modifying our programs and literature. In addition, this material will c o m p r i s e the data for the completion of my own dissertation. Thank you for your co-operation with this project. Sincerely, Les L. Leone Specialist LLL/plc Complete anonymity will be observed throughout this study. The nature of such a study, however, does require that followup procedures be conducted to assure the maximum response possible. To facilitate these procedures, it would be appreciated if you would sign below, tear along the above dotted line, and turn this in with your completed question­ naire. This will enable me to keep accurate records of total responses and avoid unnecessary and timely follow-up attempts. Thank you. NAME (please print) 164 165 There are no right or wrong answers to the following questions. All of the questions pertain to your expecta­ tions and attitudes as you begin your program in the College of Engineering. Please check the one response for each question which best represents your present feeling. A. Faculty-student relationships 1. Engineering I expect that faculty members in the College of . . . H bO £ +■» bo W < SA < (4 in •H a >s bO £ bO O ctt (h tn ■M -H in Q A D SD a> 0) u bO a> N r*H (30 a O bo CO < < a> SA a) enjoy talking with students on an informal basis outside of class time. __ b) encourage students to come to them for help if they are having d i f ­ ficulty with course material. ■» TTt bO a <0 rt bO o >H bO •M bO CO < A D SD _ ___ c) are interested in a student's personal problems. __ d) are interested in discussing career opportunities with students. _ e) are available when they are needed. B. Student-student relationships 1. __ __ I think that fellow students in the College of Engineering . . . a) are a closely-knit group. © (0 •rH 1=1 _ fH 171 B. Student-student relationships 1. (continued) I think that fellow students in the College of Engineering . . . SA b) go out of their way to help other students with class assignments. c) are interested in one another's personal problems. d) participate in many social activi­ ties together. e) have a definite voice in determining policies and programs which affect other students. C. Teaching-learning environment 1. I think that . . . a) success in my engineering courses is dependent on a good grasp of the principles and theories from science and mathematics. b) lectures are very important in the learning process. c) a clear, defined logic is important in engineering problem solving. d) most classes stress the theoretical rather than the practical. e) mathematics is the most important element for success in my en gi­ neering course. f) laboratories are an important part of the engineering curriculum. g) there are adequate opportunities for me to do research and study in an area I am interested in. A D SD 172 D. Personal attention 1. I think that . . . a) I feel like a person and not a number in the college. b) most of my professors and fellow students know my name. c) people take the time to listen to my problems. d) if I need help with a class assign­ ment I know where to get help in the college. e) if I need general information, I know where to go for help in the co lle ge. E. Difficulty of material 1. I think that . . . a) it is difficult to pass a course without a great deal of studying. b) most classes require a lot of p r e ­ paration and study before going to class. c) most examinations require a thorough knowledge of the class material. d) an important ingredient for success is knowing the right people. e) an important ingredient for success is learning the ’’ropes." f) the competition for grades is intens ive. 173 F. Discussion opportunities 1. I think that . . . a) students are encouraged to speak out, ask questions, and offer alter­ natives during class. b) professors like to be challenged on their ideas during class. c) professors enjoy answering student questions. d) class time is set aside each meeting for questions and/or discussion. e) class discussions are usually stimulating and intense. f) student discussion can make a professor change his mind. G. Career outcomes 1. I think that . . . a) the required engineering courses will adequately prepare me for a job when I graduate. b) an engineering program gives the student a well-rounded education. c) an engineering education teaches a student how to get along with other people. d) I know what an engineer does on the job.