IN F O R M A T IO N 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
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1 .T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page{s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. Y ou will find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints o f "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 N O TE:
received.

Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zoeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

75-7183
HINTZ, John Arnold, 1945AN EXAMINATION OF GOAL CONGRUENCE AND PERCEIVED
NEED FOR GREATER COOPERATION BETWEEN UNDERGRADUATE
TEACHING FACULTY AND STUDENT PERSONNEL STAFF AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1974
Education, higher
Xerox University Microfilms,

Ann A rb or, M ichig an 4 8 1 0 6

©

1974

JOHN ARNOLD HINTZ

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

AN EXAMINATION OF GOAL CONGRUENCE AND PERCEIVED NEED
FOR GREATER COOPERATION BETWEEN UNDERGRADUATE
TEACHING FACULTY AND STUDENT PERSONNEL STAFF
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
John A. Hintz

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
AN EXAMINATION OF GOAL CONGRUENCE AND PERCEIVED NEED
FOR GREATER COOPERATION BETWEEN UNDERGRADUATE
TEACHING FACULTY AND STUDENT PERSONNEL STAFF
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
John A. Hintz

The purpose of this study was to compare and con­
trast (1) the opinions of undergraduate teaching faculty
and professional student personnel workers at Michigan
State University on twenty-two selected educational objec­
tives for higher education, and

(2) to compare and con­

trast the opinions of faculty and student personnel
workers regarding the extent of perceived cooperative
interaction which exists between each group and the
extent to which more cooperation between the groups is
desired toward helping students achieve educational
objectives.

The educational objectives included in the

study were stated as educational outcomes and represent
various aspects of affective and cognitive student
development.
A questionnaire, developed by the researcher
and consisting of three sections, was mailed in May of

John A. Hintz
1973 to 100 randomly selected subjects representing the
two populations of interest.

Sixty-nine per cent of the

responses were usable for the study.

Follow-up inter­

views were conducted with 5 respondents from each of the
study groups to pursue further the questions and issues
presented in the questionnaire.
In Section I of the questionnaire,
was asked to rate on a Idkert-type scale
his own perceptions)
on the basis of

the respondent

(according to

each of the 22 educational outcomes

(A) the importance of the outcome relative

to the purposes of higher education,

(B) the extent to

which Michigan State University succeeds in helping stu­
dents achieve the outcome, and

(C) the extent of coopera­

tive interaction which exists between faculty members and
student personnel workers toward helping students achieve
the outcome.

A multivariate analysis of variance was

used to test for significant differences between group
means across all dependent variables for each question
(denoted as Scales A, B, C in the analysis)

listed above.

A univariate analysis of variance was used to determine
which specific variables

(educational outcomes)

contributed

to significant differences if such differences were
detected on either of the three scales.

The direction

of difference was determined by observing the relative
magnitude of group cell means since there were only two
levels of a single independent variable.

John A. Hintz
No differences

(on the basis of group mean scores)

in opinion between groups were found to exist on Scales B
and C.

Differences were found to exist between groups on

Scale A

(perceived importance of each outcome)

of the twenty-two variables.

for six

Faculty tended to favor out­

comes which were closely related to the academic and
intellectual growth of the student.

Student personnel

staff indicated a preference for affective outcomes to
a much greater extent than faculty.

The majority of

outcomes for which both groups indicated a preference
tended to be academically oriented.
In Section II of the questionnaire, respondents
were asked to select from the total list of twenty-two,
those five educational outcomes which they considered
most important.

Kendall's rank-correlation coefficient

was used to test for a significant correlation between
the two sets of frequency rank orders.

It was determined

that a significant positive correlation existed between
the faculty group and the student personnel staff group
ranking of educational outcomes.

However, distinct dif­

ferences of emphasis were also observed.

Faculty indi­

cated a predominant preference for cognitive outcomes
while student personnel workers indicated specific
preferences for both cognitive and affective educational
outcomes.

John A. Hintz
In the final Section III of the questionnaire,
the faculty and student personnel staff who partici­
pated in the study were asked to respond to six openended questions designed to elicit their opinions
regarding

(1) the need for more cooperation between the

groups toward helping students achieve full benefit of
their education,

(2) the extent to which student person­

nel staff were concerned about the intellectual growth
of students, and

(3) the extent to which faculty were

concerned about the social, personal, and emotional
development of their students.

Simple percentages were

used to describe types or categories of responses.
Chi

2

A

test of independence was used to determine that

there is a significant positive correlation between
faculty members who indicated that they had worked with
students on committees

(in response to Question 5) and

faculty who indicated they had experienced a worthwhile
and satisfying relationship with student personnel
staff

(in response to Question 6).

The findings based

on responses to questions one through four in Section III
of the questionnaire and the data obtained from follow-up
interviews are incorporated in the conclusions presented
below.
The following conclusions were reached:
1.

While there were differences of opinion between
groups concerning what the outcomes of a college

John A. Hintz
education should be, there was also considerable
agreement.
Faculty indicated a distinct preference for those
educational outcomes which are most closely
related to the academic— intellectual development
of students, whereas student personnel workers
perceived both the affective and cognitive
development of students to be important.
On the whole, faculty members do not appear to
have a clear awareness of the goals of student
personnel work or the services made available
through the student affairs division.
To an extent greater than faculty members,

stu­

dent personnel staff perceived a need for closer
working relationships between faculty and student
personnel staff in order to accomplish the edu­
cational goals of the university.
Cooperation with student personnel staff was
viewed as desirable by faculty as it may relate
to the intellectual growth of students, whereas
student personnel staff viewed between-group
cooperation to be a necessary and educationally
complimentary relationship for the purpose of
helping students achieve a well-rounded education.

John A. Hintz
Neither study group considered the extent of
cooperation between groups to be necessarily
frequent or infrequent.
Neither group expressed particularly favorable
opinions regarding organizational restructuring
to insure greater cooperation between the groups.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to the members of my Guidance
Committee for their willingness to serve in this
capacity.

They are Dr. Walter Johnson, Dr. George

Ferree, and Dr. James McKee.

A special note of grati­

tude is extended to Dr. Louis Stamatakos, my Chairman,
who offered me his support and encouragement throughout
my doctoral program.
X would also like to acknowledge Bill and Jackie
Abbett, Dale and Liz Monroe-Cook, Dale Ladig, Wayne
Rankin, and Tom and Mary Chibucos for their friendship
and encouragement.

X am fortunate to have such good

friends.
My greatest appreciation and love are extended
to my wife, Arnette, who made the completion of this
study possible and to my children, Patrick John and
Alissa Renee.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.

Page
THE P R O B L E M .......................
Introduction..............................
Need and Importance of This Study.
. .
The Purpose of the Study.................
Specific Research Objectives
. . . .
Study H y p o t h e s e s .......................
Additional Questions . . . . . . .
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . .
Selection of Educational Objectives
Utilized in S t u d y ....................
Definition of T e r m s ....................
Limitations of the Study.................
The Importance of Goals for Higher Edu­
cation and Theoretical Aspects of
Organization Goals . . . . . . .

1
7
8
10
11
12
13

Introduction...........................
Importance of Goals for Higher
E d u c a t i o n ...........................
Theoretical Aspects of Organization
G o a l s ..............................

22

Organization of the S t u d y .............
II.

1

15
18
20
22

22
24
30

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

31

Introduction
...........................
The Need and Utility of Goals and
Objectives in Higher Education . . .

31

Introduction...........................
Goals:
Their Necessity and Utility .
Institutional Goals and the Moti­
vations of Individuals Within
the Organization....................
S u m m a r y ..............................

iii

33
33
33
42
47

Chapter

Page
Opinions Concerning Appropriate Goals and
Objectives for Higher Education . . .

48

Introduction ...........................
Goals for Higher Education
. . . .
S u m m a r y ..............................

48
49
69

The Need for Community in Colleges and
U n i v e r s i t i e s .......................

70

Introduction ...........................
The University C o m m u n i t y .............
Summary.................................

70
71
82

Integration of the Student Personnel
Program and the Instructional Pro­
gram— A Step Toward Community.
. . .

83

Introduction ...........................
The Curriculum and the Extra­
curriculum ...........................
The Need for Cooperative Interaction
Between Faculty and Student Per­
sonnel S t a f f .......................
Summary.................................

83
84
86
96

Review of Related Empirical Research .

III.

97

Introduction ...........................
Related Research.......................
S u m m a r y ..............................

97
98
118

Summary.....................................

120

DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY.

.

.

Introduction ..............................
The Population and S a m p l e s .............
S a m p l i n g .................................
Sample Size
. . . . . . . . .
Faculty Sample
.......................
Student Personnel Workers Sample
. .
The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .......................
Collection of the D a t a ....................
Treatment of the D a t a ....................

iv

.

124
124
124
126
126
127
129
129
135
138

Chapter

Page
Section I ofQ u e s t i o n n a i r e ..................
Section IX of the Questionnaire
. .
.
Section III of the Questionnaire . .
.
Follow-Up Interviews . . . . . . .

IV.

138
141
143
144

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ........................ 14 6
Introduction.................................
14 6
Between Group Comparison of Means:
Per­
ceived Importance of Selected Edu­
cational Outcomes (Scale A, Section I
of the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) ........................ 150
Between Group Comparison of Means:
Per­
ceived Extent of MSU's Success in
Helping Students Achieve Educational
Outcomes (Scale B, Section I of
Questionnaire)
...........................
157
Between Group Comparison of Means:
Per­
ceived Extent of Cooperation Between
Faculty and Student Personnel Workers
(Scale C, Section I of Questionnaire).
.
160
Between Group Comparison of Rank Orders
Assigned to Educational Outcomes
. .
.
164
Descriptive Data:
Group Responses to
"Additional Questions"
.................
171
Faculty Group Response to
Question 1,
.
Student Personnel Workers
Response to
Question 2 ........................... 176
Faculty Group Response to
Question 2.
.
Student Personnel Workers
Response to
Question 3 ........................... 179
Faculty Group Response to
Question 3.
•
Student Personnel Workers
Response to
Question 4 ........................... 18 2
Faculty Group Response to
Question 4.
.
Summary of Follow-Up Interviews

.

.

.

.

Student Personnel Staff Group Inter­
views
.................................
Faculty Group Interviews.............. 19 2

174
177
18 0
183
18 6
187

Overview and Interpretation of the
Analysis of D a t a ....................
195
S u m m a r y ........................................ 207

v

Chapter
V.

Page
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

.

209

Introduction.
. . . . . . . . . .
209
S u m m a r y ........................................ 209
The P r o b l e m .................................. 209
Purpose of the S t u d y ........................ 211
Procedures
.............
. . . . .
214
217
Research Findings .......................
C o n c l u s i o n s ..................................... 229
Recommendations.................................. 235
Implications for Pragmatic Application
of the F i n d i n g s ........................... 235
Implications for Further Research.

.

.

.

241

APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

Educational Goals Questionnaire

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

24 5

B.

Questionnaire Cover Letter ...................

259

C.

Follow-Up Cover Letter

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

260

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................

261

LIST OF TABLES
Table
3.1
4.1

Page
Summary of participating and nonparticipating
subjects in s a m p l e s .......................

137

Multivariate analysis of variance on Scales
A, B , and C .................................

151

4.2

Univariate analysis of variance for Scale A

4.3

Scale A — Perceived importance of outcome to
purposes of higher education— faculty and
student personnel group means and
standard deviations .......................

154

Scale B — Perceived success of MSU in achiev­
ing outcomes— Faculty and student person­
nel group means and standard deviations
.

159

Scale C — Perceived cooperation between
faculty and student personnel group
toward achieving outcomes— Means and
standard deviations .......................

163

Relationship between faculty and student
personnel group rankings of edu­
cational o u t c o m e s . .......................

166

Faculty group and student personnel group
rank orders of educational outcomes.
.

168

Chi square test for independence between
faculty responses to questions five and
six of the study i n s t r u m e n t .............

185

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7
4.8

vii

.

153

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
One of the more significant outcomes of the very
active and sometimes violent decade of the 1960's on the
American college campus,

is a concern for greater accoun­

tability in higher education which calls for increased
fiscal responsibility and greater commitment to essential
purposes.

It has been suggested that institutions of

higher education have suffered a fundamental breakdown
bringing on a crisis in legitimacy and a situation at
least resembling chaos

(41:1).

However, while the rhe­

toric of criticism is certainly dramatic and stimulating,
it must be apparent to the reasonably objective observer
that the task of making collegiate institutions more
effective educational systems cannot be accomplished
simplistically.
. Reassessment of traditional thought and exami­
nation of present and future requirements is reflected
significantly in the subject matter of professional
educational journals during and since the recent period

1

2
of campus turmoil.

A basic and fundamental understanding

extracted from these articles and editorials is that in
order to accomplish the broad purposes of higher edu­
cation successfully, the educational goals and objec­
tives of collegiate institutions must be given greater
clarity and understanding
Mooney

(98, 125, 183).

(102) in a speech given before the Michigan

Association of Colleges and Universities

(1967) indicated

that presently collegiate institutions have difficulty
stating purposes that are compelling and integrative.
Mooney suggests that an understanding of purpose is
necessary in order to give direction, reduce confusion
and w a s t e , to clarify r o l e s , relate structures, implement
governance, and conduct evaluation.

The problem now is

to tie it all together and move ahead.

Carrigan adds

that, "We need to be more concerned than ever before
with the relationship between 'means' and

'ends' in

education and the kind of model we present to students"

(20 ).
The problem of defining and refining goals is
a continuing one for those responsible for leadership
in higher education.

It is a problem which is both

inevitable and necessary.

Changing social conditions

and new knowledge make it mandatory for educators to
reconsider their goals on a regular basis.

Pull dis­

cussion of goals and the realization that goals and

3
objectives will and need to change is a part of the
process which enables educators and the public to make
more reasoned determinations of appropriate educational
goals

(50, 165).
Recognition of the need for a continuous process

of debate and discussion concerning the goals for higher
education and the realization that this discussion may
serve to modify established goals are important under­
standings.

But, in any given point in time, it becomes

necessary to strive for specific sets of goals which
reflect present needs and interests.
must be established.

Various standards

And, while differing opinions

concerning these standards should be anticipated

(if

not encouraged), meeting designated objectives will be
most effectively accomplished if there is some degree
of harmonious acceptance and understanding of them on
the part of the membership of any given educational
system (183:675).
Dressel

(1961) contends that,

If learning is not given direction, meaning, and
organization by objectives which relate the goals
of each unit and course to other courses and to the
curriculum, it tends to emphasize isolated bits of
information, the relative importance and ultimate
utility of which not only are unknown but must
remain unquestioned. (36:27)
Chickering devotes an entire chapter in Education and
Identity

(1971) to the subject of clarity and consistency

of objectives for higher education.

He states that,

4
"Clear and internally consistent objectives are the start­
ing point for discussion and the criteria for decisions.
Conditions and practices are properly modified when
objectives are better served by the change"
Unfortunately,

(24:159).

"At most colleges, process has taken over,

leaving purpose to shift for itself.

Objectives rarely

surface when questions of policy and practice are raised"
(24:158).

In reflection of Newcomb's

Bennington

(108) and Heath's

(1943) study at

(1968) study of Haverford

(56), Chickering makes these additional comments:
Clear and salient objectives make for inter­
nally consistent policies, programs, and practices.
Such objectives reduce the frequency with which
the developmental impact of one component runs
counter to that of another. . . . Clarity of objec­
tives also helps faculty members operate as indi­
viduals in ways more congruent with each other.
(24:160)
Salient institutional objectives also keep
alive for students their reasons for being in
college, and at that particular college.
Insti­
tutional clarity and commitment generate similar
clarity and commitment on the part of students.
. . . When objectives have been taken seriously,
they come to pervade the various aspects of the
institution.
Thus, in time, a community of shared
ideas and goals becomes a reality. (24:161)
Heath points out that information obtained from the Haver­
ford study reveals that, "It is rare that a specific type
of educational experience is very significant in a per­
son 1s life, as our data so clearly s how.

Rather it is

the coherence, the consistency, the 'atmosphere* of one's
environment that makes its impact upon development"
243) .

(56:

5
In view of these observations and expressed con­
cerns that collegiate institutions need to become more
effective and efficient in their operation, an ideal
university model might be considered one which provides
for the coordination and direction of the total spectrum
of a university*s resources toward the realization of
educational goals commonly understood and accepted as
being important.

However, this ideal, no matter how

desirable, must be tempered by some very real consider­
ations.

Colleges and universities are complex and human

organizations and as such do not usually lend themselves
to abstract and systematic theoretical models.

Further­

more, the lingering effects of the rapid growth of many
schools, changing social conditions, occasionally
unrealistic expectations of society for higher education,
the "knowledge explosion," increased decentralization,
and subject matter specialization are all factors which
have put significant strains on attempts to coordinate
and integrate the philosophy, objectives, and practices
of higher education.

Such "realities" signify the problem

as well as the challenge for higher education.

Although

the ideal will continue to be tempered by the real, any
successful attempts made to develop collegiate environ­
ments as unified and integrated communities will increase
their potential to be effective in the education of
their students

(17:99, 29:37,

27:433, 48:8).

6
It should be repeated that the task of making
colleges and universities more effective educational
systems cannot be accomplished simply or all at once.
The solution is as complex as the problem and needs to
be approached in a systematic manner.

A logical first

step is a consideration of the issue of goals and objec­
tives .

In order to proceed with the development of

programs and structures which might ultimately assist
in the development of a unified and integrated academic
community, the values and goal orientations of community
members need to be more clearly understood.

Measures

taken to arrive at such understandings can be considered
necessary preliminary procedures in the quest for more
effective, accountable educational programs.
Within the confines of the issue of goals and
objectives for higher education is a fundamental
cleavage of thought.

There are those who contend that

a university is responsible only for the academicintellectual growth of the student

(65:118, 131:19).

Higher education is, according to this school of thought,
more closely associated with the formal curriculum of
classrooms and course assignments.

Other writers

require a more inclusive definition in their outlook of
higher education.

It is their position that a synthesis

of the curricular and co-curricular aspects of the col­
legiate environment is what ultimately affects students

7
and their education.

This latter group usually articu­

lates a need to consider both affective and cognitive
learning as elements of the same concept (35:403, 114:9 6,
20).

Research conducted to determine the impact of

colleges on students tends to support this view (159,
37:245, 26:79).

Be that as it may, any study or dis­

cussion of goals and objectives for higher education,
their definition and clarification, or goal congruence
between educators must necessarily take this related
issue into account.
Need and Importance of This Study
The initial incentive for conducting this study
was based upon three fundamental assumptions:
1.

The issue of educational goals and objectives is
an important one in higher education, and one
around which there is continuing discussion;

2.

Identifying the opinions of faculty and student
personnel workers is necessary in order to pro­
vide a more thorough understanding of the issue,
especially as it relates to concerns for the
relationship between curricular and co-curricular
aspects of the collegiate environment; and

3.

Empirical studies are needed in order to build
upon knowledge already available and to further

8
explore the theoretical statements and
assumptions abounding in the professional
literature.
The Purpose of the Study
The present study is essentially exploratory and
largely descriptive.

While the issue of accountability

in higher education and matters related to the design of
effective organizational models are of interest and pro­
vide a necessary context, the immediate concern of this
researcher is with those initial procedures for achieving
greater accountability (educational effectiveness)
within a collegiate institution.

As indicated earlier

in this chapter, it is important to have defined within
an organization those goals which are perceived to be
important by an o r g a n i z a t i o n s constituent parts.

It is

also important to have knowledge of the extent of actual
and desired cooperation between major groups within an
organization regarding efforts made toward achieving
common educational goals.

Before any substantive

measures can be taken to implement goals in an integrated
and comprehensive manner, the opinions and values of
those who may be involved in taking such measures must
be determined.
Specifically, it is the intent of this researcher
to assess the extent of agreement or disagreement between
two groups of educators at Michigan State University, the

9
undergraduate teaching faculty and professional student
personnel workers, on the basis of their opinions con­
cerning a selected group of educational goals and objec­
tives related to student growth and learning.

As men­

tioned previously, research has indicated that students
learn and experience growth because of the impact of
both in-class and out-of-class experiences.

Faculty and

student personnel staff assume primary educational
responsibility for these two areas of student life and
learning.

Because there is much overlap between the

functions and responsibilities of faculty and student
personnel workers and because it is the total collegiate
experience which influences students, determinations of
the extent of goal congruence between faculty and student
personnel workers will provide preliminary information
useful for any attempts to bring the instructional pro­
gram and the student personnel services program of an
institution together.

Adherence to a common set of

objectives on the part of faculty and student personnel
workers should contribute to a more unified, integrated,
and thus more effective learning environment.
A second purpose of this research is to assess
the extent of cooperation between faculty and student
personnel workers toward helping students achieve edu­
cational objectives as each group perceives it to exist
and the extent to which additional cooperation is

10
desired.

A great deal of the professional literature

discusses the need for better understanding between
student personnel workers and faculty regarding each
group*s responsibilities and professional goals

(45, 74).

But what is being stated with increasing frequency is
the need for faculty and student personnel workers to
combine and integrate their work to a greater degree
than is now evident regarding those objectives which
they hold in common

(157, 110, 149).

The premise upon

which this need is based is (1) the educational impact
upon the student will be much more powerful and

(2) the

interrelated nature of learning will become apparent
and manifested through a model of faculty and student
personnel staff working together.
Specific Research Objectives
The general purposes of the study are stated
more specifically in the following list of objectives:
(1) To assess the extent of agreement or disagree­
ment between faculty members and student person­
nel workers concerning their opinions of the
importance of selected educational objectives;
(2) To compare the opinions of faculty and student
personnel workers concerning the relative
importance

(priority) given to selected edu­

cational objectives by each group;

11
(3) To assess the extent of agreement or disagree­
ment between faculty and student personnel
workers concerning their opinions of how
successful Michigan State University is in
helping undergraduate students achieve selected
educational objectives;
(4) To determine the extent of agreement or disagree­
ment between faculty and student personnel workers
concerning their opinions of the degree of cooper­
ative interaction which currently exists between
the two groups toward helping students achieve
each of the educational objectives included in
the study?
(5) To compare the opinions of faculty and student
personnel workers regarding the extent of cooper­
ative interaction each group perceives to exist
between themselves toward helping students
achieve educational objectives generally.
Study Hypotheses

HV
There are no differences in opinion between the
faculty group and the student personnel group
regarding the importance of selected educational
outcomes to the purposes of higher education.

12
H02 :
There are no differences in opinion between the
faculty group and the student personnel group
regarding how successful Michigan State University
is in helping undergraduate students achieve a
selected group of educational out c o m e s .

There are no differences in opinion between the
faculty group and the student personnel group
regarding the extent of perceived cooperative
interaction between the two groups toward helping
students achieve selected educational outcomes.
HO.4 :
There is no correlation between the faculty group
ranking of educational outcomes and the student
personnel group ranking of educational outcomes
in terms of the importance assigned to each of
the outcome items relative to the total list as
perceived by the faculty group and the student
personnel group.

H05 :
There is no correlation between faculty members who
have worked together with students on committees
and faculty who have worked to their satisfaction
in faculty-student personnel relationships.
Additional Questions
Beyond the research objectives listed a b ove ? the
study will address itself to an additional set of
questions asked of the sample g r o u p s .
follows:

They are as

13
1.

Should faculty and student personnel workers
work more closely together in order to accomplish
the educational goals of the university?

2.

Should the student affairs division of the uni­
versity be discontinued as a separate entity and
be integrated into the academic-instructional
sphere of the institution?

3.

(According to the opinions expressed by the
respondents), are most faculty members concerned
about the personal, emotional and social develop­
ment of their students?

In what ways do they

demonstrate this concern or lack of concern?
4.

(According to the opinions expressed by the
respondents), are most student personnel workers
concerned about the academic and intellectual
development of students?

In what ways do they

demonstrate this concern or lack of concern?
5.

Is there any correlation between faculty members
who have worked together with students on com­
mittees and faculty who have worked to their
satisfaction in faculty-student personnel
relationships?
Assumptions
In the general discussion of goals and objectives

for higher education, their importance, and how they

14
relate to the organizational activity of collegiate
institutions, the researcher introduced various principles
which must be identified as points of view or theoretical
assumptions.

Organizational and educational theorists

do not fully agree for example on the relative importance
and function of goals within organizations.

Furthermore,

opinions vary concerning the organizational nature of
collegiate institutions and their purposes.

The issue

of immediate concern at this point, however, is to
identify rather than enlarge upon the issue.

More com­

plete explanation of these points of view or assumptions
is included in the Review of the Literature

(Chapter I I ) .

The following is an enumeration of some of the major
theoretical assumptions upon which this dissertation
topic was developed and is based:
1.

It is important for colleges and universities
to state and define their educational goals
clearly.

This must be recognized as a continuing

process.
2.

Clarification of goals and objectives in higher
education is a necessary preliminary (and con­
tinuing) procedure for achieving greater accounta­
bility.

When the purposes of higher education

are reflected in well-articulated and commonly

15
understood goals and objectives, those responsible
for carrying them out have a greater probability
of meeting with success.
3.

A college or university is a more effective
social organization when its constituent groups
are integrated and unified in purpose or w h e n , at
the very least, a good understanding and mutual
respect exists between units of the organization
as a whole.

4.

Before such integration and unity can be
optimally accomplished or further developed,
it is necessary to understand what goals each
of the constituent groups perceive to be important.

5.

Preliminary steps toward fostering greater cooper­
ation between significant constituent groups
within an organization include the gathering of
information regarding what is perceived to be the
current state of cooperative relationships and
what degree of cooperation is actually desired
by the groups in question.
Selection of Educational Objectives
Utilized in Study
Main interest comparisons between faculty and

student personnel workers included in the sample groups
will be made on the basis of the opinions of the members

16
in each group concerning a selected group of educational
objectives for higher education.
stated in the form of outcomes.

The objectives are
For the purposes of

this study an outcome is defined as a particular achieved
skill, ability, or understanding.
The list of educational outcomes was generated by
an exploration of the professional literature.

The list

is intended to be adequately comprehensive and the items
are meant to be specific enough to identify particular
aspects of student development.
items include:

Dressel

(1961), Chickering
Sanford

The sources for the

(1961), Wrenn (1951), Williamson

(1971), Feldman and Newcomb (1970),

(1966), and various professional journals in

higher education.
The criteria used for selecting the educational
outcomes appearing in the questionnaire
was based on three considerations.

(see Appendix A)

First, the objectives

relate specifically to the student's educational and
personal development.

They reflect specific aspects of

an individual's total personal development and thus
are more closely associated with concerns for the general
education of students than to the training of students
in a particular vocation or academic discipline.

Addi­

tionally, while there are those goals which relate to
the university as an organization

(i.e., obtaining

grants, social and government research; service to the

17
community, etc.) and which remain important consider­
ations, these types were not included in the study since
they do not relate directly to the actual growth and
learning of the student and do not comprise a specific
interest of comparison to this researcher with regard
to the present research.
Secondly, the criteria relate to this writer's
point of view regarding the essential purposes of higher
education.

Education needs to be considered in a broad

sense rather than in a narrow sense.

An individual is

a complex organization of needs, dispositions, abilities,
and skills.

Therefore, education should be an activity

which approaches the individual in a holistic manner.
The various aspects of an individual's personality are
interrelated.

Even such distinctions as might be seen

to exist between cognitive and affective learning are
being deemphasized in favor of a view which recognizes
the strong relationship between them (145:48).

Dewey

(1938) considers education to be the growth which occurs
as a person secures from his experience the sorts of
dispositions of insight and self-control that provide
for the further accumulation of growth habits.

Growth,

which Dewey equates with education, is a process wherein
there is an ever-increasing ability to deal with the
issues, situations and problems of life

(32:36).

This

interpretation of education is also reflected in the

18
professional points of view espoused by student personnel
workers

(4, 130).

It was with this orientation that the

researcher selected the educational objectives included
in this study.
Thirdly, objectives were selected which might
more easily cross disciplinary lines.

The interest of

this study is whether or not faculty and student personnel
workers agree or disagree on the basis of a set of objec­
tives which they can hold in common rather than those
which may be a legitimate separate concern or function of
any one academic discipline.
Definition

of

A c c o u n t a b i l i t y .— C a p a b l e
strated
an

effectiveness,

intended

result

or

ability

Terms

of

explanation,

to r e l a t e

an

demon­

outcome

to

goal.

Faculty.— All those full-time professors,
associate and assistant professors, and instructors
who are primarily involved in the teaching of under­
graduate students at Michigan State University.

(A

sample group included in study.)
Functions of a University.— Those methods and
activities employed to achieve the purposes of an
institution.

19
Goals of Higher Education.— Those broad and
general statements of educational ends to which insti­
tutions of higher education are committed.
Integration.— The condition or process of coordi­
nating, relating, or unifying parts into a harmonious
whole.
Objective.— Specific and explicit goal statement
which is descriptive of the intended end result of a par­
ticular program.
Outcome.— Closely associated with objectives, an
outcome is an achieved result.

Measured outcomes can

be used to evaluate how successful a function or method
is in achieving an objective.

The educational outcome

statements representing the educational goals and objec­
tives included in this study with their definitions are
presented in Appendix A,

"The Questionnaire."

Social System.— The patterned activities of a
number of individuals where the activities are comple­
mentary or interdependent with respect to some common
output (or set of objectives).

The activities are

repeated, relatively enduring, and bounded in space
and time

(70:17).

20
Student Personnel W o r k e r s .— All those full-time
staff members at Michigan State University who work in
the areas of student life, student affairs, and student
activities.

Representatives of this group are associated

with the Counseling Center, Residence Hall Programs,
Admissions, Placement, Financial Aids, Judicial Programs
Office, Dean of Students Office, and the Vice President
for Student Affairs Office.

(A sample group included

in study.)
Limitations of the Study
Any specific findings or conclusions of this
research can be generalized with confidence only to con­
ditions present at Michigan State University and within
the parameters of the sample groups themselves.

The

second limitation is probably the most significant.

The

sampling criteria allows for only general interpretation
to the sample populations.

Age, sex, duration of employ­

ment beyond one year, academic discipline,

type of student

personnel work and the academic rank of faculty m e m b e r s ,
were not incorporated into the study design as indepen­
dent variables.

It was the specific interest of the

researcher to compare the opinions of faculty and stu­
dent personnel workers.

However, it must be recognized

that the goal orientations of such campus constituents
as students and trustees are important considerations.
These and other groups are not included in the study.

21
By employing the Cornfield-Tukey Bridge Argument,
general or basic concepts included in the study may have
utility on different types of campuses only after the
necessary modifications and qualifications have been made.
However, the use of the study instrument itself in dif­
ferent circumstances should not be restricted by the type
or size of the college or university.
Because the responses were to be obtained by
the use of a survey-type instrument, they are subject
to all the typical dificiencies of that research method­
ology.

Although the instrument used in this study was

developed by the researcher and is largely untested
for reliability and validity, the instrument was pre­
tested

(see Chapter III) and those knowledgeable of

questionnaire design and survey research were consulted
and provided assistance.
Although data collection procedures were care­
fully considered in order to insure an adequate return
of the questionnaire from the sample groups, less than
100 per cent was anticipated.

While an adequate per­

centage of return was received, conclusions and findings
cannot be safely generalized beyond those who completed
the questionnaire.

22
The Importance of Goals for Higher Education
and Theoretical Aspects of Organization
Goals
Introduction
This researcher is in essential agreement with
those who state that collegiate institutions must clearly
define their goals in order to give greater meaning and
substance to their activities.

The issue of goals and

objectives for higher education and their importance
to the institutional organization of higher education
is central to the topic of this study.

What follows is

a brief discussion of some of the theoretical aspects of
organizational goals.

It is presented in order to pro­

vide further introduction to the specific problem and
topic of the research and to explain the perceptual
framework and context in which goals are treated in
this paper.
Importance of Goals for
Higher Education
Hook (1970) discusses the importance of deter­
mining and defining educational goals as a preliminary
step in the process of making the educational program of
an institution more effective and thus more accountable.
Hook states that, "Although the structure, legal and
otherwise, of our colleges and universities is today in
debate and transition, the proper resolution of this and
allied problems seems to be clearly dependent upon the

23
prior determination of what the educational function or
goal(s) of the institution should be"

(61).

Lahti

(1971),

a proponent of management by objectives, succinctly
states the utility of goals within an academic organi­
zation:

"1.

the clearer the idea one has of what one

is trying to accomplish, the greater the chances are of
accomplishing it, and 2. progress can only be measured
in terms of what one is trying to make progress toward"
(80:31).

Fashing and Deutsch state that,

"The failure

to articulate clear institutional goals may be functional
in the sense that it allows faculty to decide on their
own particular order of priorities and therefore to
operate with a maximum amount of latitude, but it pro­
vides a relatively ambiguous organizational mileau and
makes institutional planning and direction more difficult"
(41:15).
In a somewhat critical assessment of American
colleges and universities, Abbott (1970) states that,
"Wide spread disagreement and uncertainty regarding the
purposes of these institutions

(colleges and universities)

sometimes suggests that under a variety of influences
they may be losing control of their own destinies"

(1:524).

In posing the apparent solution to the problem he pre­
sents, Abbott contends that, "Any organization must
have the ability to establish goals in order to decide
what to do, in what proportions, and with what priorities.

24
. . . Any managed situation, any formally organized group
must have clearly understood purposes"
Peterson

(1:524).

(1970) in somewhat dramatic fashion con­

tends that the relatively recent campus turmoil has "pro­
pelled the academic community into an unprecedented
'crisis of purpose'"

(125:1).

Riesman

(134) suggests

that higher education is on a "collision course."
Regarding the purpose of higher education, Martin com­
ments that,

"There is now no consensus and there is

greatly reduced confidence.

The institution of higher

education is required as never before to prove the
viability for the future of its structures and functions,
%

and, even more, its assumptions, values, and goals"
212).

(92:

This suggests a rather well-founded if not imme­

diate rationale for colleges and universities to delineate
and articulate realistic goals which might give direction
and unity to their operation.
Theoretical Aspects of
Organization Goals
In a sociological treatment of modern organi­
zations, Etzioni defines organizations as "social units"
(or human groupings) which pursue specific goals; their
very raison d*etre is the service of these goals

(39:5).

Etzioni considers schools to be examples of such "social
units."

He further states that:

25
The goals of organizations serve many functions.
They provide orientation by depicting a future
state of affairs which the organization strives
to realize.
Thus they set down guidelines for
organizational activity.
Goals also constitute
a source of legitimacy which justifies the
activities of an organization and indeed, its
very existence. Moreover, goals serve as standards
by which members of an organization and outsiders
can assess the success of the organization— i.e.,
its effectiveness and efficiency. (39:5)
If goals constitute a source of organizational
legitimacy and serve as evaluative standards, then the
issue of goals in higher education can be considered in
association with current concerns for educational accoun­
tability.

"Accountability implies goal directed and

performance oriented educational leadership.

It implies

analysis of feedback and correction of aim to more
accurately focus on our targets"

(154:692).

"In the

broadest sense, accountability in education means that
schools, administrators, and teachers are to be held
responsible for the improvement or lack of improvement
in the performance of their students"

(146:31).

Achieving

accountability, then, is dependent upon the prior deter­
mination and specification of educational objectives.
"Unless educators are willing to commit themselves to
a specific set of criteria, no complete and objective
evidence can be obtained indicating that students have
or have not attained them"

(31:16).

The importance of goals takes on additional
meaning with regard to their application to an

26
institution defined as a social organization.

Goals are

often viewed as static or constant; however, Thompson
and McEwen (165) analyze goals as dynamic variables
which are involved in various organizational interactions
and relationships.
Because the setting of goals is essentially a
problem of defining desired relationships between
an organization and its environment, change in
either requires review and perhaps alteration of
goals.
Even where the most abstract statement of
goals remains constant, application requires
redefinition or interpretation as changes occur
in the organization, the environment or both.
(165:188)
If the process and activity of an organizational system
has a dynamic quality about it, then, as Thompson and
McEwen point out, its goals and objectives will be
affected by that dynamic quality.

’’Goals appear to grow

out of interaction . . . and the difference between
effective and ineffective organizations may well lie
in the initiative exercised by those in the organization
who are responsible for goal-setting"
Clark

(25:500), Richardson

(165:196).

(133:516), and

Etzioni (39:6 & 59) discuss the importance of such
variables as n o rms, bel i e f s , o p i n i o n s , and goalorientations in the study of organizations.

They gen­

erally agree that no complete understanding of an
organization or the manner in which organizational
decisions are made is possible until the normative
structure is understood as well.

In order to better

27
understand the governance and decision-making process
of an institution, especially in view of recent attempts
to make such activities more participatory, it becomes
necessary to explore and understand the various goalorientations being brought to bear on it.
While this study does not constitute a systems
analysis of any particular university or of collegiate
institutions in general, a brief explanation of systems
concepts is warranted especially as such concepts may
relate to the functions of goals within social organi­
zations, particularly one as complex as a university.
Goals do not operate in a vacuum.
a particular context.

They are set within

The systems approach to under­

standing an organization "constitutes a statement about
relationships which must exist for an organization to
operate"

(39:17).

A systems orientation concerned with

effectiveness "defines a pattern of interrelations among
the elements of the system which would make it most
effective in the service of a given goal"

(39:19).

Any

measures taken to coordinate the diverse elements of a
college campus must recognize the importance of and be
based upon a good understanding of these "patterns of
interrelations."
The basic concepts of systems theory and their
application to collegiate organizations are currently
being given a great deal of consideration and attention.

28
Because of its recent application, systems theory is
considered by many to be a recent discovery.

But if a

social system is theoretically defined as, "The patterned
activities of a number of individuals where the activities
are complimentary or interdependent with respect to some
common output

(or set of objectives) and the activities

are repeated, relatively enduring, and bounded in space
and time,"

(70:17) then the notions of social system and

their application to colleges and universities have
earlier precedent.

Writers in the field of higher edu­

cation administration were discussing these same ideas
twenty years ago.
Wrenn

(1950), for example, discusses the relation­

ship which exists

(or should exist) between student per­

sonnel services and the larger university.
Once it is admitted that the college functions as
one agency in the development of the total person,
it becomes necessary to define the function of
student personnel services in the college organi­
zation.
These services complement (complete the
whole) rather than supplement (add to that which
is relatively complete) the instructional program
of the college. (184:24)
Wrenn recognizes the importance of conceptualiz­
ing a university organization as a unity of complimentary
parts. ' In this instance he emphasizes the need for a
complimentary relationship between the academicinstructional program and the student personnel program
of the collegiate organization.

Of more recent origin

is a statement found in the University Catalog of

29
Michigan State University.

"Michigan State University

functions as a unit, its colleges, divisions, and
departments serving one another.
independent of the other"

No single part is

(169:1).

If an organization is considered to be most
effective when each of its constituent parts make sig­
nificant contributions to the overall purposes of the
whole institution as a function of their complimentary
relationships,

then it becomes necessary to consider

seriously the relationship between organizational ele­
ments and their goal orientations.

The extent of goal

congruence between elements can be considered at least
one predictor of effective and productive organizational
relationships whether they be formal or informal.
At least one caution needs to be interjected at
this point.

Goal congruence should always be realisti­

cally considered as a matter of degree, especially when
discussing relationships between groups and individuals
within complex organizations.

An inordinate amount of

goal congruence might be an indication of a rather stag­
nant organization.

Conversely, an inordinate amount of

goal inpongruence can result in organizational dys­
function and consequent ineffectiveness.

It is axio­

matic that a certain balance and equilibrium must be
preserved

(161, 28).

30
Organization of the Study
In brief overview, this study is presented in
five chapters.

In Chapter I the problem is introduced

and explanations are offered regarding the importance
and need of the study, its nature and significance.
The general design, limitations, and purpose of the
study are discussed.

Chapter II consists of a review

of related literature and research.

The design of the

study, methodology, sampling, instrumentation, and the
collection and treatment of the data is included in
Chapter III.

Chapter IV is comprised of analysis and

interpretation of the data.

A summary, conclusions,

discussion, and recommendations are presented in
Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review the
related literature and research concerning the major
areas of interest pursued in this study.

The general

problem area of the study is concerned with

(1) the

issue of goals and objectives for higher education,
(2)

goal congruence between campus educators,

(3) the

need for greater integration and cooperation between
those persons within the collegiate organization who
are responsible for helping students achieve important
educational objectives, and

(4) the type of collegiate

environment or aspects of that environment which are
most supportive of goal achievement.

It is the specific

interest of this study' to relate these issues and con­
cerns to two groups of campus educators, the undergraduate
teaching faculty and student personnel workers.

Infor­

mation pertaining to both the general problem area and
the specific research interest of the study is included
in the present chapter.

31

32
The topics to be considered in this chapter and
the order of their presentation are indicated below.

An

introduction and summary are provided for each unit.
(1) The need and utility of goals and objectives in
higher education;
(2) The relationship between institutional goals and
the motivations of individuals within organi­
zations ;
(3) Opinions concerning appropriate goals and objec­
tives for higher education;
(4) The need for community in collegiate institutions,
especially as it relates to the achievement of
educational goals;
(5) Integration of the student personnel program and
the instructional program— a step toward com­
munity and greater effectiveness in helping stu­
dents achieve educational goals;
(6) A review of related empirical research— the con­
clusions and findings of empirical studies which
are related to the opinions and rhetoric found
in the professional literature concerning the
topical areas listed above.

33
The Need and Utility of Goals and
Objectives in Higher Education
Introduction
It is necessary to establish why the issue of
goals and objectives is important in and of itself.

The

functions of goals and their relation to organizational
activity is of interest at this point in the discussion.
As pointed out by Etzioni

(page 25 of Chapter I ) , goals

serve organizations in a number of ways.

They set guide­

lines and provide orientation, they constitute a source
of organizational legitimacy, and goals serve as evalu­
ative standards.

Goals can also serve to assist in

program planning and budgeting as evidenced by the
attention currently being given to such techniques as
PPBS and other systems procedures which depend in prin­
ciple upon the setting of goals and objectives as a pre­
requisite for function and form.
Goals:
Their Necessity
and Utility
Goals as Guidelines.— The most common rationale
for the need and importance of goals and objectives in
higher education is that they serve as guidelines and,
taken together, express what the general thrust of the
institution should be.

"Educational institutions need

clear and explicit goals statements to provide necessary

34
focus and direction"

(183:670).

Owen adds that, "Once

the university clearly sees its own role and adheres
to that role, it is in a better position to decide what
its priorities must be, what action to take or not to
take"

(112:187).

"Moreover, to function effectively,

goals and objectives must be clearly articulated and
receive support from the i n s t i t u t i o n s constituencies
in achieving them"
Hall

(183:670).

(1972) considers organizations, especially

universities, to be purposeful and because of this, goals
need to be considered important study variables.
If the concept of goals is not used, organizational
behavior becomes a random occurrence, subject to
whatever pressures and forces exist at any point in
time.
Since organizations have continuity and do
accomplish things, the notion of goals as abstrac­
tions around which behavior is organized remains
viable. (52:95)
The need for an institution to articulate its
goals in a coherent manner and the expressed need for
the overall membership of the organization to support
established goals can be considered valid goals in them­
selves if an institution is to be optimally effective.
Parsons identifies these organizational goals as "func­
tional imperatives" which must be internally achieved
if the organization's legitimate purposes are to be
realized

(117:234).

Peterson

(125) similarly observes

that it is essential for colleges and universities to
articulate their goals in order to give direction to

35
present and future work and to provide an ideology that
can nurture internal cooperation, communication, and
trust.

"The college without the inclination or will to

define itself, to chart a course for itself can look
forward either to no future— to a kind of half-life of
constantly responding to shifting pressures— or to a
future laid down by some external authority.
prospect pleases"

Neither

(125:11).

Gould (63) cautions against considering goals
and objectives for higher education as absolute and
summative statements.

He realistically and accurately

suggests that there will never be full agreement on
educational objectives, nor is consensus (in the absolute
sense) even desirable.

Gould does believe that, "There

can be clarity, however, as to what the institution means
and intends to do once it has charted its course.

With

this kind of clarity, the validity of the university's
goals, both the timely and the timeless, can and should
be the subject of a never-ending discussion"

(50:226).

Additionally, by allowing and encouraging the membership
of the university to participate in and influence goal
decisions on a continuous basis, there should be greater
loyalty to the goals on the part of participants

(25:358).

Goals and Institutional Planning.— Closely related
to the utility of goals as organizational guidelines is

36
the value of goals and objectives in the conduct of
institutional planning.

Winstead and Hobson state that:

At the present time, few activities are more impor­
tant to American higher education than systematic,
perceptive planning and decision making.
However,
many administrators are so fully occupied with
their own day-to-day pressures and unique responsi­
bilities that they often lose sight of the common
goals and total thrust of their institutions. . . .
One answer to the problem can be a clear statement
of goals measureable objectives derived from these
goals, and an administrative style that emphasizes
management to attain these objectives. (183:669)
Robinson (135)> Hungate (62), and Davidson (30)
each assert that institutional planning must be based on
the institution's goals.

Long-range planning, especially,

requires a knowledge of what the university is attempting
to accomplish as an institution.

If a university's

planning is not based on its educational goals,
inappropriate and inexpedient institutional development
must be considered a possible outcome.

Wallis

(171)

warns that universities and colleges need to be critical
of the expansion of their activities.
That an activity is worth doing and involves scien­
tists and science, or scholars and scholarship, is
not sufficient grounds for pursuing it in a uni­
versity.
It is not even sufficient ground for
concluding that the activity is not a menace to
the university which accommodates it. Universities
should, therefore, retain such responsibilities, or
accept new ones, only if they are compatible with
. . . the basic purposes of the universities, or if
they contribute substantially to activities that
are essential to these basic purposes. (171:49)
March and Simon (90) suggest that organizational
change and program development are best accomplished

37
through a process of rational decision-making which
closely aligns means with goals.

March and Simon empha­

size that the mere statement of general goalB is not
sufficient.

It is necessary to arrive at a point of

"concreteness” which allows for implementation (90:191).
"The greater the clarity of goals associated with an
activity, the greater the propensity to engage in it"
(116:185).
Although goal definition is more often thought of
as a prerequisite for planning, Wilson offers the idea
that more clearly understood goals can be the product
of planning as well.

"The exercise of planning is use­

ful as a means for reaching a consensus about goals and
how to arrive at them.

Through planning, appropriate

strategies can be devised to achieve some outcomes and
forestall others"

(181:39).

Because program development, planning, and goal
achievement are very often dependent upon or at least
linked with budgetary concerns, various suggestions have
been made to systematically incorporate these functions.
The appeal of such techniques as Planned Program Budget­
ing Systems

(PPBS) is that in principle they demand

close attention to institutional goals and objectives
as part of the planning and budgeting process
68:406).

(89:181,

Also implied in PPBS is fiscal accountability

since funding is related to program functions and

38
objectives and because the measurement of progress toward
reaching goals is also a part of the process

(46:73).

But even considering all of its theoretical
potential, PPB systems have not been entirely successful.
According to Dressel

(33), Silverman (154), and Jones

(68), they have failed because their most compelling
principles and greatest strengths have been ignored.
The emphasis has in practice been put on the "budget"
instead of the "planning."

PPBS has become an end in

itself, instead of a tool to assist sound educational
practice and attention to goals.

Its principles are

nonetheless instructive, however; especially with regard
to program planning, budgeting, and evaluation based on
specific goals and objectives.

It is this central

principle which allows for informed and purposeful
decision-making.
Institutional Goals and Societal Expectations.—
Hall

(52:24) and Parsons

(116:56) submit that the uni­

versity, like any other social organization, is directly
and indirectly influenced and altered by society.

Thomp­

son and McEwen contend that the goals of an institution
are at least in part determined by the interaction taking
place between the institution and its social environment
(165:188).

Thus, another important reason why uni­

versities should seek to define and specify their goals

39
and objectives is that it puts them in a better position
to explain and defend their essential social role and
substantiate their needs to the larger society.

Powell

asserts that:
The cause of the present crisis (criticism of higher
education) lies within our institutions:
in the
inability or unwillingness of those now making
decisions to confront and answer the question:
nWhat is this place for?u Our institutions have
lost any real sense of purpose and the increasingly
strong encroachments and pressures on our universi­
ties from the outside are symptoms of that loss
of purpose, not causes of it. (128:184)
Lee (82:15) suggests that too many universities
have played "the academic game of grantsmanship" whereby
universities "seeking the same prizes and badges of
prestige, conform to values which have been determined
by external forces."

McConnell asserts that such prac­

tices have caused universities to lose their individuality,
but more significantly they have sacrificed portions of
their autonomy (97:446).
Silverman states that,

"Our sophisticated, scien­

tific , production-oriented society is demanding a more
sophisticated, scientific, and production-oriented edu­
cational system"

(154:692).

Parsons submits, however,

that, "The university must depend on recognition of its
services as 'goods in themselves'

rather than on their

short run utility in the society"

(116:48).

The public

view and expectation are often at odds with this

40
sentiment, and is more often than not, a great deal less
patient (84:12).

But as Wallis points out, because or

even in spite of these realities:
The way to maintain an institution's coherence and
its control over its own priorities is not to try
to turn back the tides undermining our freedom and
independence (though perhaps we can at least stem
these tides), nor to flee into isolated ivory
towers (though perhaps we can clarify the division
of labor between universities and the rest of
society), but to define, to keep clearly in mind,
to explain within the university, and to assert
forcefully to the outside world the special pur­
poses and modes of action that maximize a uni­
versity's value to society. (172:183)
The question is not whether government, for
instance, should be involved in higher education, but
in what ways and to what extent institutions must be
responsive and responsible to society (82:8).

It seems

only logical that adequate answers to these questions
depend, at least in part, on the university having a
clearly understood sense of purpose and a set of goals
in mind.

And while it might be necessary for collegiate

institutions to "assert” what these purposes are to the
general public, a less militant, but equally important
obligation also exists.

The public is entitled to know

what the goals of higher education are and the university
would do well to regularly communicate as well as assert
its goals.
Evaluation Based on G o a l s .— Any attempt to eval­
uate the educational program of a collegiate institution

41
is clearly dependent upon a knowledge of what the program
is designed to accomplish.

The intended purpose of a

program is articulated best through its stated goals and
objectives.

These statements, interpreted as the intended

results, become the evaluative standards.
Reiner and Robinson contend that,
Accrediting agencies have for some time considered
the study of institutional goals to be a major
aspect of institutional evaluation.
Regional
accrediting associations have, in fact, taken the
position that evaluation in general should take
place entirely in the context of the goals a col­
lege or university sets for itself. (13 2:244)
Unfortunately, according to Fashing and Deutsch,

"It

remains a fact that few institutions have clearly
expressed and articulated goals against which they
might somehow measure their achievement"
McKeachie,

(41:15, 34:218).

in The American College

(1966), empha­

sizes that a consideration of goals is necessary for
evaluation.

He also relates accountability

effectiveness) to this issue.

(demonstrated

"The ultimate criteria

of effective teaching are changes in students, in the
direction of the goals of higher education.

Thus

research on college teaching begins with the consider­
ation of institutional objectives and the goals of the
courses"

(99:313)•
The educational goals and objectives of higher

education should have immediate relevance for the indi­
vidual student so that he may evaluate his own learning.

42
Mayhew states that, "The institution should make clear
and explicit the expectations it holds for its students"
(95:211).

Dressel contends that objectives are not only

necessary for the planning and evaluation of instruction,
"They are essential for the guidance of the learning
student"

(36:51).

Institutional Goals and the Motivations
of Individuals Within the Organization
Up to this point, the issue of goals and objec­
tives for higher education has been discussed in terms of
necessary organizational functions and activities.

Before

considering the topic of which goals are important for
higher education, attention will be directed to the issue
of the relationship between institutional goals and indi­
viduals in the organization.

It should be recognized

that a critical juncture for the full utilization of
goals and objectives is at the point of implementation
in the day-to-day activities of the organization.
Simon contends that there is a relationship
between the stated goals of an institution and the indi­
vidual motivations of persons working in organizational
settings.

Simon conceives of goals as value premises

that serve as imputs to decisions.

He distinguishes

this from goals as a set of future objectives
But Simon also allows that.

(155:165).

43
Organizational personnel may adjust goals by making
them more realistic; or the organization's original
goals may be neglected without being changed
officially and the organization may develop alter­
native or competing goals which are more in line
with the interests of its staff. (155:155)
Perrow describes this same discrepancy between
stated and alternative goals as the difference between
official goals and operative goals.
Official goals are the general purposes of the
organization as put forth in the charter, annual
reports, public statements, and other authorative
pronouncements. . . . Operative goals designate the
ends sought through the actual operating policies
of the organization; they tell us what the organi­
zation actually is trying to do, regardless of
what the official goals say are the aims. (122:855)
Along similar lines, Presthus

(129) contends that

organizations have both manifest and latent goals.

The

manifest goals correspond with what Perrow identifies as
official goals.

"Latent or 'unofficial' goals include

all the aspirations of organizational members for
security, recognition, and self-regulation.

Such latent

goals and methods used to gain them are often regarded
as aberrations.
ends"

(129:4).

They seem to subvert organizational
This is the implication which Perrow

expresses in his discussion

(122).

offers an alternative explanation.

However, Presthus
He makes the "major

assumption" that not only are "such aspirations legiti­
mate, but they often help the organization achieve its
manifest goals"

(129:4).

44
Getzels and Guba conceive of organizations as
being "composed of two classes of phenomena which are,
simultaneously, independent conceptually as well as phe­
nomenally interactive"

(161:168).

The first class of

phenomena is the institution's expectations and roles
aimed at meeting the goals of the system.

"The second

class of phenomena is the individuals, each having cer­
tain personalities and needs dispositions, and whose
interactions make up group behavior"

(161:168).

Getzels and Guba make the important point in
their theoretical model that the goals of the institution
and individual needs are conceptually independent.

The

most important point made by these authors, however, is
that there is interaction between the two.

Hall tends

to support this observation when he states that, "Even
though there is not perfect correspondence, operative
goals are generally based on official goals"

(52:87).

It is the contention of Getzels and Guba that,
"The social behavior of an individual results as he
attempts to cope with an environment made up of patterns
of expectations for behavior in ways that are consistent
with his own independent pattern of needs"

(161:171).

Thus, if there is a good amount of correlative inter­
action between institutional expectations and the indi­
vidual needs-dispositions of organizational members, as
Presthus contends, then the purposes of the institution
will be correspondingly and effectively met.

45
Sills

(152) in his discussion of the succession

of goals based on an analysis of goal-directed organi­
zations states that, "The day-to-day activities within
an organization generate loyalties and commitments on
the part of participants to the organization itself.
These loyalties and commitments may not in any way relate
to the finite goals of the organization"

(152:176).

Selznick presents a similar argument (148:49).

These

observations tend to support and at least partially
explain the conclusions of Simon and Perrow, who also
indicate that the actual operating goals of an organi­
zation may not reflect official goals.
The important aspect of Sills' discussion, how­
ever, is not that of goal displacement, but of goal
succession.

The loyalty of an organization's membership

to the organization itself allows the organization to
make necessary goal transitions.

Xn short, the organi­

zation has the internal strength and capacity to change
and develop in the face of changing circumstances

(152:

177, 153:64).
Unintended as well as intended goal alterations
decided within organizations are a consequence of the
interactions of members who participate in the goalsetting process

(52:95, 155).

This understanding coupled

with the concept that there are differences between
"official" and "operative" goals

(122, 155) helpB to

46
explain conflicting goals and different emphases placed
on goals in the activity of an organization.

These active

dynamics suggest certain difficulties in attempts to
implement goals and objectives in an institution of
higher education.

It is, after all, only reasonable

to assume, especially in large and complex organizations
having multiple goals, that interpretation of and commit­
ment to established institutional objectives will vary
according to the personnel and circumstances within the
organization.
This realization is not a justification for
retreating from the issue of goals and objectives, how­
ever.

What is suggested is that in the study of goals

and objectives, these complexities and complications
need to be recognized.

Merely studying the formally

stated goals of a college or a university will prove
to be insufficient.

The goals and objectives which

individuals perceive to be important are of at least
equal importance in gaining an understanding of a par­
ticular institution.

Additionally, if it is true as has

been suggested that the interaction between individuals
and between groups on a given campus influences official
and alternative g o a l s , then some attention must be given
to organizational relationships as well.

47
Summary
Goals and objectives serve organizations in a
number of important w a y s .

Taken together they serve as

guidelines and thus provide necessary direction for
organizational activity.

Goals and objectives can be

utilized as an abstract mechanism for cohesion within
an organization.

A coherent and well-developed set of

institutional goals and objectives assists a university
in its relationship with the external environment in
terms of self-preservation and understanding of appro­
priate service.

Goals are necessary for evaluating pro­

gram effectiveness when used as descriptors of intended
results.

In order for students to fully understand what

the learning expectations of the university are, the
institution must be able to communicate what its goals
and objectives are in relevant terms.

Additionally,

when goals and objectives are seriously considered,
institutional planning and program development can be
conducted more purposefully, rationally, and to greater
effect.

There is a perceptible agreement among profes­

sional writers in the literature of higher education
that colleges and universities must go to greater lengths
to clarify institutional goals.

And finally due to the

fact that the operational goals of the institution may
not be the same as the official goals of the institution,
or more critically, may be in conflict with the

48
i n s t i t u t i o n ^ goals, it is important to know what values
organizational members place on various educational goals
and objectives.
Because the issue of goals and objectives is
directly related to essential organizational functions
and purposes, goals and objectives are also necessary
considerations in attempts to make institutions of higher
education more accountable to the public, but more importantly to themselves.
within the university

Greater attention to accountability
(which depends initially on an

understanding of what the university is attempting to
accomplish) should help to resolve the issue of accounta­
bility to external forces, by making the university or
college a more demonstrably effective enterprise from
within.
Opinions Concerning Appropriate Goals and
Objectives for Higher Educatioii
Introduction
Any discussion of goals and objectives for
higher education must finally confront the issue of
which goals colleges and universities should set for
themselveB.

The whole idea that colleges and universi­

ties should declare and clarify their goals and attempt
to implement them in a coordinated and integrated manner
is important in and of itself, but the concept remains
incomplete until the specific nature of the goals and

49
objectives is understood.

It is the unique quality of

the goals and objectives of higher education that dis­
tinguishes higher education from other social insti­
tutions and organizations.

Furthermore,

it is necessary

to know which goals are considered to be important
because the type and extent of integration and coordi­
nation within the organization is dependent upon which
goals are under consideration.
The following is an examination of various
opinions concerning the purposes and goals of higher
education.

It is not within the scope of this paper

nor is it feasible to make absolute and summative con­
clusions as to which educational goals and objectives
are most important to the overall purposes of colleges
and universities.

The intent is to explore the range

of opinions which reflect current thinking on the matter.
However, the issue of goals and objectives is extremely
value-laden and the researcher makes no pretense that the
presentation excludes his own values.
Goals for Higher Education
In very general terms, the central purpose of
higher Education can be stated as,

"The preservation,

transmittal, and enrichment of the culture by means of
instruction, scholarly work, and scientific research"
(4:1).

Case declares that the primary aims of the

university are:

(1) to assist its students in

50
preparation for the lives they will lead as men and women,
(2) to advance knowledge through research, and

(3) to

make the expertise of its faculty available to society
in the search for solutions to society*s current and
future problems

(21:451),

more simple approach.

Pusey takes a similar but

"A modern university has two

principal activities— teaching and research"

(131:19).

Banta is a bit more expressive when he defines,
goals of higher education as:

1. learning,

"The

2. development

of standards for judging the merits of ideas and the
selection of worthy problems and, 3. appreciation of
the fundamentally human basis for the development of
knowledge"

(12:435).

Mullaney explains the purpose of

the university in terms of service to society although
his explanation is, at the very least, controversial.
Mullaney believes that the university as a corporate
body should become a social-political interest group
in society and should directly attempt to rectify
existing wrongs

(105:628).

Condensed and taken together, these statements
of purpose can be summarized into three categories:
teaching, research, and public service.

However, while

generally describing the purposes of higher education,
the problem is that they are too general.
The three commonly stated goals of colleges and
universities are almost by definition too vague
to serve as much of a guide for organizational
analysis or practice.
In the light of contemporary

51
reality, it can also be seen that they have become
essentially incompatible in practice.
Universities
and colleges tend to concentrate on one of the
three goals to the exclusion of others. (52:81)
Both the unequal emphasis given to the goals of
the university and the fact that they are quite often
stated and acted upon too generally present specific
problems for the student and his education.

Vague and

general goals can become meaningless in practice.
important question is raised in this regard.

An

"If goals

and procedures are not c l e a r , what assurance does the
student have that his legitimate needs and desires will
be satisfied?"

(1:532)

The other question dealing with

the relative priorities given to institutional goals is
just as important.

Depending upon the dominant values

of the institution, the individual student may discover
that he is of only secondary importance to the university.
Pace asserts that, "In most large universities
the dominant value, rewards, and prestige are associated
with research and scholarly productivity"

(114:92).

Arrowsmith (9) concurs with Pace and believes that
because of this situation the teaching function and the
students have been ignored.

He urges that educators

reorder their priorities so that, "significant teaching
and fresh energy in academic institutions may eventually
make scholarship human again, and an invigorated scholar­
ship may once again accept the burden of teaching as the
source of its vigor and the test of its wisdom"

(9:133).

52
Kerr

(76) discusses current collegiate emphases

and practices which indicate that some educational goals
related to student learning have either been displaced
or ignored.

Kerr notes:

Recent changes in the American university have done
them (undergraduate students) little good— lower
teaching loads for the faculty, larger classes, the
use of substitute teachers for the regular faculty,
the choice of faculty members based on research
accomplishments rather than instructional capacity,
the fragmentation of knowledge into endless sub­
divisions,
There is an incipient revolt of under­
graduate students against the faculty; the revolt
that used to be against the faculty in loco paren­
tis is now against the faculty in absentia. (96:103)
U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield states:
I am convinced in many instances that modern uni­
versities are not certain of their tasks. . . . The
intense concentration of federal funds and research
programs has given a high priority and influence
to the training of "technicians" and to the imple­
mentation of knowledge that can serve the govern­
ment and society generally.
But in this entire
process, where do the priorities fall— upon
obtaining research grants, serving the federal
government, and contributing to the corporate
economy or upon really enriching the human lives
of the students at the university? The answer is
not necessarily either/or.
It is a matter of
balance. (69:82)
Dorothy A. Arata, an Assistant Provost at Michigan
State University, alludes to the kind of balance which
is appropriate in a university.

She does not minimize

technical training, but rather puts it into perspective.
Arata states that,

"A major university seeks not to

train engineers, for example, but seeks to produce
informed citizens who have an engineering competence"
(8:1-C).

She further states in the same article that

53
on a strictly "cost effective basis" the philosophy
department should be dropped from the curriculum.
she seriously questions whether,

But

"we can have something

called a university without a philosophy department"
(8:4-C).
As Hatfield suggests, the impression should not
be left that such functions as research are unimportant.
Research will and should remain an important purpose of
higher education.
new knowledge,

It relates directly to the pursuit of

service to society, and it can relate to

the education of students.

The problem is one of empha­

sis or the lack of any relationships between research
and other purposes of the university, most notably that
of teaching

(82:7).

As Romine states,

"There is no

necessary dichotomy between teaching and research, but
the collegiate institution must through its reward system
place higher value on excellence in teaching"

(138:278),

Yet, even the goal "to teach" does not demand by its
definition the more student-oriented goal "to learn."
As Paschal points out, "every good teacher, including
Socrates, has known that the institution should emphasize
learning, not teaching"

(120:220),

Schwab in his discussion of the goals which need
to be emphasized in the college curriculum states that:
The need is for a curriculum which, through and
through, requires competence of looking, listening
and reading with respect to form and structure,
coherence and cogency; which provides adequate

54
occasions for the development of these competences;
which rewards their development.
This will require
such a sweeping shift of emphasis that the tra­
ditional preoccupation with what the student knows
will be at least coordinate with concern for how
critically he knows and how well he can master the
new. (145:48)
Axelrod and Freedman contend that:
The standard model for learning has been based on
outdated and inaccurate notions of how human beings
learn.
It regards teaching primarily as telling,
and learning primarily as receiving and repeating.
The new models are attempting to redefine teaching
and learning.
They ask the professor to be, and
act like, a better learner. And they ask the
learner to participate in the teaching process,
arguing that this is a way of becoming a better
student.
In the new models, therefore, teaching
and learning are seen not as different processes,
but as a single process of cooperative inquiry.
(1 1 :86 )
Hinrichs and Miller suggest,

"Like so many other

things carried over from the dead or dying past, the
equation of education equals instruction is hopelessly
inadequate in contemporary education"

(59:315).

Martin

contends that:
What is said in class by the professor becomes less
important than what is heard by the student.
The
number of lectures given, and amount of material
covered, and the procedures and arrangements
employed are significant only to the extent that
they help students find self-identity and develop
a capacity for good judgment.
This is the end to
which knowledge is the means. (93:22)
' Education conceived as the simple transmission of
knowledge is thus seen as inadequate and most certainly
incomplete.

Education which helps the student to develop

his learning skills and personal resources in order to

55
cope with change in himself and in his social environment
offers much greater possibilities.

Tyler speaks of the

"knowledge explosion" and the problems it presents:
Not only are the number of facts increasing at a
rapid rate, but new discoveries change the meanings
and implications of many of the facts which were
previously known.
Hence, memorizing huge numbers
of facts today will not provide adequate under­
standing for tomorrow.
Students who are crammed
full in this way will find several years hence that
they have a mixture of information and misinformation
rather than an adequate background to understand
our changing world and to use its material, intel­
lectual and esthetic resources effectively.
(168:145)
Although the original stimulus for the development
of the college student personnel movement was partially
a protest against the German-born intellectualism of the
late 19th Century with its abandonment of a personal
concern for students and partially a result of the find­
ings of the psychology of individual differences during
the second decade of the present century (4:2, 157),

the

four basic principles espoused in The Student Personnel
Point of View

(1937 and 1949) remain quite valid today.

They are:
1.

2.
3.
4.

Each individual student must be considered as
a whole, with central concern given for all
aspects of his well-rounded development—
physically, socially, emotionally and spirit­
ually, as well as intellectually.
Each student is recognized as unique and must
be treated as an individual.
The total environment of the student is edu­
cative and must be utilized for his fullest
development.
The major responsibility for a student*s growth
in personal and social wisdom rests with the stu­
dent and his own personal resources. (130:1)

56
Sanford

(142) in apparent agreement with these

principles, feels that the student should be restored
to his rightful place at the center of the college's
activities.

He explains:

In arguing for individual development as the pri­
mary aim of education, I consider that I am largely
restating in contemporary terms the philosophy of
humanistic education. . . .
(This philosophy) is
still boldly stated in college catalogs and com­
mencement addresses, even though it tends to be
ignored in practice as students are increasingly
abandoned in favor of specialized scholarship and
often trivial research.
I argue that there is a
critical need for a reaffirmation of this phil­
osophy, for it is only through individual develop­
ment that a person can maintain his humanity and
become truly useful in our technological, postcapitalistic society. (142:xv)
Hook defines a liberal education, whose ideals he
considers to be "perennially valid," as:

an education

whose curriculum has been designed to help students
develop those powers and resources— intellectual,
emotional, cultural— that will enable them to acquire
in a greater or lesser measure (61):
1.
2.
3.
4.

A perspective on the events of their time with
which to meet the challenges of present and
future experience.
A constellation of values or a set of meanings
or a calling or a developing center around which
to organize their lives.
The knowledge, ideals, and techniques necessary
for them adequately to perform their duties as
free citizens .of a free society.
A cultivated sensibility and inner landscape
so that they can live a rich and significant
personal life in a continuous process of selfeducation.

57
The general theme of Chickering1s Education and
Identity is quite consistent with the liberal education
tradition and like Sanford (141, 142), Chickering argues
that the individual student* s growth and development
should be the primary aim of higher education.

He con­

tends that, "In twentieth-century society, where change
is the only sure thing, not socialization but identity
formation becomes the central and continuing task of
education” (24:92).
It does not suffice, however, to merely state
that the aim of higher education should be the development
of individual students or that as a result of a liberal
education the student should have developed those skills
and resources which make him a personally competent and
socially productive member of society.

It is essential

to consider specifically what these skills are and what
full personal development actually means.

"The big task

for higher education now is to make clear what a stu­
dent must achieve in growth of knowledge,

judgment,

and intellectual competence, and to devise means to
assess his achievement"

(120:222).

Goal specification

and clarification becomes critical to this task.
Chickering offers insight into what a fullyfunctioning and well-developed person is.

He states

that, "The major constellations of development during
early adulthood encompass seven major areas.

They are

58
called vectors of development because each seems to have
direction and magnitude"

(24:8).

These vectors, while

discussed separately, must finally be appreciated in the
sense that they are parts of an integral whole.

The

seven developmental vectors are:
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

7.

Achieving Competence - intellectual, physical,
social and interpersonal competence.
Managing Emotions - the ability to understand
and utilize emotions.
Becoming Autonomous - the ability to be an
independent person while recognizing that
interdependence is the capstone of autonomy.
Establishing Identity - the self or person one
feels oneself to be, the ability to understand
oneself and use that understanding for effec­
tive living.
Freeing Interpersonal Relationships - increased
tolerance, increased capacity to respond to
other persons.
Clarifying Purposes - ability to answer the
questions of "Who am I?" and "Who am I going
to be?" and "Where am I?" and "Where am I
going?"
Developing Integrity - the clarification of a
personally valid set of beliefs that have some
personal consistency and provide at least a
tentative guide for behavior, personal con­
gruence. (24:8-17)
It is interesting to note that Chickering chose

to depict his aspects of a well-developed personality
as verbs.

Chickering offers a model, an ideal model,

of what an effective individual strives to become.
Because a person cannot become fully developed and per­
fectly integrated does not detract from the usefulness
of such typologies or models of human effectiveness.
Models are important because they can provide value
constructs upon which educational goals and procedures

59
can be based.

An understanding of these values on the

part of educators is necessary if they are to appre­
ciate man in the Rogerian

(Carl Rogers)

sense as being

involved in a "process of becoming? a process of achiev­
ing worth and dignity through the development of his
potentialities"
Heath

(136:448),

(57) discusses four hallmarks or salient

characteristics of the well-developed person.

The four

are:
1.
2.
3.

4.

Intellectuality (a playing with ideas),
Depth of interpersonal relationships,
Negative capability (the capability of being
in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without
any irritable reaching after fact and reason)
and,
Autonomy based upon inner form (identity or
sense of selfhood based on a realistic per­
ception of the more intrinsic aspects of the
personality). (57:216)

Heath states that, "The underdeveloped person, the
immature personality, when pressed must retreat to
symbiotic attachments or to other structures not of
his own making"

(57:217).

The well-developed person,

"Must use all his powers to find union with the world,
rather than to find security through submission or domi­
nation"

(47:xiii).
'Axelrod and Freedman (11), who advocate education

for individual development,

identify independence,

creativity, and responsibility as the three character­
istics of an educated person.

According to the authors,

60
these characteristics, although admittedly qualitative
and not easily measured, should be the goals and expected
outcomes of a higher education.
1.

2.

3.

They are defined as:

Independence — At the very least it means that
students will have to acquire the knowledge
needed to overcome dogma; they must get practice
in criticism; they must develop the self-esteem
and confidence that will enable them to resist
pressures of authority and of the immediate
social group; and they have to become sufficiently
aware of themselves that they will be liberated
from the deeper sources of their prejudices.
. . . Such a goal depends upon a general climate
of freedom in the university, and it depends
upon the presence of some models of independent
thinking.
Creativity - A cluster of traits including flex­
ibility of thinking, breadth of perspective,
autonomy, self-awareness, openness to experience,
breadth of interest, and freedom to impulse.
Creative behavior requires that an individual
have diverse experiences to give him a wide
assortment of images and perspectives that he
can connect in original ways.
Early speciali­
zation, overemphasis on training for a profes­
sion, and rigid curriculums impede the develop­
ment of creativity.
Responsibility - Fully developed persons will be
concerned about the public welfare.
Individual
development does not imply self-centeredness.
Social responsibility is learned through cooper­
ative association with other persons in group
situations.
In the conduct of its affairs and
its relationships with students the university
can serve as a socially responsible value model
for students. (11:27-43)

Axelrod and Freedman add that,

"Although these qualities

depend in part on early experiences, college can develop
them further and in new ways"
Maslow
Barron

(11:12).

(94), Allport (3), Rogers

(137), and

(13) provide additional models which incorporate

those characteristics associated with the effective

61
personality.

It is these characteristics which are con­

sidered to be the specific and valid goals for higher
education by developmental educators.

Blocher

(15) has

attempted to synthesize the ideas presented in these
models.

He categorizes these ideas into five sets of

characteristics or clusters of behavior:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Consistency - The effective person is reasonably
consistent in his behavior both within social
roles through time and across social roles.
The element of consistency is based upon a
well-integrated sense of personal identity,
that gives direction and unity to behavior.
Commitment - The effective person is able to
commit himself to goals and purposes. He is
able to take reasonable, calculated risks of
psychological, economic, and physical kinds in
order to move toward desired goals.
He is
able, on occasion, to commit himself to selftranscending values that give meaning and pur­
pose to his life and so protect him from "exis­
tential despair” or obsessive fear of death.
Control - The effective person is able to con­
trol his emotional impulses and responses.
He
is able to accept the unalterable and inevitable
without emotional responses that are inappropriate
in nature or intensity.
He is particularly able
to cope with frustration, ambiguity, and hos­
tility without such emotional responses.
Competence - The effective person has available
a wide range of coping behaviors.
He is an
effective problem-solver. He has a repertory
of effective interpersonal understandings for
dealing with his environment in both vocational
and avocational roles.
He is able to master
environment within the limits of the possibili­
ties available to him.
Creativity - The effective person is capable of
thinking in original and divergent ways.
He
does not stifle ideas and impulses that are
unconventional or novel.
Perceptually, he is
sensitive to relationships and distinctions
that are hidden. (15:81)
Implicit in student development points of view

is the interaction between cognitive and affective

62
learning.

Dressel states that,

"Failure to relate the

cognitive and the affective is simply an indication of
unwillingness to take a stand on what constitutes good
education,

...

The objectives in the cognitive and

affective domains are not separable.
always involves both elements"

Educated behavior

(35:403-05).

"Higher

education is concerned with personal and social develop­
ment as well as with the acquisition of knowledge and
intellectual skills.

The development of character and

the development of intellect cannot really be separated,
for we teach a person, not an abstraction called intel­
lect"

(114:96).

This corresponds with a statement found

in the University Catalog of Michigan State University.
While the principle function of the University is
to provide a suitable intellectual environment for
students through classrooms, laboratories, and
stimulating teachers, it is recognized that the
total development of the individual— personal,
social, and physical as well as intellectual— is
of equal importance. (169:41)
The cognitive-affective argument is an argument
between a restricted and a more comprehensive appreci­
ation of what constitutes learning and which goals
should be considered important.

Pace states that:

Growth in knowledge and understanding, intellectual
skills and interests, heightened awareness, appre­
ciation, values, attitudes, citizenship, moral
sensitivity, and activities of students as pro­
ducers and consumers "of the good life”— all these
and more are commonly discussed among the objectives
of higher education.
Yet such a broad range of
goals is seldom dealt with in systematic evalu­
ations of higher education. . . . As this country
approaches more or less universal higher education,

63
evaluations based on a single criterion (i.e.,
assumed or measured intellectuality) not only are
increasingly inadequate, but may lead to a dis­
torted national perspective on the different roles
and differential effectiveness of higher education's
institutions. (113:674)
As mentioned previously, the three general pur­
poses of higher education are teaching, research, and
public service.

It is the latter purpose which presents

unique problems for collegiate institutions.

It is in

the service of this goal that universities must confront
the issue of their proper relationship with society.
Hart (54), Margolis

(91), and Mullaney

(105) assert

forcefully that higher education is and should be
involved directly in the current affairs of society.
The vast development of community colleges

(166) and

the historic establishment of land grant colleges

(18:

660) are often used as examples of how the goals of
collegiate institutions are inextricably and directly
related to the needs and purposes of American society.
Whiting

(178), Hook (61), and Truman (167)

present strong arguments against universities involving
themselves directly in the current affairs of society
without seriously considering the ramifications of such
involvement.

Each of these writers suggest that uni­

versities serve society best in an indirect rather than
in a direct manner.

Wilson, in an article entitled,

"Higher Education and the National Interest" states:

64
Colleges and universities, to be sure, share heavily
in a common obligation to create a greater society
and a better world, but to do so they must be rela­
tively free to shape as well as serve, to criticize
as well as innovate.
To be of maximum value, they
cannot become government agencies; rather they
must be upheld and improved as intellectual insti­
tutions. (181:42)
Adams in an article entitled,

"The Essential

Reconciliation— Academic Tradition and Societal Service,"
states that,
Colleges and universities are not custodians of the
old order, perpetuators of the proven, or curators
of the established.
They are dynamic, open-minded
ventures, selective of the past, critical of the
present, and oriented to the future. . . . There is
everything sacred about educational purpose, spe­
cifically a purpose that brings into reconciliation
the competing demands for academic tradition and
societal service. (2:389)
Kenniston believes that higher education should
serve a critical function in society.

He also feels that

this critical role as one of the purposes or goals of
higher education should be more pronounced than it is
presently

(75:145).

"Criticism is distinguished from

simple analysis and description by the presence of
judgment.

. . . Criticism implies commitment to a

position, and its natural consequence is action"

(75:

146) .
Kenniston does make a clear and important dis­
tinction in this matter of the critical function, however.
Like many other writers who discuss the purpose and goals
of higher education as they relate to social service or
to the needs and expectations of society generally,

65
Kenniston defends the need for the university to remain
independent.

Direct involvement in the affairs of

society can amount to direct entanglement and subject
the university to all the vagaries and shifting winds
of society.

Regarding this point of view, Kenniston

writes:
The tasks of the individual university as an organi­
zation must be distinguished from the functions of
higher education:
the main task of the former is
to maintain a climate in which among other things,
the critical spirit can flourish.
If individual
universities as organizations were to align them­
selves officially with specific critical positions,
their ability to defend the critical function itself
would be undermined. . . . The critical purpose must
be carried out by the membership of the university
either individually or in groups.
The task of a
university as an organization, then, is to be neu­
tral, objective, and dispassionate in order to pre­
serve an atmosphere in which students and faculty
members can discuss, evaluate, criticize, judge,
commit themselves, and, when they choose act.
(75:161)
Proponents of student development interpret the
reconciliation between academic tradition and societal
service in terms of what they consider to be the most
important ’’product" of higher education— the student.
In a chapter with the interrogative title,

"Whose Goals

Are Important Around Here?" Werdell suggests that,

"If

American colleges and universities are to take teaching
seriously, they must provide space for student develop­
ment, they must make the private needs and concerns of
students a dominant thrust in their policy"

(176:19).

66
Werdell does not consider this emphasis to be in conflict
with the university*s responsibility to serve society.
The greatest public service higher education can
perform is to develop persons prepared to help solve
society's problems— who can articulate new needs,
develop new directions of learning and doing, and
chart new goals.
Only they will be able to assume
new roles as old ones become obsolete.
Only those
who gained confidence in their own identity and
direction can chart new goals for society.
The
challenge is to develop self-directed learners.
(176:32)
Today's is a mass society in which it is diffi­
cult to develop a sense of personal power.
Yet it
is only through self-renewal of the individual that
a mass society can develop social mechanisms for its
self-renewal.
Higher education cannot provide
reform of the entire society, but its institutions
can prepare students to deal with other institutions
that can tackle large problems. (176:30)
Sanford

(142) similarly argues that the public

welfare is dependent upon the social responsibility of
individuals.

He not only defends the importance of

individual development on grounds of educational phil­
osophy, but associates it with the principles of a
democratic society not unlike those espoused by John
Stuart Mill

(101) in Mill's defense of the primacy of

the individual in a democracy.

Sanford states that,

"Although we wrote mainly about personal development (in
The American College, 1962), we assumed, as did the
Declaration of Independence,

that fully developed indi­

viduals would naturally be concerned about the public
welfare"

(142:67).

Existentialists profess a similar

confidence, in the individual who is aware of himself and
the world in which he lives

(143:16, 103:17).

67
The assumption which Sanford makes is worthy
of some n o t e .

It is assumed that a well-developed indi­

vidual will be predisposed to behavior which might be
valued as good, in this case social responsibility and
a concern for the welfare of others.

Furthermore, San­

ford does not specify his educational goal as one which
would determine the individual to be moral or g o o d , the
goal is to help individuals develop their personal skills,
insight, and abilities.

Education so conceived does not

determine for the individual what to think, it is to
help the individual develop the capacity to think
rationally and intelligently— a capacity which has been
described as including affective and cognitive thought
processes.

In accepting this, there is revealed a con­

fidence in the individual and a respect for his worth.
Dressel takes this same approach in regard to values
and critical thinking.
Actual change in values must be left to the indi­
vidual, with higher education emphasizing change
in the direction of greater insight into one's
value system and its relation to those of other •
persons and cultures, supplemented by re-examination
and possible modification as a result of that
insight. . . . Critical thinking abilities are not
developed by learning the conclusions reached by
other thinkers. (36:44)
In returning to Sanford's assumption that a welldeveloped person would naturally be concerned about the
public welfare, an examination of Dewey's philosophy
offers further insight.

Dewey correlates education with

68
the personal growth of the individual whose growth allows
for greater and continuing growth (32).

In his dis­

cussion, Dewey does not ignore the question of moral
values.

His example of the "burglar” is illuminating.

That a man may grow in efficiency as a highly
expert burglar, or as a gangster, or as a corrupt
politician cannot be doubted.
But from the stand­
point of growth as education and education as
growth the question is whether growth in this
direction promotes or retards growth in general.
Does this form of growth create conditions for
further growth, or does it set up conditions that
shut off the person who has grown in this particu­
lar direction from the occasions, stimuli, and
opportunities for continuing growth in new direc­
tions?
I shall leave you to answer these questions,
saying simply that when and only when development
in a particular line conduces to continuing growth
does it answer to the criterion of education as
growing. (32:36)
Such propositions are not particularly susceptible
to scientific proof.

They are philosophical positions

concerning the nature of men.

It is, however, necessary

for educators to adopt such a stance if they are to be
optimistic and have confidence in their work to help
individuals become self-sufficient and capable of making
their own decisions.

If there is no such confidence

in the enlightened, educated, and well-developed person
who is capable of continued growth, then the only real
alternative is to make education deterministic and p r o­
scribe for individuals what they are to think, before
they think, based on the prejudices and biases of their
professors.

69
Summary
Contemporary writers and critics are devoting no
small amount of attention to the issue of goals and
objectives for higher education.

An especially contro­

versial area is the subject of goals which are related
to the social service function of universities.

Of

greatest concern is the issue of institutional autonomy
which is considered threatened by the uncritical accep­
tance of funds from various agencies which have the
potential to monitor and control the priorities of higher
education and in so doing may alter the university's
creative and critical roles.

Various writers have also

pointed out that in over-emphasizing research and the
training of technicians in the service of the federal
government or the corporate economy, goals related to
student learning and scholarship may be correspondingly
de-emphasized.

Most debates concerning goals do not

deny that teaching, research, and public service are
appropriate purposes for higher education, but the dif­
ficult question of balance is being posed with greater
frequency and urgency.
Of particular interest to this writer is the
emphasis currently being given to the discussion of
goals and objectives which relate directly to student
learning and development.

There is the growing recog­

nition in at least some segments of the academic

70
community that such goals need to be accentuated and
their priorities reestablished.

It is further recog­

nized that in order to be meaningful, student development
goals need to be clarified.

Although the personal growth

and development of students is best understood through
an appreciation of the individual in holistic terms,
consideration must be given to those specific aspects
of the individual personality which when taken together
and in relation constitute the whole person.

Goals and

objectives need to be developed in accordance with such
an understanding.

Additionally, although not easily

accomplished, colleges and universities need to develop
means to evaluate a student's progress in attaining
these goals.
The Need for Community in Colleges
and Universities
Introduction
The issue of the need and importance for goals
in higher education is amplified and expanded when the
context or setting in which they need to be implemented
is considered.

This setting is variously described as

the organizational climate,

the university environment,

or the academic community.

The issue of goals and

objectives is closely related to the concept of the uni­
versity viewed as a unique and purposeful social organi­
zation or as a community of shared purposes.

71
The necessity of community is not predicated
merely on a desire for warm and friendly feelings and
it is most certainly not intended to eliminate productive
conflict.

Nor is community necessarily contradicted

by inevitable specialization and division of labor.

The

need for community is based on the principle that com­
munity incorporates in its definition and demonstrates
by its activity a sense of common endeavor, constructive
interaction, communication and openness.

If a condition

of community exists, it presents a more viable situation
for the attainment of goals and objectives,

their develop­

ment and clarification.
The University Community
Truman is not encouraging in his assessment of
the contemporary university community.

He contends

that it is a "non-community of non-educators"
"A basic element of academic life,

(167:8).

the existence of the

college or university as a community of scholars, has in
the past twenty-five years all but disappeared in fact
and is now more nearly an empty label"

(167:6).

Truman

contends that the community actually consists of
unrelated parts not necessarily concerned about the
total organization.

Kerr concurs with this sentiment

when he defines the university as a multiversity which
is essentially an "inconsistent institution having many
purposes and goals quite possible unrelated"

(76:18).

72
Corson offers four reasons for the absence of
community within institutions of higher education:
1.

Professors have less identity to the insti­
tution and more to their own academic specialty

2.

There has been an increase in the politicali­
zation of the university.

3.

Autonomy has been gradually eroded, and

4.

There has been an undermining of leadership
due to complex organization quasi-legal pro­
cedures, and large powerful faculties.
(27:433-35).

The most significant force might possibly be the first.
The increased emphasis on specialization has
strengthened the professor's identification with
his discipline rather than his institution (and
institutional goals). Coupled with the essential
independence of the intellectual way of life,
this has tended to erode the social cement essen­
tial to organizational effectiveness— the mutual
trust that derives from a complimentary relation­
ship among colleagues in an enterprise. (27:433)
In an apparent departure from his other works
dealing with organizational structure and management.
Parsons almost glorifies the lack of interdependence
and the extent of decentralization in collegiate organi­
zations as the essence of academic freedom

(118:486).

Few would argue with Parson*s view that a great deal of

73
freedom must exist in a university climate.

In charac­

terizing a university as a "professional" organization,
Etzioni states:
The autonomy granted to professionals who are
basically responsible to their consciences is
necessary for effective professional work.
Only
if immune from ordinary social pressures and free
to innovate, to experiment, to take risks without
the usual social repercussions of failure, can a
professional carry out his work effectively.
It
is this highly individualized principle which is
diametrically opposed to the very essence of the
organizational principle of control and coordi­
nation by superiors— i.e., the principle of
administrative authority. (39:76)
Academic freedom and the individual discretionary
authority of the professional faculty member must be
preserved and defended against assaults from external
forces as well as from mis-educative forces within the
collegiate institution.

But as Hall observes,

"The

whole point of organization is missed if there were only
individual goals, there would be no point in organizing"
(52:82).

In fact, organization is required in order to

provide an environment which ultimately supports freedom.
Like Parsons, Laser considers the university to
be a unique social entity not particularly cohesive in
organization, but he places a different value on that
conclusion.
tution

is_

Laser states that, "The academic insti­

a community? and whether it be denoted, at

one end of the scale, as a community of scholars, or
at the other end as a knowledge factory, or a

74
multiversity,

it is in trouble today precisely because

instead of a pervading sense of community, w e find con­
fusion, conflict and clamor” (81:61).
Koenig, Keeney, and Zamach conducted a study
analyzing institutions of higher education and the need
for management in the academic community.

One of their

premises is that in order to preserve itself, the
academic institution must rationally manage its activi­
ties.

The following comment by the authors is illustra­

tive:
In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent
that our large universities are in need of more
economical and efficient means of management, longrange planning and budgeting.
At the same time,
notions of "management" have encountered consid­
erable resistance because of the fear of loss of
academic freedom and the end of independent planning
by the various disciplines.
Implicit in this
resistance is the notion that independence can be
preserved only if the operation of the university
can remain too complex and obscure for centralized
control.
But the time has now been reached when
sheer inefficiency of operation and spiraling costs
pose a greater threat to academic freedom. (78:6)
These comments suggest that some degree of m an­
agement is necessary in order to maintain a collegiate
institution as a viable university community which is
effective in accomplishing its purposes.

Probably more

than ever before, there is a need for a group of campus
professionals, who on a continual basis, will devote
considerable attention to the nature and quality of the
whole academic community and its effectiveness.

The

administration of higher education will in the future

75
need to be considered something more than a "necessary
evil."

Furthermore, as Williamson points out (179:20),

the administration of higher education cannot be con­
sidered as something apart from the essential purposes
of higher education, a perception of which is directly
implied in notions that administrators are an inherent
threat to academic freedom.
Administration in higher education is not simply
administration.

It is educational administration and

as such its organizational methods and procedures must
be specifically geared to the educational process of
the university community.

In this regard, Smith pro­

vides a particularly valuable discussion:
Educational administration is a subfield of the
larger domain of education and is hence in close
harmony with the purposes of education.
Edu­
cation, moreover is obviously and preeminently a
value enterprise. . . . The dominant values of
education are humanistic and educational adminis­
tration is accordingly enlisted in their service.
Education is the process by which certain broad
kinds of values— intellectual, moral, and aesthe­
tic— become instrumental in the lives of indi­
viduals and society.
Since values play so domi­
nant a role in education, or ought t o , it is only
natural to expect value inquiry to play an important
role in educational administration. . . . Edu­
cational administration is thus justified by its
success in promoting these human rather than
distinctively organizational ends. (156:408-09)
Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., President of Michigan
State University, states that,

"One of the most important

subtleties of University life is the interrelation among
all its elements.

Interdependence is an inescapable

76
consequence of complexity"

(177:13).

Interdependence

connotes the pulling together of divergent elements so
that in combination they are more effective in the pur­
suit of common goals.

As Williamson points out,

"Various

parts of a total enterprise are continuously dovetailed,
balanced, integrated, and interrelated to produce maximum
effectiveness of the program"

(179:50).

Maclver contends

that "each component of an institution must recognize
its obligations as well as its rights in the promotion
of the common end"

(88:73).

Three major implications of the concern for inter­
dependence can be noted.
1. Coordinating inter­
dependent program efforts can reduce duplication to
achieve both greater efficiency and effectiveness.
2.
The identification of interdependent interaction
patterns, norms, and values provides an opportunity
for determining if the formal organizational sub­
unit coincides with the informal one.
3. There is
a conflict between interdependence and faculty norms
regarding their academic freedom and their autonomy.
(124:526)
The following comment by Gardner is germane to
this discussion:
If the college or university is to preserve its
character as a community and forge for itself a
distinctive identity . . . it will have to have a
considerable measure of internal coherence and
morale.
And that means that trustees, adminis­
tration, faculty, and students are going to have
to admit that they are all part of one community—
distasteful as that may be to some of them— and
they are going to have to ask what they can do
individually or collaboratively to preserve the
integrity and coherence of that community and to
regain command of its future.
I do not mean that
they must subject themselves to some kind of
unanimity or consensus.
Every vital community has
internal conflicts and tensions.
But I do mean
that there will have to be healthy forms of inter­
action and dialogue among them. (48:8)

77
Pfnister

(126) indicates that in spite of

increased complexity, the college can still be considered
a community.

Members of that community have a legitimate

concern with all that happens within the community.
"Faculty, students, and administrators jointly need to
participate in decisions relating to the future of their
community.

The crux of the matter is to maintain a high

degree of participation and yet to carry on as efficiently
as possible the management function"

(126:434).

From the viewpoint that the concept of "community"
can be interpreted as a social system, Pervin states
that, "The college is a system in the sense that it is
composed of interdependent parts which work in a more
or less complimentary way toward more or less compatible
goals"

(123:317).

Pervin is a bit more specific when

he contends that, "While increased differentiation is
a sign of a mature organism, the differentiation must
be accompanied by integration;

that is, the parts of

the system must serve common goals, and if they are to
do so they cannot be antagonistic to one another"

(123:

317) .
Katz and Kahn also contend that internal differ­
entiation is a fundamental characteristic of systems
(70:25).

Parsons agrees with this and takes a position

much like Pervin in this instance, that differentiation
requires integration.

"It is a condition of the

78
existence of the system that the differentiated roles
must be coordinated negatively, in the sense of the
avoidance of disruptive interference with each other,
or positively, in the sense of contributing to the
realization of certain shared collective goals through
collaborated activity"

(119:197).

The latter form of coordination suggested by
Parsons would seem to be the more promising.

The

avoidance of disabling disruptive interference (negative
coordination) is necessary, but if the emphasis is placed
here, not much more than pattern maintenance is likely
to be accomplished.

The positive form of coordination

emphasizing collaborated activity directed toward the
realization of goals allows for a more constructive
and productive organization.

It is this integrated

and collaborative organizational activity that typifies
"community."

If the coordinating resources of the

organization are primarily devoted to goal achievement
rather than to the avoidance of internal conflict, the
organization will be more effective in the pursuit of
its overall purposes.
Romine suggests that the student becomes the
greatest benefactor of an integrated educational program.
In a critique of course and program proliferation and
specialization, he states that,

"We (educators) need to

provide an integrated educational experience for

79
students.

...

A great deal is being left to the student

whose limited experience does not always permit him to
make wise choices or to pull courses together into a
well-defined college experience"

(138:279).

Concerns for the nature of the collegiate
environment or for community seem to be based on a con­
cern for humanism within colleges and universities.
Butler states that, "The real meaning of

'community'

has as its main focus people— not things or buildings;
inter-personal relationships, not research contracts;
the teaching process, not the struggle for political or
economic power.

Within the framework of 'community'

the

quality of interpersonal relationships should be our main
concern"

(19:140).

Kauffman contends,

"If today's

young people have asserted anything, it is that human
beings are more important than institutions"

(72:14).

In the Hazen Foundation Report of the Committee
on the Student in Higher Education, the authors state
that their primary concern is with the college student,
but they note that, "Unless the quality of relationships
for faculty and administrators is also improved, no
(positive) lasting effect can be had on the life of the
student.

Colleges and universities must become more

human environments for everyone involved, or they will
become so for no one"

(163:58).

80
A community based on humanistic values can be
nurtured but not proscribed by the formal structure of
an organization.

"Community" is more closely associated

with the informal or normative structure.

The informal

structure embodies the actual personal relationships and
attitudes prevalent among persons
in the organization.

Clark

(rather than positions)

(25) feels that it is impor­

tant to dramatize the importance of normative bonding
in the formal organization.

It is important because

beyond the fundamental structures of a collegiate
institution, an understanding of the institution depends
on the knowledge of its critical core of values, its
history, beliefs, and loyalties which are held in common.
Richardson

(133), in a critique of Clark's con­

cept of normative bonding, views the concept to be an
important one because an organization can operate
effectively only as long as a certain core of values
is held in common.

Furthermore,

"Values are likely to

be held in common only as long as there continues to
exist a high degree of interaction among constituent
groups"

(133:516).
Anderson (6) warns against the tendency of

modern organizations to rely too heavily on formal
structure.

He indicates that organizational attempts

to control and direct the actions of participants in
the accomplishment of a common goal through specification,

81
communication, impersonalization, and differential
implementation may actually subvert the accomplishment
of the goal.

"In attempting to structure and imperson-

alize relationships so that individual personalities
will have little effect on the organizational goals, the
groundwork is laid for dysfunction within the organi­
zation"

(6:7).
Anderson, along with others such as Blau

(14)

and Simon (155) recognize the importance of the human
element in organizations and tend to deemphasize the
more traditional structural interpretations espoused
by such theorists as Weber

(173) and Taylor

(162) .

Yet

a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding would
seem to dictate considering both points of view.
this reason the Getzels and Guba model
attractive.

For

(161) remains

Certainly the academic organization or com­

munity is better understood by conceptually combining
structure and the impact of individuals.

Structure is

important because it explains means and provides a
framework.

And according to Kohn (79), structure can

provide a secure environment in which organizational
members can conduct their work.

But it should be

remembered that, "Basically it is persons who affect
persons, not structural arrangements.

Arrangements can

enable or inhibit, but their impact in and of themselves
is limited"

(24:232).

82
Truman offers yet another qualification regarding
attempts to use structure as a determinant of environment.
In recounting that faulty structure has often been used
as a convenient scapegoat for campus problems/ Truman
states that:
Some restructuring may contribute to restoration
of aspects of community, but it alone will not
restore community, and redesigning the machinery
of an institution whose purposes are uncertain
can be futile except possibly in the shortrun,
when novelty may provide some respite from
attack.
But effectiveness of form is not
likely to appear without greater clarity con­
cerning purpose. (167:9)
A reconsideration of Anderson's comment (68)
points out a particularly interesting paradox between
what is considered control by one sector and freedom by
another in the university environment.

Anderson con­

siders specification and differential implementation to
be means or strategies of control.

Faculty often defend

departmentalism and the independence of specialization
as bulwarks of academic freedom.

However, it is just

possible that more coordination and integration (often
associated with structural-administrative aspects) within
the academic community would increase communication and
decrease the extent of impersonalization thus creating
more freedom, not less.
Summary
The use of the term "community" to describe an
academic organization is somewhat elusive.

In large

83
measure it is an attitudinal phenomenon dependent upon
mutual trust and appreciation among "colleagues in an
enterprise."

Community is characterized by the quality

and frequency of professional and interpersonal relation­
ships among the participants in the organization.
Structure is not excluded in discussions of community,
but it is more a matter of the way in which relational
structures are perceived and acted upon by individuals
operating within the structure.
Community viewed as a system of shared purposes
involves persons working together because they so desire
and because it is felt that in working together, essential
purposes important to the participants will be most effec­
tively accomplished.

Community implies the recognition

of an interdependence not so much determined by organi­
zational expectations and structure, but generated by
the professionals bound together by the dominance of
an idea or a unifying philosophy of education.

It is

for this reason that the purposes of the institution need
to be clear and explicit.
Integration of the Student Personnel
Program and the Ins true fcional
Program— A Step Toward
Community
Introduction
One of the dominant themes of this paper is the
application of goals and objectives in an academic

84
community of shared purposes.

"If we are interested in

student development, we must strive toward integration
in the functioning of the college as a system paying
particular attention to goals and channels of communi­
cation among the parts"

(123:322).

The two major com­

ponents of the college environment are the formal cur­
riculum and the informal or co-curriculum.

It is the

faculty and student personnel workers who provide leader­
ship and otherwise exert their influence as educators
over the goals and activities of these two spheres of
campus life.

Any successful attempts made to integrate

the efforts of these two groups of educators should con­
tribute to a greater sense of community within the
academic institution, greater attention to common goals,
and greater effectiveness in helping students achieve
educational objectives.

What follows is a review of

the literature pertaining to this issue.
The Curriculum and the Extracurriculum
Hallberg and Kirk write that, "The 'movement1 of
real significance today which holds the greatest promise
for the future is the merging of interests of both stu­
dents and faculty toward a common and unified purpose.
This movement toward a true academic community involves
a synthesis of the 1extra-' curriculum and the curricu­
lum"

(53:197).

The authors take the position that a

85
"total" curriculum is the ultimate step.

The cocurriculum

is only an intermediate step beyond the extra-curriculumcurriculum debate.
Rudolph (139) discusses why the extracurriculum
deserves the respect and consideration of educators.
Rudolph's comments also suggest a rationale for faculty
and administrators to more energetically engage themselves
in the extracurriculum.
The most sensitive barometer of what is going on at
a college is the extracurriculum.
It is the instrument of change, the instrument with which gener­
ations of students, who possess the college for but
a few years, register their values, often fleetingly,
yet perhaps indelibly.
It is the agency that
identifies their enthusiasms, their understanding
of what a college should be, their preferences.
It
reveals their attitude toward the course of study;
it records the demands of the curriculum, or the
lack thereof.
It is a measure of their growth.
And because of the particular province of lively,
imaginative young men and women not immobilized
by tradition, rank, authority, and custom, the
extracurriculum is likely to respond more quickly
than any other agency of the college to the funda­
mental, perhaps not yet even clearly expressed,
movements in the world beyond the campus and to
the developing expectations of society.
For this
reason a whole range of what in time became
respectable academic subjects received their first
significant encouragement in the colleges from the
students, their clubs, their journals, their glee
clubs, their dramatic groups, their libraries.
(139:53)
Pervin (123) speculates that formal
and informal

(in-class)

(out-of-class) learning too often remain

separate in the minds of students, faculty, and adminis­
tration.

In reference to Dressel and Lehman (37),

Pervin writes that, "The idea that informal academic

86
experiences have a strong impact upon students is worthy
of serious attention.

If it is true, then the need for

integration between classroom learning and informal
learning becomes all the more important"

(123:320).

This implies that the goals and objectives of each
sphere must also be integrated and complimentary.
Wilson takes the position that:
Obviously, the first order of business in a col­
lege is learning.
Yet we know that this cannot
be truly fruitful if it takes place only— and
grudgingly— in the classroom and laboratory.
A
student spends most of his time outside the periods
of formal instruction.
Therefore, what happens
during this time may well be crucial in reinforcing
or obstructing the goals of the college. . . .
Several factors affect this issue:
extracurricular
activities, faculty and administration values, and
the climate and environment of the campus. (182:
60-61)
The Need for C ooperative Interaction
1
™
^
and Student

~

In any synthesis of the formal and informal curriculum, a synthesis of the purpose and efforts of the
faculty and the student personnel staff seems warranted
since it is these two groups of educators who assume
primary educational responsibility for these two major
components of the educational program.

The Student

Personnel Point of View (1949) includes the statement
that, "The achievement of educational objectives
requires the cooperative and integrated functioning of
classroom and extraclass activities with the growth and

87
development of the student as the focal point of all that
is implied in the educational process"
Hallberg and Kirk suggest,

(4:10).

And, as

it is just such cooperation

and integration which can ultimately result in a true
academic community.

Shoben (1958) writes:

(The personnel movement) is an organized effort to
capitalize on such opportunities in distinctive
ways but in the service of the same goals that
justify and animate the educational process gen­
erally. . . . In such a collaborative enterprise
and to insure the attainment of education's aims,
it is vital for all those charged with educational
responsibilities to understand each other, to earn
places of mutual respect in each other's eyes and
to balance their distinctive contributions on the
basis of such a shared understanding and mutual
respect. (151:11)
Stamatakos

(157) calls for a "marriage" between

the curriculum and the co-curriculum and greater cooper­
ation between faculty and student personnel workers.
Stamatakos suggests at least four reasons why this
marriage should come about.
1.

2.

Education becomes relevant when the learner can
better comprehend and synthesize the theoretical
with the practical through opportunities which
provide immediate and direct application. A
marriage of the curriculum and the co-curriculum
can provide a unified educational experience
for students from the freshman through the
senior year.
While contributing institutional expertise in
the larger community laboratory, students,
faculty, and (student personnel) staff can
learn from each other as co-equals in the edu­
cational endeavor.
Students have complained
about the lack of adequate and appropriate adult
role models in higher education.
Does not the
suggested marriage of the curricular and the cocurricular offer endless possibilities for role
modeling inside and outside the classroom?

88
3.

4.

Important aspects of student development could
be accommodated for and attended to through a
combination of in and out of class learning
experiences.
The consequences of increasing specialization
have been the fragmenting of knowledge and good­
will, maintenance of expensive and duplicated
services, and a near meaningless education for
the student.
The marriage of the curriculum and
co-curriculum offers a reasonably viable alter­
native to today*s schizophrenic conflict in
education. (157)
Eldon Nonnamaker, now Vice President for Student

Affairs at Michigan State University, has said that, "The
role and function of student personnel administration
is an integral part of the university community.

The

day is long gone when the student personnel administrator
could operate in his own sphere independently of the
faculty and student body"

(110:4).

Although significant,

Nonnamaker*s comment is neither atypical of many comments
in the literature nor is it a new idea.

Wrenn

(184:26)

and Williamson (179:24), who wrote basic works on the
student personnel profession, presented forthright
statements of this same position in 1950 and 1960.
The future of student personnel work is seen to
be dependent upon the profession's ability to involve
itself more directly in the mainstream of the academic
institution.

It is also amply suggested that a revitali­

zation of the student personnel movement and a more
intense involvement of student personnel workers in the
activities of the university will lead to a much more
improved and effective university community.

Hurst: and Ivey (63:166-68) suggest directions
for a viable future of both student personnel work and
higher education.

These directions for change are listed

below:
1.
2.

3.

4.

Student personnel workers will be most effective
as colleagues of students sharing in a learning
experience.
The student personnel worker will become a
facilitator or consultant to the college campus.
He will be an expert in applied educational psy­
chology. . . . He will work with faculty to
help them improve and change the structure of
the curriculum and their teaching habits. . . .
He will show faculty how to use affective
learning to advance cognitive goals.
Systems analysis and cybernetics will be applied
to the university setting in relation to the
community.
The concepts of systems analysis
will demonstrate to the university the inter­
relationship of knowledge and of the importance
of all parts working together in harmony. . . .
Competitiveness will for the most part disappear
and be replaced by new models of cooperative
behavior.
Student personnel and counseling as professions
known to us now will disappear.
Although the
profession will be important in developing the
procedures to implement these ideas, once the
system is started it will be self-perpetuating.
We will then serve the function of campus con­
sultants for ongoing training and the continual
modification of the evolved campus community
in the direction of Human Development. . . .
If student personnel is to survive, its tra­
ditional reactive stance must be replaced with
a proactive posture for Human Development of
all people implemented through the university
environment.
Shaffer

(149) discusses a similar set of chal­

lenges for student personnel work and higher education
in the immediate future.

Like Hurst and Ivey, Shaffer

views the future of student personnel work to be
inextricably involved in the future of higher education

90
and not set apart from it.

"One often overlooked

function of student personnel work which will require
increased emphasis in the next fifty years is that of
assisting the total institution in evaluating and rede­
fining its dominant characteristics and functions"
11).

(149;

Shaffer proposes three challenges to professional

student personnel workers and other college educators
which are of particular interest (149:12-14):
1.

2.

3.

The current trend in academic circles is to
separate classroom experience from out-of-class
life, despite the fact that all research and
experience indicate the dominant significance
of total experience. A major task confronting
higher education is the application to its prac­
tices of the psychological and sociological
concept that personal development results from
an individual's total experience.
Student per­
sonnel workers must take the lead in involving
faculty, administration and students in develop­
ing an institutional posture on the total edu­
cational experience provided its students.
Student personnel workers need to provide
leadership for the effective mobilization and
coordination of the total educational resources
of the college community in its various settings.
The student personnel field has verbalized this
objective in the past several decades, but has
interpreted educational experiences so narrowly
that its leadership is now close to being dis­
credited.
Another major challenge will be to provide
leadership to the institution in a critical
evaluation of its present operating concepts
and procedures in all areas with a view to
eliminating contradictory, expedient, hypo­
critical, anti-educational situations.

Shaffer concludes that if the student personnel profession
responds to these and other unlisted challenges, with
creativity, ingenuity, and flexibility, there is no
doubt of its future or the future of the university

91
as a community.

"If, however,

(student personnel)

becomes the agent of the status quo and mere tradition,
others will assume its work, and it will be reduced to
performing mere housekeeping functions"

(149:14).

"The

student personnel worker should understand that by shows
of authority, pretensions of great expertness, segregat­
ing and setting himself off from and above students, or
from faculty . . .

he will thereby incapacitate himself

for helping students learn"

(86:27).

The task of making the faculty and student per­
sonnel workers a more integrated educational force within
the university community is not without its obstacles.
Johnson (1970) states that, "The development of
student personnel work into a program of relevant
functions and services with philosophical and theoreti­
cal underpinnings has been painful, erratic, and slow"
(67:6).

Johnson continues to say that many campus tasks

now viewed as student personnel functions, "grew out of
crisis situations and 'things gone wrong'"
According to Mueller,

(67:6).

"Many educators have remained

profoundly suspicious of the movement;

they have accused

it of coddling and overprotectedness; they have been
scornful of its subdivisions and specialties, irked by
its important powers and its extravagant claims"
Schletlin concludes that,

(104:54).

"Perhaps student personnel

workers will never convince others of the importance

92
of their work and the significance of the individual
student until they themselves value those working
directly and successfully with students, and until
they place only their best workers in contact with
students'* (144:168) .
Penny is more caustic in his overstated cri­
ticism.
No longer viable is the hypothesis under which the
early writers of the 1930*s and 1940*s operated—
namely, that there was an identifiable point of
view and an occupational entity that might be
recognized as the student personnel work pro­
fession. . . . The long-sought "profession" of
student personnel work has not been, is not, and
will not be recognized or accepted as a vital
aspect of the academic world. (121:961)
McConnell asserts that, "Faculty members have
never accorded student personnel workers a significant
role in the college or university"

(98:56).

"One reason

why personnel workers are missing the action is that
they still are not considered to be educationally
necessary or even useful"

(98:57).

There are at least

three explanations for this.
1,

Faculty do not choose to recognize student
personnel staff as valuable educational
resources, because of a variety of issues
attached to their own self-interest.

2.

What is seen as educationally necessary is too
narrowly defined, or

93
3.

Student: personnel workers have not demonstrated
the need for their services in practice.

It is

more probably a combination of these, but it
remains clear that,

"The student personnel staff

needs to identify its activities with the intel­
lectual, the academic life of the institution"
(98:59)
Stamatakos and Oliaro state the need for develop­
ment within the profession of student personnel services.
In the eyes of the college community the future
credibility of student personnel as a profession
will be determined by the extent to which we can
get our own house in order and begin to live the
philosophy we espouse.
We must take an active,
directive role in the functioning of the insti­
tution by making maximum use of our training and
perspective as educators concerned with the total
development of the individual student in the col­
lege institution.
The accomplishment of that task
is dependent, in part on our ability and influence
as a profession to 1) establish goals and objec­
tives for the student personnel program that reflect
our professional philosophy in a realistic and pre­
cise manner, 2) develop the competencies and com­
mitment of staff members of whom we are responsible.
(158:271)
Criticism of the student personnel profession deserves
serious consideration, especially that criticism which
is valid and serves to inhibit cooperative relationships
between faculty and student personnel workers.
Brubaker remarks,

But as

"Thoughtful historians observe that

the charges of uncritical expansion, materialism, and
the absence of standards are considerably overdrawn and
that the role of the student personnel movement was

94
vital in bringing about a new systhesis of the divergent
elements of college life"

(17:385).

Student personnel

workers have provided valuable and necessary services
to students

(counseling, placement services, financial

aid advisement, residence hall programs, etc.) and often
under difficult conditions or in response to "crisis"
situations as was alluded to by Johnson

(67).

Mayhew contends that it is an historical truism
that, "Innovation and change in American higher education
have rarely, if ever, come from faculty efforts, the
majority of major innovations being the result of admin­
istrative thought and initiative"

(95:387).

Mayhew,

himself an academician, feels that administrators should
be given more legitimization for expanding their efforts.
Shaffer suggests that a particular type of administrator
might be most effective as future leaders in the interest
of both higher education and the student personnel pro­
fession.
The next advances in higher education must be with
the cooperation, leadership, and support of student
personnel if the field is to retain any legitimacy
and recognition. . . . Student personnel workers
will have to lead aggressively the integration of
all forces in the environment to contribute effec­
tively to the fullest development of all indi­
viduals, even if this means that they become dis­
concerting irritants in goading lethargic faculties
and unaware administrators to make innovative
responses to changed conditions before crises
erupt. (150:130)
Kauffman alerts the student personnel administrator simi­
larly to, "Be an 1intruder 1*

Student personnel workers,

95
aware of social phenomena and sophisticated in the knowl­
edge of behavioral sciences should move in and fill
vacuums.

...

connections"

Bring the right people together--make
(72:15).

Kauffman (74), in another article,

speaks to the issue of the relationship between faculty
and student personnel staff.
It is clear that conflicts exist between faculty
and student personnel staff in most colleges and
universities.
They may differ in degree— from
unwillingness to recognize such staff and their
functions, all the way to vocal and vigorous oppo­
sition to the concept of student personnel work.
For the most part, however, there is little inter­
action, communication, or overt strife.
The
tragedy is that student personnel staff, on many
campuses, know more about the reality of education
on those campuses than does anyone else. Failure
to communicate this awareness and knowledge not only
frustrates the student personnel worker but also
denies to the faculty those insights, perceptions
and facts which could be of invaluable assistance
in shaping the total educational program of the
institution. . . . If students are to be educated,
both teaching faculty and student personnel workers
must find ways to communicate with one another.
(74:153-55)
In a discussion of goal incongruence and goal
conflict, Lee states that,

"Although the various segments

of the academic community undoubtedly have some common
goals, there are obviously areas of conflict; unless
these can be identified, understood, and appropriately
dealt with, the basic function— teaching and learning—
cannot be maximally performed in our colleges and uni­
versities"

(82:6).

While referring to the campus com­

munity generally, Lee's comment has direct application

96
to the relationship between faculty and student personnel
workers, especially in light of Kauffman*s statement
above.

Pervin states:

Future research should consider the faculty and
the administration.
It would be important to know
whether differences in the way of seeing things
suggest sources of strain in the system and a
breakdown of communication among the parts.
In
any case we are beginning to see how the parts of
a college system relate to one another and how
various degrees of integration among the parts
relate to the achievement of educational goals.
(82:320)
Summary
It has been suggested that one important way to
make the educative potential of the collegiate community
more effective is to work toward a synthesis of the c ur­
riculum and the extra-curriculum.

This in itself would

be one aspect of community development.

In this process

there is an implied need to coordinate or integrate the
efforts of faculty and student personnel staff.

This

should not only foster a more productive and complimen­
tary relationship between the two groups, but demonstrate
to the student the interrelated nature of education and
the learning process.

As has been suggested, it is

important to investigate

(as a prerequisite of greater

change in this direction)

the opinions of faculty and

student personnel workers regarding the goals which they
perceive to be important and any desires or inhibitions to
more actively cooperate toward meeting common goals.

97
Review of Related Empirical
Research
Introduction
A review of the professional literature associated
with higher education reveals that ample attention has
been given to the issue of goals and objectives for
higher education.

More recently an emphasis is being

given to the topic of organizational relationships and
interactions which might serve to assist universities
and colleges in the effective achievement of institu­
tional goals.

However, the great bulk of this literature

consists of philosophical and theoretical points of view.
In comparison, few empirical studies have been conducted
in either of these areas.
Of those goal studies which have been reported
in the literature, the majority have concerned themselves
with institutional goals at a very general level of
analysis.

Such research also tends to concentrate on

the wide range of general organizational goals and not
necessarily on specific sets of educational objectives
regarding the various skills and abilities viewed as
important outcomes of the collegiate experience.

While

the impact of college on the student has most definitely
been studied, the scope of this research has not been
approached regarding the objectives and goal orientations
of collegiate educators.

There is even less research

98
related to specific comparisons between the perceived
and preferred goals of faculty and student personnel
workers.
Although there appears to be an increasing
interest in studies concerning cooperative relationships
among campus groups, there is very little available
research dealing with this subject especially as it
relates to faculty and student personnel relationships.
Related research can be found in business and military
organizations, but many educators warn against simply
transplanting this information to the collegiate environ­
ment.

Yet it seems imperative to consider such systems

concepts because of their potential for dealing with
organizational complexity and institutional effectiveness.
Related Research
One of the more widely acclaimed and comprehen­
sive studies of university goals was that of Gross and
Grambsch (1968).

In this study administrators and

faculty from sixty-eight universities were asked to
comment on a list of forty-seven possible goals.

The

researchers listed the following as the seven top goals
of American universities:
1.
2.
3.

Protect the faculty's right to academic freedom.
Increase or maintain the prestige of the uni­
versity.
Maintain top quality in those programs felt to
be especially important.

99
4.

5.
6.
7.

Ensure the continued confidence and hence sup­
port of those who contribute substantially to
the finances and other material resource needs
of the university.
Keep up to date and responsive.
Train students in methods of scholarship and/
or scientific research and/or creative endeavor.
Carry on pure research. (51:29)
Gross and Grambsch comment on the findings of

their study in the following manner:
Most striking is the prominence given to the goal
of protecting academic freedom of the faculty.
. . . A second remarkable characteristic is that
only one of the seven (top) goals is concerned in
any way with students, and that one— the output
goal of training students for research and scholar­
ship— is closely associated with the scholarly
interests of professors and with the emphasis
given to pure research.
The singular scarcity of
student oriented goals in the top group is all
the more startling when one considers that 18 of
the 47 goals listed in the questionnaire refer
directly to students. Apparently the current com­
plaint that universities give little attention to
the interests of students has considerable basis
in fact. (51:29)
Additional conclusions of this same study, indi­
cate that administrators and faculty are concerned about
many of the same things to a much greater extent than
is commonly assumed

(51:115).

And related to the finding

that student-oriented goals were rarely mentioned as
being of prime importance,

"Emphasizing undergraduate

instruction occupies the forty-fourth position on both
lists

(one list was concerned with actual or observed

goals and another list was concerned with preferred or
desired goals), an indication that the low priority
already accorded this goal is felt to be appropriate"
(51:109).

100
A major conclusion of a Carnegie Commission
study report, Institutions in Transition
there is a trend

(1971), is that

(more pronounced in large institutions)

for faculty to teach fewer hours, show greater interest
in research and a slightly increased interest in teaching,
to demonstrate less loyalty to the institution, and
support students who oppose the administration

(60:

preface).
Martin (92) reports the findings of a study
which evaluated the characteristics of a selected but
representative group of colleges and universities and
their faculties.

With regard to educational philosophy

and institutional goals, the author states that,
The strongest impression gained from our exami­
nation of the literature and through conversations
with administrators of the large public universi­
ties was the notable absence of attention by the
leaders to institutional assumptions, values, and
goals compared with their almost frenetic regard
for quantitive, financial, procedural, implementive
considerations. . . . Having neglected to lead,
or to even show until lately much more than lip
service to educational philosophy and institu­
tional goals, (administrators) are now having
trouble asserting leadership and persuading the
public as well as students of their expertise in
these matters, (92:51-52)
Rigid divisions between administrators, faculty,
and students have destroyed the prospects for a
community attack on problems and any sort of broad,
integrative planning.
Thus it became exceedingly
difficult to form a philosophy of education or
general institutional objectives except, as is now
the case, for statements carrying the most super­
ficial, general meanings. (92:59)
Martin discovered that in those institutions
which had a commitment to essential goals and objectives.

101
the faculty had been significantly involved in discussing
and determining those goals (92:78)•

Furthermore, when

his faculty sample was asked what proportion of their
colleagues were seriously concerned with the formal
institutional purposes that are intended to give
direction and character to the college,

the respondents

indicated that most faculty are seriously concerned
194).

(92:

This is, of course, interesting in view of Martin's

more general comment that colleges and universities do
not pay enough attention to the institution's stated
purposes and goals.
When Martin analyzed his faculty data according
to the variables of age, number of publications, academic
specialization, conventional or innovative, old school
or new, and teaching load, he found that, "Faculty are
more alike than dissimilar in their attitudes toward
educational assumptions, values, and goals;

the criteria

for institutional excellence; and the prospects for
institutional or professional change"

(92:206).

Greater

differences between faculty from different institutions
were observed, however

(92:207).

Research (1971) conducted by Stead

(160) at

Michigan State University analyzed university goal per­
ceptions and preference of students, faculty, adminis­
trators, and trustees at MSU utilizing the Gross and
Grambsch research model mentioned above.
conclusions were reached:

The following

102
1.
2.
3.

The groups felt that the goals should be given
greater emphasis than was the case in practice.
"Means” as well as "ends" goals are important
to all of the groups.
While there were differences between the
groups on goal preferences, there was also
considerable agreement with regard to what the
university's goals should be. (160:abstract)
Further findings of this study indicate that

among faculty at Michigan State University the highest
preferred goals in order are:
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in
their area of special training.
Produce a student who has been inculcated with
those values considered important to an edu­
cated person; e.g., the dignity of the indi­
vidual, truth, tolerance of different views,
and a rational approach to problem solving.
Protect the academic freedom of the faculty.
Produce a student who is able to think clearly,
objectively, and cogently in making judgments.
Produce a student who has had his intellect
challenged to the maximum. (160:106)
Among the lowest preferred goals of faculty are

included:
1.

2.
3.

Protect and facilitate the student's right to
advocate direct action of a political or social
kind and any attempts on their part to organize
efforts to attain political or social goals.
Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty
and staff to the university, rather than only
to their own jobs or professional concerns.
Keep harmony between departments or divisions
of the university when such departments or
divisions do not agree on important matters.
(160:107)
The highest ranked preferred goals for the uni­

versity as indicated by administrators at MSU are as
follows:

103
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in
their area of special training.
Produce a student who has been inculcated with
those values considered important to an edu­
cated person; e.g., the dignity of the indi­
vidual, truth, tolerance of different views,
and a rational approach to problem solving.
Develop attitudes of mutual respect and con­
sideration among students, faculty, administra­
tors and trustees.
Have the various academic departments and
administrative units periodically assess their
activities relative to the fulfillment of the
university* s g o a l s .
Produce a student who is able to think clearly,
objectively, and cogently in making judgments.
(160:109)
Among the administrator *s lowest preferred goals

are included:
1.
2.

3.

Protect the right of the faculty to organize
as a collective bargaining unit.
Maintain the commitment of the faculty by
making sure that on all important issues (not
only curriculum), the will of the faculty shall
prevail.
Make this a place in which faculty have the
maximum opportunity to pursue their careers in
a manner satisfactory to them by their own
criteria. (160:111)
Because Stead,

in the study reported above, used

the Gross and Grambsch questionnaire as a model for his
own research, general contrasts between the two studies
can be made.

Both the faculty and to a larger degree

the administrators at MSU included more student-oriented
goals in their highest preferred group than did the
respondents included in the Gross and Grambsch data.
In another study conducted at Michigan State
University which also utilized Gross and Grambsch data,
Thomas

(164) studied the goal perceptions and preferences

104
of graduate students, administrators, and faculty in
the field of student personnel at MSU.

This student

personnel group ranked their first seven preferred goals
for Michigan State as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Keep up to date and responsive.
Serve as a center for the dissemination of new
ideas.
Protect and facilitate the student's right of
inquiry.
Help students to develop objectivity about
themselves•
Protect the faculty's academic freedom.
Involve students in the government of the
university.
Maintain top quality in all programs.
(164:79)

Thomas concluded that, "The results of this study seem to
indicate, at least for the majority of the student per­
sonnel respondents, a general philosophical posture that
values quality education while maintaining concern for
individual human development"

(164:114).

O'Banion (111) reports data similar to Thomas.
A group representative of practicing college student
personnel workers listed as their top two choices (from
a list of sixteen) of essential purposes of college
student personnel work (1) the development of a climate
conducive to the intellectual, personal, psychological,
and social growth of the student, and (2) to assist the
student in his search for identity and in his development
of self-discipline, self-evaluation, and competence in
decision-making (111:210).

105
In contrasting the findings of O'Banion (111) and
Thomas (164) with the findings of Gross and Grambsch (51),
there is the strong implication that student personnel
workers value goals more directly related to the indi­
vidual student than do faculty members.

Student per­

sonnel workers r in contrast to faculty, also tend to
emphasize a need to consider all aspects of an indi­
vidual's growth and development instead of simply con­
centrating on intellectual development.

Stead

(160), on

the other hand, found that faculty and administrators
are more alike than different in their goal orientations,
although he did note that differences much like those
mentioned above also existed.
In "A Study of Faculty Perceptions of Student
Personnel Services" by Fitzgerald

(44), the author con­

cludes that,
In general, the faculty responses indicate that
student personnel services functions are recog­
nized as having importance for the achievement
of the philosophy and purposes of higher edu­
cation.
The degree of importance is dependent, to
some extent, upon the nature of the service.
Highest indications of the importance of these
functions for higher education were placed on
those functions relating most directly with the
academic purposes of the institution. (45:169)
Another general conclusion of this same study
indicates that there is a definite need to communicate
more effectively to faculty what the functions and pur­
poses of student personnel services are on the campus.
Of particular interest was the finding that,

106
Faculty members who work closely with student
organizations are more favorable in their per­
ceptions of the importance of student personnel
services functions for higher education, and they
indicate that these services are accomplished in
a more satisfactory manner and outstanding manner
than is expressed by faculty personnel not working
closely with student groups. (4 5:169)
In a unique case study of counselor-facuity
cooperation, Stanford

(159) under controlled experimental

conditions found that counselors and faculty working
together could integrate cognitive and affective learning.
Additionally, both groups found satisfaction in the
relationship.

Counselors worked with a classroom group

to train the class members in human relations skills
in order to facilitate more effective class discussions.
"Students showed significantly greater effectiveness in
subject-matter discussions,

increased awareness of them­

selves and their feelings, and no decrease in cognitive
learning

(in fact, there was an increase) as a result

of taking time for the training activities"

(159:586).

This study demonstrates that many of the stated purposes
of student personnel work can have a more immediate
impact on the learning process than the more usual
application of those same purposes to the institution's
total environment.
Hurst, Weigel, Morrill, and Richardson

(64) pro­

vide an analytical case study of an unsuccessful attempt
to reorganize the independent units of a student person­
nel division into a cooperative and integrated office

107
of student development.

The new office was to operate

within the philosophical framework of human development.
Specific objectives relative to human development were
generated,
The authors of this case study state,

"The pro­

cess of implementing organizational change is fraught
with complications and complexities that result from
interplay between the variables of organizational
structure, individual personalities, past expectations,
and resistence to change"

(64:13).

Hurst, et a l . , indicate what should have been
emphasized to a greater extent in order to avert the
failures associated with their attempt to reorganize.
They are:
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.

Greater involvement in the restructuring pro­
cess of all those affected, especially those to
be asked to implement.
Greater assurance that present programs and
personal skills were valued and would only be
modified in the direction of greater effective­
ness through evaluation and training.
A more gradual transition of authority and
hierarchy patterns.
Greater attention to feedback and communication
channels in all directions.
More communication with allied departments.
More care taken to assure that new tasks and
responsibilities not be perceived as competing
with or infringing on work already being done
and that tasks' associated with the new reorga­
nization not be seen as extra work.
Reassurance to those affected by the changes
that they would have ongoing and potent voice
in a continually flexible structure.
Greater attention given to the idiosyncrasies
and personal needs of all individuals involved.
Allow for sufficient time. (64:14)

108
While the above case study of an attempt to
restructure for a coordinated, collaborative, and goaldirected organizational unit does not include faculty
as part of the process, the principles discussed remain
relevant to the portions of this paper dealing with the
need for greater integration of faculty and student
personnel workers.

The need for communication and

mutual understandings are stressed as important variables
in organizational changes and process.

Additionally,

partly due to some misunderstandings, conflicting goals
among participants was viewed as a contributing factor
to the failure of reorganization

(64:11).

But an exami­

nation of this case study also dramatizes the fact that
a knowledge of the extent of goal congruence between
members and assessments of the desire for extended
cooperation between university personnel are only
partial and preliminary considerations in a more
involved process of making colleges and universities
more effective organizations.

The actual implementation

of goals involves problems based upon, but larger than
the issue of goals and objectives and of perceived
desires to cooperate with colleagues.

It must also be

assumed that because significant difficulties arose in
this attempt to integrate and coordinate the various
parts of a student affairs group which are linked by a
common professional identity, similar and possibly more

109
profound difficulties might be expected to arise in any
attempts made to integrate the more divergent groups of
faculty and student personnel staff.
This latter comment is not intended to minimize
the importance of the issue of goals and objectives for
higher education or the need to base structure and pro­
cess on specific educational objectives.

Certainly an

understood purpose must precede implementation.

It is,

however, necessary to put the issue into perspective.
Only when the potential and the limitations of the issue
are considered can the various uses of goals and objec­
tives (described earlier in this chapter) be fully
exploited.
The administration of educational organizations
and the learning process itself are complicated concerns.
The development of realistic goals and effective pro­
cedures to achieve them is dependent upon an appreciation
and understanding of the complexities involved.

"We

should not forget that educational interventions have
a variety of consequences, and that unplanned for out­
comes are necessarily part of the educational process"
(115:311).

Furthermore,

those who establish learning

expectations may have different perceptions of the uni­
versity than the students themselves, a conclusion
reached by Lynch and Sedlacek (87),

Additionally not

all that is included in the university environment

110
equally affects students as Appel, Berry, and Hoffman
(7*173) observed in their study of significant collegiate
sources of influence.

"The same kinds of

(college)

experiences differentially affect different types of
students"

(42:275, 32:42).

Brown, in his discussion of "Personality, College
Environment, and Academic Productivity," maintains

(16):

It has become increasingly clear that education is
not a disembodied process. . . . The realization of
the inter-relatedness of intellectual development
with total development has led to an increased
interest in the interaction of personal attributes
and environmental characteristics, both of the
larger community and of the college, to produce
academic achievement. . . . Furthermore, since
education as seen in its broader context includes
personal as well as purely cognitive development,
it is to be expected that changes in both spheres
must be included in the criteria to be predicted
(educational objectives and expected outcomes).
(16:536-37)
It is for these reasons that the collegiate environment
as a whole must be considered potentially educative and
that a concentration on only one aspect of a student's
life such as the formal curriculum excludes many other
related learning opportunities for students.

It is on

this premise that student personnel educators, espe­
cially, advocate intentional integration of the curricu­
lum and the extracurriculum along with the corresponding
integration of educational objectives aimed at holistic
student development.

It is also on this premise or

assumption that the major purposes of the present study
were based.

The research objective of assessing the

Ill
extent of perceived and preferred cooperation between
student personnel workers and faculty as expressed by
each of these groups relates directly to the assumption
that the educational impact upon the student will be
much more powerful if there is greater integration of
the work and objectives of the faculty

(who serve as the

primary educational leaders in the academic— instruc­
tional sphere) and student personnel workers

(who serve

as the primary educational leaders in the co-curriculum
sphere of the collegiate institution).
There is some base of support for these assump­
tions in the available research.

But before a review

of the research concerning these questions can be pre­
sented, some attention must be given to the issue of
whether the college experience makes an impact on stu­
dents at all.

There is some degree of controversy sur­

rounding this issue.
Jacob (1957) stimulated no small amount of
interest among college educators in his review of
research dealing directly with higher education and
personality changes.

Jacob concluded that there are

no significant changes in student values

(attitudes,

beliefs, opinions, values, and personality test scores)
which can be attributed to the nature of the college
curriculum, and particular instructional methods, training
of instructors, or educational materials.

"There is more

112
homogenity and greater consistency of values among stu­
dents at the end of their four years than when they
began"

(66:6).

Jacob's conclusions contradicted earlier

studies conducted by Newcomb (107, 108) at Bennington
College in the 194 0's, by Sanford at Vassar in the 1950's
(140), and by Dressel and Mayhew

(38) in 1954.

However,

subsequent to Jacob* s report, studies and research tend
to contradict Jacob and conclude that college students
do experience change which can be attributed to the
collegiate experience.

Most notable is a study by

Plant (1960, 1962) conducted at San Jose College.

Plant

studied changes in intolerance and authoritarianism
between attending and nonattending students of similar
ability and background.

He concluded that students who

attended college showed more tolerance and less authori­
tarianism and that length of time spent in college was
positively correlated with this change (127:68-75).
Webster, Freedman, and Heist writing in Sanford's
The American College

(1962) reviewed available research

on personality changes and higher education.

They con­

cluded that, "Students in college changed in the
direction of greater liberalism and sophistication in
their political, social, and religious outlooks.

There

was also some evidence of broadening interests during
the college years"

(174:824-25).

Feldman and Newcomb

(1970) similarly conclude in their extensive and

113
carefully analyzed review of research concerning the
Impact of College on Students that college students do
indeed change in positive directions

(42:326).

Further­

more, this change tends to persist after graduation

(42:

332) .
Concerning those aspects of the college exper­
ience which have an impact on students relative to the
goals of higher education,

it is generally recognized

that the faculty of a university and the impact of the
formal curriculum are responsible for some of the changes
and growth experienced by college students.

Austin

(10:18) and Newton (109:56) observed that faculty were
significant influences on the student*s career choice.
Henderson and Northrup

(1964) in a study conducted at

Pennsylvania State University report that 96 per cent
of the students they surveyed chose "Academic activities
such as classes, lectures, and exams" as one of the most
important aspects of their life at college
Lehman and Dressel

(58:16).

(1962) noted similar results in their

longitudinal study at Michigan State for upperclass
undergraduates (83:220).

Weiss

(1964) found that stu­

dents ^t all class levels at St. Louis University listed
"preparation for courses" and "faculty" as having made
the greatest contribution to their education

(175:115).

Wilson (1966) found that seniors at Antioch College

114
listed "courses" as contributing to their intellectual
change (180:88).
While it is recognized that the faculty and the
curriculum do constitute an important source of influence
on student growth and learning, other influences must
be examined as well.
the faculty

Feldman and Newcomb contend that

(either specific teachers, faculty in gen­

eral, or as judged by courses and course work) clearly
and predominantly influence the intellectual development
and career decisions of students, however, they are not
as influential in other areas

(42:258).

With regard to

social and interpersonal development and personality
change

(including changes in self-image), the student

culture is more of an influence on students than
faculty (42:258).
Sanford describes the "extra-curricular social
system as a potent aspect of the student* s environment.
. . . What students learn in college is determined in
large measure by their fellow students or more pre­
cisely, by the norms of behavior, attitudes, and values
that prevail in the peer groups to which each student
must belong"

(141:463).

Sanford continues to state that

a general knowledge of extra-curricular patterns and
influences,

"may eventually make it possible to modify

student cultures in ways that are favorable to edu­
cational objectives"

(141:467).

This suggests rather

115
important responsibilities for student personnel workers
and tends to substantiate the need for student services
on the college campus.

Student personnel workers have

traditionally involved themselves as educational leaders
in the co-curriculum and as a group of professionals
have sought to develop their competences in order to
better help students take advantage of the educational
potential inherent in the informal or co-curriculum.
Research concentrating on the various aspects
of the extra-curricular college experience reveal some
of the observed impacts.

It should be noted, however,

that this

research is not abundantly conclusive nor con­

sistent.

This is probably due

to the nature ofthe

research and associative methodological problems.
Nevertheless some observations are noteworthy.
Vreeland and Bidwell

(170) studied the differen­

tial impacts on student change and stability as a function
of living

in eight residential

"houses" at Harvard. Each

house had

a somewhat different

goal orientation and was

staffed by persons
these goals.

(student personnel staff) who expressed

The nature of the peer involvement was

the most significant influence on change.

The authors

state:
The findings suggest force of peer involvement in
the House as a mechanism for the transmission of
House goals and student norms, and thus a source
of attitude and value change.
Although other
mechanisms may be at work, when peer involvement

1X6
is high, House effects upon student value and
attitude change are marked.
Moreover, these
effects appear to be especially a function of
integration into the student culture. (170:247)
Nasatir

(106) found that increasing interest in

national and world affairs was varied according to type
of student residence

(fraternities, dormitories, cooper­

atives or boarding houses, and apartments).

Selvin (147)

observed similar differences between type of residence
with respect to the occupational aspirations of students.
The fact that differential change occurred,

suggests

that place of residence may have an impact on students,
Dressel and Lehman (1965) observed:
The most significant experience in the collegiate
lives of undergraduate students (studied at
Michigan State University) was their association
with different personalities in their living
unit.
The analysis of interview and question­
naire data suggested that discussions and bull
sessions were a potent factor in shaping the
attitudes and values of these students. (37:245)
Heath (1968) asked students at Haverford College
what had most influenced them with regard to self-image,
values, intellectual skills, and interpersonal relation­
ships.

Seniors who were questioned on these matters

listed male and female friends, roommates, and intel­
lectual atmosphere among the highest ranking factors
with respect to importance in determining change (56:
226-29).

Wilson found that seniors at Antioch College

designated their fellow students as being more influ­
ential than the teaching faculty with respect to

117
development of interest in new fields, world view and
personal philosophy, personality development, and social
development.

The campus atmosphere and community program

were viewed by Antioch seniors as slightly more influ­
ential than teaching faculty with regard to development
of interest in new fields and social development
Katz

(180:88).

(1967) observed similar findings at Stan­

ford (71:113-14), as did Collins

(1960) at Sarah

Lawrence (26:79) .
In comparing the findings of studies which have
asked students what contributed to specific aspects of
their development while at college, it is apparent that
both the formal curriculum and the informal curriculum
each make significant contributions.

The formal cur­

riculum has a dominant influence over intellectual and
career development.

The co-curriculum has a dominant

influence over personal,
ment.

social, and emotional develop­

What is suggested by these findings is that in

attempting to implement the goals and objectives for
higher education, especially goals and objectives which
recognize the interrelated nature of learning, emphasis
should be given to both cognitive and affective goals
within both the curriculum and the extra-curriculum.
The educational influences and impact of both informal
and formal learning situations are mutually supportive.
Thus the efforts and expertise of faculty and student

118
personnel workers would appear to be applied mo3t effec­
tively in an integrative sense.

Although the responsi­

bilities and functions of each group can be differen­
tiated, the influence of each group on student develop­
ment is complimentary.

Student personnel workers and

faculty can help students achieve important objectives
more effectively in combination rather than as separate
and noncommunicating groups.
Summary
Student growth and learning are influenced by
a number of different environmental forces found on the
college campus.

Faculty and the curriculum are especially

influential with regard to the intellectual development
and career choice of students.

The extra-curricular

environment, more specifically and most significantly
the student culture, exerts a greater influence on the
student's social, emotional, and interpersonal develop­
ment.

But there is also much overlap.

For example,

it is difficult to distinguish between what a professor
may have stimulated in a class discussion and the "bull
session" in the dormitory later that evening in terms
of what actually influenced greater insight into a par­
ticular idea or topic for the student.

This indicates

that while different aspects of a campus community may
differentially make an impact on a student's education,

119
it is probably true that it is the various influences
and forces in combination and interaction which ultimately
makes an impact on the student.
With regard to the goals and objectives for
higher education which are ideally intended to give
greater direction and clarity to the student's education,
there is some evidence that collegiate educators do
not pay enough attention to them.

Although there are

some exceptions, the goals and objectives which are per­
ceived and preferred by university administrators and
faculty appear to be linked to their own professional
interests and notions of academic prestige exemplified
by the larger research-oriented and graduate schooldominated universities rather than to the educational
needs of the undergraduate student.

This is not as

true for smaller, liberal arts colleges, or within uni­
versity environments which are typified by a particular
atmosphere or consistent set of values

(92:51, 60:preface,

55:331).
Somewhat unexpectedly, faculty and administrators
share a number of values concerning the goals for higher
education.

However, college administrators perceive a

need for organizational coordination and integration
whereas faculty tend to resist such ideas on the premise
of departmental autonomy and academic freedom.

Student

personnel administrators consistently profess a belief

120
in educational goals related to the "whole" development
of students and along with faculty profess the importance
of intellectual and academic goals.

Faculty tend to

concentrate on the latter category.
There is some evidence to suggest that interdis­
ciplinary cooperation among faculty and greater integration
between faculty and Btudent personnel staff would be
constructive.

But it is apparent that there are a number

of difficulties involved in such organizational change
as well.

Such difficulties include the personal needs

and self-interest of faculty and administrators and the
inherent difficulties involved in implementing even the
most desirable and consistent goals and objectives.
Summary
In this chapter a review of the related research
and literature was presented.

This review considered

the issue of goals and objectives for higher education
and the type of collegiate environment which is con­
sidered to be most supportive of goal achievement.

The

need for greater unity of purpose and integration of
effort within collegiate institutions was discussed.
These issues were then specifically related to student
personnel workers and the faculty.

This investigation

of the opinions found in the literature and the findings
and conclusions of empirical research studies indicated
the following:

Colleges need to pay closer attention to impor­
tant educational goals and objectives.

They

especially need to base their activities on
clearly articulated goals not only to improve
their efficiency and provide a more clearly
understood sense of direction to their operation,
but in so doing they will be more effective in
helping students achieve educational objectives.
If institutions are to establish priorities, as
they must, they need to be more concerned about
the issue of goals and objectives than is now
evident.
Those objectives which relate directly to the
individual student's growth and development must
be given greater emphasis.

The issue of which

goals a university should pursue is not as criti­
cal as the priorities of those goals and the
manner in which those goals relate to one another
or the extent to which they support or contradict
each other.
If universities are to achieve their purpose
successfully and optimally, there must be at
least some degree of goal congruence among the
various campus constituencies.

The best type

of collegiate environment is one that coordinates
and integrates its functions and activities on

122
the basis of goals and objectives commonly under­
stood and accepted as being important.

This type

of collegiate environment is commonly described
as a university community of shared purposes.
4.

A synthesis of the curriculum and the co-curriculum
is considered to be a significant step in the
direction of developing a true climate of com­
munity.

Most significant is that such a synthesis

recognizes that learning is interrelated and that
cognitive and affective development are compli­
mentary and mutually supportive.
5.

Student personnel workers and faculty, although
distinctive groups, share many of the same
functions and responsibilities.

With regard to

the perceived need to (1) integrate the curriculum
and the co-curriculum,

(2) to help students achieve

interrelated educational objectives more effec­
tively, and

(3) need to develop a community of

shared purposes within institutions of higher
education, many writers have suggested that it
is important,

if not essential, for student per­

sonnel workers and faculty to integrate their
work and cooperatively exert their combined
influence on the total learning environment to
a much greater extent.

If they are to do so,

there must be some degree of goal congruence

123
between the groups.

Attention to common and

clearly understood objectives should contribute
to internally consistent policies, programs, and
practices and reduce the frequency with which
the developmental impact of one component runs
counter to that of the o t h e r .

In order to have

a better understanding of this issue, the goals
and objectives which student personnel workers
and faculty perceive to be important need to be
examined, and some assessment of the cooperative
relationship between each group must be made.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY
Introduction
In Chapter I, the purpose and objectives of the
study were presented along with an explanation of the
nature and significance of the research.

The general

design and limitations of the study were introduced.
In the present chapter, consideration is given to a more
detailed explanation and description of the populations
and samples, the development and use of the questionnaire,
data collection procedures, and the statistical and
descriptive techniques used in analyzing the data.
The Population and Samples
Two randomly selected groups representing Michigan
State University regular teaching faculty members and
student personnel workers serve as the samples in this
study.
1.

The two sample groups are:
The faculty group consists of regular full-time
faculty members,

tenured, and nontenured, the

majority of whose time is spent with under­
graduate students, and who had been appointed to

124

125
their positions as of September, 1972, or before.
"Regular faculty" is defined as all persons hold­
ing the rank of professor, associate professor,
assistant professor or instructor except those
on part-time or temporary appointment.
serving in administrative capacities

Persons

(department

chairmen or acting department chairmen, and deans,
associate or assistant deans) were excluded from
the sample.

In addition to administrative

faculty, representatives from the various
research divisions, experiment stations, insti­
tutes, centers,

special programs, laboratories

within colleges, libraries,

Honors College, Con­

tinuing Education, Educational Development Pro­
gram, Instructional Development Program, and Mi s ­
cellaneous Services were also excluded from the
faculty sample.
2.

The student personnel workers group consists of
full-time student personnel workers whose
appointment to the staff at Michigan State
University was made as of or before September,
.1972.

This sample was selected from the

Admissions Office, the Placement Bureau,
Financial Aids, Counseling Center, Residence
Hall Programs Office, Judicial Programs, the
group of residence hall head advisers, full-time

126
assistants, and directors, the Dean of Students
staff, and full-time professional staff members
in the Office of the Vice President for Student
Affairs at Michigan State University.
Sampling
Sample Size
In order to select the number of participants
sufficiently large to detect statistically significant
differences if such differences existed, a method for
determining an unbiased estimate of sample size
described by Kirk (77:109) was used.

The researcher

specified the probability of a Type-I error

(.05), the

probability of a Type-II error (.10), and the minimum
treatment effect interested in being detected

(1 u n i t ) .

The number of treatment levels in the study was two.
Because there was no a priori estimate of the population
variance, the a posteriori method described by Kirk (77:
113) was substituted.

These data were applied to Kirk's

mathematical formula and by using the set of appropriate
"power curves"

(49:549), it was determined that a sample

size of 25 for each group was sufficient for the study.
The size for each sample group decided upon by the
researcher

(50) was more than the minimum number required.

127
Faculty Sample
It was necessary to obtain the faculty 3ample
in three stages because

(1) the population of Michigan

State University faculty members is large
N = 1900) and

(approximately

(2) because the Michigan State University

Office of Institutional Research was unable to provide
the researcher with a complete list of the faculty
members who met the requirements for inclusion in the
study described above in the description of the faculty
sample group.

The first two stages of sample selection

were conducted in order to develop a list of faculty
members eligible for inclusion in the study.

The third

stage represents the random selection of fifty faculty
members to the final sample group.
The first step in determining a faculty sample
was to select 200 subjects listed as professor, associate
or assistant professor, or instructor in the 197 2 Michigan
State University Staff Directory

(100).

Faculty members

listed in the directory as holding administrative
positions and faculty who were listed under the special
programs, branches, and offices mentioned above in the
description of the faculty sample group as ineligible
were excluded.

Each faculty member listed in the

Staff Directory was assigned a four-digit number.

A

four-digit number was then selected from a table of
random numbers

(49:510) and beginning with the faculty

128
member identified by that number every twentieth "regular"
teaching faculty member was selected until 200 subjects
were obtained.
The second step in determining the final sample
involved comparing the names of the 200 selected subjects
against a listing of faculty members included in the
Faculty— Course Listing and Time Distribution

(4 0)

records of fall term, 1972, made available through the
Michigan State University Office of Institutional
Research.

These records provided information regard­

ing each faculty member's employment status, amount of
time spent in the department, percentage of time devoted
to instruction, and the courses taught by the faculty
member.

Further identification of administrative and

part-time faculty was thus made possible and they were
deleted accordingly from the sample.

Additionally, only

those faculty who taught more than half of their courses
listed as "undergraduate" were retained.
exceptions were made,

After all

127 subjects remained.

The third and final step in the selection of the
faculty sample involved the random selection of 50 faculty
members from the list of 127 described above.

Each sub­

ject was assigned a three-digit number from 000 to 126.
In a table of random numbers

(49:510), an arbitrary

starting point and a direction for reading the numbers
was determined.

Three-digit numbers were read from the

129
table.

Individuals whose numbers occurred were selected

for the sample until 50 individuals had been selected.
Student Personnel Workers
Sample
Lists of all possible study subjects were pro­
vided by the Vice President of Student Affairs Office
(Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Vice
President) and the Residence Hall Programs Office at
Michigan State University.

The lists were provided

according to the criteria for inclusion in the study
stated under The Population and Samples— Student Person­
nel Workers

(pg. 125).

The table of random numbers

and the procedure for random selection described above
in the third step of the faculty sample group selection
were employed to obtain the sample of 50 student person­
nel workers.
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire used in the study (Appendix A)
was developed by the researcher over a period of four
and one-half months beginning in January, 1973.
Initially, more than 100 statements of objectives for
higher education were generated by an exploration of
the professional literature.

The objectives related

specifically to the student's educational and personal
growth.

Each separate statement of an objective with

its definition was transferred to a 3 x 5 card.

The

130
cards were sorted first according to similar groups and
then according to similar items.

By a process of elimi­

nation, identical items were discarded until a list of
26 items remained.
Three Michigan State University doctoral candi­
dates and two professors of education assisted the
researcher in the process of eliminating repetitious
items and in giving greater clarity to those items
which were retained.

It was intended that the list of

educational objectives be adequately comprehensive and
that the items be specific enough to identify particular
aspects of student development.
items include:
(179), Sanford

Dressel

The sources for the

(36), Wrenn (184), Williamson

(141), Chickering

(24), Feldman and New­

comb (42), Heath (56), and various professional higher
education journals.
The list of 26 selected educational objectives
for higher education with their definitions were used to
construct a questionnaire designed for use in a pilot
study.

The written form of each of the objectives was

changed to represent the item as a possible outcome of
a college education and were referred to as "educational
outcomes."

For the purpose of this study an outcome is

defined as a particular achieved skill, ability, or
understanding.

As mentioned previously, the educational

outcomes reflect aspects of an individual student's

131
total growth and development and thus are more closely
associated with concerns for the general education of
undergraduate students than to the training of students
in any particular vocation or academic discipline.
The questionnaire

(Appendix A) in the pilot study

was divided into three sections.

In Section I, each of

the twenty-six developmental educational outcomes was
listed separately with a brief definition.

"Critical

Thinking— Ability in the use of knowledge and in relating
it to the requirements of solving a problem or seeking
more thorough understandings," is an example of one of
the educational outcome statements.

Each item was

followed by four questions to which the respondent was
asked to assess according to his own perceptions:

(1)

Importance of the outcome relative to the purposes of
higher education;

(2) How successful MSU is in helping

students achieve the outcome;

(3) The extent to which

faculty and student personnel staff work cooperatively
toward helping students achieve the outcome;

(4) Who/

What has the greatest impact on a student's attaining
this aspect of development:

a. Classroom activities

and assignments, b. Out-of-class educational experiences
planned and organized by student personnel staff, c.
Random out-of-class experiences, i.e., peer group
association, d. Activities and experiences planned and
organized cooperatively by faculty and student personnel
staff.

132
Each question was accompanied by a five-point
Likert-type scale which allowed the respondent to indi­
cate the extent of his agreement or disagreement with
the question.

Mean scores could then be tabulated by

assigning numerical values to the response alternatives.
A value of

(1) was given to the strongly agree choice

and down through the scale of value a numerical value
of (5) was given to the strongly disagree choice.

By

adding the individual scores and dividing the total
score by the number of respondents in the sample group,
a mean score for that item could be determined.

Lower

total scores and group means reflected more favorable
opinions to an item.

The educational outcome items

were arranged randomly in the instrument in order to
reduce the possibility of a biased order of presentation.
Section II of the pilot instrument consisted of
a list of all the educational outcomes presented in
Section I.

The respondent was asked to check those five

items which he felt were most important relative to
the purposes of higher education.

Responses in Section II

as in Section I were to reflect the respondent's own
perceptions and opinions.

Section II was designed to

measure the priorities each of the sample groups might
give to the items included in the list of educational
outcomes so that subsequent group comparisons could be
made between frequency rank orders.

133
Section III of the pilot instrument consisted of
twelve open-ended questions concerning areas of interest
pursued in the study.

Of greatest interest was infor­

mation concerning the extent to which each group desired
to work cooperatively with the other in order to help
students achieve full benefit of their education.

Of

further interest was some assessment of the attitudes
and opinions which faculty and student personnel workers
held of each other.

Information obtained from Section III

of the instrument was to be used in follow-up interviews
conducted with selected participants in the study.
The pilot instrument was personally distributed
to four faculty members who were selected as representative
of the faculty population of interest and to three stu­
dent personnel staff population of interest.

Each

respondent was asked to complete the questionnaire
within one week after which this researcher would con­
tact them again, for a personal interview.

Upon receiv­

ing the questionnaire, the pilot study participants were
given a brief explanation of the research project and
were instructed to critique the instrument regarding
its format and content after they had completed the
questionnaire.

The respondents were asked to write

their comments down in the margin of the section of the
instrument which pertained to their criticism.

Specifi­

cally, the pilot study respondents were asked to comment

134
on the directions, the response sets, or any statements
included in the instrument which they thought to be con­
fusing, misleading, or ambiguous.

Of additional interest

was whether the total list of educational outcomes pre­
sented was sufficiently comprehensive or if there were
repetitious items.
The follow-up interviews with pilot respondents
lasted from forty-five minutes to two hours.

Utilizing

the written comments of the respondents, interview notes,
and the suggestions and comments offered by the
researcher's doctoral committee, the questionnaire
was rewritten according to the most frequently mentioned
criticisms and comments.

The pilot study produced

valuable information which helped give the instrument
in its final form greater clarity and cohesiveness.
Response to the questionnaire was generally
favorable and the participants in the pilot study felt
that the instrument would measure what it was designed
to measure.

Several changes were made, however.

Because

some of the items were perceived to be repetitious or
unnecessary, the number of educational outcome items
included in the questionnaire was reduced to twenty-two.
Question four of Section I with its four responses was
deleted because it was felt by the respondents and others
who evaluated the questionnaire that the question gave
the instrument unnecessary length.

The importance of

135
the question was not viewed as being vital and it was
feared that it would detrimentally effect an adequate
response to the questionnaire.

This change in the final

form reduced the bulk of the instrument by almost half.
Section II remained unchanged except for the
corresponding exclusion of items in Section I of the
instrument.

Section III was reduced from twelve to six

open-ended questions.

The questions not included in

the final form of the questionnaire might have elicited
interesting information, but the questions were considered
to be somewhat extraneous to the primary purposes of the
study.
Collection of the Data
The data were collected in three stages.
May 14, 1973, a copy of the questionnaire
a cover letter

On

(Appendix A),

(Appendix B) explaining the purpose of

the study and instructions for returning the completed
questionnaire were mailed through the U.S. Postal Service
to the campus address of each faculty and student person­
nel staff member who had been randomly selected to the
sample groups.

On May 23, 1973, a second letter

(see

Appendix C) and a second copy of the instrument were
sent to nonrespondents through the campus m a i l .

Two

weeks later the second and final follow-up was conducted
by telephone to request nonrespondents to complete and
return the questionnaire.

The telephone follow-up was

136
continued for one week.

A period of two weeks following

the second follow-up was allowed for final return of the
questionnaire.

Table 3.1 provides a summary of partici­

pating and nonparticipating subjects from the two sample
groups.
As Table 3.1 indicates, 68 per cent of the stu­
dent personnel sample and 70 per cent of the faculty
sample returned usable questionnaires.

Both groups com­

bined returned forty-seven questionnaires upon first
receiving a request to participate in the study and an
additional fifteen were returned after the first followup.

Usable returns after the second follow-up totaled

sixty-nine.

Nine student personnel staff members and

ten faculty did not return the questionnaire.
questionnaires were returned incomplete.

Four

A departmental

secretary returned one questionnaire with the notation
that the individual had been "terminated."

One indi­

vidual indicated that he was soon to leave on sabbatical
and "pressing matters to attend to before he left made
it impossible for him to get to the questionnaire."
One individual wrote that since he "didn't have the
foggiest notion of the influence of student personnel
workers on the educational process, and that while this
situation should probably be rectified, for him to
respond would just add spurious data to the study."
Another person noted that,

"although she had started to

TABLE 3.1.— Summary of participating and nonparticipating subjects in samples
Student Personnel
Staff

Faculty

Total

% of
Total

# Responses

%

# Responses

%

Early Return (before 1st
follow-up)
Return After 1st Follow-up
Return After 2nd Follow-up

23
9
2

46
18
4

24
6
5

48
12
10

47
15
7

47
15
7

Total Usable Returns

34

68

35

70

69

69

2

4

3

6

5

5

5
9

10
18

2
10

4
20

7
19

7
19

Total Nonparticipants

16

32

15

30

31

31

Total Sample
Nonparticipants

50
16

100
32

50
15

100
30

100
31

100
31

Total N in Analysis

34

68

35

70

69

69

Unusable Returns
Not Participating (notified
before 2nd follow-up
Not Participating (notified
during 2nd follow-up
No Response

fill out the questionnaire,

it became clearer and clearer

that her answers would be meaningless.”
During the second follow-up, five individuals
indicated that they "didn't have the time.”
vidual stated that he was,

One indi­

”not sympathetic toward surveys

and probably would not fill it out."

Another individual

said simply that he "does not respond to questionnaires
as lengthy as this one."

One completed questionnaire was

returned after the data were analyzed.
Treatment of the Data
Section I of Questionnaire
Section I of the questionnaire was designed so
that responses could be quantified and prepared for com­
puter analysis.

Group mean scores were computed for

both the faculty group and the student personnel group
across twenty-two measures
three scales

(educational outcomes) on

(A, B, C) representing the three questions

asked of each respondent for each measure.

The total

number of dependent variables was sixty-six.

There

were two levels of one independent variable.

Compari­

sons were made between group mean scores which range
from one through five.

As was indicated in the section

of this chapter entitled The Questionnaire

(p. 129)/

the magnitude of the mean score indicates the relative
agreement (positive or negative) of the respondent with

139
the question asked of him.

Low mean scores reflect

positive responses and high mean scores reflect negative
responses to the questions.
Hypotheses used to describe main interest tests
of comparison were stated in the null form.

The null

hypotheses included in this study were first introduced
in Chapter I and then were re-introduced in Chapter IV
at each point of analysis.

The following is the general

null hypothesis related to comparisons indicated in
Section I of the instrument:

There are no differences

between the faculty group and the student personnel group
with respect to the variables included in the test
instrument.
A one-way multivariate analysis of variance was
applied to group means to determine whether there were
statistically significant differences between means.
Because the researcher was interested in overall tests
of significance involving the rather large number

(66)

of dependent variables incorporated into the research
design of this study, multivariate analysis was chosen
as the appropriate statistical treatment.

"If it is

necessary to evaluate two or more dependent variables
simultaneously, a multivariate analysis of variance
design can be used"

(77:5).

"The number of variables

operating in a behavioral science problem is far
greater than it usually is in physical science (partly

140
because it is harder to get manipulative control).

And

it is this sheer number and complexity which demands
the proper application of multivariate methods"

(22:63).

The advantages of multivariate designs are
explained by Cattell.
1.
2.

3.

It is economical to consider a number of
relationships (between variables) simultaneously.
Enduring concepts depend generally on a whole
pattern of relationships becoming apparent and
this occurs more readily when many variables
are studied together.
Concepts are more adequately tested by multi­
variate techniques, because whole concepts are
usually poorly represented by a single variable
and really require a weighted composite of the
variables through which the concept is expressed.
(22:56)
Beyond these conceptual considerations of the

desirability of multivariate analysis of variance is the
statistical problem presented when a large number of
dependent variables is considered as is true in the
present study.

Separate multiple tests of comparison

between means would result in severely limiting alpha
levels due to the fact that repeated tests must deal
with the problem of an increasing probability of making
a type-I error.

Multivariate analysis has the capa­

bility to test overall differences between multivariate
mean vectors and then.if significant, discriminate
univariate analysis can be performed

(5:168).

"In order to generate results that allow
inferences to a specified population, assumptions must

141
be made, analogous to those of univariate analysis of
variance"

(69:247).

Hypothesis testing based on the F

distribution as the theoretical model involves the
following assumptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Observations are drawn from normally distributed
populations.
Observations represent random samples from
populations•
Variances of population are equal.
Numerator and denominator of F ratio are
independent. (77:43)
In order to defend against violations of these

assumptions, a sufficiently large number of subjects
were randomly selected for inclusion in the study.
Additionally, sample sizes are nearly equal
n = 35).

(n » 34 and

Analysis of variance is considered to be

robust with respect to the violation of assumptions
one and three listed above.
Section IX of the Questionnaire
The Kendall rank-correlation coefficient as
described by Kirk (77:498), Chao
and Stanley

(23:453), and Glass

(49:176) was used to analyze the data taken

from Section XI of the study instrument.

In Section II

respondents were asked to select from an unordered list
of the educational outcome statements originally pre­
sented in Section I of the instrument those five items
which they considered to be most important to the pur­
poses of higher education.

The procedure produced a

142
frequency rank order of the outcomes for each of the
two main interest study groups.
The Kendall rank-correlation coefficient, desig­
nated t a u , "is a measure of the degree of correlation
between two sets of ranks"

(23:453).

According to Glass

and Stanley, the use of tau as a comparative measure
is preferable due to its unique characteristics.
If two persons are drawn at random from the group
of n, the difference between the probability that
they will have the same order on both x and y
(the two rank orders) and the probability that
they will have different orders on x and y is
equal to the value of tau. Mathematical sta­
tisticians find this a particularly pleasing
property for such a coefficient to have.
They
tend to prefer tau to the Spearman rank-corre­
lation coefficient on these grounds and on the
grounds that it is somewhat easier to work with
in the realms of inferential statistics. (49:178)
When the number of observations is greater than
ten, as is the case in this study,

the value of tau can

be converted to a standardized normal score in order to
test the null hypothesis that no association or cor­
relation exists between two sets of observations against
the alternative that there is a correlation (23:455).
The probability of a type-I error was set at (.05) for
the analysis.

Because of the possibility that ties would

occur in either of the ranks a modified formula for com­
puting Kendall's, tau was used

(49:179).

The value of tau ranges from -1 to +1.

A cor­

relation of +1 indicates a perfect positive correlation

14 3
and zero indicates no correlation.

A -1 value for tau

indicates a perfect negative correlation.
Section III of the Questionnaire
Questions one through four of Section III of the
questionnaire solicited (1) the respondents' opinions
concerning the extent to which they as faculty or student
personnel staff members desire to work cooperatively
with each other in order to help students achieve full
benefit of their education, and

(2) the attitudes and

opinions which faculty and student personnel workers
hold of each other.

Because the nature of the responses

to these open-ended questions do not easily lend them­
selves to quantification and statistical analysis, a
subjective interpretation of these results will be pro­
vided by the researcher.

This will also be the case

with regard to information gathered as a result of the
follow-up interviews.

The researcher will seek to

describe apparent trends and obvious agreements and dis­
agreements of opinion registered by respondents.

In

order to partially overcome the obvious limitations of
a one-judge interpretation of this descriptive data, the
researcher will present as much of the content of response
as possible in addition to his own analysis of that
content.
Question five and six of Section III asked the
respondents to answer in "yes" and "no" fashion in

144
addition to their more complex written responses.

A

(2 x 2) Chi-Square test of independent technique (23:291)
was used to test for a significant relationship between
the responses to both questions by each of the study
groups.

Significance was tested at the .05 level.

The

primary relationship of interest here was whether or
not serving on committees which included students cor­
related with meaningful faculty-student personnel staff
relationships.
Follow-Up Interviews
Upon receiving the data collected from Section III
of the study instrument, interviews were arranged with
five participating faculty members and five participating
student personnel staff members from the original sample
groups.

The purpose of these follow-up interviews was

to discuss the questions and concerns presented in
Section III in order to compliment and enlarge upon
written comments registered in the questionnaire.
Although the researcher asked leading questions to
direct the conversation toward the issue of cooperative
relationships between student personnel staff and
faculty,' the format of these interviews was open-ended
and informal.
Interviews lasted from thirty to sixty minutes.
Interview subjects were exceptionally cooperative and
appeared interested in the discussion.

i

Although

14 5
time-consuming,

the interview technique seemed to be a

good research method.

A more structured interview and

the use of a recording machine

(this researcher took

interview notes) would be helpful if this research method
were to be used as the primary technique of data col­
lection for a study.

In an interview situation the topic

can be discussed in greater depth and more information
can be obtained due to the fact that the respondent
can ask questions and go beyond the restriction of
written questions.
As is the case in reporting data from Section III
of the questionnaire,

information obtained from the

follow-up interviews is extremely subjective and
entirely descriptive.
applied.

No statistical treatment was

A summary of interview notes is provided in

Chapter IV.

Because a small number of participants were

interviewed and the interviews lacked any great amount
of structure, the reader should recognize these limi­
tations when considering the "additional information"
reported from the interview data.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction
In Section I of the questionnaire

(see Appendix A)'

twenty-two educational outcomes with their definitions
were presented.

Following each outcome statement were

three questions which asked the respondent to assess
according to his own perceptions:

(1) importance of the

outcome relative to the purpose of higher education,
(2) how successful MSU is in helping students achieve
the outcome, and

(3) the extent to which faculty and

student personnel staff work cooperatively toward help­
ing students achieve the outcome.

Each question was

accompanied by a five-point Likert-type scale which
allowed the respondent to indicate the extent of his
agreement or disagreement with the question.

Numerical

values were assigned to each of the choices so that mean
scores could be tabulated.
The statistical technique used in analyzing the
data taken from Section I of the questionnaire was a one­
way multivariate analysis of variance to determine whether
significant differences existed between mean scores
14 6

147
representing the opinions of the faculty sample group
and the student personnel workers sample group on twentytwo measures on each of three scales.

The twenty-two

measures represent the twenty-two educational outcome
statements included in the study.

The three scales

(A,

B, C) represent the three questions asked of the respon­
dents concerning each of the twenty-two measures.
If significant differences between mean scores
were indicated by the overall F-ratio of the multivariate
analysis, then a univariate analysis was used to determine
which of the twenty-two dependent variables on a particu­
lar 3cale contributed to the significant difference in
mean scores.

The direction of difference is determined

by examining the observed cell means per variable since
there were only two levels of a single independent var­
iable included in the design.

If significance was not

indicated, the direction of agreement between sample
groups can be determined by employing the same method.
The analysis for this data was done on a CDC
6500 computer in the Michigan State University Computer
Center.

The computer program utilized was the Finn Multi­

variance— Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance
and Covariance:

A FORTRAN IV Program

(43).

The program itself and assistance in programming
were made available through the Office of Research

i

148
Consultation, School for Advanced Studies in the College
of Education at Michigan State University.
Section II of the questionnaire consisted of a
list of all the educational outcomes presented in
Section I.

The respondent was asked to check those five

items which he felt were most important relative to the
purposes of higher education.

Kendall's rank-correlation

coefficient (23:453-56), a nonparametric statistical
technique, was used to analyze the data taken from
Section II of the study instrument.

The coefficient

is designated tau and the value of tau ranges from -1
to +1.

The test for the null hypothesis that no associ­

ation or correlation exists between two sets of ranked
observations against the alternative hypothesis is done
by computing a standardized normal score when, as is the
case in this study,

(n > 10) observations

(23:455).

All necessary computations made with regard to the analy­
sis of this data were done with the assistance of a desk
calculator.
Information obtained from questions one through
four of Section III of the questionnaire

(see Appendix A)

is in .the form of written comments and supplemented with
information gathered from follow-up interviews conducted
with a group randomly selected from the two sample groups
included in the study.

Because the first four questions

in Section III were open-ended and because the follow-up

.

149
interviews were largely instructured, the data obtained
were highly subjective and qualitative, thus, statistical
procedures were not especially appropriate.

However,

major emphases and trends observed in examining this
information are presented and discussed.
Questions 5 and 6 of Section III were designed
to elicit "yes" and "no" type responses in addition to
general comments.

In question 5, respondents were asked

if they had ever worked on a committee on which students
were also members.

In question 6 respondents were asked

if they had ever worked cooperatively in a faculty-student
personnel relationship which they had considered to be
a worthwhile experience.
gency table

A

(2x2)

chi-square contin­

(23:291) was utilized to test for a signifi­

cant relationship between the responses to both questions
by each of the study groups.
The major findings of the analysis are presented
in graph and table form as each of the null hypotheses
and the "Additional Questions"
duced.

(see Chapter I) are reintro

Following a presentation of the findings, an over­

view and interpretation of the analysis is offered in a
later section of this chapter.

It is important to remain

cognizant of the limitations of the research discussed in
Chapter I, page 20.

150
Between Group Comparison of Means:
Perceived
Importance of Selected Educational Outcomes
(Scale A, Section I of the Questionnaire)
The first hypothesis is concerned with the extent
of agreement or disagreement between the faculty group
respondents and the student personnel group respondents
regarding their opinions of the importance of twenty-two
educational objectives for higher education
Respondents were asked to select,

(Scale A ) .

from among the following

five response alternatives, the one which most closely
represented their personal opinion of how important each
of the twenty-two educational outcome statements were to
the purposes of higher education:
2.Important, 3.
Very

Undecided, 4.

Unimportant.

1.

Very Important,

Unimportant, and 5.

The number associated with each

response listed above indicates the numerical value
assigned to it.

This was done in order to compute group

mean scores for each dependent variable.

Group means

were tabulated by adding the individual scores and
dividing the total score by the number of respondents in
each sample g r o u p .

Lower scores and group means repre­

sent more favorable opinions bf the stated educational
outcome•
The null hypothesis associated with this question
is :

151

There are no differences in opinion between the
faculty group and the student personnel group
regarding the importance of selected educational
objectives to the purpose of higher education.
As can be seen in Table 4.1, the multivariate
analysis of variance found significant differences

(at

the .05 level) between the faculty group and the student
personnel group on Scale A.

The data presented in Table

4.1 further indicate that the probability of obtaining
the multivariate F-ratio = 2.6399 with 22 and 46 degrees
of freedom is (p .0028) .
thus rejected.
significant,

The null hypothesis

(Ho1 ) was

Because the multivariate F-ratio was

it becomes necessary to examine the uni­

variate analysis in order to determine which dependent
variables

(educational outcomes) contribute to the dif­

ference .
TABLE 4.1.— Multivariate analysis of variance on Scales A,
B, and C
Source
Scale A
Scale B
Scale C

Degrees of
Freedom

F-ratio

p less than

22
46
22
46
22
46

2.6399

.0028*

1.5094

.1188

1.1120

.3699

significant at .05 level

152
The results of the univariate analysis of
variance for Scale A are presented in Table 4.2.

Sig­

nificant differences between the opinions of the faculty
group and the student personnel group (at the .002 level)
are indicated for variable 2A (Aesthetic Val u e s ) .
nificant differences

Sig­

(at the .05 level) are indicated

for variables 6A (Effective Inter-Racial and Ethnic Atti­
tudes) , 15A

(Interpersonal Skills), and 17A (Well-Defined

Sexual Identity).

No significant differences were found

(at the .05 level) for variables 4A (Acquisition of
Knowledge) and 5A (Perception of Identity), but their
probability values are sufficiently low to be pointed
out to the reader as a point of information only.
Because of the large number of measures

(22 dependent

variables per scale) and because alpha levels are addi­
tive in repeated comparisons of the same data, caution
must be exercised when considering larger alpha levels
in the univariate analysis.

While it is not prohibitive,

especially in view of the highly significant multivariate
F-ratio on Scale A, this caution must be applied to
differences found at the .05 level in the univariate
analysis.
Table 4.3 displays the means and the standard
deviations for both the faculty and student personnel
group*s opinions concerning the importance assigned to
each of the educational outcomes relative to the

153

TABLE 4.2.— Univariate analysis of variance for Scale A
Source
1A
2A
3A
4A
5A
6A
7A
8A
9A
10A
11A
12A
13A
14A
15A
16A
17A
18A
19A
20A
21A
22A

MS Between
.1528
10.5788
.3902
1.3586
2.8884
3.2931
.3859
1.84 29
.0247
1.1553
.3773
.0149
.0004
.0070
2.8884
.2814
8.5117
.1696
.9412
.7612
.0760
.1725

MS Within
.2187
.5135
.6292
.4123
.9281
.5872
.6098
.8048
.7251
.7385
.6554
.7309
1.3121
.4567
.7191
.3038
1.2205
1.3230
.9377
1.3141
.2407
1.2074

Univariate F
.6983
20.6000
.6201
3.2949
3.1121
5.6079
.6327
2.2897
.0340
1.5643
.5756
.0204
.0003
.0154
4.0164
.9261
6.9736
.1282
1.0037
.5792
.3158
.1428

p

<

.4064
.0001a
.4338
.0740
.0823.
.0208
.4292
.1350
.8543
.2154
.4508
.8869
.9855
.9018
,0492b
.3394
,0103b
.7215
.3201
.4493
.5761
.7067

Degrees of Freedom = 1 and 67
S i g n i f i c a n t at .002 level
^Significant at .05 level
Source:

Question A for each measure listed in order of
presentatipn in questionnaire.

154

TABLE 4.3.— Scale A — Perceived importance of outcome to
purposes of higher education— faculty and student person­
nel group means and standard deviations
Faculty

Student Personnel

Outcome Item
S .D.

Mean

1.200
1.628
1.88
1.542
2.08

.405
.645
.758
.657
1.121

1.294
2.411
1.735
1.823
1.676

.523
.783
.827
.626
.767

JL
.002

2.143
1.914

.879
.853

1.705
1.764

.629
.698

tn
o
•
*

Communication Skills
Aesthetic Values
Personal Autonomy
Acquisition of Knowledge
Perception of Identity
Effective Inter-Racial
and Ethnic Attitudes
Management of Emotions
Well-Developed Value
System
Development of Purpose
Non-Au thoritarianism
Cultural Appreciation
Effective Organization
of Work
Well-Developed Religious
Orientation
Social Consciousness
Interpersonal Skills
Intellectual Competence
Well-Defined Sexual
Identity
Capacity for Leisure
Time Activities
Employabi1i ty
Marriage and Family
Life Skills
Critical Thinking
Loyalty to Institution

Mean

1.88
1.714
1.800
2.028

1.157
.859
.833
.821

1.558
1.676
2.058
2.176

.503
.842
.885
.796

2.000

. 874

2.029

.834

3.171
1.685
2.085
1.34 2

1.294
.718
1.067
.539

3.176
1.705
1.676
1.470

.968
.629
.534
.563

*.05

3.114

1.254

2.411

.924

*.05

2.628
2.057

1.285
1.186

2.529
1.823

.991
.672

2.857
1.257
3.400

1.263
.505
1.062

2.647
1.323
3.500

1.011
.474
1.134

Overall 2. 06

S.D.

Overall 2.01

Significant at confidence level indicated.

155
purposes of higher education (Scale A ) .

Low mean scores

indicate that the group considered the outcome important
and high mean scores indicate that the group considered
the outcome unimportant.

The scale of importance ranges

from (1 = very important)

through (5 = very unimportant).

The overall mean score for the faculty across all
variables is 2.06 and for the student personnel group
2.007.
An examination of Table 4.3 reveals that while
both faculty and student personnel workers considered
"Aesthetic Values" to be an important educational outcome
relative to what they perceived to be the purposes of
higher education, the faculty group considered it to be
more important (mean = 1.628) than did the student per­
sonnel group

(mean = 2.411).

With regard to "Effective

Inter-Racial and Ethnic Attitudes," "Interpersonal Skills,"
and "Well-Defined Sexual Identity" in each case the stu­
dent personnel group considered these outcomes to be
more important to the purposes of higher education than
did the faculty group.
outcomes in order are:
Personnel = 1.705),

The means associated with these
(Faculty = 2.143 vs. Student

(Faculty = 2.085 vs. Student Per­

sonnel = 1.676), and (Faculty = 3.114 vs. Student
Personnel = 2.411).
As was pointed out earlier, the two study groups
approached

(but did not reach)

the level of significant

156
differences on two additional variables

(in Scale A ) .

With this caution in mind, the information is reported
for the reader*s consideration.

The faculty group

(mean =

1.542) considered the "Acquisition of Knowledge" to be
more important than did the student personnel group
(mean « 1.823).

The student personnel group (mean =

1.676) considered the "Perception of Identity" to be
more important than did the faculty group

(mean «= 2.085).

Both groups, however, expressed the opinion that each
of these educational outcomes were relatively important.
On the remainder of the variables considered on
Scale A, there was essential agreement between faculty
and student personnel workers.

Again by referring to

Table 4.3, it is possible to determine the direction of
this agreement.
centered around

The overall mean scores for both groups
(2.0) which indicates that both groups

felt that the educational outcomes presented for their
consideration in the study were relatively important.
It is of interest to consider which variables both the
faculty group and the student personnel group felt were
more or less important than others.

Those variables

which received mean scores of 1.5 or less

(midway between

very important = 1^0 and important = 2.0) by both groups
are as follows:

Communication Skills, Intellectual

Competence, and Critical Thinking.

Those variables

which received mean scores of greater than 3.0 by both

157
groups in the direction of less importance are as follows:
Well-Developed Religious Orientation and Loyalty to the
Collegiate Institution.
Between Group Comparison of Means:
Perceived
Extent of MSU's Success in Helping Students
Achieve Educational Outcomes CScale b 7
Section I of Questionnaire)
Consideration will now be turned to an analysis
of Scale B in Section I of the study instrument.
same dependent variables

(educational outcomes)

The
are con­

sidered, but the concern focuses on the opinions of the
faculty group and the student personnel group in terms
of how successful they perceive MSU to be in helping
students achieve the twenty-two educational outcomes
presented in the study.

Respondents were asked to

select from among the following five response alterna­
tives,

the one which most closely represented their

personal opinion of how successful MSU is in helping
students achieve each of the twenty-two educational
outcomes:

1.

Undecided, 4.

Very Successful,

2.

Unsuccessful, and 5.

Successful,

3.

Very Unsuccessful.

The number associated with each response listed above
indicates the numerical value assigned to it.

This was

done in order to compute mean scores for each dependent
variable.
The null hypothesis associated with this question
is:

There is no difference in opinion between the
faculty group and the student personnel group
regarding how successful Michigan State University
is in helping undergraduate students achieve a
selected group of educational outcomes.
As was indicated in Table 4.1

(page 151), the

multivariate analysis of variance for Scale B revealed
no significant differences

(at the .05 level) between

the faculty group and the student personnel group.
the null hypothesis

(Ho2) was not rejected.

Thus,

Because the

multivariate F-ratio was not significant, an examination
of the univariate analysis is not permitted.

It can be

concluded that the opinions of the faculty group and the
student personnel group are in essential agreement
regarding the success MSU enjoys in helping students
achieve the educational outcomes presented in this study.
The means and standard deviations for both groups
with regard to their opinions on Scale B are found in
Table 4.4.

Low mean scores indicate that the group con­

sidered the university successful in helping undergraduate
students achieve the outcome and high mean scores indicate
the group considered the university to be relatively
unsuccessful in helping students achieve the outcome.
The scale of success ranges from (1 *= Very Successful)
through (5

—

Very Unsuccessful).

The overall mean score

for the faculty group across all variables is 2.855 and
for the student personnel group 2.859,

159

TABLE 4.4.— Scale B— Perceived success of MSU in achieving
outcomes— Faculty and student personnel group means and
standard deviations
Student
Personnel

Faculty
Outcome Item

Communication Skills
Aesthetic Values
Personal Autonomy
Acquisition of Knowledge
Perception of Identity
Effective Inter-Racial and
Ethnic Attitudes
Management of Emotions
Well-Developed Value System
Development of Purpose
Non-Authoritarianism
Cultural Appreciation
Effective Organization of
Work
Well-Developed Religious
Orientation
Social Consciousness
Interpersonal Skills
Intellectual Competence
Well-Defined Sexual
Identity
Capacity for Leisure Time
Activities
Employability
Marriage and Family Life
Skills
Critical Thinking
Loyalty to Institution

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

3. 085
3.114
2.914
2.171
2.914

.781
.832
.781
.568
.701

2.794
2.941
3.000
2.441
3.058

.913
.850
.921
.704
.850

2.885
3.057
3.000
2.857
2.828
2.657

.932
.725
.685
.493
.857
.764

3.000
2.941
2.823
2.852
3.000
2.794

.953
.885
.716
.783
.778
.808

2.971

.785

3.058

.919

3.342
2.428
2.600
2.914

.998
.739
.694
.950

3.705
2.352
2.617
2.558

.798
.645
.817
.785

3. 085

.507

2.852

.743

2.514
2.371

.658
.770

2.617
2.382

.853
.888

3.171
2.685
3. 257

.568
.866
.816

3.470
2.470
3.176

.706
.861
.796

Overall 2.855

Overall 2.859

160
Because no significant differences between groups
were found and because the overall mean scores of each
group are almost identical, it can be concluded that
there is agreement on Scale B between groups.

The

direction of their agreement is difficult to determine
since their mean scores of 2.85 fall decidedly close to
3.0 = undecided.

An examination of group cell means would

seem to indicate that the overall group mean of 2.85 is
not the product of an averaging of extreme scores, but
rather that they individually reflect the overall mean.
Individual cell means which vary slightly from
the general consensus of both groups toward the direction
of the university succeeding in helping students achieve
objectives include the following variables:

Acquisition

of Knowledge (Faculty mean = 2.171, Student Personnel
mean = 2.441), Social Consciousness

(Faculty mean = 2.428,

Student Personnel mean = 2.352), and Employability
(Faculty mean = 2.371, Student Personnel mean = 2.382).
Well-Developed Religious Orientation

(Faculty mean —

3.342, Student Personnel mean - 3.705)

is the only

variable which might indicate opinions in the direction
of lack of success.
Between Group Comparison of Means:
Perceived
bxtenb of Cooperation Between Faculty and
Student Personnel Workers (Scale Ci,
Section I of Questionnaire)
The third hypothesis is directly related to
information taken from Scale C of Section I of the study

161
instrument.

This question deals with the extent of per­

ceived cooperation between student personnel workers and
faculty.

Respondents were asked to select from among

the following five response alternatives, the one which
most closely represented their personal opinion of the
extent to which faculty and student personnel staff
cooperatively interact toward helping students achieve
each of the twenty-two educational outcomes presented in
the study instrument:
3.

undecided, 4.

1.

a great deal,

not very much, and 5*

2.

somewhat,

never.

The

number associated with each response alternative indi­
cates the numerical value assigned to it.

This was done

in order to compute mean scores for each dependent
variable.
The null hypothesis related to this question is:

Ho3 :
There are no differences in opinion between the
faculty group and the student personnel group
regarding the extent of perceived cooperative
interaction between the two groups toward helping
students achieve selected educational outcomes.
Information included in Table 4.1

(page 151)

indicates that the multivariate analysis of variance
yielded no significant differences (at the .05 level)
between the faculty group and the student personnel
group resulting in a failure to reject the null hypothe­
sis (Ho^).

Because the multivariate F-ratio was not

162
significant, an examination of the univariate analysis
for Scale C is not permitted.
Table 4.5 displays the cell means and standard
deviations for the faculty group and the student per­
sonnel group regarding their opinions of the extent of
cooperative interaction between themselves toward helping
undergraduate students achieve each of the educational
outcomes (Scale C ) .

Low group mean scores indicate a

lesser degree of perceived cooperation.

The scale of

cooperation ranges from (1 = a great deal) through
(5 = never).

The overall mean score for the faculty

group across all variables is 2.902 and for the student
personnel group 3.059.
As was the case on Scale B, mean scores on
Scale C center around the midpoint of the response range
(3.0 = undecided).

However, an examination of their

respective standard deviations (Table 4.5), reveals some
possible differences in the magnitude of the standard
deviations between Scale B and Scale C.

There appears

to be greater variability of opinion within both groups
per variable on Scale C (extent of perceived cooperation)
than within both groups per variable on Scale B (MSU
student's success in achieving outcomes).

Because no

tests to determine significant differences of variance
were performed,

the validity of this observation cannot

be stated with any great deal of assurance.

163

TABLE 4.5.— Scale C — Perceived cooperation between faculty
and student personnel group toward achieving outcomes—
Means and standard deviations
Student
Personnel

Faculty
Outcome Items
Mean
Communication Skills
Aesthetic Values
Personal Autonomy
Acquisition of Knowledge
Perception of Identity
Effective Inter-Racial and
Ethnic Attitudes
Management of Emotions
Well-Defined Value System
Development of Purpose
Non-Authoritarianism
Cultural Appreciation
Effective Organization
of Work
Well-Developed Religious
Orientation
Social Consciousness
Interpersonal Skills
Intellectual Competence
Well-Defined Sexual
Identity
Capacity for Leisure Time
Activities
Employability
Marriage and Family Life
Skills
Critical Thinking
Loyalty to Institution

S.D.

Mean

S .D.

3.257
3.171
2.800
2.714
2.771

.918
.890
.867
.925
.731

3.176
3.352
2.911
3. 000
3.117

1 .086
1 .011
1 .190
1 .180
1 .121

2.742
3.000
2.857
2.857
2.657
2.828

1.010
.685
.772
.69 2
.905
.923

2.823
3.176
2. 823
2.852
3. 088
3.176

1 .140
1 .217
.968
1 .076
.900
1 .113

3.028

.954

3.235

,923

3.457
2.685
2.714
3.085

.852
.932
.925
.886

3.823
2. 617
2.705
3.117

.757
1 .073
1 .142
,977

2.971

.663

2.735

.963

2.742
2.257

.700
1.038

3.147
2.352

1 .258
.949

3.057
2.971
3.228

.639
1.014
1.266

3.352
3.176
3.558

.949
.731
1 .106

Overall 2.902

Overall 3.059

164
Table 4.5 indicates two variables which seem to
deviate from the others on the basis of mean scores.
Both the faculty and the student personnel group seem
to share the opinion that there is at least some degree
of cooperation between the two groups in helping students
become employable.

Their respective means are 2.257 for

faculty and 2.352 for student personnel workers.

Both

groups perceive the least amount of cooperation between
themselves toward helping students achieve a Well-Developed
Religious Orientation.

The respective means are 3.4 57

for the faculty group and 3.823 for the student personnel
group.
Between Group Comparison of Rank Orders
Assigned to Educational Outcomes
The fourth hypothesis focuses on the question of
whether or not the faculty group and the student personnel
group included in this research rank the educational out­
comes presented in the study in a similar or dissimilar
order of priority.

Data derived from Section I of the

study instrument focused on the group opinions as they
related to each outcome separately and with regard to
the three questions asked of the respondents concerning
each of twenty-two variables (outcome statements).

In

Section II of the study instrument respondents were asked
to check from the total list of twenty-two educational
outcomes,

initially introduced in Section I, those five

165
items which they felt were most important to the purposes
of higher education.

By counting the number of times

each item was checked, a frequency rank order of items
for each group was obtained.
The null hypothesis associated with this question
is as follows;

Ho 4 s
There is no correlation between the faculty group
ranking of educational outcomes and the student
personnel group ranking of educational outcomes in
terms of the importance assigned to each of the
outcome items relative to the total list as per­
ceived by the faculty group and the student
personnel group.
As can be seen in Table 4.6, the test of the null
hypothesis that there is no correlation between the two
sets of rankings is rejected.
rank-correlation coefficient

The value of the Kendall
(tau) is (.4133).

into a standardized normal score (z = 2.8425),

Converted
it is

greater than the critical value of z « 1.960 at an alpha
level of .05.

The conclusion which can be drawn from

these data is that there is a small, but significant,
positive correlation between the faculty group and the
student personnel groups* ranking of the educational
outcomes.

The value of tau as computed from this data

is .4133 which on a scale ranging from -1 to +1 does not
indicate a strong correlation.

Nevertheless, the test

166

TABLE 4.6.— Relationship between faculty and student personnel group rankings
of educational outcomes
Outcome Item
Communication SkillB
Intellectual Competence
Perception of Identity
Critical Thinking
Interpersonal Skills
Social Consciousness
Development of Purpose
Wei1-Developed Value System
Acquisition of Knowledge
Personal Autonomy
Employability
Effective Inter-Racial and
Ethnic Attitude
Management of Emotions
Well-Defined Religious
Orientation
Cultural Appreciation
Effective Organization of
Work
Capability for Leisure Time
Activities
Aesthetic Values
Well-Defined sexual Identity
Loyalty to Institution
Non-Authoritarianism
Marriage and Family Life
Skills

SPW
Rank

F
Rank

P

tau

Q

1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
7
8
9

3
1
9
2
10
8
10
7
4
9
5

19
20
11
18
6
8
6
11
13
9
11

8
0
7
4
6
3
0
2
0

10
11

12
11

0
1

9
5

12
12

11
10

1
1

5
2

13

8

5

1

14
14
15
15
15

10
6
12
11
10

3
4
0
0
1

1
0
3
1
0

15

11

0

0

148

59

Totals

2

.4133*

0

^Significant correlation between group rankings.
Keyi

SPW " Student Personnel Workers
r - Paculty
P - Agreements in Order
Q “ Inversions in Order
tau - Rank Correlation Coefficient
Pin)
“ 35
SPW(n) * 34

Z Score
2.84

(at .05
level)
Crit. Val.
1.96

167
of the null hypothesis indicates statistically that (tau =
.4133)

is significantly different from zero to indicate

a correlation.
Table 4.7 shows the rank order each group assigned
to the list of educational outcomes and the frequency of
response for the items.

Although the two rankings are

correlated, an examination of the variables and their
ranks and response frequencies does illustrate dis­
tinctions of emphasis between the faculty and the stu­
dent personnel groups.

The student personnel group

ranked the outcome items one through fifteen.
group ranked the items one through twelve.

The faculty

Among the

top ranked outcomes, the magnitude of the frequency of
responses is much more concentrated for the faculty than
for the student personnel group.

The student personnel

group tied their rankings for eleven variables and the
faculty group tied rankings for fourteen variables.

Most

of the tied ranks for both groups occur at the bottom of
the order.
In order to further illustrate distinctions of
emphasis based on a disproportionate concentration of
ranking, it should be noted that frequencies of response
greater than ten are registered for only the top four
ranked outcomes by the faculty group.

Frequencies of

response greater than ten are evident for the top seven
ranked outcomes for the student personnel group including

168

TABLE 4.7.— Faculty group and student personnel group rank orders of educational
outcomes
SPRO

Rank

£a

Communication Skills
Intellectual Competence
Perception of Identity
Critical Thinking
Interpersonal Skills
Social Consciousness
Development of Purpose
Well-Developed Value System
Acquisition of Knowledge

1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
7

19
18
17
15
14
13
13
13
12

Personal Autonomy

8

9

Employability

9

8

Rank

fb
31
26
24
22
10

6

9

Aesthetic Values

7
8

8
7

8
8
9
10

7
7
5
3

10

3

Well-Developed Value System
Effective Organization of
Work
Personal Autonomy
Social Consciousness
Perception of Identity
Capability for Leisuretime Activity
Non-Authoritarianism

10

5

10
10
10
11

3
3
3
1

Management of Emotions

11

4

11
11

1
1

11

1

12
12

0
0

Effective Organization of
Work
Capability for Leisuretime Activity
Aesthetic Values
Well-Defined Sexual
Identity
Loyalty to Institution
Non-Authoritarianism
Marriage and Family Life
Skills
Kayt

12
12

3
3

13

2

14
14

1
1

15
15
IS

0
0
0

15

0

FRO - Faculty Rank Order
SPRO - student Personnel Rank order
fa ■ Frequency (n ■ 34)
fb m Frequency (n - 35)

Intellectual Competence
Critical Thinking
Communication Skills
Acquisition of Knowledge
Employability

1
2
3
4
5

Effective Inter-Racial and
Ethnic Attitudes

Well-Defined Religious
Orientation
Cultural Appreciation

FRO

interpersonal Skills
Development of Purpose
Cultural Appreciation
Well-Defined Religious
Orientation
Loyalty to Institution
Marriage and Family Life
skills
Management of Emotions
Well-Defined Sexual Identity
Effective Inter-Racial and
Ethnic Attitudes

169
three outcomes each ranked in a tie for sixth.

The

faculty concentrated their rankings to fewer outcomes
at the top of the scale than did the student personnel
group.

Thus on the basis of frequency of response

greater than ten, the student personnel group included
the following outcomes in the top sector of the rank
order which the faculty did not:

Perception of Identity,

Interpersonal Skills, Social Consciousness, Development
of Purpose, and Well-Developed Value System.
The top five-ranked outcomes for both groups
demonstrate a good amount of similarity between groups.
Communication Skills, Intellectual Competence, and Criti­
cal Thinking are mentioned by both the faculty and the
student personnel workers as being important outcomes of
higher education.
however.

There are interesting differences,

The student personnel group ranked Perception

of Identity as third and the faculty ranked it as ninth.
The student personnel group ranked Interpersonal Skills
as fifth and the faculty ranked it as tenth.

The faculty

group, on the other hand, ranked Acquisition of Knowledge
as fourth and the student personnel group ranked it as
seventh.

Also the faculty ranked Employability as fifth

and the student personnel group ranked it as ninth.
The educational outcomes which received fewer
than three checks on the questionnaire from the student
personnel group include:

Effective Organization of Work,

170
Capability for Leisure-Time Activity, Aesthetic Values,
Well-Defined Sexual Identity, Loyalty to the Institution,
Non-Authoritarianism, and Marriage and Family Life Skills.
The latter four were not checked by any of the student
personnel respondents.

The educational outcomes which

received fewer than three checks from the faculty group
include;

Well-Defined Religious Orientation, Loyalty to

the Institution, Marriage and Family Life Skills, Man­
agement of Emotions, Well-Defined Sexual Identity, and
Effective Inter-Racial and Ethnic Attitudes.

The latter

two were not checked by any of the faculty respondents.
Of particular interest is the fact that not one
faculty member included in the sample chose to select
Effective Inter-Racial and Ethnic Attitude as an important
outcome of a college education while five out of thirtyfour student personnel workers selected the same outcome
(ranked 10) as one of their five choices.

Conversely,

only one student personnel worker checked Aesthetic
Values

(ranked 14) as an important outcome of higher

education, while nine out of thirty-five faculty
respondents selected it for one of their five choices
and ranked it nine.

Effective Organization of Work was

selected by only two student personnel workers as an
important outcome of higher education for a rank of
thirteen, while seven faculty selected the same outcome
for a rank of eight.

171
The middle range of educational outcomes ranked
by student personnel workers

(frequency of response from

more than three to less than nine) includes:

Employability,

Effective Inter-Racial and Ethnic Attitudes, and Manage­
ment of Emotion.

The middle range of educational out­

comes ranked by the faculty

(frequency of response from

more than three to less than nine) includes:

Well-

Developed Value System, Effective Organization of Work,
Personal Autonomy, Social Consciousness, and Perception
of IdentityDescriptive Data:
Group Responses
to "'Additional Questions11
The open-ended questions which are included in
Section III of the study instrument were first intro­
duced in Chapter I of this study under Questions

(page 12).

Following a restatement of each question below, a
description of the faculty group responses and the stu­
dent personnel group responses will be offered.

No

statistical treatment is applied to the responses to the
first four questions.

However, when reviewing the data,

the researcher observed that the responses could be
categorized to some extent.

In order to provide some

additional insight, simple percentages are assigned to
the various types of responses.
personnel workers
(70% of sample)

Thirty-four student

(68% of sample) and thirty-five faculty

responded to the questionnaire.

172
Question 1.

Should faculty and student personnel workers

work more closely together in order to accomplish the
educational goals of the university?
Only three (8%) student personnel respondents
answered this question in the negative.

Although three

responses hardly indicate a trend, the expressed senti­
ments are as follows:

"Don't they already operate as

part of the same institution?"

"For the most part, I

do not see college student personnel as being a viable
part of the academic scene.”

"Probably not— how much

can student personnel workers offer at this time?"
The vast majority (approximately 92%) of student
personnel workers responding to this question felt that
the two groups should work more closely together.

The

following remarks represent the general response made
by personnel workers who answered this question in the
affirmative.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is one of
the greatest needs of the university.
The uni­
versity talks about humanizing itself, but con­
tinues to move in dehumanizing directions (more
TV courses) and overemphasizes intellectual
development.
Most definitely.
Working together for the "whole
person” is what higher education is all about.
The goals of the faculty and student personnel
workers are not mutually exclusive, but compli­
mentary.
Yes.
As student personnel workers, many of the
"problems” that we deal with could be integrated
into the curriculum very easily.

Yes.
Both (groups) have abilities and skills which
can compliment each other nicely.
Not to utilize
teamwork here is a waste of a great resource.
What students learn from their professors needs to
be integrated into the individual student's value
structures.
Yes, presently our attempts at educating the student
are very fragmented. We miss a lot of good oppor­
tunities for students because we seem unable to
bring ourselves together.
Yes.
Each area has important resources which neither
has effectively used in any joint efforts.
Yes.

Student personnel could teach the faculty much.

Yes, especially in establishing both informal and
formal means of communication.
Yes, in the hopes of drawing away from a concerted
focus on information deliverance.
Yes, I think this is a more effective way to deal
with the "total person."
Yes, because too often the student believes the two
are working at cross purposes.
Life is integrated
for a single student so we should help in that
integration by working together for common goals.
The credibility of student personnel workers seems
to be very low with faculty members.
We need
more mutual respect of our different goal orien­
tations .
Yes, by working together both groups would reach a
better understanding of each other.
Seven

(20%) student personnel respondents indi­

cated that faculty and student personnel workers should
work more closely together but added definite qualifi­
cation to their answers.

One type of qualification is

reflected in these two responses;

"Yes.

The territorial imperative is too strong."

But they won't.
"Yes, but

174
faculty members rarely respect student personnel workers
as professionals."

The most common type of qualified

"yes" is represented best by this response:

"Yes.

Each

group needs to be more knowledgeable about the goals and
objectives of the other.

Until they are, there will be

a lack of coordination? and the educational goals of the
university will not be met effectively."
Faculty Group Response to
Question 1
Nine

(26%) faculty respondents either did not

respond to this question or indicated that they were
undecided.

Seven

(20%) faculty group responses fell in

the category of "maybe."

Typical responses were:

"Probably, but who has the time?"
personnel agrees with my goals."
who knows?"

"Ideally, yes.

"Only if student
"Probably not, but

Practically, there are time

limitations and other obstacles."
Approximately 54 per cent of the faculty group
indicated by their responses that faculty and student
personnel workers should work more closely together in
order to accomplish the educational goals of the uni­
versity.

The researcher selected the following responses

from the faculty group as representative of those who
felt more cooperation between the two groups would be
desirable:

175
Much of student personnel work is directed toward
helping the student mature— this is essential and
complimentary to intellectual development.
Student personnel workers seem to me to have the
responsibility of making it physically, economi­
cally, and psychologically possible for students
to learn.
Having this responsibility, they are
necessary for education; but not strictly part of
it.
Thus there ought to be cooperation.
Yes, because the various elements in the university
should work towards interactional relationships.
There must be unity of purpose.
Yes, student growth has many facets and must be
approached in a variety of ways.
Yes, to avoid conflicts in orientation, objectives,
and actions.
And to compliment the strengths each
offers.
Yes, in my opinion an important university goal is
fostering self-learning skills.
The congruence of
faculty and student personnel workers should focus
here.
Yes, of course.
In other institutions that I have
been at, the faculty were the student personnel
workers as well— a healthy situation I feel.
No— they should engage in conflict and attempt to
undermine the goals of the university— this is a
silly question is it not?
Question 2.

Should the student affairs division of the

university be discontinued as a separate entity and be
integrated into the academic-instructional Bphere of the
institution?

176
Student Personnel Workers
Response to Question 2
Six (17%) student personnel group respondents
answered in the affirmative.

The following responses

were selected to represent this opinion:
If Student Affairs is going to survive, their work
must be more closely and more formally related to
the academic purpose of the university.
Yes, that's probably the best plan.
The problem is,
though, that student affairs must first be wanted by
the colleges.
That's just not so now.
Yes.
It (the student affairs division) is a waste
of money, not effecting change.
Certain emphases
of student affairs are valuable and should be a
part of the university system, but these emphases
stand more chance of enactment by the academic
than the student affairs staff.
Yes. Most goals could be achieved in the academic
area.
Yes, I feel a division between the student affairs
and the academic-instructional spheres is false.
Both feelings and thoughts are critical for
development of goals.
Five student personnel study participants
answered with a "perhaps" or "qualified yes" response.
Representative comments are as follows:
(The student affairs division) should not be dis­
continued, but should be minimally integrated into
the academic-instructional sphere.
If it isn't,
I believe it will be phased out entirely.
The answer to this question depends on the par­
ticular outcomes a university sets out to try to
accomplish.
If they are such that student per­
sonnel workers are only to perform in a support
role, then they possibly ought to be a part of the
academic-instructional sphere.
But, if they have
outcomes for which they have primary responsibility,
then they should probably have a separate identity,
although closely tied to the academic sphere.

177
The clear majority (68%) of the student personnel
respondents indicated that they felt the student affairs
division of the university should not be discontinued as
a separate entity.

The following is a group of repre­

sentative responses:
The functions of the Student Affairs Division are
sufficiently complex to warrant that division being
a separate entity.
While there needs to be greater
coordination, I'm afraid much would be lost in terms
of efficiency if integration were attempted.
No, it is too specialized.
Its set of functions
would be dissipated in the mileau of academia.
No. A strictly academically oriented institution
would deprive students of the well-rounded education
they deserve, the perspective of academicians hardly
being infallible.
No.
It can make a more meaningful contribution to
the basic mission of the university if it is
recognized as a separate professional identity in
its own right.
No, because student affairs has a clearly separate
if related educational role to play.
Student affairs should remain a separate entity
because more individualized attention can be given.
Integrated into the university as a whole, some of
the personal touch could be lost.
I wasn't aware of it as a "separate entity."
Faculty Group Response to
Question £
Seven

(20%) faculty respondents indicated by

their responses that the student affairs division should
be discontinued as a separate entity and be integrated
into the academic-instructional sphere of the university.
One respondent indicated that his work in a residential

178
college has helped give him a better perspective of
student personnel work.

Other responses included, "Yes.

Perhaps this arrangement might force the two groups to
talk with each other," and, "The two groups should be
integrated.

The affairs of students need to be 'in

house' integral aspects of university educational pro­
grams ."
Eleven (31%) faculty group respondents answered
this question in the negative.

The following comments

made by faculty members explain their reasons why not:
The academic's first loyalty is to his discipline.
The university needs an agency whose first loyalty
is to the student.
No, a certain degree of specialization is required
for the two areas and they can easily operate inde­
pendently as long as the lines of communication
are kept open.
No, a liberal education involves intellectual
aspects and consciousness-raising.
If people
in secondary schools were doing their jobs and
if families were working too, student affairs
would not be necessary at all.
No.

I don't think departments would do it.

Probably not.
It (student affairs division) pro­
vides services and student assistance beyond what
a group of faculty can and want to offer.
No, faculty should not be bothered. An individual
faculty member may of course, want to help a stu­
dent.
Kept separate.
It does not relate immediately to
the intellectual goals of a university.
It would seem to me that the student affairs
division serves its purpose adequately.

179
Seventeen

(approximately 48%) faculty members

either did not respond to this question or wrote "no
opinion" or "undecided."

One faculty member did indi­

cate that he "didn't know anything about the student
affairs division."

Another write that,

"It matters not.

As most things on this campus, you're speaking of mean­
ingless bureaucracy."
Question 3.

Do you feel that most faculty members are

concerned about the personal, emotional, and social
development of their students?
Student Personnel Workers
Response to Question 3
Approximately 26 per cent of the student person­
nel respondents felt that most faculty were concerned
about the personal, emotional, and social development
of their students.

This was expressed in terms of

faculty members' willingness to "spend time with stu­
dents out of class," or develop "personal relationships
with students."

One respondent felt that most faculty

were concerned, but "do not know how to express this
concern."
Approximately one-third of the student personnel
group answered this question in a decidedly negative way.
The "unwillingness of faculty members to meet openly
with students out of class," and "the faculty give
first priority to research," were cited as examples

180
of a lack of concern.

One respondent stated simply that,

"Most faculty are scared to death of students."
Approximately 41 per cent of the respondents
expressed the opinion that while "probably most faculty
members do not express a concern for the personal and
social development of the student, a significant number
of them do."

Another representative response for this

group was in defense of faculty being "unable to devote
a great deal of time to these concerns."

"Usually,

the

concern seems to vary inversely with age and tenure, but
there are notable exceptions on both sides."

One

interesting observation was that "most faculty members
are concerned about the student's personal life only
when a student comes to them with a specific problem
but there is no general inclination to be concerned."
Faculty Group Response to
Question 3
Six (17%) of the faculty respondents either did
not answer this question or indicated that they "did not
know."

Three respondents indicated that some faculty

are concerned about a student's personal development and
some aren't.

Eight others

(23%) offered the opinion

that faculty members "are not" or "can't" be concerned
about the personal, emotional, and social development
of their students.

Of the latter group the following

remarks typify the responses:

181
No, not the business of individual faculty members.
How can one with hundreds passing by each term?
No. Faculty tend to care only about their own
professional advancement.
No.
Refusal to see students on an informal basis
outside of class is an indication of a lack of
concern by faculty.
Eighteen faculty members

(approximately 51%)

indicated an opinion that most faculty members do have
a concern for the personal-social development of stu­
dents.

There was a tendency on the part of faculty

members from among this group to qualify their affirma­
tive answers, however.

The following are examples of

the types of responses registered by this group.
Concerned, but opportunities to help are limited
due to a general reluctance on the part of stu­
dents to confide with their teachers.
They are concerned but rarely get the opportunity to
get to know students well enough due to credithour production requirements.
Of course they have a concern but they almost never
see the whole student.
Yes, most faculty members I know take a paternal
interest in the lives of their current and past
students.
Majority do.
Office hours, willingness to work with
students, student organizations demonstrate their
concern.
Yes, I think that most are concerned but I think that
it is not,and should not be their major concern. We
(faculty) should be friends with them (students) in
an intellectual community, but we should not try to
be amateur psychologists.

182
Yes, most of their teaching and other contacts
directly or indirectly contribute positively to
student development.
Question 4.

Do you feel that most student personnel

workers are concerned about the academic and intellectual
development of students?
Student Personnel Workers
Response to Question 4
Five

(15%) respondents answered "no," but did

not offer much explanation beyond that.

One respondent

did indicate that, "Many of us (student personnel
workers) get into 'our thing' and forget about the
educational process."

Another five responded in "yes”

and "no" fashion and concluded that "like faculty,
student personnel workers established their own pri­
orities ."
The majority

(approximately 68%) of the student

personnel respondents felt that student personnel
workers were concerned about the academic and intel­
lectual development of students.

Representative com­

ments are as follows:
Yes.
This is expressed through attempts at orien­
tation (of students) to academic life, trying to
involve faculty in residence halls, providing
study skills, and tutorial assistance, educational
programs,.e t c •
They are concerned with helping students stay in
school.

183
Not entirely.
However, those that are, are, in
effect, powerless to do anything since there is
no communication between the affective (student
personnel) and intellectual (academic) components
of the university.
Clearly a neurotic institution.
Yes, follow-up on grade reports— tutoring lists, etc.
Yes, they try to correlate the aspects of student
life and academics.
Yes, student personnel workers aren't as far above
students, themselves, as most faculty members seem
to be.
Their time can be shared with students
whereas faculty seem to lack this time.
Yes, I feel student personnel workers are concerned
with a student's academic achievement record as the
prime focus for successful achievement at the uni­
versity.
Yes.
Their whole reason for existing is to facili­
tate the student's progress toward his academic
goals by caring for the obstacles to the student's
optimal growth and development as a confident,
self-directing individual.
Yes, through supportive counseling.
Faculty Group Response to
Question 4
Only one faculty respondent offered the opinion
that student personnel workers were not concerned about
the academic and intellectual development of students.
Of most significance is the fact that twenty-four

(69%)

of the faculty group who responded to the question
offered no opinion or answered that they did not know
in response to this question.

Another ten (29%) faculty

indicated that they were sure that student personnel

184
workers had a real concern in this area, but indicated
further that they,

"hardly knew student personnel

workers well enough to say more."
The last two questions presented in Section III
of the study instrument were as follows:
Question 5.

Have you ever been a member of a committee

on which students were also members?
Question 6.

Yes?

No?

Have you ever worked cooperatively in a

faculty-student personnel relationship?

Was it a

worthwhile experience?
The question of interest is whether there is any
correlation between faculty members who have worked on
committees with students and who have worked to their
satisfaction in a faculty-student personnel relationship.
The null hypothesis associated with this question is:

There is no significant relationship between faculty
members who have'worked on committees with students
and who have worked to their satisfaction in a
cooperative faculty-student personnel relationship.
The Chi
in Table 4.8.

2

test of this relationship is presented

The null hypothesis

ship is rejected at the .05 level.

(Hog) of no relation­
Of the thirty-five

faculty members in the sample group twenty-nine (82.9%)
indicated that they had worked on committees with students.

Of these faculty members,

twice as many indicated that

they had participated in a worthwhile faculty-student
personnel relationship as compared to those who had not.
Of those six faculty respondents who indicated that they
had not served on committees with students

(17.1%), only

one indicated that he had worked in a worthwhile facultystudent personnel relationship, whereas five indicated
that they had not.
TABLE 4.8.— Chi square test for independence between
faculty responses to questions five and six of the
study instrument
Have Worked in a Worthwhile
Faculty-student Personnel
Relationship

Have Worked on
Committees With
Students

Yes
No

Yes

No

19

10

29

1

5

6

20

15

n

C h i 2 = 4.844; df = 1; Significant at P = .05
Descriptive data for the student personnel group *s
responses

(n = 34) to question five and six is as follows:

Twenty-seven respondents

(79.5%) indicated that they had

worked on committees with students.

Twenty-three

(67.7%)

indicated that they had participated in a worthwhile
faculty-student personnel relationship.

A separate Chi

2

186
test for relationship was found to be nonsignificant
at the .05 level for this group.
Summary of Follow-Up Interviews
After the questionnaire data were collected and
the written responses to Section III were evaluated by
the researcher, informal interviews with five student
personnel staff (15% of the total number of respondents)
and five faculty

(14% of the total number of respondents)

study participants were arranged in an attempt to augment
and clarify information obtained from the questionnaire
itself.

Individuals to be interviewed were randomly

selected from among the sample group of respondents.
The interviews originally scheduled for thirty minutes
ranged from thirty minutes to one hour in duration.

The

format of the interview was informal and allowed the
respondent to discuss the broad area of the research
topic.

The interviewer did attempt to elicit responses

most pertinent to the issue of the relationship between
faculty and student personnel staff, the need for cooper­
ative effort, and what structures or processes would be
most productive in achieving a more integrative col­
legiate environment.
for each interview.
notes for each group.

The interviewer took brief notes
The following is a summary of these

187
Student Personnel Staff Group
Interviews
The consensus of this group was that educational
goals need to be emphasized more than they are at present.
No serious criticism was directed at the student personnel
profession regarding commitment to educational goals,
however.

Each individual interviewed was quite con­

versant with the issue of goals for higher education and
emphasized that these goals should reflect all aspects
of learning.

It was allowed that some student personnel

staff members, while having an appreciation of appropriate
educational goals, did not always demonstrate a commit­
ment to them in practice.
might be so included:

Explanations as to why this

heavy work loads, the constantly

changing nature of some tasks, the fact that some student
personnel positions are actually graduate degree training
positions, lack of accountability inherent in the organi­
zational structure, and the specialization or technical
nature of some positions.

One rather disenchanted indi­

vidual argued that it is difficult to operate out of
principle

(i.e., attention to important goals) because

of the "power structure" and the need to "play the game”
in order to survive or advance in the profession.
Regarding faculty commitment to goals and objectives
for higher education, it was felt that faculty concen­
trate too heavily on a student's academic success and

188
tend to define education too narrowly.

There was no real

criticism of faculty over-emphasizing research to the
detriment of teaching.
The student personnel staff who were interviewed
expressed a need to work more closely with faculty in
order to help students reach educational g o a l s .

There

was, however, a tendency to view faculty as somewhat
unreceptive to such overtures.

When asked if student

personnel staff should pursue cooperative relationships
with faculty in greater earnest, answers were in the
affirmative, but often qualified with the contention
that faculty need to show greater initiative as well.
This expectation seemed to be coupled with a belief that
too many faculty members are either ignorant of student
services or have a low opinion of the student affairs
division.

These and similar negative attitudes were not

indicated by two individuals who, as a part of their job
responsibilities, maintained close working relationships
with faculty members.
The ethical issue of confidential student records
and information appears to be of concern to student per­
sonnel staff regarding the sharing of information with
faculty.

This interviewer got the impression that more

necessary (permissible) sharing of information would
occur if there were more trusting and frequent relation­
ships between student personnel staff and faculty.

One

189
interesting comment was that,

"If faculty were more

inclined to give me feedback, I would be more inclined
to share information with them."
As reported earlier, there was the expressed
need for greater cooperation and communication, and, for
that matter, greater attention to educational goals—
between the two groups.

There were, however, few sub­

stantial suggestions as to how that might be accomplished.
Reasons why it is not so are more easily discussed.
Leaving it up to the individual faculty member or stu­
dent personnel worker was not seen as potentially pro­
ductive.

Furthermore, on any great scale this was not

perceived as receiving much priority as evidenced by the
lack of encouragement to do so in any systematic manner.
Of those who were interviewed, there was a tendency to
look for an organizational influence for cooperative
work or to leave the initiative to someone else, i.e.,
someone higher up in the hierarchy such as the dean of
students or the vice president for student affairs.
There was the suggestion that greater cooperation
between academic leaders and student affairs adminis­
trators must begin "at the very top" of the university
organization.

Two of the student affairs staff inter­

viewed felt very strongly that the university governance
structure should be redesigned to serve more decidedly
as a "community" decision-making system which would pay

190
more attention to student development concerns.

This

was seen as potentially more conducive to goal-oriented
decision-making.

The rather difficult question of how

such a cooperative action forum could rise above the
vested and powerful interests of the faculty was not
included in the basic idea as presented.
The student personnel interview group was not
especially favorable toward the idea that the student
affairs division as presently conceived should be
dissolved and decentralized or integrated into the
academic-instructional sphere.

This prospect was

generally considered to be a last resort or a conse­
quence of failure on the part of the student personnel
profession itself.

There was a definite concern for the

loss of "professional identity" under such circumstances
with regard to both student personnel functions and to
the individual professional.

Although it was conceded

that there would probably be more staff-faculty contact
and cooperation, it was felt that in the transition
period, either through faculty domination or student
personnel acquiescence,

too much would be lost.

Addi­

tionally, it was felt that there was a need for some
division of labor and specialized competence within
universities on the part of student personnel workers.
Some lack of confidence in the ability of the student

191
personnel division to maintain itself as an important
and unique unit within the university community was noted.
Complete decentralization and integration was
also criticized on the premise that some centralized
direction is necessary and the fact that extensive
decentralization would diminish significant communication
and professional development among student personnel
workers.

Concern was also registered for the student

who did not "fit" into a decentralized, albeit integrated,
faculty-student personnel unit.

Limited and qualified

structural decentralization and integration was approved
of.

The academic advisement system within the College

of Engineering whereby a staff of full-time academic
advisers responsible to a director for student affairs
within the college itself was referred to as a noteworthy
and acceptable model.
"Student development" has very definitely entered
the vocabulary of student affairs staff, at least as
represented by individuals selected for these interviews.
There was an obvious sentiment of criticism regarding
student personnel functions which are merely reactive
in nature as opposed to activities designed to be pro­
active and conceived of purpose toward helping students
achieve full personal and educational benefit from their
college experience.

192
Faculty Group Interviews
Xn talking with selected faculty members,

the

interviewer did not get the impression that faculty are
particularly receptive to comprehensive plans which might
be designed to implement institutional goals.

The impres­

sion that was left was that they felt that the independent
work they were doing did fit into the scheme of things at
the university.

The faculty did seem to be concerned

about more that the narrow interests of their own course
material and expressed a concern about the student beyond
the classroom.

Getting the course material across to

the student was considered to be of primary importance,
but all faculty who were interviewed appeared to be very
concerned about what the student did with the material
in terms of analyzing it and reacting to it.
to enjoy college students and teaching.

They seemed

In fact, they

appeared to be enthusiastic about their work.

A few

explained and showed this interviewer materials they were
using in their classes to improve communication, listening
skills, and critical thinking.

At least two stated that

they did formulate and implement objectives in their
courses.
To a degree greater than expected by this
researcher, most faculty who were interviewed seemed to
be knowledgeable about the general purposes and functions
of student services.

However,

their impressions appeared

193
to be limited to such functions as information giving and
rehabilitative services.

They tended to criticize the

student affairs division for not communicating to faculty
what services were available on the campus.

When asked

if they had sought such information, responses ranged
from,

"It's difficult to get it," to, "It's not my

responsibility."

Faculty additionally suggested that

they did not really know where to refer students for help
in all instances.

Furthermore, they indicated that they

would rather refer a student to a person than to an
office.
The interviewer got the distinct impression that
faculty perceive student affairs to be part of a referral
system and did not typically see many possibilities of
working in partnership for educational purposes.

When a

few such possibilities were suggested by the researcher,
there was some indication that the faculty would enter
into such a relationship if they could be confident of
some results.

In this regard one individual said that

he did not want to "waste his limited time just philoso­
phizing about it."
When asked if department chairmen or other aca­
demic administrators encouraged cooperative work with
student personnel workers, the response was "not really."
One instructor turned the question around and asked if
there were any established means to do so.

He was

194
interested in knowing where, how, and when this could
come about if it were actually desired.
Two faculty members complained that they were not
pleased with some of the contacts they had experienced
with the student personnel staff.

One instance involved

a counselor at the Counseling Center who would not give
the faculty member feedback on a student he had referred.
Another occasion for complaint involved a faculty member
who called a residence hall official about a student
having a residence hall room problem and had to call
back repeatedly for the information he desired.

Another

incident involved a professor who had prepared notes for
a residence hall educational program which never materi­
alized when he arrived at the hall.

Of particular

interest is the rather generalized negative impressions
left after only one rather negative experience.
Among the faculty who were interviewed, there was
some thought that student services should get closer to
the student and the faculty within the department itself
by having advisors or counselors working in the depart­
ment.

One faculty member saw this as essential and felt

that given proper training and competence such persons
could assist faculty in effective teaching techniques
and curriculum development.

It was also suggested that

such individuals could serve as a liaison between the
department or college and other student personnel services.

195
Others observed that student personnel staff
were not really educators in an academic sense, but some
made an exception to this perception when discussing the
kinds of educational programs developed in residence
halls.

However, another faculty member suggested that

in some of the professional and pre-professional courses,
especially those which required of their students various
personal and interpersonal skills beyond "intellectual"
abilities, a student development consultant would be a
valuable resource to a faculty group.
was that such a person(s)

The implication

could work in conjunction with

faculty members in helping students develop interpersonal
skills, awareness of self, sensitivity to others,

insight

into human behavior, e t c .
Overview and Interpretation of the
Analysis of Data
In the preceding section of this chapter, the
findings of each of the hypothesis tests and the results
of each of the "questions to be answered" were presented
separately.

An overview of these findings presented

below illustrates certain parallels and relationships
among them.

It has already been indicated that there

is substantial agreement between the two study groups
regarding their opinions of the matters presented in the
study.
cated.

However, differences of emphasis are also indi­

196
Differences of emphasis are extremely important
in any comparative discussion of goals and objectives.
Goals and objectives,

even those considered to be highly

desirable, are subject to some very real finite limi­
tations at the point of implementation.

Therefore, even

subtle, comparative distinctions between groups can be
of some consequence.
On Scale A of Section I of the study instrument,
respondents were given the opportunity to rate the impor­
tance of each educational outcome without having to
declare its importance in relation to the other items.
In Section II, respondents were forced to make choices
from among the total list of educational outcome items
according to their own priorities.

There are interesting

similarities between these two sets of responses.

Addi­

tionally, the manner in which each of the two groups
ranked the outcome items tends to substantiate the sig­
nificant differences observed between the two groups on
Scale A, Section I of the questionnaire.
The analysis of responses to Scale A of Section I
of the questionnaire revealed that both the faculty group
and the student personnel group rated communication
skills, intellectual competence, and critical thinking
as important outcomes of higher education.

These variables

received group mean scores of 1.5 or less.

Based on the

scale of importance, this would put these variables in

197
the range of opinion somewhere between 1 = very important
and 2 = important.

These same three outcomes were in the

five top ranked items for both groups in Section II.
Well-developed religious orientation and loyalty
to the collegiate institution received mean scores of
greater than 3.0 by both groups on Scale A.

The opinions

as expressed by mean scores indicate that both the faculty
and the student personnel group rate these items as rela­
tively unimportant outcomes of higher education.

This

finding is correlated with the low rank assigned to
them by both groups in Section II of the questionnaire.
Significant differences found between groups on
Scale A are consistent with group differences of rank
order as indicated by the data taken from Section II of
the questionnaire.

Aesthetic values was ranked ninth

by the faculty group and fourteenth by the student per­
sonnel group.

On Scale A the faculty group rated

aesthetic values as significantly more important (mean =■
1.628) than did the student personnel group (mean = 2.411).
Other parallels between significantly different
mean scores on Scale A, Section I, and ranks in Section II
for the faculty and student personnel groups are indi­
cated for three additional variables.

The student per­

sonnel group ranked interpersonal skills, five, and
effective inter-racial and ethnic attitudes, ten.
faculty group ranked these same variables in order,

The
ten

19a

and last.

The student personnel group rated both of

these variables as more important to higher education
than did the faculty group as indicated by significant
mean scores on Scale A, Section I.

While the student

personnel group rated well-defined sexual identity as
more important than did faculty group on Scale A, both
groups ranked the variable last in Section XI.
Although significant differences were not found
between groups for two other variables, a comparison
between mean scores and rank orders for the two study
groups illustrate parallels similar to those mentioned
above.

Based on an examination of mean scores, the

faculty group expressed the opinion that acquisition of
knowledge was a more important outcome of higher edu­
cation than did the student personnel group.

Perception

of identity was considered to be more important by the
student personnel group than by the faculty group.
Acquisition of knowledge was ranked fourth by the faculty
group and seventh by the student personnel group.

Per­

ception of identity was ranked third by the student per­
sonnel group and ninth by the faculty group.
Responses to the measures on Scale A represent
group opinions about educational outcomes in a preferred
sense.

The top-ranked items from Section II of the

questionnaire indicate which outcomes are most preferred
by each group.

Measures on Scale B from Section I of

199
the questionnaire represent the opinions of both groups
in terms of how successful they feel MSU actually is in
helping students achieve the educational outcomes
included in the study.

By examining the overall

responses to Scale A and Scale B, there appears to be
a discrepancy between preferred and actual outcomes as
perceived by the study groups.
Both the faculty group and the student personnel
group indicated that the educational outcomes presented
for their consideration were important.

The overall mean

scores across all twenty-two variables on Scale A centered
around

(2.0 = important).

The overall mean score for

both groups on Scale B was 2.85.

Less favorable opinions

of M S U 's success are reflected in higher mean scores.
It should be pointed out that the groups did not indicate
that MSU was unsuccessful in helping students achieve
educational outcomes.

The differences between preferred

and perceived actual outcomes is a matter of degree only.
There are exceptions to the generality of a dis­
crepancy between preferred and perceived actual outcomes.
The faculty ranked "Acquisition of Knowledge" and "Employ­
ability" fourth and fifth respectively

(see Table 4.7).

According to the faculty group mean scores for these two
variables on Scale B

(2.171 and 2.371), the faculty per­

ceived MSU to be "successful" in helping students
achieve these outcomes.

The student personnel group

200
ranked "Social Consciousness" sixth,

"Acquisition of

Knowledge" seventh, and "Employability" ninth indicating
at least a moderate preference for these goals.

On Scale

B, the student personnel group means for these variables
were all less than 2.5 indicating that MSU enjoyed some
success in helping students achieve the outcomes.
Again, considering responses on Scale B by both
groups, a "Well-Defined Religious Orientation" was con­
sidered to be the least successfully achieved outcome
for MSU students

{faculty mean - 3.34 2 and student per­

sonnel mean = 3.705).

It was also considered to be a

relatively unimportant outcome by both the faculty and
the student personnel groups.

Only three out of thirty-

four student personnel group respondents selected WellDefined Religious Orientation as one of their five choices
of important outcomes.

Only one out of thirty-five

faculty respondents checked it as one of their five
choices.
The opinions of both groups regarding the per­
ceived extent of cooperation between faculty and student
personnel workers toward helping students achieve the
educational outcomes included in the study is measured
on Scale C

(see Table 4.5).

The only variable for which

the mean scores of both groups closely approached
somewhat) was Employability.

(2 . 0 =

The faculty group ranked

Employability fifth in importance and the student personnel

201
group ranked it ninth.

The educational outcome for which

both groups perceived the least amount of cooperation
between groups was a Well-Defined Religious Orientation.
(On Scale C, Faculty mean = 3.457, Student Personnel
mean = 3.-823.)

As has been previously mentioned, both

the faculty and the student personnel groups viewed this
as a relatively unimportant outcome of a higher education.
No significant differences of opinion were found
between groups regarding the extent of perceived coopera­
tive interaction between faculty and student personnel
staff toward helping students achieve educational objec­
tives.

Further examination reveals that group mean

scores for both groups closely approached the midpoint
of the range of opinion between na great deal" and
"never."

There was some indication that within group

variance of opinion for both groups was larger on
Scale

(C) than on the other two Scales

(A, B ) .

Taking

these two findings together, there is the suggestion
that while there is some amount of ongoing cooperation
between faculty and student personnel staff, it is not
particularly extensive nor is it a consistent phenomenon
within the university.

This raises the question of in

what instances are the two groups likely to engage in
cooperative relationships and what would inhibit or
encourage such activity.

Related questions include the

extent to which the two groups desire greater contact

202
between each other and what the nature of those contacts
should be.

Attitudes found within each group as to what

the essential purposes of a university education are or
should be relate directly to these questions.
An examination of the group responses to the
questions presented in Section III of the study instru­
ment and the follow-up interview summaries provides some
insight.

It is clear that most of the student personnel

group (92%) desire a closer working relationship with
faculty.

Based on the written responses to the question

concerning this point and the impressions gained from
follow-up interviews, this desire appears to be grounded
on the belief that education is a total experience
involving both affective and cognitive growth within
and outside the classroom.

This desire is also reflected

in the manner in which student personnel respondents
clustered a wider range of educational objectives at the
top end of their priority list (see Table 4.7).
Faculty responses to this question of whether
they desire closer working relationships with student
personnel staff and comments made during interviews
indicate a different viewpoint.

Only half of the faculty

indicated a desire for closer relationships.

And, of

those faculty who did respond in this manner, the
majority seemed to view student personnel as "supple­
mental" to instruction, whereas student personnel staff

203
tended to desire closer working relationships in a "com­
plimentary" sense.

Related to this view is the finding

that the faculty group clearly concentrated their
priority ranking of educational objectives to those
aspects of education directly associated with academicinstructional concerns.

These same points of view and

priorities were revealed during the follow-up interviews.
Additionally,

it is significant that almost half

of the faculty group did not respond to the question of
greater cooperation between groups or indicated an
ambiguity or apathy to the issue.

Faculty seem to lack

information regarding the student affairs division, its
purposes, and functions.

Working relationships or mutual

understanding of purpose between campus units is depen­
dent upon frequent communication.

This communication

appears to be seriously lacking.
Of some interest is the finding that of those
faculty who had served on various committees with stu­
dents, a significant majority indicated that they had
also participated in what they considered to be a worth­
while faculty-student personnel staff relationship.
Faculty who had not worked with students on committees,
conversely,

(statistically significant) did not indicate

participation in worthwhile faculty-student personnel
staff relationships.
of Fitzgerald

This tends to replicate findings

(1958) in her study of MSU faculty percep­

tions of student personnel services functions

(44:236).

204
Of further interest regarding this same issue is
the observation that as many faculty as student personnel
staff, in fact slightly more

(82.9% to 79.5%),

indicated

that they had worked on committees on which students also
served as members.

This tends to detract from the

stereotype that faculty do not work directly with stu­
dents outside the classroom or for that matter that it
is only the student personnel staff who engage themselves
in such activities*

What is not, known, of course,

is the

frequency of such faculty or personnel staff contacts
with students on committees or the qualitative nature
of these associations.
sible, if not likely,

Additionally, it is quite pos­
that student-student personnel

staff associations are more frequent outside the confines
of committee meetings, whereas for faculty extracurricular
contacts with students may be limited to vehicles such
as committee meetings.
While the vast majority of student personnel staff
members indicated a desire to work more closely with
faculty in a complimentary relationship in order to
better help students in their education, they also indi­
cated definite limits as to how far they were willing to
go in this direction.

The idea of organizationally

integrating the student affairs division into the
academic-instructional sphere at the expense of a
separate student affairs division as an official or

205
organizational entity was rejected by 69 per cent of the
student personnel study group.

The content of the inter­

view discussions and the written comments to this question
on the questionnaire indicate two reasons for this
position.

It was feared that the impact or effect of

student services on the campus and the students would be
dissipated.

It was also feared that the faculty would

control or dominate in such decentralized circumstances.
The most pervasive factor in rejecting the complete
integration of student affairs staff and faculty is the
perceived probability of student personnel work losing
its "identity."

The student affairs staff sampled in

this study advanced the idea that the well-rounded edu­
cation of students depends in part on the maintenance
of a student affairs division with an intact professional
identity which includes a concern for the social, per­
sonal, and emotional growth of students.
Student affairs staff members apparently do not
consider faculty to be good representatives of this point
of view.

This concern is partly explained by the types

of responses the student personnel group offered to
Question 3 of Section III of the questipnnaire which
asked if faculty were concerned about the personal,
social, and emotional development of students.
answered in a decidedly negative way.

One-third

Another third

indicated that they felt faculty may be concerned but

206
they do not or cannot (largely because of time limi­
tations) demonstrate this concern.

Faculty responses

to this question are in essential agreement with this
latter point.

Information derived from the follow-up

interviews corresponds with these perceptions.
Remembering that only half of the faculty
respondents indicated a desire for a closer working
relationship with student personnel workers,

the faculty

group was also generally unenthusiastic about an official
integration of the two groups.

Of the 30 per cent who

rejected the suggestion, written responses to this
question fell into two categories.

One type of response

indicated that faculty were satisfied with present
arrangements or they recognized a need for a certain
degree of specialization or divisions of labor.

The

other type of response suggested that the two groups
should be kept separate because their goals were dif­
ferent,

student personnel did not relate directly to the

intellectual goals of the university, or that this would
involve things faculty were not prepared to engage in.
Approximately 70 per cent of the student personnel group
felt that student personnel staff were concerned about
the intellectual and academic development of students.
An almost equal percentage of faculty respondents indi­
cated no opinion or undecided in answer to this question.

207
Summary
Overall, there appears to be a significant
amount of congruence between the faculty group and the
student personnel group regarding goals and objectives
for higher education.

There are indications that impor­

tant differences of emphasis do exist between the two
groups, however.

The student personnel group expressed

a more inclusive perception of the purposes of higher
education, than did the faculty group.

Personal as well

as intellectual growth was considered to be of near equal
importance to the student personnel workers.

The

faculty, while generally recognizing the importance of
affective goals,

favor academic-intellectual goals.

Regarding group perceptions of the current extent
of cooperative interaction existent between the two
groups toward helping students realize educational goals,
neither group indicated strong opinions either way.
The student personnel group apparently desires closer
working relationships between groups than is the case
with faculty.

Organizational restructuring which would

officially place student personnel workers and faculty
into a situation of cooperative relationships, was not
viewed as a constructive idea by either group.

Faculty

comments and remarks indicate that nothing essentially
positive would be gained.

Student personnel respondents

express opinions that too much would be lost.

These

208
opinions are more closely held by faculty who do not
consider student personnel work essential to the major
purposes of higher education and by those student per­
sonnel workers who share the opinion that most faculty
define education too narrowly.

While neither of these

opinions as identified by this study can be used to
typify either group, enough comments were made in this
vein to suggest that these attitudes must be considered
in any attempts to increase cooperative interaction
between faculty and student personnel workers.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This study is summarized by a review of the
nature of the problem, the objectives of the study, a
description of the populations investigated in the study,
and the procedures which were employed to survey the
populations.

Included in the discussion of procedures

is a description of the questionnaire utilized in the
study and the statistical and descriptive techniques
used to analyze the data.

And, finally, a review and

summary of the findings are presented.

Following a

summary of the study, general conclusions based on the
findings are offered.

The last part of this chapter is

devoted to recommendations for pragmatic application and
implications for further research.
Summary
The Problem
A review of the literature and research revealed
that colleges and universities have neglected to give
209

210
serious attention to educational goals and objectives
either substantively or procedurally.

Many critics

contend that, among other problems now facing American
higher education, the failure to specify and articulate
objectives has resulted in a lack of coherence and
direction within collegiate institutions.

Persons

interested in improving higher education have asserted
that universities need to be further developed as aca­
demic communities of shared goals and common endeavor.
This is considered to be necessarily dependent upon
greater integration, cooperation and goal congruence
among the various units of the organization to the end
that the student will be exposed to a more clearly
defined,

integrated, and thus more effective learning

environment.

The synthesis or merging of the curriculum

and the co-curriculum into a unified educational program
or "total curriculum" is viewed as a potentially sig­
nificant step in this direction.

The advisability of

such a move is based on the premise
in the available research)

(which finds support

that it is the total and com­

bined effect of the collegiate environment which makes
an impact on the "holistic" growth and development of
individual students in the direction of the goals for
higher education.
Because it is the faculty and student personnel
staff who assume primary educational leadership

211
responsibility for the two major components of the edu­
cational program, the curriculum and the co-curriculum,
any integration or synthesis of these two components is
clearly dependent upon greater integration and congruence
of the activities and purposes of faculty and student
personnel staff members.

However, before any substantial

attempts can be made in this direction,

it is important

to make some preliminary judgments concerning the current
state of cooperation between student personnel workers
and faculty and the extent of cooperation which is
actually desired by each of the groups in question.

It

is important to determine which educational objectives
each of the groups perceive to be important and the
extent to which these perceptions may differ.
Purpose of the Study
It was the purpose of this study to compare and
contrast the opinions and attitudes of regular under­
graduate teaching faculty and full-time professional
student personnel workers at Michigan State University
pursuant to the following research objectives:
(1) To assess the extent of agreement or disagreement
between faculty members and student personnel
workers concerning their opinions of the
importance of selected educational objectives.

212
(2) To compare the opinions of faculty and student
personnel workers concerning the relative
importance

(priority) given to selected edu­

cational objectives by each group.
(3) To assess the extent of agreement or disagreement
between faculty and student personnel workers
concerning their opinions of how successful
Michigan State University is in helping under­
graduate students achieve selected educational
objectives.
(4) To determine the extent of agreement or disagree­
ment between faculty and student personnel workers
concerning their opinions of the degree of cooper­
ative interaction which exists between the two
groups toward helping students achieve each of
the educational objectives included in the study
and toward helping students achieve educational
objectives generally.
Note:

The educational objectives included in this

study with their definitions may be found in
Appendix A, The Questionnaire.
In addition to the research objectives listed
above, the study addressed itself to the following set
of additional questions;

i

.1

Should faculty and student personnel workers
work more closely together in order to accomplish
the educational goals of the university?
Should the student affairs division of the uni­
versity be discontinued as a separate entity
and be integrated into the academic-instructional
sphere of the institution?
(According to the opinions expressed by the
respondents) Are most student personnel workers
concerned about the academic and intellectual
development of students?

In what ways do they

demonstrate this concern or lack of concern?
(According to the opinions expressed by the
respondents) Are most faculty members concerned
about the personal,

emotional, and social

development of their students?

In what ways

do they demonstrate this concern or lack of
concern?
Is there any correlation between faculty members
who have worked together with students on com­
mittees and faculty who have worked to their
satisfaction in faculty-student personnel
relationships?

214
Procedures
A questionnaire having three sections was mailed
to fifty randomly selected faculty members and fifty
randomly selected student personnel workers representing
the populations of interest.

The total response rate

was 74 per cent with 69 per cent of the questionnaires
usable for the study.

The questionnaire was developed

by the researcher and was pre-tested for clarity by
seven faculty members and student personnel workers who
were considered representative of the study populations.
Section X of the questionnaire contained twentytwo educational outcome statements, each accompanied with
a brief definition.

Each of these items was followed by

three questions to which the respondent was asked to
assess according to his own perceptions:

(1) Importance

of the outcome relative to the purposes of higher edu­
cation,

(2) How successful MSU is in helping students

achieve the outcome, and

(3) The extent to which faculty

and student personnel staff work cooperatively toward
helping students achieve the outcome.

Associated with

each of these three questions was a five-point Likerttype scale which allowed the respondent to indicate the
extent of his agreement or disagreement with the question.
A value of

(1) was given to the strongly agree choice

and down through the scale a numerical value of
given to the strongly disagree choice.

(5) was

By adding the

215
individual scores and dividing the total score by the
number of respondents in the sample group, a mean score
for that item was determined.

Lower total scores and

group means reflected more favorable opinions to an item.
A multivariate analysis of variance was used to determine
whether significant differences between mean scores
existed.

A univariate analysis of variance was employed

to determine the source of the difference when such dif­
ferences were found to exist.
Section II of the questionnaire consisted of a
list of all the educational outcomes presented in Section I.
The respondent was asked to check those five items which
he felt were most important relative to the total list.
This procedure produced a frequency rank order of the
outcomes for each of the two study groups.

The Kendall

rank-correlation technique was used to measure the degree
of correlation between the two sets of ranks.
In Section III of the questionnaire respondents
were asked to express their opinions in response to four
open-ended questions (Questions 1-4, Section III).

These

open-ended questions, identified as "additional questions"
(1-4) are presented on page 213 of this chapter.

Respon­

dents were asked to respond to two other questions in
Section III in "yes" or "no" fashion.

They are listed

below in the order of their presentation in the question­
naire.

216
5.

Have you ever been a member of a committee on which
students were also members?

6.

Yes

No

.

Have you ever worked cooperatively in a facultystudent personnel staff relationship?
Was it a worthwhile experience?

Yes

Yes

No

.

No___

The descriptive data obtained from the responses to
questions one through four in Section III of the question­
naire were used to identify apparent trends and obvious
agreements and disagreements of opinion registered by the
respondents.

No statistical procedure was used in the

analysis of this data other than simple percentages.
A

(2x2)

Chi-Square test of independence technique was

used to test for a significant relationship between the
responses to questions five and six for both study groups.
This corresponds with the additional question, number
five, described on page 213 of this chapter.
Upon receiving the data collected from Section
III of the study instrument, interviews were arranged
with five participating faculty members and five par­
ticipating student personnel staff members.

The purpose

of these follow-up interviews was to discuss the questions
and concerns included in the questionnaire, especially
Section III, in order to compliment and enlarge upon
written comments registered in the study instrument.

Research Findings
The following research hypotheses, stated in the
null form, were used to test main interest comparisons
between the groups.

The hypotheses and the results of

the hypothesis tests are listed below.

Ho^
There are no differences in opinion between the
faculty group and the student personnel group
regarding the importance of selected educational
outcomes to the purposes of higher education.
Result:

Ho, was rejected at the .0028 level of
confidence.

h o 2»

There are no differences in opinion between the
faculty group and the student personnel group regard­
ing how successful Michigan State University is in
helping undergraduate students achieve a selected
group of educational outcomes.
Result:

Ho 2 was not rejected at the .05 level of
confidence.

There are no differences in opinion between the
faculty group and the student personnel group
regarding the extent of perceived cooperative
interaction between the two groups toward helping
students achieve selected educational outcomes.
Result:

H0 3 was not rejected at the .05 level of
confidence.

218
Ho 4 :
There is no correlation between the faculty group
ranking of educational outcomes and the student
personnel group ranking of educational outcomes in
terms of the importance assigned to each of the
outcome items relative to the total list as per­
ceived by the faculty group and the student per­
sonnel group.
Result:

Ho 4 was rejected at the .05 level of
confidence.

H0 5 :
There is no correlation between faculty members
who have worked together with students on com­
mittees and faculty who have worked to their
satisfaction in faculty-student personnel staff
relationships•
Result:

H0 5 was rejected at the .05 level of
confidence.

In addition to the hypothesis test results pr e ­
sented above, a more detailed analysis of the statistical
and descriptive data revealed the following findings:
1.

The multivariate analysis of variance

revealed that significant differences

(p

(Table 4.1)

< .0028) existed

between the faculty and student personnel sample groups
with regard to their opinions of the importance of
selected educational outcomes for higher education (Ho^
was thus rejected).'

A univariate analysis

(Table 4.2)

revealed that the two study groups differed significantly
in their opinions of the importance of the following edu­
cational outcomes:

Li

Aesthetic Values at (p. < .002) and

219
Effective Inter-Racial and Ethnic Attitudes, Interpersonal
Skills, Well-Defined Sexual Identity at
significant

(p < .05).

Non­

(p > .05), but low probability values (indi­

cating possible differences between groups) were found
for:

Acquisition of Knowledge (p

of Identity (p

< .0823).

< .074) and Perception

No significant differences

were found for 16 of 22 total variables.
2.

An examination of group cell means (Table 4.3)

which were found to be significantly different revealed
that the student personnel sample considered the follow­
ing educational outcomes to be more important than did
the faculty sample group:
Ethnic Attitudes,

Effective Inter-Racial and

Interpersonal Skills, Well-Defined

Sexual Identity, and Perception of Identity.

The faculty

sample considered the following outcomes to be more
important than did the student personnel sample group:
Aesthetic Values and Acquisition of Knowledge,
3.

An examination of group means across all

variables
2.06)

(Table 4.3) indicated that the faculty

and the student personnel

(mean =

(mean = 2 .0 1 ) sample

groups considered the total list of educational outcomes
to be important relative to the purposes of higher edu­
cation.

(A mean of 2.0 = important on the scale,

very important.)

1.0 =

Significant differences between group

perceptions of important outcomes appear to reflect
differences in priority among outcomes which both

220
groups considered important.

Those outcomes which both

groups perceived to be especially important (means of 1.5
or less for both groups)

include:

Communication Skills,

Intellectual Competence, and Critical Thinking.

Well-

Developed Religious Orientation and Loyalty to the C o l ­
legiate Institution were outcomes considered by both
groups to be of less importance

(means > 3.0 approaching

4.0 = unimportant).
4.

A significant positive correlation

(Kendall rank-

correlation coefficient, tau =* .4133) was found to exist
(at the .05 level) between the faculty group ranking and
the student personnel group ranking of the twenty-two
selected educational outcomes.
was thus rejected.)

(Ho^ of no correlation

See Table 4.6.

This finding cor­

responds with the findings reported in number three above.
5.

Both groups included Communication Skills, Intel­

lectual Competence, and Critical Thinking among their
top five ranked outcomes.

Included among both groups'

lowest ranked outcomes were;

Well-Defined Sexual

Identity, Loyalty to Institution, Marriage and Family
Life Skills, and Well-Defined Religious Orientation
(Table 4.7).

These findings correspond with findings

reported in number three above.
6.

Although both groups ranked the outcomes in a

similar manner and a statistical correlation between

221
rank orders was found to exist as reported above, an
examination of each group*s rank order

(Table 4.7)

revealed noteworthy differences as well.

The faculty

sample group concentrated their rankings to fewer out­
comes at the top of scale than did the student personnel
group.

The faculty group indicated a clear preference

for five outcomes, whereas the student personnel group
indicated a clear preference for nine educational out­
comes .
7.

When the rank orders assigned to the educational

outcomes by each study group were contrasted

(see Table

4.7), specific differences in emphasis or preference
were revealed.

The student personnel sample ranked the

following outcomes higher in priority than did the
faculty group:

Perception of Identity, Interpersonal

Skills, Social Consciousness, Effective Inter-Racial and
Ethnic Attitudes, Development of Purpose, and WellDeveloped Value System.

The faculty sample ranked the

following outcomes higher in priority than did the stu­
dent personnel group:

Acquisition of Knowledge, Employa­

bility, Aesthetic Values, and Effective Organization of
Work. , These differences in rank-priority of outcomes
correspond with significant differences found to exist
between group mean scores

(rating of importance of

individual outcomes by the sample groups) reported in
number two a b o v e .

222
8.

The multivariate analysis of variance revealed

no significant differences

(at the .05 level) between

faculty and student personnel staff perceptions regarding
how successful Michigan State University is in helping
students achieve selected educational outcomes.
H 0 2 was not rejected.)

(Thus

Mean scores for both groups in

response to this question typically centered around
(3.0 = undecided).

However, in contrast to the general

consensus, both groups indicated that the university
succeeded in helping students achieve:

Acquisition of

Knowledge, Social Consciousness and Employability.

For

these outcomes, mean scores for both groups centered
around

(2.0 = successful).

Well-Developed Religious

Orientation is the only outcome for which both groups
indicated

(according to higher mean scores) opinions in

the direction of lack of success.
9.

The multivariate analysis of variance

detected no significant differences

(Table 4.1)

(at the .05 level)

in

opinion between the faculty group and the student per­
sonnel group regarding the extent of perceived coopera­
tive interaction between the two groups toward helping
students achieve selected educational outcomes.
Ho^ was not rejected.)
scores

(Thus,

An examination of group mean

(Table 4.3) indicated that neither group expressed

an opinion either way regarding how much or how little
cooperation existed between themselves.

(Group means

223
centered around 3.0 = undecided.)

Exceptions to this are:

(1 ) both the faculty and the student personnel group
indicated at least some perceived cooperation between
themselves in helping students become Employable (group
means centered around 2 . 0 = somewhat), and

(2 ) both

groups perceived the least amount of cooperation between
themselves toward helping students achieve a WellDeveloped Religious Orientation

(group means approached

4.0 = not very m u c h ) .
The following descriptive findings are based on
the responses of the study groups to the "additional
questions" pursued in the study which were presented in
Section III of the questionnaire

(Appendix A ) .

With one

exception (identified as it is presented below), no sta­
tistical techniques were applied to this data other than
simple percentages provided for types or categories of
responses.

Thirty-five faculty and thirty-four student

personnel sample group members responded to these
questions•
10.

Should faculty and student personnel workers

work more closely together in order to accomplish the
educational goals of the university?

Approximately 70

per cent of the student personnel group respondents
answered this questionnaire item in a decidedly affirma­
tive manner, 2 0 per cent answered yes, but noted that
it would be difficult to bring about, and 8 per cent

224
answered "no.”

Approximately 54 per cent of the faculty

respondents indicated that more cooperation between the
groups would be desirable,

20 per cent replied that it

would "probably" be desirable, and 26 per cent either
did not respond to the question or indicated that they
were undecided.
11.

Should the student affairs division of the u ni­

versity be discontinued as a separate entity and be inte­
grated into the academic-instructional sphere of the
institution?

Seventeen per cent of the student personnel

group respondents answered in the affirmative,

15 per cent

answered yes with strong qualifications, and 68 per cent
answered in a decidedly negative manner.
group respondents,

Of the faculty

20 per cent answered yes,

31 per cent

answered no, and approximately 48 per cent of the faculty
group either did not respond or answered "no opinion" or
"undecided."
12.

Do you feel that most faculty members are con­

cerned about the personal, emotional, and social develop­
ment of their students?

Twenty-six per cent of the stu­

dent personnel respondents answered in the affirmative,
approx,imately 33 per cent answered in a decidedly nega­
tive way, and approximately 41 per cent answered that
while most faculty are probably concerned in this area,
many are not or do not have the time.
group respondents,

Of the faculty

23 per cent indicated that faculty

225
are not or cannot be concerned about the personal,
emotional, and social development of their students,
approximately 51 per cent answered that most of their
colleagues were concerned in this area, and 17 per cent
either did not respond or indicated that they did not
know.

At least half of the faculty members who indi­

cated that their colleagues were concerned, added that
opportunities to express this concern were limited.
13.

Do you feel that most student personnel workers

are concerned about the academic and intellectual
development of students?

Fifteen per cent of the stu­

dent personnel respondents answered no, another 15 per
cent answered "occasionally," and approximately 68 per
cent answered in the affirmative.

Only one faculty

member answered that student personnel workers were not
concerned about the academic-intellectual development
of students,

29 per cent answered "probably," but they

could not answer with any certainty, and of greatest
significance,

69 per cent either did not respond to the

question or responded that they did not know.
14.

The last two questions presented in Section III

of the questionnaire are as follows:
Question 5 .

Have you ever been a member of a committee

on which students were also members?

Yes

No

226
Question 6 .

Have you ever worked cooperatively in a

faculty-student personnel staff relationship?

Was it a

worthwhile experience?
A significant positive correlation was found to exist
between faculty members who have worked on committees
with students and who have worked to their satisfaction
in a cooperative faculty-student personnel relationship.
The null hypothesis

(Ho^) of no relationship was rejected

at the .05 level.
relationship.)

2

(See Table 4.8 for Chi
test of this
2
A separate Chi test of this relationship

was found to be nonsignificant (at .05 level) for the
student personnel group responses.

Eighty-three per

cent of the faculty respondents had worked on committees
with students as opposed to 79 per cent for the student
personnel sample.
After all the questionnaire data had been col­
lected, interviews were arranged with five faculty members
who had participated in the study and with five partici­
pating student personnel workers in an attempt to augment
and clarify information obtained through the questionnaire
survey.

Information gathered during the interviews was

remarkably consistent with the sample groups' written
responses to questionnaire items in Section III.

The

following findings are based on interview notes and in
reflection of some of the written comments offered by
respondents on the questionnaire.

It should be noted

227
that, these findings are based on open-ended responses
and the subjective assessment of the researcher.
15.

Both faculty and student personnel workers

appeared to recognize the importance of educational goals
and indicated that they based their work on specific
objectives.

However, faculty (more so than student

personnel workers) tended to resist notions of institu­
tionally determined goals or organized means to achieve
them.
16.

Student personnel workers expressed the opinion

that faculty define education too narrowly by over­
emphasizing academic concerns.

Faculty members viewed

themselves as being more concerned about more than the
intellectual development of students, but, did in fact,
perceive themselves to be predominately concerned with
their students ' intellectual growth and only indirectly
or occasionally concerned with other aspects of student
development.

Additionally,

faculty tended to dichotomize

learning by making clear distinctions between cognitive
and affective learning.

Student personnel workers gen­

erally expressed the opinion that cognitive and affec­
tive learning are interdependent.
17.

More so than faculty,

student personnel staff

emphasized a need for closer working relationships between
faculty and student personnel workers.

Student personnel

228
workers generally shared the opinion that faculty are
largely unreceptive to suggestions of such cooperative
relationships.

Student personnel staff also expressed

the opinion that faculty did not hold student personnel
work in high enough esteem.
18.

Although faculty were more knowledgeable about

student personnel work than the researcher expected,
a number of faculty did indicate a lack of information
and understanding of student personnel work and student
services available on campus.

Faculty tended to mini­

mize the importance and scope of college student per­
sonnel work.

Faculty members tended to characterize

student personnel workers as simply referral agents for
student problems rather than as educational colleagues.
Possibly because of this, many faculty perceived limited
possibilities or occasions for working more cooperatively
with student personnel workers.
19.

Neither faculty nor student personnel workers

felt that they received significant encouragement from
their organizational superiors to engage in closer work­
ing relationships with each o t h e r .

Student personnel

workers felt that more authoritative encouragement or
influence for cooperation was necessary.

Faculty gen­

erally expressed neither the need nor the propriety for
establishing such expectations and expressed the view

229
that it was incumbent upon student personnel staff to
communicate to faculty what student personnel services
were available.
The majority of student personnel workers
expressed the opinion that a decentralization or inte­
gration of student -services into the academic-instruc­
tional program would not only be a disservice to students,
but would destroy the identity of the student personnel
profession.

Faculty expressed the opinion that such

restructuring did not recognize the need for speciali­
zation and division of labor, was not acceptable to many
faculty members, or was not potentially productive edu­
cationally.
Conclusions
The statistical analysis of the data and the
assessment and appraisal of the descriptive information
derived from this investigation suggest the following
conclusions.

The researcher does not consider these

conclusions or the research findings to be conclusive
evidence or proof of real phenomena as nothing can be
finally "proven" through one study.

As presented, the

conclusions are more nearly reasoned judgments on the
part of the researcher.

Where possible, citations from

the related research will be included to indicate where
this study agrees or disagrees with prior research.

230
1.

In spite of the significant differences which

were found to exist between groups regarding their per­
ceptions of the importance of selected and specific edu­
cational outcomes, student personnel workers and under­
graduate teaching faculty are in essential agreement as
to which educational objectives need to be pursued
within the university.

This corresponds with the con­

clusions of Gross and Grambsch (51:115) and Stead
abstract).

(160:

However, there is some indication that neither

group is particularly cognizant of the goal congruence
which does exist between faculty and student personnel
workers.
2.

There were strong indications that student p er­

sonnel workers share a common and distinctive point of
view regarding the goals and functions of higher edu­
cation generally and the student personnel profession
specifically.

It was also evident that student personnel

workers share the opinion that this point of view or
professional identity is essential and needs to be main­
tained because of its importance to the student and to
higher education.

This contradicts the opinions of

Penny (121:961) and supports the research findings of
O'Banion (111:210) and Thomas
3.

(164:114).

Even though significant goal congruence between

groups was detected, there were definite differences
of emphasis evident between the goal orientations of

231
faculty and student personnel workers.

Faculty give

higher priority to cognitive goals which are related
to the academic-instructional program, while student
personnel workers expressed a preference for affective
goals which are closely related to the personal,
and emotional development of students.

social,

However, while

both groups indicated a preference for specific types
of goals, student personnel workers, unlike faculty,
stressed the need to recognize that affective and cogni­
tive goals are interdependent and of near equal importance.
This tends to support the conclusions of Thomas (164:114)
and O'Banion (111:210), who studied the goals of student
personnel workers, and is similar to the conclusions of
Gross and Grambsch (51:29), who examined the goals of
faculty and administrators.

This conclusion differs

somewhat from the conclusions of Stead

(160:106-11),

who found that faculty at Michigan State University
were more concerned with student-oriented goals than
the faculty members who were surveyed nationally by
Gross and Grambsch.
4.

Although faculty members generally perceived

themselves as not being primarily or directly concerned
with the personal growth of students, they did express
a greater concern in this area than many student per­
sonnel workers allowed.

Both faculty and student per­

sonnel workers perceived faculty as having a lack of

232
access to the personal lives of students because of
large class loads and limited time.
5.

The faculty who participated in this study indi­

cated a definite concern for the undergraduate student
and his education and considered their responsibilities
in this area as especially important.

This differs from

the conclusions reached by Gross and Grambsch

(51:109)

and concurs with a specific finding of the 1971 Carnegie
Commission study report

(60:preface),

The student

personnel workers included in the present study felt
that the faculty members were genuinely concerned with
undergraduate education and did not, for example, con­
sider faculty at Michigan State University to be overly
concerned with research to the detriment of the under­
graduate student.

The student personnel g r o u p 1s complaint

was that faculty emphasized only certain aspects of stu­
dent growth
6.

(i.e., intellectual development).

To a much greater extent than faculty members,

student personnel workers perceived a need for closer
working relationships between faculty and student per­
sonnel staff in order to accomplish the educational goals
of the university.

Stead similarly observed that uni­

versity administrators were much more amenable to
organizational cooperation and coordination than were
faculty members

(160:106-11).

In the present study,

233
faculty members viewed student personnel workers as
supplemental to what they considered the primary purpose
of higher education, the academic and intellectual growth
of the student.

Cooperation with student personnel staff

was viewed as desirable by faculty, as it may relate to
these particular ends.
(1959) findings

This concurs with Fitzgerald*s

(44:169).

Student personnel workers

viewed cooperation (or the need for) in a more compli­
mentary sense and for the purpose of helping students
achieve a well-rounded education.

There also appears

to be some lack of understanding on the part of faculty
concerning the purposes and functions of student personnel
work, an observation which Fitzgerald also reported
235).

(44:

Student personnel workers tended to view them­

selves as an essential and complimentary part of higher
education.

Faculty were not generally inclined to agree

(or be aware of) this viewpoint, although there were
definite exceptions to this generalization.
7.

Neither the faculty members nor the student per­

sonnel workers who participated in the study considered
the current extent of cooperative relationships between
themselves to be necessarily frequent or infrequent.
However, if cooperative-interaction between the two
groups was clearly evident, it would seem likely that
it would have b een identified as such.

Furthermore,

the vast majority of student personnel workers perceived

234
a need for more cooperation between the groups as did
slightly more than half of the faculty respondents.
Thus regardless of which group desires it more, attempts
made to increase the extent of cooperation between student
personnel workers and faculty would likely be regarded
as desirable and acceptable to both groups.

This, of

course, does not speak to the issue of the qualitative
or quantitative nature of increased cooperative contact.
8.

Neither the student personnel nor the faculty

respondents expressed particularly favorable opinions
regarding organizational restructuring to insure greater
cooperation between the two groups.

Faculty generally

failed to see the advantages of such reorganization and
student personnel staff generally perceived distinct dis­
advantages.

However, members of both groups felt that

student personnel work would enhance its credibility by
becoming more involved in the academic-instructional
program of the university.
9.

Although no cause and effect relationship can be

assumed, faculty who had out-of-class contacts with
students, at least to the extent of working on com­
mittees with students, also indicated having had satis­
fying relationships with student personnel staff.
Faculty who indicated that they had not worked on com­
mittees with students, indicated that they had not had
a satisfying relationship with a student personnel staff

235
member.

Fitzgerald similarly found that faculty who had

worked with student "organizations" had more favorable
opinions of student personnel services
10.

(44:236).

Neither the student personnel nor the faculty

respondents perceived Michigan State University to be
particularly successful or unsuccessful in helping stu­
dents achieve those outcomes which both study groups
perceived to be important.

A perceived disparity exists

between preferred and actual educational outcomes.
Recommendations
Implications for Pragmatic Appli­
cation of the Finding^
The findings and conclusions of this investigation
are essentially descriptive and exploratory.

Information

obtained as a result of conducting this study cannot be
used in any direct manner to proscribe or define ideal
organizational models of goal congruent, cooperative
interaction between faculty and student personnel
workers.

However, the findings can b e used as pre­

liminary information for any attempts made in this
direction.

Additionally, although the predictive and

proscriptive power of this investigation is limited,
certain speculative recommendations can be made for the
pragmatic application of the study's findings.

Based

on the assumed need and efficacy of a cooperative and

236
integrative relationship between faculty members and
student personnel workers

(as discussed in the Review

of the Literature), the following speculative recom­
mendations are offered.
1.

There is a need for greater sharing of information

between faculty and student personnel workers regarding
the goal preferences and priorities of each of the groups.
More extensive between-group communication should facili­
tate better understanding

(more than is now evident) of

the substantial goal congruence which does exist between
the groups and possibly serve to identify opportunities
for cooperation.

Knowledge of goal incongruence can sug­

gest areas which require further discussion or identify
where appropriate divisions of labor exist.

Intragroup

communication designed to create better understanding
between the groups should be purposeful and based on
information which suggests where misunderstandings or
differences in opinion exist.
2.

Increased cooperation between faculty and student

personnel workers for the purpose of helping students
achieve important educational objectives may be func­
tionally related with better communication between
faculty and student personnel workers.

Cooperation and

communication can be mutually supportive activities.
Those opportunities which now exist for student personnel

237
workers and faculty members to work together must be
identified and acted upon.
3.

Increased and more effective communication can

be considered only a partial answer or solution to the
problem of creating a more productive relationship
between faculty and student personnel workers.

The

overall climate or atmosphere of the collegiate organi­
zation must also be considered.

Greater integration

and cooperation between faculty and student personnel
workers will be accomplished most effectively if there
is a larger organizational concern and expectation for
interdependent and goal congruent activity among all
campus groups.

Thus the macro issue of the organization

as a whole must be ultimately dealt with.
4.

The integration and coordination of organizational

groups or units which are not necessarily linked by
structural or recognized informal arrangements

(as is

the case with faculty and student personnel staff in
many instances)

is largely dependent upon the control

or influence of educational leaders and administrators
who have the authority and capability to make universitywide decisions and who may be able to manipulate the
reward system of the organization.

If greater inte­

gration and coordination of the student personnel
staff and the faculty are considered desirable then it

238
must be accomplished with the active support of the vice
president for student affairs, the vice president for
academic affairs and possibly most critically with the
support of the president.

This does not preclude or

obviate the need for participatory decision-making within
the organization.
5.

Student personnel workers need to emphasize that

aspect of their self-proclaimed professional responsibili­
ties and utilize their organizational skills to be "campus
facilitators, to make connections, and bring the right
people together," as suggested by Kauffman (72:15).
Student personnel workers need to recognize that a great
deal of the responsibility for initiating contacts and
developing working relationships with faculty rests
with the student personnel workers themselves.

Although

faculty who are interested in assisting students with
problems and opportunities that require competencies and
resources beyond their own capabilities should accept
responsibility and take the initiative to learn where
these resources exist on campus, it is a responsibility
of student personnel staff to communicate to faculty
members what is available to them.
6.

Although student personnel workers must continue

to provide educational leadership within the co-curricu­
lum, they need to identify more closely with the
academic-instructional program of the university.

239
Student personnel workers must demonstrate themselves to
be a credible and capable resource for faculty on matters
related to the academic and intellectual growth of the
student.

This would involve competencies in learning

theory, methods, and research and the manifestation of
such competencies in their programs and activities.
While student personnel services presently respond to
the needs and interests of students, they must be
expanded to respond to the needs and interests of
faculty to an extent greater than is now evident or
at least as it is perceived by faculty members.
7.

Faculty members need to be made more aware of

the fact that they affect more than the intellectual
growth of the student.
personal,

They also make an impact on the

social, and emotional development of their

students as all aspects of student development are
interrelated.

Faculty members, therefore, must recog­

nize their responsibilities in these areas and seek
greater understanding of student life outside of the
classroom.

Increased contacts with students outside of

the formal curriculum should not only increase the
faculty member*s total understanding of college students,
but should also suggest reasons for increased contacts
with student personnel workers who have special training
and experience in the extra-curriculum and student life.

240
8.

Those who determine the criteria by which faculty

members and student personnel staff are hired should con­
sider the particular goal orientation of the prospective
employee and his willingness to participate cooperatively
with colleagues in the organization.

It is neither

possible, necessary, nor desirable to seek absolute
goal congruence or total integration within an organi­
zation, however, some minimum degree of both conditions
does appear to be necessary if the organization is to be
optimally effective in accomplishing its purposes.
9.

Any elaborate or extensive attempts made to for­

mally restructure the university organization for the
purpose of insuring greater cooperation and integration
between faculty members and student personnel workers
does not appear to be an immediate possibility.
measures are considered desirable,

If such

they will be most

effectively accomplished on a long-term rather than on
a short-term basis.

In addition to the many obstacles

which would inherently face such organizational change,
there is no apparent readiness or acceptance on the part
of either group.

What is suggested and recommended is

a concentrated and concerted effort to develop better
working relationships between faculty and student per­
sonnel workers within the confines of the informal
organizational structure.

Some of these efforts may

result in formal arrangements, but the major emphasis

241
should be placed on carefully planned relationships and
situations for interdependent work which are of demon­
strated worth to students, based on commonly accepted
and clearly defined educational objectives, and which
are closely related to the abilities, interests, and
needs of both participating faculty members and student
personnel workers.
Implications for Further Research
An important purpose and by-product of research
is the generation of new questions and implications for
further research.

Considering both the limitations of

the present study and information obtained as a result
of conducting this investigation, certain questions and
recommendations for further research are suggested.
They include:
1.

Do the opinions of faculty and student personnel

staff concerning goals and objectives for higher edu­
cation vary according to such variables as sex, age,
length of time spent at the institution, personal and
educational background factors, academic discipline of
faculty members, or major function engaged in by student
personnel staff?
2.

Does the desire for greater interaction and inte­

gration of work between faculty and student personnel
staff vary according to the variables mentioned above?

242
3.

Do faculty who work primarily in specialized

campus units or environments such as residential col­
leges and experimental research centers perceive edu­
cational goals and the need for integration of campus
groups differently than do their colleagues in more tra­
ditional settings?
4.

Do student personnel workers who are involved

directly with academic departments or who work in such
circumstances as branch units of the counseling center
located in residence halls perceive educational goals
and the need for integration among campus groups dif­
ferently than do their colleagues in more traditional
settings?
5.

This study included only faculty members and

student personnel workers as sample groups.

Areas of

interest included in this study should be pursued with
other campus groups such as students, trustees, top
echelon administrators, graduate faculty, business
affairs staff, etc.
6.

Regarding the goals and objectives for higher

education,

it would be interesting to compare and con­

trast the opinions of persons involved directly in
higher education with those who are not, for example,
politicians, parents of college students, religious
leaders, alumni, etc.

243
7.

Replications of this study are recommended for

different sizes and types of higher education institutions
such as private schools, liberal arts colleges, techni­
cally oriented institutions, and community colleges.
This would generate comparative data between schools
and permit an examination of the findings in relation to
different organizational environments.
8.

While there is some indication of differences

between faculty and student personnel workers on the
basis of goal orientation, not all the lack of integration
between groups as perceived by some study participants
is explained by goal incongruence.

An activities analy­

sis of the frequency and quality of relationships between
faculty and student personnel staff might provide addi­
tional insight.

An important question regarding this

sort of analysis would be whether the extent of inter­
action influences goal congruence or whether goal con­
gruence influences interaction between groups.
9.

It is recommended that an activities analysis

of faculty and student personnel workers be conducted
in order to determine the amount of time and the means
employed toward accomplishing the various educational
objectives included in this study.

An important question

related to this is whether those goals which are stated as
preferred and desirable actually influence the behavior
of university personnel.

244
10.

This study considered only those goals for

higher education most directly related to the growth of
the undergraduate student.

It would be of interest to

compare this set of goals against other categories of
goals

(organizational goals related to obtaining funds,

conducting research, protecting faculty rights, main­
taining institutional prestige, etc.) as perceived by
faculty and student personnel workers.

Proportionately,

what types or categories of goals receive the greatest
priority?

Is it feasible or even desirable for a uni­

versity to attempt to achieve all the possible goals for
higher education or should universities put finite
limits on goal achievement according to available
resources and the dominant interests found on the campus?
11.

Does a concern for pattern maintenance,

advancement in the system, personal and professional
security, and other vested interests, interfere with
goal-oriented and determined education and cooperative
efforts among professional educators either as indi­
viduals or as members of distinct campus groups?
12.

Are such things as organizational flexibility

and academic freedom threatened by close attention to
educational goals and objectives?

"Close attention"

implies some sort of management to achieve goals.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
EDUCATIONAL GOALS QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX A
EDUCATIONAL GOALS QUESTIONNAIRE
Section I - Perceptions of Educational Outcomes
Directions: The following is a list of items often cited
as desirable outcomes of an undergraduate college edu­
cation*
They relate specifically to the intellectual
and personal growth of the individual student and are
stated in terms of achieved skills and abilities. Associ­
ated with each item is a brief definition intended to
clarify its meaning.
Following each item is a set of
three questions.
Indicate your response by circling the
appropriate choice on the scale.
In order to define the two constituent university groups
mentioned in the questionnaire more clearly, the following
definitions are offered.
Faculty - All those professors, associate and assistant
professors, and instructors who are primarily
involved in the teaching of undergraduate stu­
dents at M S U .
Student Personnel Workers - All those full-time staff
members at MSU who work in the areas of student
life, student affairs, and student activities.
Representatives of this group are associated
with the Counseling Center, Residence Hall Pro­
grams, Admissions, Placement, Financial Aids,
Judicial Programs Office, Dean of Students
Office, and Vice President for Student Affairs
Office.
1.
A.

COMMUNICATION SKILLS - The ability to effectively com­
municate verbally and through the written word.
In your opinion how important is this outcome rela, tive to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant

245

246
B.

In your opinion, how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undeclded/not very much/ never
2.

AESTHETIC VALUES - The ability to see value in beauty
and in form and harmony.
Artistic appreciation,

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

verx
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undec ided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
3.

PERSONAL AUTONOMY - The ability to live effectively
without undue seeking of help or depending upon praise.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

v e r y .important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undeclded/unsuccessful/very
successful

247
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward help­
ing students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
4.

ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE - Retention of the infor­
mational content of one's major field of study.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping
students achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
5.

PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY - The ability to accurately
define the person one feels oneself to be and to
assess one's meaning for others.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undec ided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful

248
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
6.

EFFECTIVE INTER-RACIAL AND ETHNIC ATTITUDES - A set
of personal characteristics which allow the individual
to interact positively (constructively) in inter­
racial ethnic situations.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping
students achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
7.

MANAGEMENT OF EMOTIONS - The ability to accurately
understand one's emotions and utilize them in a con­
structive and satisfying manner.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very

B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very succeBBful/successfu1/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful

249
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
8.

WELL-DEVELOPED VALUE SYSTEM - A personally valid set
of beliefs or a set of meanings that have internal
consistency and provide at least a tentative guide
to behavior.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

ver y impor ta n t/ impor tant/undec ided/unimpor ta nt/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful

a---

C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
9.

DEVELOPMENT OF PURPOSE - The ability to define and
integrate one's goals and interests in order to give
shape to experience and meaning to existence.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome rela­
tive to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

in your opinion how successful is MSU in helping
students achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undec ided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful

250
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
10.

NON-AUTHORITARIANISM - A state of development in which
the individual exhibits a minimal degree of dogmatism,
ethnocentricity, and prejudice.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undec ided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/ never
11.

CULTURAL APPRECIATION - The understanding and appreci­
ation of one's culture and traditions.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve .this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful

251
C.

To what: extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
12.

A.

EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION OF WORK - The ability
adaptable and resourceful and to have better
average energy and resistance to stress.

to be
than

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping
students achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
13.
A.

WELL-DEVELOPED RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION - The active
appreciation of religious values.
In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B. * In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping
students achieve this outcome?
very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful

252
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
14-

A.

SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS - The ability to acquire a per­
spective on the events of social circumstances.
To
be concerned about the issues and problems of society.
In your opinion how important is this outcome
to the purpose of higher education?

relative

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
15.

INTERPERSONAL SKILLS - Abilities required for satisfy­
ing interaction with others, capacity for increased
tolerance for diversity, and increased ease in
relationships.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful

253
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
16.

A.

INTELLECTUAL COMPETENCE - An ability and appreciation
for introspection, reflective thought, and abstract
thinking— an experimental orientation toward organiz­
ing phenomena, independence of thought.
In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
17.

WELL-DEFINED SEXUAL IDENTITY - Clarification of sexual
identification and the ability to derive satisfaction
from one's sexuality.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.
very

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?
successful/BUccessful/undecided/unsuccessful/very

unsuccessful

254
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
18.

A.

CAPACITY FOR LEISURE-TIME ACTIVITIES - The ability
to enjoy nonwork-related activities, to derive
satisfaction from recreation.
In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
19.

A.

EMPLOYABILITY - The capability of finding a job in
one's chosen field upon graduation.
Vocational
suitability.
In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful

255
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
20.

A.

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIFE SKILLS - The abilities
required for successful and satisfying marital
relationships. Child raising competencies.
In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping
students achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
21.

A.

CRITICAL THINKING - Ability in the use of knowledge
and in relating it to the requirements of problem
solving or seeking more thorough understandings.
In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping stu­
dents achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unBuccessful/very
unsuccessful

256
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never
22-

LOYALTY TO THE COLLEGIATE INSTITUTION - A demonstrated
attitude of faithfulness to the university.
After
graduation, support and participation in alumni
activities and projects.

A.

In your opinion how important is this outcome relative
to the purpose of higher education?

very important/important/undecided/unimportant/very
unimportant
B.

In your opinion how successful is MSU in helping
students achieve this outcome?

very successful/successful/undecided/unsuccessful/very
unsuccessful
C.

To what extent do you feel that faculty and student
personnel staff cooperatively interact toward helping
students achieve this outcome?

a great deal/somewhat/undecided/not very much/never

257
Section II - Priority Given to Educational Outcomes
Directions: From the following list of educational outcomes which appeared in Section I, check the five which
you feel are the most important to the purposes of
higher education,
_____ Intellectual competence
_____ Effective organization of work
_____ Well-defined sexual identity
_____ Capability for leisure time activities
_____ Perception of Identity
_____ Well-defined religious orientation
_____ Personal autonomy
_____ Loyalty to the institution
_____ Nonauthoritarianism
_____ Marriage and family life skills
_____ Management of emotions
_____ Interpersonal skills
_____ Employability
Aesthetic values
_____ Acquisition of knowledge
_____ Social consciousness
_____ Communication skills
_____ Critical thinking
_____ Development- of purpose
_____ Well-developed value system
_____ Cultural appreciation
Effective inter-racial and ethnic attitudes

258
Section III - Faculty - Student Personnel Relationships
Directions: Please respond to the following questions by
expressing your own opinion on the matters presented.
1.

Should faculty and student personnel workers work
more closely together in order to accomplish the
educational goals of the university?
Please explain.

2.

Should the student affairs division of the university
be discontinued as a separate entity and be inte­
grated into the academic-instructional sphere of the
institution?
Why or why not?

3.

Do you feel that most faculty members are concerned
about the personal, emotional, and social development
of their students?
In what ways do they demonstrate
this concern or lack of concern?

4.

Do you feel that most student personnel workers are
concerned about the academic and intellectual
development of students?
In what ways do they
demonstrate this concern or lack of concern?

5.

Have you ever been a member of a committee on which
students were also members? Yes
No____

6.

Have you ever worked cooperatively in a facultystudent personnel staff relationship?
Was it a worthwhile experience?
Additional Comments:

APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER

APPENDIX B
Snyder Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
May 14, 1973
Many questions are being asked about what the essential pur­
poses of higher education should be.
Increasing attention
is being given to what it is exactly that students are sup­
posed to derive from a college education.
The greater clarity
and definition that educators can give to these concerns is
of great importance toward developing a more purposeful edu­
cational program.
The purpose of this study is to survey the opinions of a ran­
domly selected group of MSU faculty and student personnel
workers regarding selected educational goals and objectives
of higher education.
It is of further interest to survey
opinions regarding the perceived extent of cooperation between
the two groups as it now exists and the extent to which
further cooperation is desired toward helping students achieve
full benefit of their college experience.
The results of this
investigation will serve as the foundation for a Ph.D. disser­
tation in the Department of Student Personnel Administration
in Higher Education.
The study has been endorsed by my doctoral committee and
approved through the Office of Institutional Research.
Specifically, you are requested to read carefully the directions
in each of the three sections of the instrument and respond
to the statements in the appropriate fashion.
Be assured that
your opinions will be treated in a confidential manner and
that your identity will remain completely anonymous.
The
instrument is coded solely for research sampling and possible
follow-up purposes.
Your completing and returning the instrument in the enclosed,
addressed, campus mail envelope by Wednesday, May 23, 1973,
will be greatly appreciated.
I would be happy to forward to
you a copy of the abstract of the completed study.
Should you
like such a copy, or should you wish to register additional
opinions regarding this study or issue, please use the
available space on the back page.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this
matter.
Yours truly.
John A. Hintz

259

APPENDIX C
FOLLOW-UP COVER LETTER

APPENDIX C

Snyder Hall
Michigan State University
May 23, 1973
Two weeks ago I forwarded to you a copy of a questionnaire
designed to elicit some of your thoughts regarding selected
goals and objectives for higher education. As a partici­
pant, you are among a randomly selected group of Michigan
State University faculty members and student personnel
workers.
In order to develop a more thorough understand­
ing of the opinions held by this segment of our campus
population, I am sure you can appreciate how important
it is for each participant to complete and return the
instrument as soon as possible.
As was pointed out in my previous letter, this study has
been approved by the Office of Institutional Research and
has been endorsed by my doctoral committee (Dr. Louis
Stamatakos, Chairman). This study will serve as the foun­
dation for my Ph.D. dissertation in the department of
Student Personnel Administration in Higher Education.
The opinions of individual respondents will be treated
in a confidential manner.
In the event that you did not receive the original
questionnaire through some oversight on my part, or it
has been misplaced, a duplicate copy is enclosed.
I
would be grateful if you could take fifteen or twenty
minutes to fill it out and return it to me in the enclosed
campus mail envelope within a w e e k . If you would like
an abstract of the completed study, or should you wish to
register additional opinions regarding this study or
issue, please use the available space on the back page
to do so.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this
matter.
Sincerely,

John A. Hintz

260

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Charles.
"Governing Boards and Their Responsi­
bility."
Journal of Higher Education, XLI
(October, 1 £ 7 0), 524-34.
Adams, Bernard S.
"The Essential Reconciliation—
Academic Tradition and Societal Service."
North
Central Association Quarterly, XLVI (Spring^ 1972),
T S T - s d ' ; ------------------------------

All p o r t , Gordon W . Pattern and Growth in Personality.
New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963•
American Council on Education.
"The Student Personnel
Point of View:
A Report of a Conference on the
Philosophy and Development of Student Personnel
Work in College and University." American Council
on Education Studies, Series 1, VoTT II N o . 3
(Washington, D . C ., T937).
Anderson, Harry E.
"Regression, Discriminant Analy­
sis, and a Standard Notation."
Handbook of Mul­
tivariate Experimental Psychology^ Edited by
Raymond S. Cattell.
Chi c a g o : Rand McNally & Co.,
1966.
Anderson, James.
"Bureaucratic Rules:
Bearers of
Organizational Authority."
Educational Adminis­
tration Quarterly, XI (Winter^ 1966), 7-34.
Appel, Victor H.? Berry, Margaret C.; and Hoffman,
Robert W.
"Significant Collegiate Sources of
Influence." College Student Personnel Journal,
XIV (March, 1973), l7l-74.
Arata, Dorothy A.
Interviewed by William Grant.
"The Lifetime University."
Detroit Free P r ess,
Sec. C., September 23, 1973.
Arrowsmith, William.
"The Future of Teaching."
Campus 1980. Edited by Alvin C. Eurich.
New
York:
Delacorte Press, 1968.

262
10.

11

.

12

.

Austin, C. G.
"The Identification and Recruitment
of Prospective College Teachers." Michigan
Scholars in College Teaching Program, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1966,
Axelrod, Joseph, and Freedman, Mervin B,
Search for
Relevance:
The Campus in Cri s i s . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Pub., 1969.
Banta, Thomas J.
"The Goals of Higher Education."
Journal of Higher Education, XXXVII (November,

1966), T35-40.------------13.

Barron, F.
"Personal Soundness in University
Graduate Students." Publications in Personality
Assessment and Research, No. T~, Berkeley, Cali­
fornia, University of California Press, 1954.

14.

Blau, Peter M.
Exchange and Power in Social L i f e .
New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1 9 6 7 1

15.

Blocher, Donald H.
Developmental Counseling.
Y o r k : Ronald Press Co., 1966.

16.

Brown, Donald R.
"Personality, College Environment,
and Academic Productivity."
The American College.
Edited by Nevitt Sanford.
New York:
John Wiley
& Sons, 1966.

17.

Brubaker, John H., and Rudy, Willis.
Higher Edu­
cation in Transition. New York:
Harper, 1968.

18.

Burns, James M., and Peltason, Jack W.
Government
by the Peop l e . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
PrenticeHall Inc., 1963.

19.

Butler, William R.
Point of View."
1970), 131-41.

20

.

21.

New

"The Meaning of Community— One
NASPA Journal, VII (January,

Carrigan, Patricia M.
"The University as a Societal
Model."
Speech delivered at the Faculty Club
, Luncheon, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, June 1, 1971.
Case, Harry L.
"Declaration of Aims and Policies of
University X." Educational Record, L (Fall, 1969),
450-52.

263
22.

Cattell, Raymond B.
"The Principles of Design and
Analysis and Theory Building."
Handbook of Mul­
tivariate Experimental Psychology*^ Edited by
Raymond B. Cattell.
Chicago: Rand McNally &
Co., 1966.

23.

Chao, Lincoln L.
Statistics: Methods and An a lysis.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1369^

24.

Chickering, Arthur.
Education and Identity.
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., l§"7l •

25.

Clark, Burton.
"Belief and Loyalty in College
Organization."
Journal of Higher Education,
XLII (June, 1971), 499-515.

26

.

San

Collins, M.
"The College Experience Through the
Eyes of the Students." Achievernent in the
College Years:
A Record of Intellectual and
Personal Growth. Edited by Lois B. Murphy and
Esther Raushenbush. New York:
Harper, 1960.

27.

Corson, John.
"The Modernization of the University:
The Impact of Function on Governance•" Journal
of Higher Education, XLII (June, 1971), 430-41.

28.

Coser, Lewis.
The Functions of Social Conflict.
New Y o r k : The Free Press, 1956.

29.

Cuninggim, Merrimon.
"The Integrity of the Uni­
versity."
Educational Record, L (Winter, 1969),
37-46.

30.

Davidson, Olaf M.
"Commentary."
Issues of the
Seventies. Edited by Fred F . Harcleroad. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.

31.

Deterline, William.
"Applied Accountability."
Educational Technology, XI (January, 1971), 15-20.

32.

Dewey, John.
Experience and Education.
Collier Books, 1 $ 3 8 .

33.

Dressel, Paul.
Class notes in Education 9 65A.
Evaluation in Higher Education, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, Spring Term,
May 8 , 1972.

34.

Dressel, Paul L.
"Some Observations on NCA Examiners
Reports."
The North C entral Association Quarterly,
XLII (Fall, 1967), 214-19.

New York:

264
35.

Dressel, Paul L.
"Values Cognitive and Affective."
Journal of Higher Education, XLII (May, 1971),
"400- 155:-------

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

36.

_________. Evaluation in Higher Education.
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961.

Boston:

37.

_________, and Lehman, I. J.
"The Impact of Higher
Education on Student Values and Critical Thinking
Abilities."
Educational Record, XLVI (Summer,
1965), 248-58.

38.

_________, and Mayhew, Lewis B . General Education;
Explorations in Evaluation. Washington, D . C •:
American Council on Education, 1954.

39.

Etzioni, Amitai.
Cliffs, N.J.:

40.

Faculty-Course Listing and Time Distribution. For
Fall Term 1972 at Michigan State University.
Available through Office of Institutional
Research, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, September, 197 2.

41.

Fashing, Joseph, and Deutsch, Steven E. Academics
in Retreat. Albuquerque, New Mexico:
University
of New Mexico Press, 1971.

42.

Feldman, Kenneth A., and Newcomb, Theodore M., eds.
The Impact of College on Students. V o l . 1.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, I n c ., 1970.

43.

Finn, Jeremy D. Jeremy D. Finn's MultivarianceUnivariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance
and Covariance;
A FORTRAN IV Program. Occasional
Paper No. 5^ Modified for the Michigan State
University CDC 3600 and 6500 computer systems by
David J. Wright, office of Research Consultation,
School for Advanced Studies, College of Edu­
cation, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, March, 1970, pp. 1-19.

44.

Fitzgerald, Laurine E.
"A Study of Faculty Per­
ceptions of Student Personnel Services."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1959.

Modern Organizations. Englewood
Prentice-Hall, I n c ., 1964.

265
45.

Fitzgerald, Laurine E.
"Faculty Perceptions of
Student Personnel Functions." College Student
Personnel;
Readings and Bibliographies'. Edited
by Laurine E. Fitzgerald, Walter F. Johnson, and
Willa Norris.
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, Co.,
1970.

46.

Fogel, Richard.
"Conditions for the Use of PPB."
Journal of Research and Development in Education,
XlI “(Summer, 1970) , 72-79.

47.

Fromm, Eric, P. Foreword to Summerhill, A. S. Neill.
New York:
Hart, 1964.

48.

Gardner, John W.
"Agenda for the Colleges and Uni­
versities." Campus 1980. Edited by Alvin C.
Eurich.
New Y o r k : Delacorte Press, 1968.

49.

Glass, Gene V., and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical
Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, I n c ., 1970.

50.

Gould, Samuel B.
"A New Objective." Whose Goals for
American Higher Education. Edited by Calvin B. t T
Lee and Charles G. Dobbins. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1968.

51.

Gross, Edward, and Grambsch, Paul V. University
Goals and Academic P o w e r . Washington, D . C . :
American Council on Education, 1968.

52.

Hall, Richard H.
Organizations— Structure and
Process.
Englewood Cliffs, N . J . : Prentice Hall,

tw m —

53.

Hallberg, Edmund C., and Kirk, Henry P.
Co-Curriculum." NASPA Journal, VIII
1971), 197-200.

"Beyond the
(January,

54.

Hart, Richard L.
"Must Schools Be Neutral?" Con­
troversy in American Education. Edited by Harold
Full.
New York:
The MacMillan Co., 1969.

55.

Hatfield, Mark O.
"Public Pressures on Higher Edu­
cation."
The Troubled C a m p u s . Edited by Kerry
G. Smith.
San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, Inc.,
1970.

56.

Heath, Douglas H. Growing Up In College.
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1*)68.

San

266
57.

Heath, Roy.
"Higher Education and the Development
of Persons."
NASPA Journal, VI (April, 1969),
215-22.

58.

Henderson, D. B., and Northrup, P.
"Student Attitude
Survey I, Student Affairs Research Report 64-3."
Office of Student Affairs, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pa., 1964.

59.

Hinrichs, Gerard, and Miller, Theodore K.
"Student
Personnel Workers, Arguments for Assigning Them
Faculty Rank."
Journal of Higher Education,
XXXVII (June, 1966), 3i2-l9.

60.

Hodgkinson, Harold L.
Institutions in Transition.
Incorporating the 1970 Statistical Report of the
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
New
York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.

61.

Hook, Sidney.
"Conflict and Change in the Academic
Community."
Papers prepared for the NASPA 52nd
Annual Conference, Boston, Mass., April 1-4,
1970.

62.

Hungate, Thad L. Management in Higher Education.
New York:
Bureau of Publications, Columbia
University, 1964.

63.

Hurst, James C., and Ivey, Allen E.
"Toward a
Radicalization of Student Personnel."
College
Student Personnel, XII (May, 1971), 165-68.

64.

Hurst, James C.; Weigel, Richard G.; Morrill,
Weston H.? and Richardson, Frank C.
"Reorganizing
for Human Development in Higher Education:
Obstacles to Change." College Student Personnel
Journal, XIV (January, 1973), 10-15.

65.

Hutchins, Robert Maynard.
The Higher Learning in
Ame r i c a . New Haven:
Yale University Press, T936.

66

.

67.

Jacob, P. Changing Values in Col l e g e .
Harper, 19 57.

New York:

Johnson, Walter F.
"Student Personnel Work in
Higher Education:
Philosophy and Framework."
College Student Personnel: Readings and Bib­
liographies . fedited by Laurine E. Fitzgerald,
Walter £. Johnson, and Willa Norris.
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1970.

267
68.

Jones, David.
"PPBS— A Tool for Improving
Instruction."
Educational Leadership, XXVIII
(January, 1971)7 4i$S-09.

69.

Jones, Lyle V.
"Analysis of Variance in Its Multi­
variate Developments."
Handbook of Multivariate
Experimental Psychology. Edited by Raymond B.
Cattell.
Chicago:
Rand McNally & Co., 1966.

70.

Katz, Daniel, and Kohn, Robert L. The Social Psy­
chology of Organizations. New York:
John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1966.

71.

Katz, Joseph.
"A Portrait of Two Classes:
The
Undergraduate Students at Berkeley and Stanford
from Entrance to Exit."
Growth and Constraint
in College Students: A Study of the Varietie's
of Psychological Development. United States
Department of H.E.W. Project 5-0799, Institute
for the Study of Human Problems, Stanford Uni­
versity, Stanford, California, 19 67.

72.

Kauffman, Joseph F.
Personnel Work."
1970), 12-16.

73.

"New Challenges to Student
NASPA Journal, VIII (July,

. "The Next Decade."
(July, 1968), 21-23.

NASPA Journal, VI

74.

_________. "The Student in Higher Education."
The
College and the Student. Edited by Lawrence E.
Dennis and Joseph F. Kauffman.
Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1966.

75.

Kenniston, Kenneth.
"Responsibility for Criticism
and Social Change." Whose Goals for American
Higher Education? Edited by Charles G. Dobbins
and Calvin B. T. Lee. Washington, D . C . :
American Council on Education, 1968.

76.

Kerr, Clark.
The Uses of the University. Cambridge,
Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1963.

77.

Kirk, Roger E. - Experimental Design:
Procedures
for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, C a l i f.:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1968.

268
78.

Koenig, H. E . ? Keeney, M. G.; and Zemach, R.
"A
Systems Model for Management, Planning, and
Resource Allocation in Institutions of Higher
Education.” Division of Engineering Research,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
Final Report, Project C-518, National Science
Foundation, Washington, D.C., September 30, 1968.

79.

Kohn, Melvin L.
"Bureaucratic Man: A Portrait and
an Interpretation." American Sociological
Review, XXXVI (J u n e , 197l), 451-74.

80.

Lahti, Robert E.
"Management by Objectives."
College and University Business, LI (July,
1971), 31-33.

81.

Laser, Marvin.
"Toward a Sense of Community."
Journal of Higher Education, XXXVIII (February,
19iT7)7 B l - M . ---------------

82.

Lee, Calvin B. T. "Whose Goals for American Higher
Education?" Whose Goals for American Higher
Education? Edited by Charles G. Dobbins and
Calvin B . T. Lee.
Washington, D.C., 1968.

83.

Lehman, I. J., and Dressel, Paul L. Critical
Thinking, Attitudes, and Values in Higher Edu­
cation. Cooperative Research Project 59o,
U.S. Department of H.E.W., Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1962.

84 .

Lessinger, Leon.
"Robbing Dr. Peter to fPay P a u l f:
Accounting for Our Stewardship of Public Edu­
cation."
Educational Technology, XI (January,
1971), 1 1 - T T

85.

Likert, Rensis.
"The Nature of Highly Effective
Groups."
Organizations and Human B e havior:
Focus on Schools. Edited by Fred D. Carver and
Thomas J. Sergiovanni. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book C o . , 1969.

86

.

87.

Lloyd-Jones, Esther.
"How to Prepare for the
Unknown."
NASPA Journal, VI (July, 1968), 24-28.
Lynch, Robert C., and Sedlacek, William
ferences Between Student and Student
Staff Perceptions of a University."
Student Personnel Journal, XII (May,
m

=

7 s i --------------------------

E.
"Dif­
Affairs
College
1971),

269
88.

Maclver, Robert. Academic Freedom in Our Tim e s.
New York:
Columbia University Press, 1 9 6 & .

89.

Manning, William.
"Cost Analysis and Curriculum
Decisions."
Educational Leadership, XXVII
(November, 1969), 179— 83.

90.

March, James G., and Simon, Herbert A.
Organizations.
New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 196^1.

91.

Margolis, John D. The Campus in the Modern W o r l d .
Toronto, Canada:
The MacMillan Co., 1969.

92.

Martin, Warren Bryan.
Conformity:
Standards and
Change in Higher Education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1969.

93.

_________. "Inclusive Innovation."
The Research
Reporter, II (19 67), as quoted by Joseph F.
Kauffman in "The Next Decade," NASPA Journal,
VI (July, 1968), 22.

94.

Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality.
Harper & Row7 1954.

95.

Mayhew, Lewis B.
"Institutional Factors and the
Learning Environment."
The College and the
Stu d e n t . Edited by Lawrence E. Dennis and
Joseph F . Kauffman.
Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 19 6 6 .

96.

________ . "Thoughts on *A Statement of Rights for
College A d m i n i s t r a t o r s " Journal of Higher
Education, XLII (May, 1971)7 387-91.

97.

McConnell, T. R.
"Accountability and Autonomy."
Journal of Higher Education, XLII (June, 1971),
44 6— 63•

98.

"Student Personnel Services— Central or
Peripheral?"
NASPA Journal, VIII (July, 1970),
55-63.

99.

100.

New York:

McKeachie, W. J.
"Procedures and Techniques of
Teaching:
A Survey of Experimental Studies."
The American Col l e g e . Edited by Nevitt Sanford.
New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.
Michigan State University Faculty and Staff
Directory. Published by the Office of: the
Registrar, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, September, 1972.

270
101.

Mill, John Stuart.
On Liberty. As discussed by
Robert P. Wolff, The Poverty of Liberalism.
Boston:
Beacon Press, 1968.

1 0 2 . Mooney, Ross I*. "Evaluation in Higher Education:
Ground, Goal, and Way to Go."
Speech given before
the Fifth Annual Conference on Higher Education
of the Michigan Association of Colleges and Uni­
versities, Friday, November 10, 1967, Lansing,
Michigan.
103.

Morris, Van Cleve.
Existentialism in Education.
New York:
Harper & Row, P ub., 1966.

104.

Mueller, Kate H.
Student Personnel Work in Higher
Education. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961.

105.

Mullaney, Antony.
"The University as a Community
of Resistence."
Harvard Educational Review, XL
(November, 1970) , f>28-41.

106.

Nasatir, D.
"Collegiate Contexts." Paper read
at the annual meeting of the College Student
Personnel Institute, 1963, as reported by Kenneth
A. Feldman and Theodore M. Newcomb.
The Impact
of College on Students. San Francisco:
JosseyBass Inc., P u b ., 1970.

107.

Newcomb, Theodore, M.
"Attitude Development as a
Function of Reference Groups:
The Bennington
Study." A n Outline of Social Psychology.
Edited by M. Sherif, New York, Harper, 194 8 .

108.

_____ . Personality and Social Cha n g e .
York:
Dryden Press, 1943.

109.

Newton, C. H.
"Patterns of Career Decisions Within
the Professions."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Florida State University, 1962.

110

.

New

Nonnamaker, Eldon R.
"Student Personnel Adminis­
tration— 1970."
Unpublished position paper,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
Spring, 1970.
(Mimeographed.)

"Purposes of Colleges and Uni­
1 11 . O fBanion, Terry.
versity Student Personnel Work."
NASPA Journal,
VIII (January, 1971), 206-12.

271
112.

Owen, Mrs. Henry B.
"The Whole Picture of the Uni­
versity. " Whose Goals for American Higher Edu­
cation?
Edited by Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin
B. T. Lee.
Washington, D.C.: American Council
on Education, 1968.

113.

Pace, C. Robert.
"An Evaluation of Higher Edu­
cation:
Plans and Perspectives."
Journal of
Higher Education, XL (December, 1969) , 673-§i.

114.

. "Perspectives on the Student and His
C ol l e g e ." The College and the Student. Edited
by Lawrence H. Dennis and Joseph F. Kauffman.
Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education,
1966.

115.

Panos, Robert J.
"Criteria of Student Development."
College Student Personnel Journal, XX (September,
1968Y? 30S-11';

116.

Parsons, Talcott.
Structure and Process in Modern
Societies. New Y o r k : The Free Press, 1965.

117.

______ . "Suggestions for a Sociological Approach
to the Theory of Organization." Administrative
Science Quarterly, I (September, 1956), 225-34.

118.

. "The Strong Case of Academic Organization." Journal of Higher Education, XLII
(June, 1971), 486-95.

119.

________ , and Shils, Edward A.
"The Social System."
Toward a General Theory of A c t i o n . Edited by
Talcott Parsons and Edward A. shils. Cambridge,
Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1951,

120

.

Paschal, Elizabeth.
"Organizing for Better
Instruction." Campus 198 0 . Edited by Alvin C.
Eurich.
New Y o r k : Delacorte Press, 1968.

121

.

Penny, James F.
"Student Personnel Work: A Pro­
fession Stillborn."
Personnel and Guidance
• Journal, XLVII (June, 1969), 335-62“.

122

.

Perrow, Charles.
"The Analysis of Goals in Complex
Organizations."
American Sociological Review,
XXVI (December, 1961), 854-66.

123.

Pervin, Lawrence A.
"The College as a Social Sys­
tem."
Journal of Higher Education, XXXVIII
(June, l$(57y; 3 17-22:--------------

272
124.

Peterson, Marvin.
"Decentralization: A Strategic
Approach."
Journal of Higher Education, XLII
(June, 1971), 521-39.

125.

Peterson, Richard E.
The Crisis of Purpose:
Definition and Use of Institutional GoalsT.
Report 5, ERIC. Washington, D . C .: clearinghouse on Higher Education, October, 1970.

126.

Pfnister, Allan O.
"The Role of Faculty in Uni­
versity Governance."
Journal of Higher Edu­
cation, XLI (June, 1970), 430-45.

127.

Plant, Walter T.
Personality Changes Associated
with a College Education"
Cooperative Research
Branch Project 34 8 (SAE 7666), February 1, 1958,
to September 30, 1962, United States Office of
Education, Department of H.E.W., 1962.

128.

Powell, Robert S., Jr.
"The Necessity for Ongoing
Dialogue." Whose Goals for American Higher Edu­
cation? Edited by Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin
B. T. Lee. Washington, D.C.: American Council
on Education, 19 6 8 .

129 .

Presthus, Robert.
The Organizational Society.
New York:
Vintage Books, 1962.

130.

"Proposal for Professional Preparation of College
Student Development Educators."
The Commission
on Professional Development of the Council of
Student Personnel Associates.
Updated draft
January 21, 1972.

131.

Pusey, Nathan M.
The Age of the Scholar.
Harper & Row, 19(53.

132.

Reiner, John R . , and Robinson, Donald W.
"An
Approach to Goal-Statement Evaluation." The
North Central Association Quarterly, XLIV (Fall,
1S<5&5', T4I-43.-----------------

133.

Richardson, Richard C.
"Comment by Richard C.
Richardson."
Journal of Higher Education, XLII
(June, 1971), 51(5-l'S.

134.

Riesman, David.
"The Collision Course of Higher
Education." Journal of College Student Personnel,
XI (November, lS'&9), 363-<SS.

New York:

273
135.

Robinson, Daniel D.
"Who*s Managing."
Issues of
the Seventies. Edited by Fred F. Harcleroad.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.

136.

Rogers, Carl R.
"The Place of the Person in the
New World of the Behavioral Sciences."
Personnel
and Guidance Journal, XXXIX (February, 1961),
444-51.----------------

137.

_________. "Toward Becoming a Fully Functioning
Person."
Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming.
Edited by A. W. C o m b s . Washington, D . C .:
Yearbook Association for Supervision and Cur­
riculum Development, 1962.

138.

Romine, Stephen.
"Some Difficult Decisions in
Higher Education."
The North Central Association
Quarterly, XLIV (Winter, i9?0), 275-83.

139.

Rudolph, Frederick.
"Neglect of Students as a
Historical Tradition."
The College and the
Student. Edited by Lawrence E. Dennis anti- Joseph
F! Kauffman. Washington, D.C.: American Council
on Education, 1966.

140.

Sanford, Nevitt.
Paper presented in the symposium
of Personality and Higher Education, American
Psychological Association meeting, San Francisco,
California, 1955.

141.

____, ed.
The American College.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

New York:

14 2.

_________. Where Colleges F a i l .
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1967.

San Francisco:

143.

Sarte, Jean-Paul.
Existentialism and Human
Emotions. New York:
The Wisdom Library, 1957.

144.

Schletlin, Eleanor M.
"The Peter Principle and
Student Personnel Work." College Student Per­
sonnel Journal, XI (1970), 167-68.

145.

Schwab, Joseph J. College Curriculum and Student
Protest.
Chicago!
University of Chicago Press,

tvzt;
—

146.

Schwartz, Ron.
"Accountability."
XXCV (June, 1970), 31-34.

Nations Schools,

274
147.

Selvin, Hanan C.
"The Impact of University
Experience on Occupational Plans." School
Review, LXXI (Autumn, 1963), 317-29.

148.

Selznick, Philip.
"An Approach to a Theory of
Bureaucracy."
American Sociological Review,
VIII (February, 1943), 47-54.

149.

Shaffer, Robert H.
"Whither Student Personnel Work
From 1968 to 2018?" NASPA Journal, VI (July,
1968), 9-14.

150.

"Will Student Personnel Work Survive
the '70's?" NASPA Journal, VII (January, 1970),
128-30.

151.

Shoben, Edward Joseph Jr.
"A Rationale for Modern
Student Personnel Work."
Personnel-O-Gram, XII
(March, 1958), 11.

152.

Sills, David L.
"The Succession of Goals." A
Sociological Reader of Complex Organizations.
Edited by Amitai Etzioni.
New York:
Holt, Rine­
hart and Winston, Inc., 1961.

153.

_________. The Volunteers.
Free Press^ 1957.

154.

Silverman, R. J.
"Accountability."
Journal of
Higher Education, XLII (November, 1971),

155.

Simon, Herbert A.
"On the Concept of Organizational
Goals." A Sociological Reader of Complex Organi­
zations. Edited by Amitai Etzioni.
New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961.

156.

Smith, Ralph A.
"Human Values, Modern Organizations,
and Education."
Organizations and Human Behavior:
Focus on Schools. Edited by Fred D. Carver and
Thomas J. Sergiovanni.
New York:
McGraw-Hill
Book C o . , 1969.

157.

Stamatakos, Louis C.
"The Seventies:
Opportunities
for Educational Reform Through Student Personnel
Services and the Co-Curriculum."
Keynote
Address for Professional Development Seminar at
Eastern Michigan University, November 24, 1971,
Ypsilanti, Michigan.

158.

_________ , and Oliaro, Paul.
"In-Service Development:
A Function of Student Personnel."
NASPA Journal,
IX (April, 1972), 269-73.

Glencoe,

111.:

The

275
159.

Stanford, Gene.
"Psychological Education in the
Classroom."
Personnel and Guidance Journal,
L (March, 1972), 585-9i.

160.

Stead, Ronald Stanley.
"An Analysis of the Uni­
versity Goal Perceptions and Preferences of Stu­
dents, Faculty, Administrators, and Trustees at
Michigan State University."
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

161.

Sweitzer, Robert.
"An Assessment of Two Theoretical
Frameworks."
Organizations and Human Behavior;
Focus on Schools. Edited by Fred D. Carver and
Thomas J. Sergiovanni.
New York:
McGraw-Hill
Book C o ., 19 69.

162.

Taylor, Frederick W.
York:Harper, 1911.

163.

The Student in Higher Education. Report of the
Committee on the Student in Higher Education,
The Hazen Foundation, New Haven, Connecticut,
January, 1968.

164.

Thomas, William L., Jr.
"Perceptions of University
Goals:
A Comparison of Administrators, Faculty
and Students Engaged in the Practice, Teaching
and/or Study of Student Personnel Administration
at Michigan State University with a Nationwide
Study of University Faculty and Administrators."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970.

165.

Thompson, James D . , and McEwen, William J.
"Organizational Goals and Environment." A
Sociological Reader of Complex Organizations.
Edited by Amitai Etzioni.
New York:
Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961.

166.

Thornton, James W.
The Community Junior Col l e g e.
New York:
John Wiley and Sons, I nc., 1966.

167.

Truman, David B.
"The Academic Community in Tran­
sition: Visible Continuities and Invisible
Changes."
NASPA Journal, VIII (July, 1970),
6- 1 1 .

168.

Tyler, Ralph W.
"The Knowledge Explosion."
The
Educational Forum, XXIX (January, 1965), 145-53.

Scientific Management.

New

276
169 .

University Catalog of Michigan State University.
Michigan State University Publication, East
Lansing, Michigan, V.
LXIV, No. 6 (1969).

170.

Vreeland,
Effects
Harvard
(1965),

171.

Wallis, W. Allen.
"Centripetal and Centrifugal
Forces in University Organization."
The Con­
temporary University:
U . S.A. Edited by Robert
S. Morrison.
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 19 6 6 .

172.

_____. "Institutional Coherence and Priorities."
whose Goals for American Higher Education?
Edited
by Charles G. Robbins and Calvin B. T. Lee.
Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education,
1968.

173.

Weber, Max.
The Theory of Social and Economic
OrganizatiorH
Translated by A. Ml Henderson and
Talcott Parsons.
New York:
The Free Press, 1947.

174 .

Webster, Harold; Freedman, Mervin; and Heist, Paul.
"Personality Changes in College Students."
The American College. Edited by Nevitt Sanford.
New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

175.

Weiss, R. F.
"Student and Faculty Perceptions of
Institutional Press at St. Louis University."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 1964.

176.

Werdell, Philip R.
"Teaching and Learning:
Whose
Goals Are Important Around Here?" Whose Goals
for American Education? Edited by Charles G.
Dobbins and Calvin B. T. Lee. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1968.

177.

Wharton, Clifton R., Jr.
"Wharton Explores MSU*s
Complexity.” Michigan State N e w s , Welcome Week
Edition, September, 1 9 7 3 .

178.

Whiting, Albert.
"A Proposal for Colleges of
Applied Sciences and Public Service." Whose
Goals for American Higher Education? Edited by
Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin B. T. Lee.
Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education,
1968.

R. S., and Bidwell, C. E.
"Organizational
on Student Attitudes:
A Study of the
Houses."
Sociology of Education, XXLVIXI
233-50.

277
179.

Williamson, E. G.
Student Personnel Services in
Colleges and Universities!
New Y o r k : McGrawHill Book Co., 1$61.

180.

Wilson, E. K.
"The Entering Student:
Attributes
and Agents of Change."
College Peer Gro u p s:
Problems and Prospects for Research. Edited by
Theodore M. Newcomb and E. K. Wilson.
Chicago:
Aldine, 1966.

181.

Wilson, Logan.
"Higher Education and the National
Interest." Campus 1 980. Edited by Alvin C.
Eurich.
New York:
Delacorte Press, 1968.

182.

_________ . "Is the Student Becoming the 'Forgotten
M a n ? 1" The College and the Student. Edited by
Lawrence E . Dennis anct Joseph F. Kauffman.
Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Edu­
cation, 1966.

183.

Winstead, Philip C., and Hobson, Edward N.
"Insti­
tutional Goals:
Where to from Here?” Journal
of Higher Education, XLII (November, 197X7!
---------------

184.

Wrenn, C. Gilbert.
Student Personnel Work in
College. New York!
The Ronald P r e s s , C o ., 1951.