INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR 7915134 GROVES# DAVID R088 A d e v e l o p m e n ta l STUDY OF VALUE d im e n s io n s OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS at MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY# P H .D ., University Microfilms International 300 n . z b e b h o a d , a n n a r s o n , mi 4 & i o 6 1978 ' I 1 A DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY OF VALUE DIMENSIONS OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By David R. Groves A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements fo r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1978 ABSTRACT A DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY OF VALUE DIMENSIONS OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By David R. Groves The major purpose of th is study was to describe and analyze 13 value dimensions of students enrolled in the Michigan State U niversity In s titu te of A g ricultural Technology. This was accomplished by admin­ is te rin g the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire to students at th e ir entry o rie n tatio n and again 18 months la te r upon t h e ir graduation. Assuming the importance values play in motivating and determin­ ing one's a ttitu d es and behaviors, i t was suggested th a t information on the value dimensions o f students would serve as an aid to the In s titu te in providing an environment th at would motivate and enhance the to ta l educational growth of students. Null hypotheses stated there would be no difference in value dimensions fo r students w ith in the In s titu te 's ten programs, or in program clusters of farm oriented and agri-business a t o rien ta tio n or graduation. I t was fu rth e r hypothesized there would be no change in value dimensions from o rie n ta tio n to graduation and no sex d ifferen c e . A d d itio n a lly , i t was hypothesized there would be no relation ship between David R. Groves graduation value dimensions and parent occupation, parent education, residency o n /o ff campus, a g ric u ltu ra l technology student roommate, or weekends spent o ff campus. Appropriate analyses were u tiliz e d including: means, frequenceis, matched p a ir t - t e s t s , analysis o f variance and covariance, c o rrelatio n s, and r e l i a b i li t i e s . Results indicated no differences in the 13 dimensions among students w ithin the ten programs a t o rie n ta tio n . Differences were found a t orientation between farm oriented and agri-business students on the Field Committed dimension. S ig n ific a n t differences were found on dimensions Alienated and Active Conformist of students w ith in the ten programs a t graduation. An analysis o f covariance indicated the Alienated dimension difference might have resulted from i n i t i a l group v a ria tio n s , while i t also revealed an additional difference on Field Committed. Graduation results revealed s ig n ific a n tly higher scores on Active Conformist and N arcissist scales fo r students in farm oriented programs. Results on o rien tatio n to graduation change in value dimensions fo r students in overall programs indicated s ig n ific a n t differences on seven dimensions, with increases on Perceptual G ra tific a tio n , Gameplayer and N arcissist, and decreases on A lienated, Active Conformist, Lonely and D r ifte r . Change in students based on program clusters revealed farm oriented students s ig n ific a n tly increased responses in Gameplayer, Freedom Independent, and Perceptual G ra tific a tio n , while they decreased scores in Active Conformist and Lonely dimensions. Agri-business students decreased responses on A lienated, Active Conformist and Lonely dimensions. David R. Groves S ig n ific a n t differences were found between male and female stu­ dents on o rie n ta tio n value dimensions. Male student scores were higher on Gameplayer, D r ifte r and N arcissist dimensions, while female students responded higher on the dimension Humanitarian. Graduation data in d i­ cated a difference on Gameplayer with male scores being s ig n ific a n tly higher. Data on change between o rie n tatio n and graduation value responses indicated male students s ig n ific a n tly decreased scores on Active Con­ fo rm is t, Lonely and D r ift e r scales and increased scores on the Perceptual G ra tific a tio n dimension. Female students did not s ig n ific a n tly change on any value dimensions. No s ig n ific a n t differences in student responses a t graduation were found based on fa th e rs ' occupation. A s ig n ific a n t difference was in d i­ cated on the D r ift e r dimension based on fath e rs ' education, with students o f fathers having technical tra in in g scoring highest. An overall difference was revealed on value dimensions a t gradua­ tio n between students residing on campus and those not liv in g on campus. Results a t graduation indicated students not having an a g ric u l­ tu ra l technology roommate scored s ig n ific a n tly higher in the Interpersonal Relations dimension. C orrelation c o efficien ts indicated no s ig n ific a n t relation ship between weekends spent away from campus and s p ec ific value dimension scores a t graduation. Those students who graduated 18 months a fte r o rien tatio n were found to be s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t on three dimensions than those students who did not graduate. Students who did not graduate scored s ig n ific a n tly higher on the dimensions o f A c tiv is t, Perceptual G ra tific a ­ tio n and D r ift e r . Dedicated to iriy w ife Judy and children Matthew and Meghan ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The accomplishment of th is study was made possible through the support and cooperation o f many people. I am g ra te fu l fo r the cooperation offered by the s t a f f of the In s titu te o f A g ric u ltu ral Technology. I e s p e cially thank Dr. Harold Ecker, D ire c to r, Dr. James Gibson, Program Coordinator, and Ms. Pat Marion, Assistant D ire c to r, fo r th e ir in te re s t and assistance. I appreciate the work o f Ms. Connie Blake in typing and Ms. Judy P fa ff in assisting with the s t a t is tic a l analysis fo r th is study. My thanks also to the members o f my doctoral committee, Dr. W illiam Hinds, chairman, Dr. Gwen N o r r e ll, Dr. G ilb e rt DeRath and Dr. Sam P ly le r fo r t h e ir d ire c tio n and support. Most o f a l l , I am indebted to my research chairman, Dr. John Powell, fo r his patience, guidance and exper­ tis e . I also owe the completion of n\y doctoral program to the fa it h and encouragement from my w ife , Judy, e s p e c ia lly in the times of setback and discouragement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... vi Chapter I. THE PROBLEM............................................................................................... 1 N eed...................................................................................................... 1 Purpose................................................................................................... 6 Hypothesis ........................................................................................... 7 Theory ................................................................................................... 8 D e fin itio n s ........................................................................................10 Overview...............................................................................................17 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................... 19 Value Studies on Student College Populations ........................ 19 Early S tu d ie s ....................................................................................19 Recent Studies....................................................................................21 Agricultural Vocational Programs and Agricultural Students................................................................................................30 Agricultural Technology Programs................................................ 30 Agricultural Students andRelated Studies .......................... 32 Discussion of Previous Research........................................................ 35 General Research Hypotheses................................................................ 39 Summary........................................................................................................39 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY....................................................................................42 Sample........................................................................................................42 Measures....................................................................................................43 D esig n ........................................................................................................44 Testable Hypotheses................................................................................45 A n a ly s is ....................................................................................................46 Summary........................................................................................................49 IV. INSTRUMENTATION: THE AMERICANCOLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE".' 7~.~. . . . V . . 50 Description................................................................................................50 Summary........................................................................................................56 iv Chapter V. Page ANALYSIS OF RESULTS................................................................................... 58 Description................................................................................................58 Sumnary....................................................................................................... 97 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................. 105 Summary......................................................................................................105 Conclusions..............................................................................................110 Discussion..............................................................................................112 Lim itations..............................................................................................122 Implications ....................................................................................... 123 LIST OF REFERENCES..................................................................................................126 APPENDICES................................................................................................................. 132 A. Technical Training Programs, In s titu te of Agricultural Technology.......................................................................................... 133 B. The American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 137 C. Value Dimensions of American College Personnel Association Value Q uestionnaire.................................................................................. 157 D. Questionnaire Used in the Construction of the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire .................... 160 E. Intercorrelation Matrix on Value Dimensions from P ilo t Sample of College Students from Michigan and Missouri . . . . F. 162 A Graph of Orientation and Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means fo r Students Enrolled in the In s titu te of Agricultural Technology...................................................................... 164 v LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1 Page Interco rrelatio n Matrix on Value Dimensions Measured at G raduation........................................................................................... 54 Hoyts R e lia b ility on Value Dimensions Measured at O rientation........................................................................................... 55 Orientation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Programs................................................... 60 5.2 Univariate F-Tests on Orientation Data for Programs ............... 61 5.3 Orientation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Program Clusters.................................... 62 M ultivariate Test of Significance on Orientation Data: Cluster Effect ................................................................................... 63 Univariate F-Tests on Orientation Data fo r Program C lu s te rs ............................................................................................... 63 Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Program ................................................... 65 5.7 Univariate F-Tests on Graduation Data fo r Programs.................. 66 5.8 Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data for Programs: Covary on Orientation Data........................................ 67 Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Program Cluster .................................... 68 5.10 Univariate F-Tests on Graduation Data fo r Program C lu s te rs ............................................................................................... 69 5.11 Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data fo r Program Clusters: Covary on Orientation Data........................ 70 4.2 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.9 5.12 Matched Pairs T-Test on Orientation-Graduation Data fo r A ll S tud ents....................................................................................... vi 71 Table Page 5.13 Matched Pairs T-Test on Orientation Graduation Data for Program Cluster, Farm Oriented .................................................... 73 5.14 Matched Pairs T-Test on Orientation-Graduation Data for Program Cluster, Agri-Business .................................................... 74 5.15 Orientation and Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations fo r Male and Female Students................................................................................................... 76 5.16 M ultivariate Test of Significance on Orientation Data: Students' Sex E f f e c t ............................................................................ 77 5.17 Univariate F-Tests on Orientation Data fo r Male and Female Students........................................................................................77 5.18 Univariate F-Tests on Graduation Data fo r Male and Female Students................................................................................................... 78 5.19 Matched Pairs T-Test on Orientation-Graduation Data fo r Male Students............................................................................................80 5.20 Matched Pairs T-Test on Orientation-Graduation Data fo r Female Students........................................................................................81 5.21 Frequency of Parent Occupation on Graduation Data ..................... 5.22 Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviation by Fathers' Occupation.....................................84 5.23 Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data fo r Father's Occupation: Covary on Orientation Data ................ 85 5.24 Frequency of Parent Educational Level on Graduation Data. . . 86 5.25 Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Father's Education ................................................ 87 82 5.26 Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data for Father's Education: Covary on Orientation Data.........................88 5.27 Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Residency On/Off Campus.............................................89 5.28 M ultivariate Analysis of Variance on Graduation Data for Student Residency On/Off Campus.........................................................90 v ii Table 5.29 5.30 5.32 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 Page Univariate Analysis of Variances on Graduation Data fo r Student Residency On/Off Campus ................................................ 90 M ultivariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data fo r Student Residency On/Off Campus: Covary on O rie n ta tio n ....................................................................................... 91 Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data for Student Residency On/Off Campus: Covary on Orientation Data............................................................................... 91 Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Agricultural In s titu te Roommate .................... 93 Univariate Analysis of Variance on Graduation Data for Agricultural In s titu te Roommate ................................................ 94 Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data for Agricultural In s titu te Roommate: Covary on Orientation Data............................................................................... 95 Frequency of Weekends Spent Off Campus Per Term on Graduation D a t a ............................................... 96 Pearson Correlation C oefficient on Graduation Value Dimen­ sions and Weekends Spent Off Campus Per Term........................ 97 Orientation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations fo r Graduates and Non-Graduates . . . 98 M ultivariate Analysis of Variance on Orientation Data: Graduated, Non-Graduated Effect ................................................ 99 Univariate Analysis of Variance on Orientation Data fo r Graduates and Non-Graduates ........................................................ 99 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Need Characteristics of college students have long been a focus of research. Several studies during the 1920's and 1930's, while suffering from serious methodological defects, dealt with the exploration of college students' attitud es and values. During the la s t two decades, s t i l l greater attention was given to research in this area. In recent years, the impact of college experience on the development, s t a b ility , and change in a ttitu d e s , values and other personality dimensions have been studied extensively by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and educators. For the most p a rt, previous research in th is area has been res tric te d to specific problems, such as change in student attitudes and opinions about current, re lig io u s , economic or p o litic a l issues (Lehmann and Dressel, 1963). Many of the previous studies have also been con­ cerned with lim ited personality characteristics such as authoritarianism , ethnocentrism and r ig id it y . In general, researchers in values have employed such standardized tests as the A ll po rt, Vernon, Linzey Study of Values, the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, or a lo c a lly constructed questionnaire. Martin (1974) has noted th at few existing value surveys are discrim inating enough to catch the present subtleties of value 2 stru ctu re and change in college students. He also states th a t the Study of Values has been the one major instrument employed in most value studies on college students. He continued by emphasizing that "this instrument was developed in the 1930's, was lim ited to six personality types and was not e x p lic itly designed fo r the college population" (1974: 2 ). In addition to the fa ct that the m ajority of past investigations have been res tric te d to special problem areas, u t iliz in g instruments of measurement not s p e c ific a lly designed fo r the college population, Lehmann and Dressel (1963) point out that past studies have been, fo r the most part, cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. King and Powell s ta te , Within the past two decades, there appears to have been a change in observable values of college students, moving more in the directio n of immediate g ra tific a tio n of impulses, focusing on feelings and emotions, but simultaneously, demonstrating a feelin g of resp on sibility fo r the welfare o f society and the planet. Some students react to these changes and/or bring them about through feelings of alienation or dep erso nalizatio n... others commit to a d e fin ite cause and work out a resp o n sib ility to society and themselves in this way, and a va rie ty of value patterns have been appearing. Yet, over the past two decades no new measurement instrument has been developed which can focus on such change (1972:1). There seems to be uncertainty among some researchers as to how much the value structure of college students has changed over the past 20 years. Some feel that values, especially p o litic a l and personal-social ones, have fluctuated l i t t l e (Jacobs, 1957). According to King and Powell, other authorities have argued that even with gradual societal value change over the years, "that today's culture is fomenting the development of small w ell-defined groups which are very a rtic u la te about th e ir values" (1972:2). These descriptions point out that evidence is not clear enough a t this time to know whether the current college 3 population is s ig n ific a n tly undergoing a values change. In a d d itio n , the contrasting opinions emphasize th a t the dimensions o f the value structure o f th is group is not well understood or thoroughly documented. Even with the increasing research e f fo r t being made in the areas of value ch aracteristics of college students, ce rtain student populations have la rg e ly been ignored to the extent th a t l i t t l e data is av ailab le concerning th e ir value c h a ra cte ristic s. Whether th is lack of research w ithin some student populations is due to lim ited resources, d i f f ic u l t access to students, or individual researcher in te re s t, i t is important th a t these ignored student groups be explored. I t is valuable to b ette r understand th e ir value dimensions in re la tio n to overall trends while also providing colleges with important information on the c h aracteristics of th e ir individual students. King and Powell emphasize th a t i f dimensions of the value structure of college student populations were understood, and value types with behavioral correlates could be id e n tifie d , educational planning, c u rric u la r individuation and prudent modi­ fic a tio n of campus environments could then be in s titu te d to maximize the natural propensities of the student, allowing him to get the most from his educational opportunities (1972:2). One college student population th at has had minimal research e f fo r t directed toward i t , especially in the area o f values character­ is t ic s , is th a t of a g ric u ltu ra l technology students. Elson (1971) has stated th at "one segment o f education benefiting from additional support o f the public is vocational-technical education. technical education has been neglected" (1971:1). Evaluation of vocationalSharp and Krasnegor (1966) observed th at very few studies o f vocational education have been 4 conducted a t the post-secondary le v e l. They indicated th at very l i t t l e is known about the students or graduates of post-secondary vocational education. Anderson (1965) discussed how l i t t l e data exists about a g r i­ c u ltu ra l short course students. He emphasized th at more data is needed fo r accurate decision making regarding student personnel services and academic o ffe rin g s . He also observed the considerable need fo r studies of the sociological and psychological characteristics o f a g ric u ltu ra l degree and short course students in order to ascertain s p e c ific a lly what differences may e x is t. Anderson continued by s ta tin g , While research related d ir e c tly to a g ric u ltu ra lly oriented college or short course students is extremely scarce, college students, in general, have been examined in a m ultitude of ways. They have been studied w ithin such groups as the g ifte d , retarded, and underprivileged. They have been in d iv id u a lly analyzed on general c h a ra c te ristic s such as physical condition, values, academic a b i l i t i e s , a ttitu d e s , and other assorted t r a it s . However, . . . a g ric u ltu ra l degree and short course students have been neglected (1965:15). The foregoing discussion has made these points: 1. Much previous research has been re s tric te d to sp ecific problems in student a ttitu d in a l and opinion change, lim ite d personality c h a ra c te ris tic s , and has u tiliz e d measurement instruments not e x p lic itly designed fo r the college population. 2. There are contradictory opinions on exactly what are the sp e c ific value c h a ra c te ristic s of college students; whether the current college population is undergoing s ig n ific a n t value change; i f there is a change of student value structure over the course o f college; and what the general dimensions are of the value structure of th is group. 3. While a considerable number of studies have been done in the area o f value c h a ra c te ris tic s , some college student groups have 5 been neglected resulting in l i t t l e or no availab le data: vocational- a g ric u ltu ra l students being one such population. 4. New instruments fo r assessing value dimensions and value change in the college student population are needed. By u t iliz in g a values inventory which is s p e c ific a lly created fo r use with the college student in defining and measuring specific value dimensions, with an ag ricu ltu ra l technology population th a t has not had values research done previously, information has been gathered which w ill contribute knowledge to the area of value ch ara cteristics as well as provide valuable information to the In s titu te of A gricultural Technology. 1. This study helps to better: Understand the current value structure of college students enrolled in the In s titu te o f A gricultural Technology a t Michigan State U n iversity, by using a questionnaire th at contains validated dimensions of college student values. 2. Understand the characteristics of value change during the college experience fo r those students who fin is h the two year program. 3. Provide information to the In s titu te of A g ricu ltu ral Tech­ nology about th e ir students. This e f fo r t can help them provide a f a c i l i t a t i v e learning environment which w ill maximize opportunities fo r student learning. 4. Assist in f u l f i l l i n g a number of o b jectives, lis te d by King and Powell in th e ir proposal to the Department o f H ealth, Education and W elfare, fo r the area o f values measurement and id e n tific a tio n among and w ithin college populations. These objectives include understanding and 6 measuring the main value dimensions of contemporary college students and re la tin g these resu ltan t value dimensions to student populations at various types of in s titu tio n s . I t is also an objective to lay the groundwork fo r fu rth e r research on value dimensions including the study of developmental changes in value systems over tim e, and helping to maximize the educational experience fo r students through a greater understanding of th e ir values (1972:3-4). Purpose The purpose of th is study is to describe and analyze the value orientations of students enrolled in the Michigan State U niversity In s t i­ tute of A g ricultural Technology program. This is accomplished through the adm inistration of the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire (King and Powell, 1972), which measures college students on 13 value dimensions. This investigation seeks data fo r both the overall a g ric u ltu ra l in s titu te 's f ir s t-y e a r student population as well as possible differences of students enrolled w ith in the in s titu te 's ten sp e c ific programs. Also, data was secured upon the graduation o f th is class o f students to analyze and describe the ch aracteristics o f value change which might occur over th e ir 18 month span of college educational experience. This longitudinal data contributes to the knowledge o f possible developmental changes in value systems over time as well as providing information about a g ric u ltu ra l technology students th a t is o f value to fa c u lty members o ffe rin g them educational and vocational advisement. Another segment of the study is the description and analysis of some additional variables 7 as they re la te to the population's value dimensions. include: These factors sex of student, parent occupation, parent education, residence on or o ff campus, roommate an A gricultural Technology student, and number of week-ends spent o ff campus. I t is the purpose of th is study to provide descriptive information fo r this population of students at Michigan State U n iversity, and not fo r broad generalizations to other student groups. G eneralization of data to other student groups is inappropriate and not the in te n t of this research. Hypothesis This study is introduced in lig h t of the lack of research in fo r­ mation availab le concerning the value ch aracteristics of a g ricu ltu ral technology students. While some data is availab le on degree students in four-year a g ric u ltu ra l programs, Anderson (1965) has shown th at vocational technology students d if f e r s ig n ific a n tly from these four-year a g ric u ltu ra l students on several dimensions. In that th is research represents an exploratory and descriptive study, a general research hypothesis seems to be appropriate to the investigation a t th is time (th is hypothesis w ill be restated in testable form in the design portion of th is study). Although i t is recognized that additional questions and hypotheses w ill probably emerge in the course of the in v es tig a tio n , the major research hypothesis of th is study is stated as follows: Students who enroll in one of the Michigan State U niversity In s titu te o f A g ricu ltu ral Technology's ten programs may d if f e r in th e ir value dimensions from the students in the In s titu te 's other programs. Changes in the students' value dimensions may occur over time from o rie n ta tio n to graduation. 8 Value dimensions w ill be measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire a t the beginning and end of th e ir two year program. Other variables associated with th is major hypothesis include: sex d iffere n c e s , e ffe c t o f parent education and occupation, student residency on or o ff campus, a g ric u ltu ra l technology roommate, and the number o f weekends spent o f f campus. Theory The recognition o f the importance of studying and exploring the nature o f human values has long been with us. Williams has stated , "Problems o f values appear in a l l fie ld s o f the social sciences, and value elements are p o te n tia lly important as variables to be analyzed in a ll major areas of investigation s" (1968:286). Rokeach prefaces his book The Nature of Human Values by s ta tin g , . . . the concept o f values more than any o th er, is the core concept across a l l the social sciences. I t is the main dependent varia b le in the study of social a ttitu d e s and behaviors. I t is d i f f i c u l t fo r me to conceive any problem social s c ie n tis ts might be interested in th a t would not deeply im plicate human values (1973). In another work, Rokeach claims when comparing the r e la tiv e power of the value concept against other concepts, th a t by focusing upon a person's values . . . we would be dealing w ith a concept th a t is more c e n tra l, more dynamic, more economical, a concept th a t would in v ite a more enthusiastic in te rd is c ip lin a ry c o lla b o ra tio n , and th a t would broaden the range o f the social psychologist's t r a d i­ tio n a l concern to include problems o f education and re-education as w ell as problems o f persuasion (1968:159). In a s im ila r sense, Morris attempts to o ffe r his view o f the importance o f values by s ta tin g , "The term 'value* is one o f the Great Words lik e 9 'science,' 'r e lig io n ,' 'a r t , ' 'm o ra lity ,' and 'philosophy,' its meaning m ultiple and complex" (1956:9). As Morris indicates, the concept of values has been assigned a place of major importance by many theorists who have attempted to define the term in m ultiple and complex ways. Smith fo rc e fu lly speaks about this conceptual disarray in the concept of values by stating: But the increased currency of e x p lic it value concepts among psychologists and social scientists has unfortunately not been accompanied by corresponding gain in conceptual c la r ity or consensus. We ta lk about too many probably d iffe re n t things under one rubric when we stretch the same terminology to include the u t ilit ie s of mathematical decision theory . . . fundamental assumption about the nature of the world and man's place in i t . . . ultimate preferences among l i f e style . . . and core attitudes or sentiments that set p rio ritie s among one's preferences and thus gives structure to a l i f e . . . and at the same time, we are embarassed with the p ro life ra tio n of concepts akin to values: attitudes and sentiments, but also in terests, preferences, motives, cathexis, valence (1969:97-98). In an attempt to prevent this study from adding further to the conceptual disarray and terminology confusion referred to by Smith, definition s of some key concepts are specified as they are used in the theoretical assumptions of this study. For the purpose of this research, rather than wading through the myriad of d efinition s found in the l i t e r ­ ature on values, definitions offered re la te to those formulated in the w ritings of Milton Rokeach (1960, 1968, 1973). Rokeach has completed some of the most exhaustive and comprehensive work in the area of human values. His distinctions among b e lie fs , a ttitu d e s , and values, while also conceptualizing th e ir interrelatedness, offers a theoretical base which lends it s e l f to operational measures of values. 10 D efinitions B e lie f—any simple proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferred from what a person says or does, capable of being preceded by the phrase "I believe that . . . " (1968:113). B e lie f System—the total universe of a person's b e lie f about the physical world, the social world, and the s e lf (1968:123). A ttitud e—a re la tiv e ly enduring organization of beliefs around an object or situation predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner (1968:112). Value— an enduring b e lie f that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally and socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence (1973:5). Value System—an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or end states of existence along a continuum of re la tiv e importance (1973:5). Rokeach speaks of an organizing structure where values have to do with modes of conduct and end states of existence. Values represent a type of b e lie f centrally located in a b e lie f system about how one ought or ought not to behave or about some end state of existence worth or not worth attainin g. Within this value—a ttitu d e —b e lie f system, beliefs are "any simple proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferred from what a person says or does, capable of being preceded by the phrase ' I believe that . . . " ' (Rokeach, 1968:113). types: Beliefs are id e n tifie d as fa llin g Into three (1) descriptive beliefs capable of being true or fa ls e , (2) 11 evaluative beliefs in which the object of b e lie f is judged to be good or bad, and (3) prescriptive or proscriptive beliefs in which some mean or end of action is judged to be desirable or undesirable. Martin defines b e lie f s im ila rly in stating that i t is ... to is of a simple proposition having a descriptive or evaluative label i t . For example, the statement 'the sun is risin g in the e a s t1 a descriptive statement, or 'ice cream is good' is an example an evaluative b e lie f (1971:6). An attitu d e is related to a b e lie f in that i t is considered to be a package of beliefs about an object or situation that w ill predispose an action or response in a preferential way. Within this system, a value would be a prescriptive or pro­ scrip tive b e lie f. This is consistent with A llp o rt's concept of "a value is a b e lie f upon which a man acts by preference" (1961:459). Like a ll b e lie fs , which are predispositions to actions, values have cognitive, a ffe c tiv e and behavioral components. The cognitive component of a value is the knowledge of what is good or bad, true or fa ls e , desirable or undesirable. component of a valueis the state of arousal of varying intensity around an object of b e lie f. This is recognized in The a ffe c tive the sense that one can feel emotionaland may approve of a po sitively demonstrated example, and show disapproval of those who display a negation of i t . A value possesses a behavioral component in that i t serves as an intervening variable leading to an action when activated in the manner dictated by the b e lie f content. In addition to a value's cognitive, a ffe c tiv e , and behavioral components, there is also a motiva­ tional function id e n tifie d which is related to the maintenance and promotion of s e lf concept. Rokeach states, 12 I f the immediate functions of values and value systems are to guide human actions in daily situ atio ns, th e ir more long-range functions are to give expression to basic human needs . . . they are in the fin a l analysis the conceptual tools and weapons that we a ll employ in order to maintain and enhance s e lf­ esteem (1973:14). Werkmeister also speaks to a motivational process in commenting, " I t is the peculiar nature of human existence as a self-d irec ted becoming which requires elucidation and which is c ru c ia lly important fo r man's search for values" (1967:15). Man's value system, consisting of an organization of beliefs p rio ritiz e d by re la tiv e importance along a continuum, is composed of two categories: (1) instrumental values, or single beliefs always taking the form "I believe that a mode of conduct ( i . e . lo y a lty , consistency) is socially and personally preferable, thus inducing me to act upon the environment;" (2) terminal values, which are single beliefs stated in the form "I believe that an end state of existence ( i . e . world in harmony, eternal l i f e ) is socially and personally worth strivin g fo r , thus representing an ideal of importance to me." In bringing together more cle arly his value organization, Rokeach offers the following extended d efin itio n : To say that a person has a value is to say th at he has an enduring prescriptive or proscriptive b e lie f that a specific mode of behavior or end-state of existence is preferred to an oppositive mode of behavior or end-state. This b e lie f transcends attitudes toward objects and toward situations; i t is a standard that guides and determines action, attitud es toward objects and situations, idealogy, presentations of s e lf to others, evaluations, judgments, ju s tific a tio n s , comparisons of s e lf with others, and attempts to influence others. Values serve adjustive, egodefensive, knowledge, and s e lf-a c tu a lizin g functions. Instrumental and terminal values are related yet are separately organized into re la tiv e ly enduring hierarchical organizations along a continuum of importance (1973:25). 13 All these conceptually d is tin c t components are organized into a functional and in te rre la te d b e lie f system where terminal values are more central than instrumental values and instrumental values are more central than attitud es. Within this framework, self-conceptions are a class of b eliefs more c en trally located than values. Rokeach defines s e lf­ conceptions as: a ll one's cognitions, conscious and unconscious, about one's physical image; in te lle c tu a l and moral a b ilitie s and weaknesses; socio-economic position in society; national, regional, ethnic, ra c ia l, and religious id e n tity ; the sexual, generational, occupa­ tio n a l, m arital, and parental roles that one plays in society; and how well or poorly one plays such roles (1973:215). Components of the to tal b e lie f system converge into a single ultimate purpose, namely, to maintain and enhance one's to tal conception of oneself. Assuming that the total b e lie f system is a functionally in te r­ connected system, a change in one part w ill impact on other parts. Changes occurring in a more central component (a terminal value) w ill cause more enduring and far-reaching effects than i f the change takes place in a less central component (an a ttitu d e ). With an induced change in self-conception occurring, changes of terminal and instrumental values, functionally related a ttitu d es , and behavior should take place. I f values undergo enduring changes then the maintenance or enhancement of self-conception is at stake, then se lf-d is sa tisfa ctio n becomes a major determinant of change. A person defining oneself incompetent in a situation may experience s e lf-d iss a tisfa ctio n to the extent that they may be motivated to reduce or eliminate i t . This requires an often d if f ic u lt attempt at iden tifying the source of dis­ satisfactio n. I f a person is able to id e n tify s p e c ific a lly the components 14 o f th e ir performance which contradicts th e ir self-conceptions, they may be motivated to remove the source of the s e lf-d is s a tis fa c tio n . This may require modifying th e ir behavior or components of th e ir b e lie f system in a manner allowing com patibility with th e ir self-conceptions. Over the years, more research has concentrated on the theory and measurement o f attitudes than on the theory and measurement of values. The ra tio o f a ttitu d e to value studies reported in the Psychological Abstracts between 1961 and 1965 was approximately fiv e to one (Rokeach, 1973). While a ttitu d in a l studies have le n t l i t t l e to a theoretical con­ ception of social behavior, the concept of values, i f accorded greater a tte n tio n , would be more powerful in one's attempt to understand and predict attitudes and behaviors (Hollen, 1972). Greater power and ju s tific a tio n fo r assessing values rather than attitud es stem from several points: (1) values are more fundamental components of an in d iv id u a l's b e lie f that guides actions and judgments across specific objects and situ atio ns, beyond immediate goals to end states o f existence, whereas an a ttitu d e consists of several beliefs focusing on a specific object or s itu a tio n . (2) values possess a strong motivational component th at may resu lt in an overt act, (3) values are the determinants o f attitu d es as well as of behavior, (4) values are re la tiv e ly few in number and are organized h ie r­ arc h ic a lly while attitudes are extremely numerous and possess no inherent organizing structure (M artin, 1971; Hollen, 1972; Rokeach, 1973). 15 Values are thought to be a product of a ll the c u ltu ra l, in s titu ­ tio n a l, and personal forces th at act upon a person throughout his l i f e ­ time. Rokeach states, The findings suggest that cu ltu re, society, and personality are the major antecedents of values and that attitud es and behaviors are th e ir major consequence . . . Thus values seem to be implicated e ith e r as dependent or independent variables at v ir tu a lly a ll levels of social analysis— c u ltu r a l, in s titu tio n a l, group and individual (Rokeach, 1973:327). In viewing our social in s titu tio n s , one can conceptualize each as specializing in the development of d iffe re n t subsets of values. The home, church, and school w ill a ll d ire c t th e ir enhancement of values to p a rtic u la r, often overlapping, areas of development. Although in the past i t has generally been agreed th a t attitudes and values are in s tille d early in l i f e and are most eas ily modifiable in infancy and adolescence, curriculum planning at our colleges and un iversities assumes that the c r itic a l thinking a b ilit y , a ttitu d e s , and values of college students are s t i l l modifiable at age 18 to 22 or older (Lehmann and Dressel, 1962). Evidence is accumulating from several recent sources to challenge the long held b e lie f that core values are a permanent product of the early childhood days and become frozen during this period (M artin, 1971). Rokeach states that "The data show a continual development of values from early youth to old age, a finding th a t is in more accord with Erickson (1950) than Freud's view of personality development" (1973:327). I f our in s titu tio n s o f higher education are dedicated to pre­ paring th e ir students to become e ffe c tiv e members o f society and are true agencies of education, . . . one might expect th at the greater part of college students, sometime in the period from th e ir freshman to senior year, 16 would become better c r it ic a l thinkers, less stereotypic in th e ir b e lie fs , and more receptive to new ideas. Further, i t would be expected th at the students would reexamine th e ir personal values and would re je c t those found to be in c o n flic t with the conclusions of c r it ic a l thought and beliefs based on fa c t rather than distorted stereotypes (Lehmann and Dressel, 1962:2). To provide an environment th at encourages the development of c r it ic a l thinking, open b e lie f systems and reexamination of personal values, in s titu tio n s need to assess the incoming students to better understand what experiences stimulate growth. However, in the specific area of values, l i t t l e has been done with some student groups to promote more understanding and to stimulate growth. As the previously stated theory im plies, i f our in s titu tio n s are dedicated to providing exper­ iences leading to enduring behavioral and cognitive change, then the more central concepts of values and self-conceptions also need atten tio n . An i n i t i a l step is to assess and become aware of the value nature o f our student groups. Values theory and research are at a point where they are in somewhat the same position as curious astronauts exploring the moon and then the planets beyond who, before they blast o ff fo r the return t r ip home, w ill gather up as many rocks as they can and, upon returning, hand them over to others who w ill then undertake to describe these rocks and explain how they got to be wherever in the universe they happen to be. But the f i r s t step surely w ill be to describe . . . And when we know enough about the structure of the universe, we should be able to predict in advance the kinds o f rocks th at astronauts w ill find in some other corner of the universe, before they even get there (Rokeach, 1973:121). This study is an attempt to assess and describe the value orientations of A gricultural Technology Students a t Michigan State Univer­ s ity . To best accomplish th is , the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire was selected. This instrument, while being r e la tiv e ly new, offers great potential fo r describing, and measuring change in value 17 dimensions of college students. This questionnaire does not measure sp ecific or singular values, but discriminates 13 e m p irically based value dimensions w ithin the college population (more d eta iled information on th is instrument is offered in Chapter IV ). Assuming th at values are b e lie fs organized along a continuum of r e la tiv e importance, are m otivational and determine one's attitu d es as well as behaviors, information on the value dimensions of student groups can be a cata ly s t to colleges in providing an environment th at w ill motivate and enhance the to ta l educational growth of students. In addition, i f motivation fo r change is related to one's self-conceptions, then understanding students' value dimensions can be helpful in estab­ lis h in g enough constructive s e lf-d is s a tis fa c tio n to motivate them in to new learning situ atio ns. Powell states , . . . some students need to have th e ir in te re s t-v a lu e systems broadened. Knowing the sp ec ific dimensions lacking or over­ emphasized in th e ir experience would allow fo r the modifica­ tio n of extra c u rric u la r changes tailor-m ade to th e ir own personal needs (1972:22). Overview In Chapter I I , lite r a tu r e viewed as relevant to th is study is reviewed. While research related to the value c h a ra c te ristic s of college students has been done fo r years, l i t t l e work has been invested in the description and understanding of v o c a tio n a l-a g ric u ltu ra l students. Therefore, Chapter I I is divided in to two parts. In the f i r s t section a b r ie f overview of studies concerned with the general area o f value ch aracteristics and change in college students is o ffered . In the second section, studies re la tin g to the population of th is study are examined. 18 In Chapter I I I , the design of the research is specified including the measure, sample, testable hypotheses and analysis procedures. In Chapter IV , a more d e taile d description of the instrument u tiliz e d in the study, the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire is offered . CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE Research studies and reports selected fo r review are divided in to two sections: (1) e a rly and recent studies on student values, and (2) a g ric u ltu ra l technology programs, a g ric u ltu ra l students and related studies. Value Studies on Student College Populations Early Studies Several studies were conducted in the 1920's and 1930's in regard to college students' a ttitu d e s and values. Most of these researchers were interested in determining the influence o f college education in general or on students' a ttitu d e s and values concerning sp ecific problems However, as Lehmann and Dressel point out (1963) most o f them suffered from serious methodological defects. This overview w ill include a b r ie f representation o f e a rly longitudinal studies under the assumption th at they re fle c te d a more v a lid design than those of a cross-sectional nature Nelson (1938) used data from 18 in s titu tio n s and found freshmen more homogeneous in a ttitu d e s than seniors, and on the average, more con­ servative than upperclassmen. He also discovered large differences in a ttitu d e s among the four college classes o f students attending state u n iv e rs itie s and Quaker colleges than among students attending other denominational in s titu tio n s . 19 20 Corey (1940) discovered no r e lia b le change in a ttitu d e s of students a fte r completing one year o f college but did fin d a greater amount o f lib e ra lis m in a ll changes which did occur. Burton (1945) obtained data from students a t the U n iversity o f Arizona and found th a t a f te r four years o f college they tended to be more emotionally s ta b le , more s e lf - s u f f ic ie n t , more extro verted , more dominant, and more s e lf-c o n fid e n t.* Kuhlen (194 1), u t iliz e d the Pressey- In te re s t A ttitu d e Test with Ohio S tate U n iversity students during th e ir freshman and senior years and drew the conclusion th a t students widened th e ir in te re s ts and acquired greater appreciation fo r basic human values lik e tolerance and cooperativeness. In a s im ila r manner, Aresnian (1943) found extensive c o n flic ts over re lig io u s a ttitu d e s among men a t Spring­ f ie ld College. U t iliz in g the re lig io n value mean score o f the A llp o rt- Vernon instrument, he found a change over the college experience away from form al, r i t u a l i s t i c , dogmatic b e lie f to a more to le r a n t, humane social b e lie f. These studies are r e fle c tiv e o f the statement made by Webster, Freedman, and H eist th at . . . most o f the e a r lie r lon gitu d in al investig atio n s o f changes in student values and a ttitu d e s revealed small but s ig n ific a n t change in one or a few kinds o f a ttitu d e s . Usually investigators were lim ite d to in te rp re ta tio n o f t e s t-r e te s t scores on the Thurstone a ttitu d e scales (Thurstone and Chave, 1929) or on scales o f the A llport-Vernon Study o f Values (A llp o rt and Vernon, 1931). They continue by saying, . . . 1n sum, research on a ttitu d e s and values carrie d out p rio r to the end o f World War I I showed t h a t , in general, students in college changed in the d ire c tio n o f greater lib e ra lis m and sophistication in th e ir p o l i t i c a l , social and relig io u s outlook. There was also evidence o f broadening in te re s t during the college years (1962:824). 21 Recent Studies The 1960*s brought a spurt o f studies again interested in the influence o f the campus environment upon a ttitu d e s , values, character­ is t ic s , and p e rs o n a litie s o f students. As many of these studies were concerned w ith the impact or change th a t occurred in a student's value c h a ra c te ris tic s , l i t t l e research o f a descriptive nature was done in the area of entering college students. In speaking to th is concern, Connell and Heist s ta te : Knowledge about the student a t the time o f e n try , beyond the widely used academic aptitu de scores and records of high school achievement, seems to have been foreign to the in te re s ts o f college adm inistrators and fa c u ltie s . . . The c o lle c tio n of comprehensive inform ation on in te re s ts , values, motives, a ttitu d e s , special aptitudes and c u ltu ra l background has remained a r a r it y ; and in schools where such a v a rie ty o f data was c o lle c te d , i t was seldom used in ' f i t t i n g ' the student to the educational program or in adapting the program to the c lie n te le (1962:226) . . . Except fo r the s trik in g d iv e rs ity among students and in s titu tio n s revealed in the Learned-Wood rep ort (1938) T i t t l e evidence o f the great v a ria tio n in students' c h a ra c te ris tic s , even in aptitu de and achievement, much less in a ttitu d e , value, and d is p o s itio n , w ith in or among in s titu tio n s , has been accumulated (1962:236). One o f the more prominent works was Jacob's (1957) survey of recent in v e s tig a tio n s. Jacob reported th a t there is a general p r o file o f values which represents 75 to 80 percent o f a ll American college students. McConnel and H eist (1962) s ta te th a t data strongly supports Jacob's conclusion th a t a national norm o f a ttitu d e s and values seem to pre v a il across the gamut o f colleges and u n iv e rs itie s . They comment th a t according to Jacob the . . . student generation is 'g lo rio u s ly contented' in th e ir present a c t iv it y and in t h e ir outlook toward the fu tu re . They are 'unabashedly s e lf-c e n te re d ' asp irin g above a ll to m aterial g ra t­ if ic a t io n fo r themselves and t h e ir fa m ilie s . Though conventionally m iddle-class they have an 'easy tolerance of d iv e r s ity ' and are 22 ready to liv e in a society without ra c ia l, ethnic, or income barriers. The more trad itio n a l virtues, such as sin c e rity , honesty, and loyalty are highly valued, but there is l i t t l e inclin atio n to censor la x ity , which students consider to be widespread. A need fo r relig io n is generally recognized, but students do not expect religious beliefs to govern daily decisions. Rather, they expect that these decisions w ill be socially determined. The general tendency is to be 'd u tifu lly responsive toward government' but there is l i t t l e inclin atio n to contribute volu ntarily to the public welfare or to seek an in flu e n tia l role in public a ffa irs . Students by and large set great stock in college in general and in th e ir own college in p articu lar with vocational preparation and s k ills and experiences in social relations being regarded as the greatest benefits of college education . . . (1962:824-825). Jacob's book has been c ritic iz e d by some fo r offering an overly general and undifferentiated sumnary of students. In addition, some have f e lt that he did not separate studies of d iffe re n t methodologies or samples (Riesman, 1959). Nevertheless, Jacob's work did generate much interest and served as a valuable source fo r highlighting a number of very impor­ tant research problems. King and Powell observed, Within the past two decades, there appears to have been a change in the observable values of college students, moving more in the direction of immediate g ra tific a tio n of impulses, focusing on feelings and emotions, but simultaneously demon­ strating a fe e lin g , of resp onsibility fo r the welfare of society and the planet. They continue by stating: The values of the contemporary college student have in many respects been shaped by the events of the past decade. Much dramatic evidence exists which suggest the tremendous impact of those events on the students of 1970 (1972:4). Freedman (1960) pointed out that student attitudes and opinions on various issues of current in te re s t were remarkably influenced by national and international events. In also noting the changing mood of the college 23 student, Axelrod and Freedman (1969) cited examples of some events from 1958-1964 which were of significance in the development of student activism. Some of these were: (a) the demonstration of students against the House Un-American A c tiv itie s Committee in San Francisco in 1961; (b) the emergence of Students fo r a Democratic Society (SDS); (c) the emergence of the Student Nonviolent Coordinations Committee (SNCC); (d) student s it-in s in public places; (e) student participation in voter reg is tra tio n , ( f ) c iv il rights marches; (g) demonstrations against dis­ crimination in hiring ; and (h) the dramatic moments of Berkely in 1964 in the demonstrations of the Free Speech Movement. Martin, (1971) in looking at these and sim ilar events stated "Gone was the trad itio n al puritan ethnic and peaceful tolerance. A new consciousness was emerging from the throes of this humanitarian revolution, a new quest fo r id e n tity was v is ib le on the horizon" (1971:2). In an attempt to view change in college students over time, Gorsuch (1970) compared how college students judged wrongness of 50 specific behaviors over two 11 year periods and found a s lig h t decrease in severity of judgment, especially in connection with sex and re lig io n . Gorsuch concluded that evidence did not suggest that college students have become "wild-eyed rad icals." A large portion of recent studies continued to investigate the change in specific student attitudes and values as a function of being in college. While a few descrepancies existed, the majority of recent data reflected sim ilar findings to many early studies. Plant (1958) in using the E scale, an ethnic prejudice or ethnocentrism scale, to compare students who withdrew from college with those 24 who attended for two years, found those who attended became sig n ifica n tly less ethnocentric in a ttitu d e while those who withdrew did not. In another study, Plant concluded that college seniors were less ethno­ centric than they were as freshmen. A longitudinal study by the Center for the Study of Higher Education (1962), u tiliz e d National M erit Scholarship winners attending a wide variety of colleges, and found data supporting Arseni an's pre­ war study of students expressing a decreasing need fo r religious fa ith and a lessened b e lie f that colleges should teach religious values. This study also supported the general findings that " . . . more lib e ra l in the sense of being sophisticated and independent in th e ir thinking, and placing greater value upon individual freedom and well-being" ( The American College, 1962:828). Nevit Sanford stated, In the area of attitudes and values, recent studies, as well as those performed twenty-five years ago, show that between freshman and senior years in college there is , in general, change in the direction of greater liberalism and sophistication in p o litic a l, social, and religious outlook (1962:806). Lehmann and Dressel (1963) raised an important issue in any generalization one may make about the changes in attitudes and values of students. "Any generalization . . . must be made only a fte r considera­ tion has been given to the great differences in the personality charac­ te ris tic s of the students admitted to various colleges and universities in America" (1963:11-12). In addition, Clark (1959) emphasized that the public image of the college is a powerful device fo r determining who w ill apply fo r admission. The social ideology of an in s titu tio n , since 25 i t is a s ig n ific a n t part of th is image, may therefore lead to the pre­ dominate admission of lib e ra ls or conservatives, changers or non changers, and so on. Heist (1962) stated, " . . . i t would appear that both the d is­ tin c tiv e climates and the students who change s ig n ific a n tly might be due la rg e ly to the kind of students admitted to college" (1962:838). The relationship existing between certain background character­ is tic s and a student's value system has also attracted in te re s t and study. Brookover (1965) stated, "Although there is general agreement th at attitud es and values have th e ir origin in the home and the fam ily, a lack o f agreement exists as to how or why certain attitudes are adopted while others are modified or a lte re d ." He continued by commenting, "Clearly . . . there are differences among d iffe re n t social classes and religious groups in attitudes and values" (1965:59-61). Ikenberry and Lehmann (1959) reported a s ig n ific a n t relationship between level of parental education and stereotypic b e lie fs , dogmatism, and tra d itio n a l-v a lu e orien tatio n . Dressel and Mayhew (1954) reported th at an authoritarian personality syndrome, ( r ig id , unreceptive to new ideas, and compulsive), tended to be associated with orthodox and funda­ mental is tic sects. Rokeach (1960) found the Catholics were more dogmatic than e ith e r Jews or Protestants and that they were more authoritarian than Protestants, Jews, or nonbelievers. Jacob (1957) has done some of the most s ig n ific a n t work concern­ ing the influence of campus environment on students' a ttitu d e s , values and character development in his exhaustive review of studies on college students' attitudes and values. From this study Jacob found, 26 . . . no specific cu rricu lar patterns of general education, no model syllabus fo r a basic science course, no pedigree of instru cto r and no wizardry of instructional method which should be patented fo r its impact on the values of students—the impetus to change does not come prim arily from the formal educational process (1957). Other works have concentrated upon the importance of the campus climate in changing attitud es and values. Eddy (1957, 1959) in v is itin g and interviewing fa c u lty , adm inistrators, and students at 20 colleges and u n iv e rs ities throughout the United States concluded th at what went on outside the classroom was a s ig n ific a n t factor in the development of character. He also stated that to establish the best environment fo r the development of character, one should s triv e toward the unity of common goals, and communicate a tra d itio n in which a ll campus l i f e has a specific contribution. However, Lehmann and Payne (1963), in viewing the college atmosphere as a facto r having an impact on the attitud es and values of college students, could not single out any one facto r responsible fo r college students' a ttitu d e and value change. While the m ajority of studies, concerning the changes in values of college students, reported findings on pre-post, freshman-senior differences, Lehmann and Dressel (1963), who u tiliz e d interviews with students in addition to standardized te s ts , indicated that such con­ clusions may be misleading. They have stated that the major changes in stereotypic b e lie fs , c r it ic a l thinking a b ilit y , dogmatism, and value orientatio n take place in the f i r s t two years of college. They reported: In nearly a ll instances, there was a s ig n ific a n t improvement in c r it ic a l thinking a b ilit y , a lessening of stereotypic b e lie fs , and a movement away from the tra d itio n a l-v a lu e orientatio n in each o f the freshman, sophomore, ju n io r, and senior years. The only exception was fo r changes in value orientations fo r both 27 male and female during the senior year. Although the previous college years demonstrated a trend from 'in n e r' to 'o u te r-o r-o th e r' directiveness, the senior year did not evidence such a change. In fa c t, i t would appear that a fte r the ju n io r year, a plateau is reached with respect to value orientation of college students. Although the changes from the freshman to senior year are s ta tis tic a lly s ig n ific a n t, the data suggest that the major changes take place sometime during the f i r s t two years of college. In fa c t, the changes in c r itic a l thinking a b ilit y and value orientation are of greatest magnitude in the freshman year (1962: 267). Brookover (1965) reported th a t, . . . findings of the longitudinal studies at Michigan State (Lehmann and Dressel, 1962, 1963) and a t Vassar (Freedman, H eist, Sanford, 1962) indicate that changes did occur in the a ttitu d e s , values, b eliefs and opinions of college students from freshman to th e ir senior years. In both studies, however, i t was read ily evident th at the greatest change took place during the freshman and sophomore years (1965:71). In conjunction with th e ir findings concerning the greater change of values during the f i r s t two years of college, Lehmann and Dressel also reported th a t, Before the ju n io r year, courses and instructors were rarely mentioned as having a marked impact upon student attitud es and values. From the ju n io r year on, however, the formal academic experience began to assume increased importance. One might conclude that whereas the formal, academic experiences p rio r to the ju n io r year were subordinate to the inform al, non-academic experiences, the converse is true a fte r the sophomore year (1962:269). In addition, students reported that the most s ig n ific a n t experience in th e ir co lleg iate lives was th e ir association with d iffe rin g person­ a lit ie s in th e ir liv in g u n it. Although the peer group, comprised of the to ta l body of students, did not have too much impact upon the behavior o f these students, the analysis of interviews and questionnaire data strongly suggested that discussions and 'bull-sessions' were a potent fa cto r in shaping the attitud es and values of these college students (1962:268). 28 Feldman and Newcomb (1969) reported Through value reinforcement, the peer group can provide support fo r not changing, y e t, i t can also challenge old values, provide in te lle c tu a l stim ulations and act as a sounding board fo r new points of view, present new information and new experiences to students, help to c la r if y new s e lf-d e fin itio n s , suggest new career p o s s ib ilitie s , and provide emotional support fo r students who are changing (1969:237). In his discussion of the e ffe c t of the student peer-group influence, Newcomb (1962) c ited the conditions of group s ize, homogenity, is o la tio n , and importance to individuals of a ttitu d e s th at are groupsupported, as having considerable influence over the amount of impact peer groups w ill have. He concluded by saying, . . . student peer groups are here to stay, and so are colleges. I do not think th a t the one is about to become a cancerous growth w ithin the body of the other . . . I do think th at increas­ ingly the social-psychological motors of student l i f e are racing, disconnected from the wheels of in te lle c tu a l development, and th at the means of e xp lo itin g the power delivered by those motors are a t our command (1962:487). Research into social issues such as drugs and sex and into per­ son ality types such as hippies, rad ic a ls , a c tiv is ts and protestors has concluded th a t an important e f f o r t in understanding the present college student population would l i e in the d ire ctio n of sub-group analysis of college values (King and Powell, 1972). Feldman and Newcomb (1969) reported that several investigators have generated student typologies. However, the most promising attempt to deal with values through college student c la s s ific a tio n has been the research o f Clark and Trow (1966, 1960). They developed a descriptive scheme, or typology, in which they described four types o f student subcultures generated from a combination of the following variables: the degree to which students are involved 29 with ideas, and the extent to which students id e n tify with th e ir college. This attempt c la s s ifie d students by s im ila r ity in subculture o rie n ta ­ tio n , rather than by membership in an in teractio n group. These c la s s if i­ cations include: The Academic Sub-Culture: The academic is a serious student that id e n tifie s with the fa c u lty . He has l i t t l e in te re s t in e x tra -c u rric u la r a c tiv itie s other than clubs and a c tiv itie s d ire c tly related to his d is c ip lin e and in te lle c tu a l in te re s ts . The Vocational Sub-Culture: The vocational is often a f i r s t generation college student th a t is s triv in g to move from a lower class to the upper middle class. As a re s u lt, his primary in te re s t is obtaining the diploma. He knows th a t a college degree w ill not only help him get a b ette r job, but w ill enable him to fu rth e r advance in the business and professional world. He often works while in college and has l i t t l e time or in te re s t in the out of class l i f e . The C ollegiate Sub-Culture: The c o lle g ia te is the stereotype of the American college student. He is concerned with dating, campus fun and student a c t iv it ie s . He is described as an aggressive extrovert and he sees college as an opportunity to improve his social s k ills fo r his future in business, law, or education. Many members of fr a te r n itie s or s o ro ritie s id e n tify with th is sub-culture. The Non-Conformist Sub-Culture: The non-conformist is one whose value system is e ith e r in flu x or at variance with the prevailin g system. This student is a seeker, searching fo r a meaningful philosophy of l i f e and/or meaningful a c tiv it ie s . He is often a good student and dedicated to the social betterment o f society. More than lik e ly his academic major is in the humanities, social sciences, or in the fin e arts (King and Powell, 1972:7-8). Clark and Trow admitted th at the nonconformist culture in th e ir scheme is something of a residual category including such diverse types as fashionable bohemian students, hippies, compulsive reb els, p o litic a l rad icals and a c tiv is ts , apathetic or alienated students and others (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969). Some of these students were not necessarily highly involved with ideas ye t could not rea d ily be c la s s ifie d in any of the other three sub-cultures. This was supported in a review of 30 lite r a tu re related to Clark and Trow's typology done by MacLean (1969). He found th at the academic, vocational, and c o lle g ia te sub-cultures were id e n tifia b le in cross-validated studies. The non-conformist types, however, seemed to represent inconsistent values which did not f i t any pattern. MacLean concluded th a t other sub-cultures may e x is t w ith in the non-conformist group which holds s lig h tly d iffe re n t values or convictions. King and Powell (1972) stated, . . . the study of values o f the contemporary college student must include not only the tra d itio n a l value paradigm applied to the to ta l student population, but must also include specialized paradigm in order to examine the value patterns o f many sub­ cultures in the American college today. Hence the need fo r a more refined instrument fo r measuring college student values (1972:8-9). A g ricu ltu ral Vocational Programs and A g ricu ltu ral Students A gricultural Technology Programs In 1862, Congress was moved to pass the M o rrill Act to provide fo r the tra in in g o f such men and women in what were called Colleges of A griculture and Mechanical Arts. In states th a t were r e la tiv e ly new, these land-grant colleges often attracted an increasingly wide cross section o f students not envisioned by th e ir founders. This magnetism was enhanced in those s ta te s , such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska, th a t combined the technical college with the state u n iv e rs ity . In contrast, such growth was retarded in states lik e Massachusetts, which had a tra d itio n o f p riv a te education and were long unable to see what legitim ate functions a public in s titu tio n might serve beyond those specified by Congress (Reisman and Jencks, 1962:83). In a h is to ric a l overview o f short courses a t Michigan State U n iversity, Anderson (1966) found th a t courses leading to various types of degrees in a g ricu ltu re have been taught a t Michigan State U niversity since 1855. Non-degree short courses covering p ra c tic a lly every phase of a g ric u ltu ra l endeavor have been taught since 1894. Up to 1947, the 31 m ajo rity o f short courses were less than two weeks in length. Since th a t tim e, the Short Course Department, now ca lle d the In s titu te o f A g ric u ltu ra l Technology, offered p rim a rily 18 month programs. These programs in General A g ric u ltu re and A g riculture Industries led to a c e r t if ic a t e o f completion rath er than a degree. For the purpose o f th is lite r a tu r e overview, the terms short-course students and a g ric u ltu ra l technology students were used interchangeably. P resently, the In s titu te o f A g ric u ltu ra l Technology, a department o f the College of A g ricu ltu re and Natural Resources, o ffe rs ten separate programs. While the in s t itu te is a p art of the College o f A g ric u ltu re , i t s students are not en ro lled in the same classes. The class separation has been maintained la rg e ly because o f the b e lie f th a t students entering the two programs d if f e r in academic a b i l i t y , person ality needs, and vocational goals in la t e r l i f e which makes i t inadvisable to merge even portions of the course requirements fo r the two programs (Anderson, 1965:3). Short course programs are not a r a r it y a t Michigan State Univer­ s ity . In studies describing the type and extent o f short course pro­ grams (Larson, 1955; Freeh and Henneman, 1963) i t was found th a t 46 o f the 67 land grant in s titu tio n s offered some type o f non-degree or short course program. Among non-land grant in s titu tio n s , 17 colleges or u n iv e rs itie s , 73 ju n io r co lleg es, and 11 technical or vocational i n s t i ­ tutes offered a g ric u ltu ra l non-degree programs. However, even with th is number o f a g ric u ltu ra l vocational programs e x is tin g , almost no e f f o r t had been extended in researching the value c h a ra c te ris tic s o f it s enrolled students. Anderson s ta te d , " . . . there are no known comprehen­ sive studies o f a g ric u ltu ra l short course students" (1965:18). 32 Programs in a g ric u ltu ra l technology had lower entrance standards than degree programs, a high school diploma being a common admission c r it e r ia . In general, a g ric u ltu ra l technology students spent more time during the week in d ire c t classroom and laboratory a c t iv it ie s . While the courses were usually taught by regular fa c u lty members, the content was directed more a t app lication to problems than fo r th e o re tic a l analysis. A g ric u ltu ra l Students and Related Studi es While research on college a g ric u ltu ra l students is not abundant, when combined w ith the work done on rural youth, one can begin to gain a b e tte r perspective o f th is college population. The degree o f educational as p iratio n has not appeared to be high among the ru ral population. Rural parents, placing less value on education than urban parents (Rogers, 1960), tended to lessen the socialized value of education fo r th e ir ch ild ren . Burchindl attempted to explain th is depressed level o f educational and occupational asp ira­ tio n in ru ral youth as a s o c ia liz a tio n process in which "Farm parents tend to underestimate the value o f higher education, lack experience in discussing educational and occupational plans, and provide less encourage­ ment fo r boys planning to farm than to go to college" (1961:107). Those ru ral high school students who aspired to farm seemed to display d iffe r e n t personality c h a ra c te ris tic s than ru ral students with high non-farm occupational a sp iratio n s. H a lle r and W olff (1962) com­ mented th a t those students who had high farm occupational a s p ira tio n s , 33 tended to be less stab le em otionally, less confident in th e ir social a b ilit ie s to work and mix with oth ers, had a lower tendency to achieve success in a c t iv it ie s , and less self-confidence in expressing t h e ir ideas and fe e lin g s . They also expressed a hesitancy to move from fa m ilia r surroundings to take advantage o f new op po rtu nities, negative a ttitu d e toward changes in th e ir pattern o f liv in g , and a b e lie f in determ ination o f events beyond t h e ir c o n tro l. A few studies, which looked a t students in four-year college majors as they rela te d to one another included a g ric u ltu ra l students. However, i t seemed surprising to note the general exclusion of the a g ric u ltu ra l fo u r-year student from such research. Feldman and Newcomb (1969) in t h e ir analysis of four decades of research on the impact o f co lleg e , reported th a t students in engineering, education, nursing, business ad m in istratio n , and a g ric u ltu re placed greater importance on vocational tra in in g and career preparation than did students in the lib e r a l a rts . They also revealed th a t a g ric u ltu ra l students were among those c le a rly low in in te lle c tu a l a b i l i t y , p o lit ic a leconomic and social lib e ra lis m . Lehmann and Ikenberry (1959) reported th a t both males and females with farm backgrounds had the highest tra d itio n a l-v a lu e score w hile students from predominately urban back­ grounds had the lowest mean tra d itio n a l value scores. (A high score indicated a leaning toward tra d itio n a l values— th a t is , personal respect­ a b i l i t y , respect fo r others, feelin g s o f g u i l t , s e lf-d e n ia l and t h r i f t . A high scorer also valued hard work as good in i t s e l f and necessary fo r success, placed his personal and in d ivid u al desires equal to or 34 above the desires of the group, and was oriented toward the future to the extent that present needs were sacrificed or should be sacrificed fo r future reward and s a tis fa c tio n .) Lehmann also reported that of a ll freshman a t Michigan State University in 1958, those from rural homes scored lower on the College Q ualification Test than those from urban homes. Males who lived most of th e ir lives on a farm were markedly more stereotypic and dogmatic, were the poorest readers and measured lowest on the College Q ualification Test. Generalizations from this data to technical agricultural students must be done with care, in that Anderson (1965) showed sign ifican t differences on several psychological and sociological factors between four-year and technical agricultural students. Donald El son (1970) in reporting on "The Technical Student in the University Community" at Michigan State University, found that 60 percent of the technical students were from a farm family while only 20 percent were from towns of 5000 or more population. Approximately 23 percent of fathers had less than a high school education, 15.6 percent had some college and 10.8 percent of the technical fathers were college graduates. In the area of fathers' occupation, 43 percent of the students had fathers who were farmers, while only three percent were in the professional category. Elson concluded his paper in stating: The technical agriculture student in today's university can be cla s s ifie d as disadvantaged in that he is lacking in m aturity, educational background and experiences, and proper attitudes toward new ideas . . . A sympathetic instructor is essential to the technical program. Only those individuals who understand the technical student and are w illin g to devote time to educational advisement w ill be successful instructors in a technical program. Student services are very important to the technical student and 35 should be given considerable emphasis in the university community (1970:11). Probably the most comprehensive study of agricultural short course students was done by Anderson (1965) at Michigan State University, who compared technology students with four-year agricultural students. While Anderson provided a valuable insight into some characteristics of the agricultural technology student, his e ffo rt u tiliz e d only fir s t-y e a r male students in fiv e programs, whereas presently both males and females are enrolled in ten programs. Dr. Anderson derived both psychological and sociological factors in his research. In using a variety of mea­ sures, i t was found that technical students were less assertive, slower to grasp ideas and less lik e ly to be successful in the classroom learning situation than degree students. Further comparisons indicated that the technical student was less emotionally mature, less stable, less re a lis tic about l i f e , more worried, more impulsive, less self-con fid ent, more suspicious, and less s e lf-s u ffic ie n t. The technical students looked with disfavor on physical m obility and change, and were found to be more dogmatic than the degree student. Discussion of Previous Research From the review of lite ra tu re ju s t presented, i t becomes appar­ ent that considerable e ffo rt has been placed in studying the value characteristics of college students. However, i t is also seen that major sub-sections of the to ta l student population have been neglected in the exploration and description of entering students' value orientations, and in the change of such dimensions over the college experience. 36 This study represented an e ffo r t to investigate and describe one such neglected group, agricultural technology majors a t Michigan State University. The information generated by this study was not intended fo r generalization to other student groups or campuses, but was an exploratory e ffo rt to become aware of entering and graduating value dimensions of this p a rtic u la r group. This discussion section relates the implications of those studies most pertinent to the present research e ffo rt. While a Study of Values has been one of the most extensively used instruments in previous research on values, one might wonder i f i t has the discriminating power necessary to assess the diverse and changing college student population (M artin, 1971). Research on the typology offered by Clark and Trow has revealed that more classificatio ns of students, around value dimensions, needed id e n tific a tio n . This present study u tiliz e d an instrument which was constructed around 13 value dimensions w ithin the college student population. In using the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire, this research offered a more comprehensive description of value orientations of agricultural technology students, than could have been derived from some of the more tra d itio n a l inventories. While Jacob (1957) reported that a general p ro file of values representing 75 to 80 percent of a ll American college students existed, Feldman and Newcomb (1969) revealed that considerable differences between student majors were also present. Lehmann and Dressel (1963) spoke to the differences in personality characteristics of students admitted to 37 various colleges and un iversities, while Clark (1959) emphasized that individual colleges held a 'public image' which exerted a powerful impact upon determining who would apply fo r admission. The few studies which included four-year agricultural students revealed a population that was d iffe re n t from other majors. While four year agricultural students tended to be lower in in te lle c tu a l a b ilit y , lower in social liberalism , more stereotypic and dogmatic than most other college majors, agricultural technology students displayed charac­ te ris tic s more skewed in that direction. Technology students were more emotionally immature, more suspicious, less lik e ly to be successful in classes, more dogmatic, had greater disfavor of physical m obility and change. These characteristics were sim ilar to ones described by Wolff (1962) in the comparison of rural high school students with high farm and non-farm occupational aspirations. Since 60 percent of the tech­ nology students at Michigan State University (Elson, 1970) were from a farm family and only 20 percent from towns of 5,000 or more population, the m ajority could be c lassified as rural youth sim ilar to W olff's high-farm aspiration group. Because agricultural technology students only took classes together, spent more time during the week in d ire c t classroom-laboratory work, and tended to socialize l i t t l e outside th e ir own major program, the impact of th e ir peer group might have been heightened. Lehmann and Dressel (1962) reported that while the to ta l student body peer group seemed not to have much impact, discussions and 'bul1-sessions' were a potent facto r in shaping the attitudes and values of college students. 38 Feldman and Newcomb (1969) stated that the peer group could e ith e r pro­ vide support to students fo r not changing through reinforcing sim ilar values, or could challenge old values, provide in te lle c tu a l stim ulation and help c la r ify new s e lf-d e fin itio n s . Rokeach (1973) spoke of this self-conception and dissatisfaction as being central in the motivation to change values, attitudes and behavior. I f the In s titu te of Agricultural Technology at Michigan State University possessed a ‘ public image' which attracted a homogeneous student population that spent a ll classroom and the m ajority o f social time together, the e ffe c t of peer group in stim ulating or re s tric tin g value change may have been in te n s ifie d . This was of special in te re s t in view o f previously cited studies which indicated a conservative student population who lacked confidence in social s k ills and who were highly resistant to change. Findings in the area of attitudes and values generally found change in the direction of greater liberalism and sophistication in p o lit ic a l, social and religious outlook between freshman and senior years (Sanford, 1962). Additional information suggested that the greatest changes in values, attitud es and b eliefs occurred in the f i r s t two years of college with instructors and courses rare ly mentioned as having impact u n til ju n io r or senior years (Brookover, 1965; Lehmann and Dressel, 1962, 1963; Freedman, H eist, Sanford, 1962). However, in th at four year colleges often do not require a major f ie ld of selection u n til the th ird year, with the f i r s t two years containing many lib e ra l arts or general education courses, i t was questioned what differences might be found in technical students who entered into a specific career program fo r two years. 39 General Research Hypotheses From the above evidence, general hypotheses generated were: 1. Entering ag ric u ltu ra l technology students studied in this research would possess s im ila r value dimensions, across the ten programs, re fle c tin g a population res is tiv e to change, suspicious, dogmatic, n o n -in te lle c tu a l, and emotionally immature. Students in farm oriented programs would be d iffe re n t than those in agri-business programs. 2. A change in th is population's value dimensions from orien­ ta tio n to graduation would occur in the direction of becom­ ing more lib e ra l and sophisticated. However, this change might be minimized i f the population is homogeneous given th at a ll classes were held together with l i t t l e social interaction outside the in s titu te 's population. 3. There would be a difference between male and female students in that the m ajority of female students were enrolled in agri-business courses with a d iffe re n t specific course content. 4. Variables affec tin g graduating value dimensions would include: parent occupation, parent education, residence on campus, ag ricu ltu ral in s titu te student roommate, and weekends spent o f f campus. Summary Lite ra tu re pertaining to this study was reviewed within two areas: (1) early and recent studies on student values, and (2) a g ric u l­ tural technology programs and a g ric u ltu ral students. In the f i r s t section i t was revealed th at while there were some minor discrepancies, both pre-World War I I and recent studies in the area o f attitud es and values indicated that between freshman and senior years there was a general change in the direction of greater sophistica­ tion and liberalism in s o c ia l, p o litic a l and religious outlook. While great e ffo r t had been placed in understanding the impact of college upon a ttitu d es and values, l i t t l e emphasis had been placed on 40 descriptive value information o f entering students. A p ro file of values fo r the general student population was offered in 1957, but much informa­ tion indicating a great d iv e rs ity of value dimensions between students of d iffe rin g academic majors and orienting sub-groups was also discussed. In add itio n, i t was revealed that a change in observable values of college students has been seen in the past two decades. Information was presented suggesting that value change might be shaped by current societal events as well as the p a rtic u la r college in which the student is enrolled. Value change was also discussed in re la ­ tio n to the kinds of students admitted to college and that various colleges probably a ttra c t d iffe re n t types of student characteristics. Some information was presented indicating that the formal educational process alone does not account fo r impact on student values, but that the campus climate and e xtracu rricu lar a c tiv itie s must be considered as wel1. I t was also discussed that while there was a freshman-senior difference in attitud es and values, the major change took place sometime during the f i r s t two years of college. Peer group influence had a greater impact on a ttitu d es and value change in the freshman and sophomore years, while the academic influence of course-work and professors took on greater importance in the ju n io r and senior years. Research into social issues indicated that an important e ffo r t in understanding the college student population would be made through sub-group analysis. While Clark and Trow had devised the most popular typology of students, i t was discussed how more discrim inating groupings 41 needed to be recognized. The need fo r specialized paradigms to examine the value patterns of many sub-cultures in the American college called fo r the creation and u tiliz a tio n of more refined value instruments. The second section of the lite r a tu re review revealed that very l i t t l e research had been conducted with a g ric u ltu ra lly oriented college students. Rural high school students who aspired to farm tended to be less stable emotionally, less confident in social a b ilit ie s , lower in achieving success in a c tiv itie s , less self-con fid ent in expressing th e ir ideas and feelin g s, and more negative toward changes in th ie r patterns of liv in g than rural high school students not aspiring to farm. College students from rural homes tended to display the highest tra d itio n a lvalue scores and had lower scores on the College Q ualification Test than those from urban homes. Technical or non-degree programs were found in 69 percent of the land-grant in s titu tio n s . Over 100 other types of colleges or vocational in s titu tio n s had sim ilar programs. Technical courses were vocationally specific with admission requirements being very lib e r a l. Studies indicated that four-year agricu ltu ral students tended to be lower in in te lle c tu a l a b ilit y and higher in stereotypic and dogmatic a ttitu d in a l factors than many other four-year college students. An additional study indicated that differences in sim ilar dimensions existed between agricu ltu ral technology and a g ric u ltu ra l four-year students, with technology students being s ig n ific a n tly more dogmatic, less in te llig e n t, less mature and s elf-c o n fid e n t, and less open to new ideas. CHAPTER I I I DESIGN OF THE STUDY Sample The population o f students included in th is study were those entering the 1972 In s titu te of A g ricultural Technology a t Michigan State U n iversity. These students were enrolled in one of the In s titu te 's ten programs and had chosen to attend a summer o rie n ta tio n . The In s titu te 's ten programs were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. A g ricultural Production Soil and Chemical Technology Farm Power Equipment Technology E le c tric a l Technology fo r Agriculture Elevator and Farm Supply Animal Technology Commercial F lo ric u ltu re Food Processing Landscape and Nursery Turfgrass Management (For d etailed descriptions o f programs, re fe r to Appendix A .) For purpose of analysis in th is study, in addition to the ten separate programs, two clusters of programs were id e n tifie d as (a) farm oriented 1 -5 , and (b) agri-business 6-10 (Appendix A). These clusters were selected to determine i f differences existed between farm oriented majors and those students preparing to work in other a g ric u ltu ra l businesses. These programs consisted o f four terms of classroom study and two terms o f on-the-job placement tra in in g (exception: animal technology students maintained a f u l l , on-campus c re d it load a ll six terms). 42 43 Teaching was handled by regular M.S.U. fa cu lty members. Programs normally began in the f a l l term, although there were special w inter term courses a v ailab le in production a g ric u ltu re . Applicants were high school graduates with a recommendation from th e ir high school p rin c ip a l. Measures The instrument u tiliz e d in the study was the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire (King and Powell, 1972) (Refer to Appendix B). The questionnaire consisted of 331 tru e -fa ls e statements which purported to measure 13 value dimensions in the college student population. The instrument was scored by counting the number of true responses w ith the to ta l of these being the raw score fo r th a t scale. These dimensions were: A lienated, A c tiv is t, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n , Active Conformist, Lonely, Gameplayer, D r if t e r , Fieldcommitted, S elf R e a liz e r, Interpersonal Relations, N a rc is s is t, Freedom-Independent, and Humanitarian (fo r detailed descriptions, re fe r to Appendix C). Chapter IV of th is study describes the instrument in more d e ta il. In addition to the information provided by the values instrument, questions on a face sheet fo r each te s t provided the following data in th is research: sex, age, fa th e r's occupation, mother's occupation, fa th e r's education and mother's education. asked in the testing a t graduation included: Three additional questions (1) Did you liv e on campus? (2) I f yes, were your roommates also a g ric u ltu ra l technology students? (3 ) Given an average term o f 12 weeks, how many weekends did you spend away from campus per term? 44 Design The study used a longitudinal-developmental design. While information of a descriptive nature was provided on the students a t the time of entry and graduation of th e ir programs, a developmental view of any changes in value dimensions over th e ir college experience was also discussed. This design is consistent with Issac's defined purpose fo r developmental research, “To investigate patterns and sequences o f growth and/or change as a function o f time" (1971:19). Students enrolled in the 1972 A g ricu ltu ral Technology Program were asked to attend a special two-day summer orien tatio n program a month preceding the s ta r t of th e ir classes. This o rien ta tio n offered them an opportunity to experience dormatory liv in g , meet fe llo w students, v i s it with program coordinators, see the campus and take several tests to b e tte r assess entering levels of a b ilit ie s and assist in the placement in appropriate courses. This was the f i r s t year th at such a summer orie n ta tio n had been offered by the In s titu te o f A g ricultural Technology. Students were separated in to th e ir specific programs fo r testing purposes. The American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire was administered as a portion o f the o rie n ta tio n testing package during the f i r s t day. the te s tin g . Each program co-ordinator administered and monitored In terms of the value inventory, a standardized face sheet containing directio ns was read to a ll groups. Students were assured of c o n fid e n tia lity and were only asked to indicate th e ir student numbers and program majors fo r purposes o f pre-post comparisons. was specified. No time lim it 45 A second testing of these a g ric u ltu ra l technology students, on the same values questionnaire, was administered 18 months la te r during fin a ls week of th e ir graduating term (Winter Term, March 1974). The instrument was administered by the program co-ordinator during the class in which only students o f th at program were members. As in the previous te s tin g , the standardized face sheet was read and no time lim it was specified. I t was also stated that taking the instrument was com­ p le te ly voluntary and would in no way r e fle c t upon the grade of the course. This longitudinal design provided descriptive data fo r those students who attended summer o rien tatio n as p a rt of th e ir entrance into the In s titu te o f A g ricu ltu ral Technology and those students graduating 18 months la te r . Developmental data was also availab le fo r those stu­ dents who experienced both testing sessions. I t was the purpose o f this study to provide descriptive and developmental information on the value dimension of th is unique and unresearched college population. I t was not the aim of th is research to generalize its findings to other student populations. Testable Hypotheses The follow ing hypotheses were generated to give d ire c tio n to the researcher: Ho-1 No difference in value dimensions w ill be found among f i r s t year students w ithin the ten programs of the In s titu te of A g ricultural Technology as measured a t time o f o rie n tatio n by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. Ho-2 No difference in value dimensions w ill be found between f i r s t year students enrolled in farm oriented programs and students in agri-business programs of the In s titu te o f A g ricu ltu ral Technology as measured a t time of o rien tatio n by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. 46 Ho-3 No d iffe re n c e in value dimensions w ill be found among secondyear students w ith in the ten programs o f the In s titu te o f A g ric u ltu ra l Technology as measured a t the time o f graduation by the American College Personnel Association Value Question­ n a ire . Ho-4 No d iffe re n c e in value dimensions w ill be found between secondyear students enrolled in farm oriented programs and students in agri-business programs o f the In s titu te o f A g ricu ltu ral Technology as measured a t time o f graduation by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. Ho-5 Nochange in value dimensions w ill be found from o rie n ta tio n to graduation on students enrolled in the In s titu te o f A g ri­ c u ltu ra l Technology as measured by the American College Per­ sonnel Association Value Questionnaire. Ho-6 Nochange in value dimensions w ill be found from o rie n ta tio n to graduation on students enrolled in farm oriented programs or students in agri-business as measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. Ho-7 No d iffe re n c e in value dimensions w ill be found between male and female students enrolled in the In s titu te of A g ric u ltu ra l Technology as measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire a t: Ho-7a. Ho-7b. Ho-7c. Ho-8 time o f o rie n ta tio n time o f graduation change between o rie n ta tio n and graduation. There w ill be no rela tio n sh ip between value dimensions fo r students enrolled in the In s titu te o f A g ric u ltu ra l Technology and measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire, a t the time o f graduation, and the variables of: Ho-8a. Ho-8b. Ho-8c. Ho-8d. Ho-8e. parent occupation parent education level residency o n /o ff campus in s t itu te o f a g ric u ltu re student roorranate weekends per term spento f f campus Analysis The American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire was administered to f ir s t - y e a r students entering the In s titu te o f Agri c u ltu ra l Technology during th e ir summer o rie n ta tio n , August 1972. 47 The instrument was administered again to the students in March of 1974 during th e ir fin a ls week before graduation. Descriptive data was a v a il­ able fo r the e n tire group at time of o rien tatio n and graduation, with change analysis re s tric te d to those students which had usable pre and post data. To te s t hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4 (no difference in students of the ten programs, or program clusters of farm oriented and agri-business, at time of o rie n ta tio n or a t time of graduation) a standardized mean scale score was derived by dividing the raw score fo r each value dimen­ sion by the number of possible responses in that dimension. An analysis of variance technique was used fo r the overall population and two program c lu sters, on data secured at o rie n tatio n and upon graduation. In add itio n , an analysis o f covariance was used on graduation data, in looking at the program clusters and overall population, with the i n i t i a l o rie n ta tio n te s t score being used as the covariate control. This allowed fo r an account of variance in the graduation score a fte r removing the e ffe c t of the i n i t i a l variations in groups. In testing hypotheses 5 and 6 (no change in students or program clusters over time from o rien tatio n to graduation) the value data from only those students involved in both testings was used. A matched p air t - t e s t analysis was u t iliz e d , fo r the to ta l population and two program c lu s te rs , to assess change on the 13 separate value dimensions between o rie n ta tio n and graduation. Hypothesis 7 (no sex difference in value dimensions at e ith e r te stin g or over time) was tested by an analysis of variance on 48 o rientatio n and graduation data. An analysis of covariance was also used with o rie n ta tio n data serving as the covariate. In add itio n, a matched p air t - t e s t analysis was used to assess change on the value dimensions between o rie n ta tio n and graduation. On Hypothesis 8 (no relation ship between value dimensions and the variables of: (a) parent occupation, (b) parent educational le v e l, (c) residency o n /o ff campus, (d) in s titu te o f ag ricu ltu re student room­ mate, (e) weekends per term spent o ff campus, simple frequencies were f i r s t secured on the variables to assess which analysis te s t would be most appropriate. I f there was enough variance in the variable groups, then co rrelatio n al analysis would be u tiliz e d . However, i f the variables did not lend themselves to c o rre la tio n techniques, an analysis of variance would be u tiliz e d by s p littin g the variables in to reasonable groups. With the frequency d is trib u tio n s secured, the sp e cific variables and analyses used were: a. b. c. d. e. parent occupation— an analysis of covariance on pre-post matched data w ith o rie n ta tio n data being used as the covariate. parent education— an analysis of covariance on pre-post matched data with o rien ta tio n data used as the covariate. residency on campus— an analysis of covariance on pre-post matched data with o rie n ta tio n data used as the covariate, an analysis of variance on post data. a g ric u ltu ra l roommate— an analysis of covariance on pre-post matched data with o rie n ta tio n data used as the covariate, an analysis o f variance on graduation data. weekends per term o f f campus— a Pearson C orrelation Coeff ic ie n t on pre and post data. An additional analysis o f variance was used to assess possible differences in i n i t i a l value dimensions a t time of o rie n ta tio n between those students who graduated 18 months la te r and those students who did not graduate. 49 Analyses on the instrument consisted o f a Pearson C orrelation technique to derive a c o rre la tio n m atrix between the 13 value scales and Hoyt's analysis o f variance r e l i a b i l i t y technique to assess the r e l i a b i l ­ i t y o f the 13 dimensions. Summary Students enrolled in the In s titu te o f A g ric u ltu ra l Technology and attending the August 1972 summer o rie n ta tio n were given the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire (King and Powell, 1972) which measured 13 value dimensions, as part o f a te s t b a tte ry . They were administered the same te s t 18 months la t e r , March 1974, during fin a ls week o f th e ir graduation term. I t was hypothesized th a t there would be no d ifferen ce in value dimensions fo r students w ith in the In s t itu te 's ten programs, or in program clusters of farm oriented and agri-business a t time o f o rie n ta tio n or a t graduation. I t was fu rth e r hypothesized th a t there would be no change in value dimensions from o rie n ta tio n to graduation and no sex d iffere n c e . A d d itio n a lly , i t was hypothesized th a t there would be no re la tio n s h ip between value dimensions and the facto rs of: parent occupation, parent education, residency o n /o ff campus, a g ric u ltu ra l technology student as a roommate, or weekends spent o f f campus. including: Appropriate analysis techniques were u tiliz e d means, standard d eviatio n s, frequencies, analysis of variance, analysis o f covariance, c o rre la tio n s , r e l i a b i l i t i e s and matched p a ir t - t e s t s . CHAPTER IV INSTRUMENTATION: THE AMERICAN COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE Description The instrument selected for this study was the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire (King and Powell, 1972). This instrument was recently constructed and holds a potential of significance fo r the area of values research. This section w ill be used to describe its creation and u tiliz a tio n in greater d e ta il. Most previous research in the area of values, using a standard­ ized instrument, used the A ll port-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values. While the Study of Values has served an important ro le, i t is questionable i f i t is s u ffic ie n t for research with the college student population. Based on the typology of values conceptualized by the philosopher, E. Spranger, th is test represented an e ffo rt to define psychological measurement along his conceptualized scheme. As Gorlow and Nell stated, "A Study of Values, therefore, does not measure em pirically derived values, but rather measures that conceptually defined system of values" (1967:261). Martin has stated, I t is doubtful to me that the existing repertoire of value surveys and questionnaires and especially the All port-Vernon-Linzey Study of Values are sensitive and discriminating enough to catch 50 51 the present subtleties of value structure and change on our college campuses. Spranger's six types consisting of th e o re tic a l, economic, aesthetic, social, p o litic a l and religious factors capture some of the basic orientations of the larger society, but the working and essence of the questions in the Study of Values leaves much to be desired with regard to the college population (1971:2-3). King and Powell stated, The Study of Values instrument, . . . was not designed s p e c ific a lly fo r use with college students. College populations may be considerably removed from the general population of young people. Secondly, few changes have beer, made in the instrument since the 1930's. Consequently, the Study of Values may lack discriminating power when used in sampling college students today (1972:6). They continued by stating , L it t le has been done in the way of developing value instruments fo r general use or fo r specific populations. At the time Buros1 (1970) Mental Measurement Yearbook went to press, only two value instruments other than A ll port's were in p rin t. Most of the studies of college student values, . . . have relie d on related personality measures such as the C alifornia F Scale, Purpose of L ife Test or developed th e ir own value instrument according to the needs of the specific research situ atio n . The other two instruments lis te d in Buros (1970) were designed for general use. Even i f these instruments had been tailo red to college students, they are outdated. The student picture has changed greatly from that of the 3 0 's, 40's and 50's when these instruments were developed (1972:17). In an e ffo r t to respond to the lack of value instruments a v a il­ able for use with the contemporary college student population, Commission V I I I , of the American College Personnel Association, in itia te d a project in 1968 to develop such a value questionnaire. that early state of development included: Some people involved at Dr. Jean Baer from the Univer­ s ity of Illin o is and chairperson of Commission V III a t that time; Dr. John Powell from Michigan State University; Dr. Paul King from University of Missouri, Dr. Ken Eeels from C alifornia In s titu te o f Technology, 52 Dr. Ralph Rust from San Francisco State College, Dr. Paul Correll from University of Missouri at Kansas C ity, Dr. Catherine Jones from M e rritt College in C alifo rn ia and Dr. Lucy Zacharia of the University of Illin o is at Chicago C ircle. However, the collecting points fo r data were Michigan State University and the University of Missouri under the leadership of Dr. Powell and Dr. King. S ta tis tic a l work was assisted by Dr. William Martin of Michigan State University. The f i r s t phase of the project was the creation of an open-ended questionnaire to obtain student expressions about themselves and th e ir world which could be translated into useful te st items (fo r a descrip­ tion of the questionnaire, re fe r to Appendix D). Through commission members, approximately 10,000 student responses to the six item question­ naire were gathered from ten in s titu tio n s scattered geographically and representing diverse in s titu tio n a l characteristics. Some items generated from the questionnaire contained key words and statements from the student responses. This allowed fin a l questions to be stated in words actually used by students. Further items fo r the value inventory were generated by using information from counselors about student concerns, regular and underground student newspapers, English themes, existing lite ra tu re and other instruments. This procedure generated a large pool of items from which 725 were selected. These items were found to cluster around 13 student value dimensions id e n tifie d by a study group of psychologists meeting fo r th at expressed purpose. A panel of judges fu rth er selected items with 331 being retained fo r the instrument. With the process used in determining the items, the questionnaire possessed face and content v a lid ity fo r use with the college student population. 53 The instrument's 331 tru e-false statements were scored by counting the number of true responses within each value dimension, with the to tal of these being the raw score fo r that value scale. These dimensions were Alienated, A c tiv is t, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n , Active Conformist, Lonely, Gameplayer, D r ifte r, Fieldcommitted, S e lf-R ealizer, Interpersonal Relations, Narcissist, Freedom-Independent and Humanitarian (Appendix C). Considerable data had been gathered and analyzed. According to King and Powell, The instrument has been administered to a p ilo t sample of 484 students in Michigan and Missouri colleges and universities. Scales have been correlated (simple correlations) with a number of low correlations between the 13 scales, thus suggesting the existence of discriminations between scales as hoped (1972:21) (For these correlations, refe r to Appendix E). Results derived from this present study supported the statement of discrimination between scales. The Pearson Correlation analysis run on graduation data (Table 4.1} indicated low correlations between scales very sim ilar to the results reported by King and Powell. The correla­ tion between the dimensions of Narcissist and Gameplayer were higher on th is present matrix (.6 1 9 ). In view of the content of these two, which are sim ilar in some respects, this lower discrimination is not surprising. However, future research on the instrument should look care­ fu lly at these two. In Chapter VI this is dealt with in more d e ta il. In considering the r e lia b ilit y of the value questionnaire, this study used the Hoyt procedure, an analysis of variance technique, to assess r e lia b ilit y within each value dimension. on Table 4 .2 . The results are reported The r e lia b ilit y in measuring value content within the Table 4 .1 — In te rc o rre la tio n M atrix on Value Dimensions Measured a t Graduation 1 Value Dimensions 2 Alienated 1 A c tivis t 2 .271 1.000 Perceptual G ra tificatio n 3 .367 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.000 .406 1.000 ± .30 or less N=57 ± .31 to .49 N=17 Active Conformist 4 .242 .013 .081 1.000 Lonely 5 .295 .261 .265 .231 1.000 Gameplayer 6 .443 .268 .597 .346 .159 1.000 Dri f te r 7 .439 .227 .382 .151 .529 .351 1.000 Fieldcommitted 8 .150 .236 .063 .337 .011 .214 -.136 1.000 Self-R ealizer 9 .047 .201 .297 .311 .005 .289 -.095 Interpersonal Relations 10 -.323 Narcissist 11 .230 .141 .398 .449 .148 .619 .160 .187 .295 . 165 1.000 Freedom Independent 12 .352 .433 .538 -.072 .154 .269 .240 .061 .123 . 071 .134 1.000 Humanitarian 13 -.005 .186 -.019 -.043 .317 .204 . 175 .124 -.018 1.000 ± .50 or greater N= 4 .056 -.026 -.023 -.019 .326 -.038 .226 .486 1.000 .051 -.138 -.074 .132 1. 000 55 Table 4.2--Hoyts R e lia b ility on Value Dimensions Measured at Orientation Value Dimension Hoyts R e lia b ility Standard Error 1. Alienated .47 .36 2. A c tiv is t .65 .29 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .59 .32 4. Active Conformist .69 .28 5. Lonely .71 .27 6. Gameplayer .51 .35 7. D r ifte r .37 .40 8. Fieldcommitted .55 .34 9. S elf-R ealizer .50 .35 10. Interpersonal Relations .37 .39 11. Narcissist .53 .34 12. Freedom Independent .62 .31 13. Humanitarian .40 .38 m ajority of dimensions was high. However, the three dimensions, D r ifte r , Interpersonal Relations and Humanitarian, had a Hoyts R e lia b ility of .40 or less and a high standard error. This indicated that these dimensions did not assess the value content contained within them in a highly con­ sistent manner. Consideration was given in interpreting the results from these dimensions and is further elaborated in Chapter V I. The r e lia b ilit ie s of the other dimensions indicated that they did measure th e ir value content in a consistent manner. The American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire was selected fo r use in this research fo r its a b ility to assess 13 value dimensions in the college student population. Previous information, and 56 the results of this study, indicated that the majority of dimensions discriminated between each other in a consistent and re lia b le manner. This instrument was also selected in that i t represented a comprehensive and up-dated e ffo rt to construct a measure of value clusters and th e ir change among contemporary college students. I t was a goal of this study to not only u t iliz e the discriminating power of this instrument to better understand an unresearched population, but to also provide informative feedback to the authors of the questionnaire. Powell has commented, One of the hoped-for outcomes of the project is to stimulate further interest and research into the area of values . . . Hopefully, this w ill open the door for several other studies. We hope to encourage studies showing changes in values through the college years, relationships between various sub-cultures and values, learning influences which have a bearing on value formation and change, and a greater understanding of values within the content of counseling and psychotherapy (1971:4). King stated, We see this instrument as fa c ilita tin g research in the broader area of research on student values within certain types of in stitu tio n s or in certain geographical areas of the country. . . . In this day and age when higher education is being c r i t i ­ cized fo r being so impersonal in its educational offerings, we had visualized through the use of this instrument perhaps a more individualized guidance of students in th e ir educational pursuits. Not only do a ttitu d e s , in terests, and a b ilitie s play an important role in how successful and satis fied a person is with his major, but also his philosophy and value configuration (1971:4-5). Summary The American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire was constructed to measure 13 value dimensions of college students. was an e ffo rt to provide a valid instrument for the area of college It 57 student values measurement in that few instruments were availab le to th is specific population. instrument was reported. The procedure followed in creating this Results of correlation and r e l ia b ilit y analyses from this study indicated the majority of dimensions discriminated between each other in a consistent and re lia b le manner. However, the dimensions of N arcissist and Gameplayer had a correlation of .619 indicating possible overlap of content measured. In addition, the dimensions of D r ifte r , Interpersonal Relations and Humanitarian had low r e l i a b i li t y scores and high standard errors. I t was noted th a t con­ sideration of th is was used in interpreting resu lts. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Description The primary task fo r analysis was to assess 13 value dimensions of students enrolled in the In s titu te of A g ricu ltu ral Technology at Michigan State U niversity a t the time of th e ir o rien ta tio n and gradua­ tio n . Variables, including programs, sex of students, parent education, parent occupation, residency o n /o ff campus, a g ric u ltu ra l in s titu te room­ mate, and weekends per term spent o ff campus were also assessed fo r possible relationships with dimensions. The data was tabulated on the CDC 6500 a t the Michigan State U n iversity Computer Center using the S ta tis tic a l Package fo r the Social Sciences program. The procedure followed in th is chapter was to restate the hypotheses id e n tifie d in Chapter I I I , display the appropriate data and state whether to r e je c t, or f a il to r e je c t, the hypothesis. A s ig n if i­ cance level of .05 was established fo r reje c tio n o f the null hypothesis. A summary of findings in Chapter V is then presented. A to ta l of 205 students completed usable forms of the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire a t the time of o rie n ta ­ tio n . There were 113 students who completed usable information from both the o rie n ta tio n and graduation assessment. Of the 205 students at o rie n ta tio n , 138 (67 percent) graduated w hile 67 (33 percent) did not 58 59 graduate 18 months la te r . Of the 138 students who could have provided pre-post information 113 (82 percent) were secured fo r the study. Ho-1 No difference in value dimensions w ill be found among f i r s t year students w ithin the ten programs of the In s titu te of A g ricultural Technology as measured a t time of orientatio n by the American College Personnel Association Value Questio n ­ n a ire . Standardized mean scale scores were derived by dividing the raw score fo r each scale by the number o f possible responses in that dimen­ sion (Table 5 .1 ). These standardized scores allowed a more meaningful comparison between value dimensions. Scores displayed a population which responded highest in the value dimensions of Interpersonal Rela­ tio ns, S e lf-R e a liz e r, Active Conformist, Freedom Independent, Humanitar­ ia n , Perceptual G ra tific a tio n , Fieldcommitted and lowest in Alienated and N arcissist. An analysis of variance, m u ltiv a ria te te s t of sig n ifican ce, was used on o rie n ta tio n results to assess overall differences between pro­ grams. Results indicated no s ig n ific a n t difference on overall o rien ta­ tion scores between majors. An additional analysis o f variance, uni­ variate F -te s ts , was used to assess differences on specific value dimen­ sions between majors (Table 5 .2 ). Results indicated no s ig n ific a n t difference on o rie n ta tio n scores. Data revealed no s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t reason fo r the reje c tio n of the null hypothesis. Ho-2 Therefore, Ho-1 was not rejected. No difference in value dimensions w ill be found between f i r s t year students enrolled in farm oriented programs and students in agri-business programs o f the In s titu te of A g ricultural Technology as measured at time o f o rie n tatio n by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. 60 Table 5 .l--0 r1 e n ta tio n Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Programs. PROGRAMS <0 u Im O L Si n w O c A y 1— 1b u •l~ i. t PVI b Ul TD u £ 5 & O 3j> d . %tS m* r? O) iyj £ « ^ e 0* E E U. 3 N-11 4 N=13 .2 0 6 .0 9 8 .2 7 3 .2 0 8 .4 3 5 .1 7 4 .4 4 2 .1 5 4 .5 2 2 .1 5 3 sd V a l ue rH m p n d n n c 3. 1 e f 3 m m tJ** £ o? A ^ O m c £ ^ b W ft ^ ut V <0 g. <0 u C A* >1 t 01 ^L z cb Q lJ p* <0 u c I /I •V- u b A w| C H- ° <-> c ■g o £ & 5 N-17 6 N-21 7 N=30 8 9 N-9 N=23 10 Nc 21 .2 4 5 .1 6 8 .1 8 5 .151 .1 5 4 .091 .2 3 2 .1 4 8 .21 7 .1 8 9 .2 3 8 .1 2 0 .22 7 .1 8 2 .2 1 6 .3 8 3 .1 2 4 .4 7 5 .2 0 9 .42 7 .1 1 2 .4 4 5 .1 7 5 .4 6 5 .17 7 .4 8 3 .2 4 6 .4 1 2 .1 4 2 .4 7 4 .1 8 8 .441 .4 4 8 .1 2 8 .5 1 4 .101 .6 0 6 .1 0 9 .531 .1 5 2 .4 9 3 .1 1 3 .5 2 3 .1 1 3 .6 0 4 .1 4 7 .5 5 6 .1 3 8 .5 1 9 .1 5 9 .5 3 2 .6 1 4 .1 2 5 .5 7 5 .1 2 3 .6 1 5 .1 3 8 .6 1 3 .1 2 4 .6 2 2 .1 7 8 .5 7 8 .1 6 5 .5 7 4 .1 6 0 .6 3 2 .1 3 0 .6 3 6 .0 9 3 .5 5 0 .1 8 6 .601 § 3 10 h- £ £ i 5. Lonely m sd .4 1 5 .1 8 0 .5 2 7 .231 .5 2 6 .1 6 3 .4 4 5 .1 7 2 .3 7 0 .1 4 0 .4 4 4 .1 9 3 .4 7 8 .1 5 2 .4 9 2 .1 8 6 .4 7 6 .1 6 3 .461 .2 2 8 .4 6 3 6 . Gameplayer m sd .4 0 3 .1 5 9 .2 9 6 .1 3 6 .4 1 3 .1 2 6 .4 7 6 .1 5 3 .3 9 8 .1 6 9 .3 4 4 .141 .3 3 8 .1 2 5 .4 5 9 .1 5 4 .4 1 4 .1 5 3 .381 .1 8 6 .3 9 2 7. D r ifte r m sd .3 3 7 .151 .3 8 6 .1 9 4 .4 2 6 .1 2 6 .371 .1 5 3 .3 4 2 .1 6 0 .2 9 7 .1 7 3 .3 6 8 .1 5 6 .3 7 9 .1 9 0 .3 7 4 .1 6 5 .3 6 4 .201 .3 6 4 8. Fleldco m itte d m Sd .5 4 3 .1 4 4 .4 2 9 .1 3 4 .4 7 6 .1 1 7 .5 1 8 .1 1 5 .4 9 5 .1 4 6 .5 8 4 .1 1 0 .5 4 5 .1 5 2 .5 8 5 .1 1 7 .5 7 5 .1 4 9 .5 4 4 .1 3 8 .5 2 9 9. S e lfRealizer m sd .7 6 9 .0 9 8 .6 9 5 .0 7 4 .771 .0 9 0 .751 .0 8 9 .7 6 3 .0 9 6 .7 5 4 .1 0 5 .7 3 9 .121 .8 1 6 .1 0 3 .7 7 8 .1 2 3 .7 7 7 .131 .761 1 0 .Interpersonal m sd Relations .7 8 8 .1 1 6 .7 9 8 .1 5 3 .7 4 0 .1 7 6 .8 2 4 .11 9 .7 6 2 .1 3 7 .7 7 6 .1 3 0 .8 1 4 .1 4 8 .8 3 3 .1 4 7 .761 .1 3 0 .7 9 9 .1 2 7 .7 9 2 11. Narcissist m sd .3 6 8 .1 6 0 .181 .1 7 0 .3 1 8 .0 9 0 .4 2 9 .1 1 8 .3 5 5 .1 5 5 .3 2 9 .1 6 5 .2 8 5 .1 3 5 .3 7 5 .1 8 6 .3 5 5 .1 8 8 .3 2 7 .2 0 6 .3 3 2 12. Freedom Independent m sd .5 6 5 .1 6 2 .5 0 0 .1 5 2 .6 1 7 .1 3 3 .6 3 6 .1 4 6 .5 4 5 .1 6 0 .5 9 4 .1 8 8 .6 0 7 .1 8 6 .5 8 5 .1 7 7 .6 2 7 .1 5 5 .6 1 9 .1 6 8 .5 9 0 13. Humanitarian m sd .5 7 0 .1 8 7 .5 6 7 .151 .4 5 5 .2 0 0 .5 2 8 .1 6 0 .5 2 9 .1 7 6 .6 1 3 .141 .6 1 6 .1 6 0 .5 7 0 .1 3 8 .571 .1 4 7 .5 0 8 .1 8 4 .5 5 3 m ■ mean; sd - standard deviation. 61 Table 5 .2 --U n iv a ria te F-Tests on O rientation Data fo r Programs. Univariate F-Tests with (9 , 195) D.F. N=205 Variate F Significance of F 1.210 .291 .498 .875 1.2.99 .240 .794 .622 5. Lonely 1.154 .327 6. Gameplayer 1.660 .101 .728 .683 1.451 .169 .809 .609 .655 .749 1.793 .072 .841 .580 1.420 .181 1. Alienated 2. A c tiv is t 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n 4. Active Conformist 7. D r ifte r 8. Fieldcommitted 9. S e lf-R e a liz e r 10. Interpersonal Relations 11. N arcissist 12. Freedom Independent 13. Humanitarian Standardized mean scale scores were derived fo r the two program clusters (Table 5 .3 ). An analysis o f variance, m u ltiv a ria te te s t of sign ifican ce, was used on o rie n ta tio n information from students enrolled in the program clusters to assess the overall difference between the two clusters (Table 5 .4 ). Results from th is procedure indicated a s ig n ific a n t difference (.0 3 8 ) in overall value dimensions between students enrolled in farm oriented and agri-business majors on o rie n ta tio n scores. An additional analysis of variance, u n ivariate F -te s ts , was used to assess any d i f ­ ferences in sp e c ific value dimensions, between the farm oriented students and those in agri-business programs (Table 5 .5 ). This analysis 62 Table 5 .3 — O rien tation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Program C lusters. Value Dimensions Farm-Oriented N=101 Agri-Business N=104 1. Alienated m sd .203 .135 .215 .145 2. A c tiv is t m sd .433 .163 .453 .177 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n m sd .529 .143 .530 .133 4. Active Conformist m sd .613 .134 .589 .153 5. Lonely m sd .430 .177 .469 .180 6. Gameplayer m sd .406 .157 .375 .153 7. D r ifte r m sd .355 .153 .355 .173 8. Fieldcommitted m sd .518 .139 .563 .137 9. S e lf-R e a liz e r m sd .761 .095 .765 .119 10. Interpersonal Relations m sd .787 .129 .793 .136 11. N arcissist m sd .357 .155 .326 .172 12. Freedom Independent m sd .573 .157 .609 .173 13. Humanitarian m sd .545 .181 .579 .160 m = mean; sd = standard deviation indicated a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between students in the two clusters on the value dimension Fieldcommitted ( .0 2 ) . Students in the a g ri­ business c lu s te r scored s ig n ific a n tly higher on th is dimension. No other value dimension was found to be s ig n ific a n tly d iffe r e n t between c lu s te rs . Table 5 .4 — M u ltiv a ria te Test of Significance on O rientation Data: C luster E ffe c t. N = 205 F Hypothesis D.F. 1.849 13.000 Significance o f F ♦.038 ♦S ignificance a t the .05 level Table 5 .5 — U n ivariate F-Tes.ts on O rientation Data fo r Program C lusters. U n ivariate F-Tests with (1 , 203) D.F. N = 205 Value Dimensions F S ignificance o f F 1. A lienated .403 .527 2. A c tiv is t .659 .418 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .004 .948 4. Active Conformist 1.484 .225 5. Lonely 2.378 .125 6. Gameplayer 2.087 .150 .001 .991 5.543 ♦.020 .080 .778 .111 .740 11. N a rcis s is t 1.893 .170 12. Freedom Independent 2.517 .114 13. Humanitarian 2.065 .152 7. D r ift e r 8. Fieldcommitted 9. S e lf-R e a liz e r 10. Interpersonal Relations ♦ S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. 64 S ta tis tic a l data supported the re je c tio n o f the n u ll hypothesis, Ho-2. Ho-3 No d ifferen ce in value dimensions w ill be found among secondyear students w ithin the ten programs o f the In s titu te of A g ric u ltu ra l Technology as measured a t the time of graduation by the American College Personnel Association Value Question­ n a ire . Standardized mean scale scores were secured on graduation data across the ten programs (Table 5 .6 ) . An analysis o f variance, m u lti­ v a ria te te s t o f s ig n ific a n ce , computed on graduation data to assess o verall d iffe re n c e s , on program e f f e c t , displayed no s ig n ific a n t re s u lts . An ad d itio n al analysis of variance, u n iv a ria te F -te s ts , revealed s ig n if­ ic a n t d ifferences on the value dimensions o f Alienated (.0 4 7 ) and Active Conformist (.0 0 5 ) (Table 5 .7 ). However, a u n iv a ria te analysis of covariance, w ith o rie n ta tio n scores being used as the covariate co n tro l, revealed a s ig n ific a n t d iffere n c e a t graduation on the value dimensions o f A ctive Conformist (.0 3 2 ) and Fieldcommitted (.0 3 8 ) (Table 5 .8 ). This technique used results from o rie n ta tio n te s tin g to remove i n i t i a l v a ria tio n s in the programs fo r analysis o f graduation data. In doing th is , i t indicated th a t the d iffe re n c e found in the A lienated dimension might have been caused by i n i t i a l group d iffe re n c e s . In adjusting the groups on o rie n ta tio n data, th is technique revealed the add itio nal d i f ­ ference in the dimension o f Fieldcommitted and also supported the d i f ­ ference found in the A ctive Conformist dimension. The standardized means reported in Table 5.6 revealed th a t E le c tric a l Technology students scored the highest in the A lienated scale w hile Food Processing students scored the lowest. On the Active 65 Table 5.6--Graduat1on Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Program. PROGRAMS •— Q 1 u b. c "C *5 (J iC i *f» (J 5 (2 n •a e o> e i/ i 0 01 ° IW aP£* ib U lu *> c (A flj 01 & S £• in O) E IS 9) O) c k u Jj z n) e (2 4 N»6 4 N«=5 5 N-7 6 N=15 7 N-17 8 N=3 9 N=15 10 N=6 t/1 §s oc X 1. Alienated m sd .161 .122 .254 .192 .190 .085 .295 .170 .224 .128 .137 .093 .160 .075 .048 .048 .219 .119 .151 .176 .184 2. A c tiv is t m sd .440 .147 .391 .130 .355 .149 .417 .133 .484 .198 .458 .184 .458 .123 .478 .340 .461 .195 .377 .184 .432 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n m sd .529 .123 .521 .208 .615 .146 .575 .157 .585 .187 .506 .125 .520 .092 .583 .208 .588 .115 .495 .181 .552 4. Active Conformist m sd .588 .091 .658 .115 .513 .170 .684 .062 .684 .123 .567 .166 .537 .142 .509 .110 .598 .105 .421 .140 .576 5. Lonely m sd .361 .153 .441 .360 .351 .149 .459 .245 .351 .154 .431 .204 .477 .175 .387 .087 .384 .125 .230 .109 .387 6. Gameplayer m sd .445 .157 .409 .130 .414 .094 .452 .094 .442 .147 .355 .094 .383 .151 .452 .171 .465 .182 .317 .196 .413 7. D r if t e r m sd .297 .172 .303 .026 .386 .094 .418 .171 .338 .058 .288 .168 .307 .188 .303 .105 .318 .140 .152 .121 .311 8. F ie ld committed m sd .571 .091 .538 .133 .417 .195 .423 .209 .522 .152 .577 .136 .541 .131 .538 .204 .523 .149 .462 .119 .511 9. S e lfR ealizer m sd .783 .094 .805 .131 .776 .121 .745 .126 .783 .153 .763 .122 .757 .105 .805 .020 .800 .111 .684 .168 .770 10. Interpersonal Relations m sd .798 .142 .810 .109 .774 .095 .829 .120 .765 .079 .805 .149 .815 .116 .905 .041 .781 .091 .810 .087 .809 11. N arcissist m sd .384 .166 .458 .300 .368 .159 .400 .076 .476 .165 .336 .143 .299 .187 .403 .127 .383 .176 .271 .214 .378 12. Freedom Independent m sd .601 .157 .526 .241 .693 .254 .526 .112 .602 .080 .568 .162 .622 .161 .456 .132 .649 .152 .605 .237 .585 13. Humanitarian m sd .567 .173 .756 .102 .444 .187 .533 .211 .600 .102 .596 .117 .569 .203 .556 .139 .524 .115 .489 .192 .563 m ■ meansi sd ■ standard d eviatio n . 66 Table 5.7—Univariate F-Tests on Graduation Data for Programs. Univariate F-Tests with (9, 103) D.F. N=113 Variate F Significance of F 1.990 *.048 2. A c tivis t .448 .905 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .144 .578 4. Active Conformist 2.818 *.005 5. Lonely 1.517 .152 6. Gameplayer 1.059 .400 7. D rifte r 1.179 .317 8. Fieldcommitted 1.594 .127 .683 .723 .442 .909 1.074 .388 .881 .545 1.170 .322 1. Alienated 9. S elf-R ealizer 10. Interpersonal Relations 11. Narcissist 12. Freedom Independent 13. Humanitarian ♦S ignificant at .05 le ve l. Conformist scale, E lectrical Technology and Elevator and Farm Supply students were the highest, while Turf Grass Management scored the lowest. Scores on the Fieldcommitted scale indicated Animal Technology students highest and Power Equipment students the lowest. S ta tis tic a l data supported the rejection of Ho-3. Ho-4 No difference in value dimensions w ill be found between secondyear students enrolled in farm oriented programs and students in agri-business programs of the In s titu te of Agricultural Technology as measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. Standardized mean scale scores were derived on graduation data fo r the clusters of farm oriented and agri-business programs (Table 5 .9 ). 67 Table 5.8—Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data fo r Programs: Covary on Orientation Data. Univariate F-Tests with (9 , 90) D.F. N = 113 F Significance of F 1.380 .209 .334 .961 3. Perceptual G ra tificatio n 1.370 .213 4. Active Conformist 2.166 *.032 5. Lonely 1.160 .330 6. Gameplayer 1.483 .166 .725 .685 2.094 *.038 .595 .798 .518 .858 11. Narcissist 1.322 .237 12. Freedom Independent 1.675 .107 .969 .471 Variate 1. Alienated 2. A c tivis t 7. D rifte r 8. Fieldcommitted 9. Self-R ealizer 10. Interpersonal Relations 13. Humanitarian ♦S ignificant at .05 le v el. A m ultivariate analysis of variance on graduation data showed no overall difference between program clusters on student value dimensions. How­ ever, the univariate analysis of variance revealed sig n ific a n t d if f e r ­ ences between clusters on the value dimensions of Active Conformist (.021) and Narcissist (.043) at time of graduation (Table 5.1 0 ). The c e ll means (Table 5.9) revealed farm oriented students responded s ig n ifi cantly higher in both the Active Conformist and Narcissist dimensions, than agri-business students. However, the univariate analysis of covariance results (Table 5.11) did not reveal any specific s ig n ific a n t differences in value 68 Table 5.9—Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Program Cluster. Farm-Oriented N=57 Variate Agri-Business N=56 1. Alienated m sd .189 .130 .162 .099 2. A c tivis t m sd .432 .151 .451 .175 3. Perceptual G ratificatio n m sd .548 .140 .535 .125 4. Active Conformist m sd .604 .113 .547 .143 5. Lonely m sd .372 .171 .408 .174 6. Gameplayer m sd .440 .141 .394 .157 7. D rifte r m sd .322 .153 .288 .163 8. Fieldcommitted m sd .534 .135 .537 .139 9. Self-R ealizer m sd .780 .106 .765 .118 10. Interpersonal Relations m sd .794 .126 .807 .115 11. Narcissist m sd .394 .165 .334 .172 12. Freedom Independent m sd .600 .163 .604 .168 13. Humanitarian m sd .565 .174 .555 .155 m = mean; sd = standard deviation. dimensions on program clusters a fte r the clusters were equalized on orientation testing. 69 Table 5.10--U nivariate F-Tests on Graduation Data for Program Clusters. Univariate F-Tests with (1, 111) D.F. N=113 Variate F Significance of F 1.465 .229 2. A c tiv is t .398 .529 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .275 .601 4. Active Conformist 5.509 *.021 5. Lonely 1.274 .261 6. Gameplayer 2.721 .102 7. D rifte r 1.308 .255 8. Fieldcommitted .017 .897 9. Self-R ealizer .509 .477 .324 .570 4.206 *.043 12. Freedom Independent .018 .894 13. Humanitarian .107 .744 1. Alienated 10. Interpersonal Relations 11. Narcissist ♦S ignificant at .05 level. S ta tis tic a l data resulting from the analysis of variance sup­ ported the rejection of Ho-4. However, the additional analysis of covariance indicated that differences found in value dimensions at graduation resulted from in it ia l differences in the program clusters. Ho-5 No change in value dimensions w ill be found from orientation to graduation on students enrolled in the In s titu te of Agri­ cultural Technology as measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. To assess change in student responses on the specific 13 value dimensions, between the time of orientation and graduation, a matched pair t -t e s t analysis was used on pre-post matched information (Table 5 .1 2 ). Results indicated a s ig n ifican t change between student 70 Table 5.11—Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data For Program Clusters: Covary on Orientation Data. Univariate F-Tests with {1, 98) D.F. N=113 Variate F Significance of F 1. Alienated .661 .418 2. A c tivis t .033 .857 3. Perceptual G ratificatio n .380 .539 4. Active Conformist 2.152 .146 5. Lonely 1.884 .173 6. Gameplayer .369 .545 7. D rifte r .782 .379 8. Fieldcommitted .004 .949 9. Self-R ealizer .368 .546 10. Interpersonal Relations 1.544 .217 11. Narcissist 1.091 .299 12. Freedom Independent .823 .367 13. Humanitarian .581 .448 orientation and graduation responses on seven value dimensions: Alienated (.0 0 3 ), Perceptual G ra tific a tio n (.0 1 8 ), Active Conformist (.0 0 0 ), Lonely (.0 0 0 ), Gameplayer (.0 2 3 ), D r ifte r (.039) and Narcissist (.0 4 7 ). Students s ig n ific a n tly increased in th e ir responses from orientation to graduation in the dimensions of Gameplayer, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n and Narcissist while they decreased responses in Alienated, Active Conformist, Lonely and D rifte r. I t is noted that Chapter IV reported results which indicated a low r e lia b ilit y (.3 7 ) and a high standard error (.40) on the D rifte r dimension. S ta tis tic a l data supported the rejection of Ho-5. 71 Table 5-12—Hatched Pairs T-Test on O rientation-Graduation Data fo r A ll Students, N = 113 V ariable Alienated Mean T Value D? S „ , o f P ro b a b ility pre 1 post 1 4.407 3.690 2.859 2.439 3.05 112 *.003 pre 2 post 2 9.663 10.150 3.916 3.742 -1 .4 9 112 .140 Perceptual G ra tific a tio n pre 3 post 3 16.443 17.336 4.524 4.231 -2 .3 9 112 *.0 1 8 Active Conformist pre 4 post 4 23.593 21.894 5.112 4.992 4.21 112 *.0 0 0 Lonely pre 5 post 5 16.965 14.425 6.322 6.378 4.50 112 *.0 0 0 pre 6 post 6 12.062 12.938 4.802 4.658 -2 .3 0 112 *.0 2 3 pre 7 post 7 7.393 6.717 3.377 3.483 2.90 112 *.0 3 9 F ie ld coim ltted pre 8 post 8 14.354 13.920 3.479 3.546 1.34 112 .183 S e lfR ealizer pre 9 post 9 22.124 22.398 3.109 3.236 -.8 9 112 .375 Interpersonal Relations pre 10 post 10 11.018 11.212 1.803 1.682 -.9 9 112 .323 N arc iss is t pre 11 post 11 8.106 8.805 3.929 4.103 -2.01 112 *.0 4 7 Freedom Independent pre 12 post 12 10.938 11.443 3.211 3.125 -1 .6 8 112 .095 Humanitarian pre 13 post 13 8.460 8.398 2.653 2.466 .25 112 .804 A c tiv is t Gameplayer D r if t e r *S1gnifleant at .05 level 72 Ho-6 No change in value dimensions w ill be found from orientation to graduation, on students enrolled in farm oriented programs or students in agri-business programs of the In s titu te of Agri­ cultural Technology as measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. A matched pair t-t e s t analysis was used to assess possible change in student value dimensions, between orientation and graduation, fo r the two program clusters (Tables 5.13, 5.14). Probability results displayed in Table 5.13 indicated that fo r students enrolled in farm oriented programs, s ig n ifican t changes in th e ir responses from orientation to graduation occurred in the dimensions of: Perceptual G ratificatio n (.0 3 1 ), Active Conformist (.0 4 2 ), Lonely (.0 0 0 ), Gameplayer (.040) and Freedom Independent (.0 4 7 ). These students increased th e ir responses in the Gameplayer, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n and Freedom Independent dimen­ sions while they decreased in the Active Conformist and Lonely dimensions. Table 5.14 displayed probability results for those students enrolled in agri-business programs. Significant changes over time were found in the following dimensions: Alienated (.0 0 5 ), Active Conformist (.000) and Lonely (.0 1 4 ). A ll three of these dimensions showed s ig n ifi­ cant change in the direction of student's decreasing responses from orientation to graduation assessment. While farm oriented students s ig n ific a n tly increased th e ir responses to the Gameplayer and Freedom Independent dimensions, and decreased in Perceptual G ra tific a tio n , agri-business students did not. However, agri-business students decreased s ig n ific a n tly on the Alienated scale, while farm oriented students did not display such a change. Common 73 Table 5.13— Matched Pairs T-Test on Or1entat1on-Graduat1on Data fo r Program C lu ster, Farm Oriented. N ■ 57 V ariable Mean Standard Deviation pre 1 post 1 4.561 3.965 pre 2 post 2 Perceptual G ra tific a tio n T Value Degrees of Freedom Probabi11ty 3.111 2.732 1.61 56 .113 9.456 9.930 3.928 3.463 -.9 3 56 .358 pre 3 post 3 16.351 17.544 4.897 4.464 -2 .2 2 56 *.031 Active Conformist pre 4 post 4 24.193 22.965 4.756 4.276 2.08 56 *.0 4 2 Lonely pre 5 post 5 16.684 13.754 6.283 6.317 3.91 56 *.0 0 0 pre 6 post 6 12.614 13.649 5.088 4.385 -2.11 56 *.0 4 0 pre 7 post 7 7.737 7.088 3.441 3.372 1.47 56 .148 F1eldcomni tte d pre 8 post 8 14.035 13.877 3.333 3.516 .37 56 .714 S e lfR ea lize r pre 9 post 9 22.158 22.614 2.644 3.063 -1 .1 0 56 .277 Interpersonal Relations pre 10 post 10 11.070 11.123 1.591 1.763 -.1 9 56 .847 N arciss is t pre 11 post 11 8.684 9.579 4.023 3.955 -1.61 56 .113 Freedom Independent pre 12 post 12 10.526 11.404 3.083 3.093 -2 .0 3 56 *.0 4 7 Humanitarian pre 13 post 13 8.368 8.474 2.938 2.613 -.2 9 56 .774 Alienated A c tiv is t Gameplayer D r1 fte r •Significant at .05 level. 74 Table 5 . 14--Matched Pairs T-Test on O rientatlon-G raduation Data fo r Program C lu s te r, Agri-Business. N = 56 V ariable Mean Standard Deviation pre 1 post 1 4.250 3.411 pre 2 post 2 Perceptual G r a tific a tio n T Value Degrees o f Freedom 2.595 2.087 2.89 55 *.0 0 5 9.875 10.375 3.927 4.025 -1.21 55 .230 pre 3 post 3 16.536 17.125 4.152 4.009 -1 .1 3 55 .262 Active Conformist pre 4 post 4 22.982 20.804 5.425 5.452 3.98 55 *.0 0 0 Lonely pre 5 post 5 17.250 15.107 6.405 5.423 2.52 55 *.0 1 4 pre 6 post 6 11.500 12.214 4.468 4.853 -1 .2 2 55 .228 pre 7 post 7 7.054 6.339 3.305 3.584 1.48 55 .145 F ie ld commi tte d pre 8 post 8 14.679 13.964 3.624 3.608 1.47 55 .148 S e lfR e a liz e r pre 9 post 9 22.089 22.179 3.543 3.417 - .2 0 55 .846 Interpersonal Relations pre 10 post 10 10.964 11.304 2.009 1.606 -1 .1 9 55 .239 N a rc is s is t pre 11 post 11 7.518 8.018 3.775 4.136 -1 .2 0 55 .236 Freedom Independent pre 12 post 12 11.357 11.482 3.311 3.185 - .3 0 55 .763 Humanitarian pre 13 post 13 8.554 8.321 2.340 2.329 .68 55 .499 A1ienated A c tiv is t Gameplayer D r if t e r ♦Significant at .05 level. P ro b a b ility 75 changes in both clusters occurred in the s ig n ific a n t decrease of student responses in the Active Conformist and Lonely dimensions. S ta tis tic a l data supported the rejection of Ho-6. Ho-7 No difference in value dimensions w ill be found between male and female students enrolled in the In s titu te of Agricultural Technology as measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire at: Ho-7a. Ho-7b. Ho-7c. time of orientation time of graduation change between orientation and graduation. Time of O rientation— Ho-7a: Standardized mean scale scores were derived fo r male and female students on orientation and graduation data (Table 5 .1 5 ). A m u ltivariate analysis of variance used on orientation scores, revealed a s ig n ific a n t overall difference (.006) between male and female student responses to the value questionnaire (Table 5 .1 6 ). A univariate analysis of variance (Table 5.17) indicated s ig n ifi­ cant differences between males and females in responses to the dimensions Gameplayer (.0 0 2 ), D r ifte r (.0 2 4 ), Narcissist (.048) and Humanitarian (.0 0 2 ). Male students scored higher in the Gameplayer, D r ifte r and N arcissist dimensions while female students scored more in the Humanitar­ ian scale. Results stated in Chapter IV revealed low r e lia b ilit y on the D r ifte r and Humanitarian dimensions. S ta tis tic a l data supported the rejection of Ho-7a. Time o f Graduation--Ho-7b: On graduation data, a m ultivariate analysis of variance indicated no overall difference between male and female student responses to the value questionnaire. A univariate analysis of variance (Table 5.18) displayed a difference on the Game­ player dimension (.035) in th at male students scored s ig n ific a n tly 76 Table 5.15"O rientat1on and Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations fo r Male and Female Students. Male N»86 Orientation Graduation Female N=27 Orientation Graduation 1. Alienated m sd .220 .144 .185 .123 .176 .104 .145 .084 2. A c tiv is t m sd .406 .165 .430 .160 .464 .181 .477 .170 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n m sd .515 .149 .549 .139 .512 .118 .517 .105 4. Active Conformist m sd .630 .126 .581 .120 .593 .159 .561 .165 5. Lonely m sd .460 .169 .379 .162 .453 .179 .423 .202 6. Gameplayer m sd .408 .160 .434 .151 .330 .124 .364 .136 7. D r ifte r m sd .352 .152 .307 .149 .286 .149 .301 .187 8. Fleldconrnitted m sd .547 .132 .525 .137 .567 .140 .568 .132 9. S e lf-R ea lize r m sd .765 .109 .776 .114 .755 .103 .760 .104 10. Interpersonal Relations m sd .781 .133 .797 .117 .807 .113 .815 .132 11. N arcissist m sd .347 .167 .380 .167 .309 .152 .324 ,179 12. Freedom Independent m sd .573 .157 .599 .166 .585 .205 .612 .161 13. Humanitarian m sd .546 .180 .553 .161 .622 .157 .583 .176 m > mean; sd - standard deviation. 77 Table 5.16—M u ltiv a ria te Test o f Significance on O rientation Data: Students' Sex E ffect. N = 205 F Significance o f F 2.361 ♦.006 ♦Significance a t the .05 le v e l. Table 5.17—U nivariate F-Tests on O rientation Data fo r Male and Female Students. Univariate F-Test with (1 , 203) D.F. N=205 V ariate F Significance of F 1. Alienated .617 .433 2. A c tiv is t .430 .513 1.118 .292 4. Active Conformist .934 .335 5. Lonely .165 .685 6. Gameplayer 9.805 ♦.002 7. D r ifte r 5.205 ♦.024 8. Fieldcommitted 2.167 .143 9. S e lf-R e a lize r 1.128 .290 10. Interpersonal Relations 1.805 .181 11. N arcissist 3.947 ♦.048 .114 .736 9.393 ♦.002 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n 12. Freedom Independent 13. Humanitarian ♦S ig n ific a n t at .05 le v e l. 78 Table 5.18— Univariate F-Tests on Graduation Data fo r Male and Female Students. Univariate F-Tests with (1 , 111) D.F. N=113 F Significance o f F 1. Alienated 2.581 .111 2. A c tiv is t 1.683 .197 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n 1.210 .274 .445 .506 5. Lonely 1.349 .248 6. Gameplayer 4.546 *.035 .022 .882 2.095 .151 .440 .509 .475 .492 2.250 .136 12. Freedom Independent .126 .723 13. Humanitarian .682 .411 Variate 4. Active Conformist 7. D r ifte r 8. Fieldcommitted 9. S e lf-R e a liz e r 10. Interpersonal Relations 11. N arcissist *S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. higher than females a t time of graduation. An analysis o f covariance, with o rie n ta tio n scores serving as the covariates, showed no differences on value dimensions a t graduation fo r male and female students. This analysis technique, in equalizing the groups based on o rien ta tio n scores, indicated th a t the difference in the Gameplayer scale found by the other analysis technique used on graduation data, could have resulted from i n i t i a l entry differences in male and female students. supported the re je c tio n of Ho-7b. S ta tis tic a l data However, differences on graduation dimensions may have resulted from i n i t i a l differences in male and female students. 79 Change Between O rientation and Graduation--Ho-7c: A matched p a ir t - t e s t was used to assess change on the s p e c ific value dimensions between o rie n ta tio n and graduation fo r male and female students. Results on male students (Table 5.19) indicated s ig n ific a n t change in the follow ing dimensions: Alienated (.0 1 0 ), Perceptual G ra tific a tio n (.0 1 6 ), Active Conformist (.0 0 0 ), Lonely (.00 0) and D r if t e r (.0 0 8 ). Of these s ig n ific a n t changes, only the Perceptual G ra tific a tio n dimension re fle c te d increased male student responses, w hile the remaining changes re fle c te d a decreased score. Results o f the matched p a ir t - t e s t in Table 5.20 indicated no s ig n ific a n t differences on value dimensions occurred between o rie n ta tio n and graduation assessment of female students. This contrasted w ith male students who changed s ig n ific a n tly on fiv e value dimensions. S ta tis tic a l data supported the re je c tio n of Ho-7c. Ho-8 There w ill be no relatio n sh ip between value dimensions fo r students enrolled in the In s titu te o f A g ric u ltu ra l Technology and measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire a t the time o f graduation, and the variables of: Ho-8a. Ho-8b. Ho-8c. Ho-8d. Ho-8e. parent occupation parent educational level residency o n /o ff campus in s titu te o f a g ric u ltu re student roommate weekends per term spent o f f campus. Parent Occupation— Ho-8a: Frequencies gathered on parent occupation (Table 5 .2 1 ) a t time o f graduation displayed the la rg e s t percentage (3 4.5 percent) o f fathers worked in operative or re la te d occupations (those involved in physical, mechanical, or s k ille d indus­ t r i a l p o s itio n s ). The next larg e st portion were fath ers working in farm or farm manager occupations (27.4 percent). Frequencies on Mothers' 80 Table 5 .19--Matched Pairs T-Test on 0r1entat1on-Graduat1on Data for Male Students. N - 86 O.F. - 85 Variable Mean Standard Deviation Mean D1fference Standard Error T Value pre 1 post 1 4.628 3.895 3.018 2.590 .733 .279 2.63 *.010 pre 2 post 2 9.349 9.895 3.803 3.672 -.547 .400 -1.37 .175 Perceptual G ratification pre 3 post 3 16.465 17.581 4.757 4.45B -1.116 .454 -2.46 *.016 Active Conformist pre 4 post 4 23.930 22.070 4.777 4.552 1.861 .470 3.96 *.000 Lonely pre 5 post 5 17.023 14.035 6.257 5.983 2.988 .635 4.71 *.000 pre 6 post 6 12.640 13.454 4.947 4.692 -.814 .456 -1.79 .078 pre 7 post 7 7.744 6.744 3.354 3.287 1.000 .369 2.71 *.008 FleldCommitted pre 8 post 8 14.233 13.651 3.443 3.560 .581 .395 1.47 .144 S elfRealizer pre 9 post 9 22.198 22.512 3.158 3.310 -.314 .350 -.9 0 .372 Interpersonal Relations pre 10 post 10 10.930 11.151 1.865 1.634 -.221 .227 -.97 .333 Narcissist pre 11 post 11 8.326 9.128 4.010 4.014 -.802 .430 -1.86 .066 Freedom Independent pre 12 post 12 10.884 11.384 2.988 3.163 -.500 .352 -1.42 .159 Humanitarian pre 13 post 13 8.186 8.291 2.694 2.415 -.105 .285 -.37 .714 Alienated A ctivist Gameplayer D rifte r ♦Significant a t .05 le v e l. Probability 81 Table 5.20--Matched Pairs T-Test on Orientation-Graduation Data fo r Female Students. N « 27 D.F. « 26 Variable Hean Standard Deviation Mean Difference Standard Error T Value pre 1 post 1 3.704 3.037 2.181 1.765 .667 .430 1.55 .133 pre 2 post 2 10.667 10.963 4.169 3.917 -.296 .511 -.5 8 .567 Perceptual G ra tlfi cation pre 3 post 3 16.370 16.556 3.764 3.367 -.185 .590 -.31 .756 Active Conformist pre 4 post 4 22.519 21.333 6.034 6.257 1.185 .792 1.50 .146 Lonely pre 5 post 5 16.778 15.667 6.641 7.488 1.111 1.201 .93 .363 pre 6 post 6 10.222 11.296 3.836 4.223 -1.074 .667 -1.61 .119 pre 7 post 7 6.296 6.630 3.268 4.115 -.333 .665 -.5 0 .620 F1eldCommltted pre B post 8 14.741 14.778 3.633 3.423 -.037 .505 -.07 .942 S elfRealizer pre 9 post 9 21.889 22.037 2.991 3.019 -.148 .660 -.2 2 .824 Interpersonal Relations pre 10 post 10 11.296 11.407 1.589 1.845 -.111 .397 -.2 8 .782 Narcissist pre 11 post 11 7.407 7.778 3.640 4.291 -.370 .493 -.75 .459 Freedom Independent pre 12 post 12 11.111 11.630 3.896 3.053 -.519 .573 -.9 0 .374 Humanitarian pre 13 post 13 9.333 8.741 2.353 2.640 .593 .513 1.16 .258 Alienated A ctivist Gameplayer D rifte r Probabll Table 5.21--Frequency o f Parent Occupation on Graduation Data. Category Label Fathers' Occupations Rplativp Cumulative Absolute Adjusted FreqUenCy ( ^ e n t i N = 113 Mothers' Occupations RplativP Cumulative Absolute frequency AdJusted Frequency ( p * A Frequency I percent; (Percent) 8 7.1 7.1 5 4.4 4.4 2. Farmers and Farm Managers 31 27.4 34.5 0 0 4.4 3. Managers, O ffic ia ls 14 12.4 46.9 1 .9 5.3 4. C le ric a l, Kindred 1 .9 47.8 11 9.7 15.0 5. Sales Workers 5 4.4 52.2 1 .9 15.9 6. Craftsmen, Foremen 4 3.5 55.8 0 0 15.9 39 34.5 90.3 6 5.3 21.2 8. Service Workers 5 4.4 94.7 11 9.7 31.0 9. Retired, Unemployed 2 1.8 96.5 0 0 31.0 1. Professional 7. Operatives and Kindred 10. Housewife 11. Deceased 12. No Record 3 1 113 2.7 .9 100 98.2 76 67.3 2 1.8 100 0 100 99.1 0 100 113 100 83 occupations revealed the m ajority of mothers (67.3 percent) were house­ wives. Given the low range of occupation among mothers, the remaining analyses were run on fathers' data. With the frequencies revealed, fathers' occupations were clustered into fiv e ce lls fo r the purpose of analysis. Standardized mean scale scores were derived on graduation data (Table 5 .2 2 ). A m ultivariate te s t of significance showed no overall difference in stu­ dent value dimensions based on fathers' occupation. An analysis of covariance, univariate F-tests, also revealed no difference on specific value dimensions, with the in it i a l orientation scores equalized (Table 5.23). Based on the results of the data found, Ho-8a was not rejected. Parent Education— Ho-8b: Frequencies gathered on parent educa­ tional level (Table 5.24) revealed the largest portion of fathers (40.7 percent) were high school graduates with no further formal education. Twenty-seven percent of the fathers had not graduated from high school, 9 percent were college graduates and 10.6 percent had technical train in g . Mothers included 53.1 percent high school graduates and 11.5 percent college graduates. Nineteen percent were not high school graduates while 2.7 percent had received technical train in g . For reasons of analysis, educational levels were clustered into fiv e categories. Standardized mean scale scores were derived on gradua­ tion data (Table 5 .2 5 ). tion ^ A m ultivariate analysis of covariance, orienta­ used as covariate, revealed no overall difference on graduation value dimensions based on fathers' education. A univariate analysis of 84 Table 5.22—Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviation by Fathers' Occupation. Varlate Cluster 1 N*8 Professional Technical Cluster 2 N-31 Farmers Farm Managers Cluster 3 N*14 Managers O ffic ia ls Cluster 4 N-39 Operatives Kindred Workers Cluster 5 N-21 A ll Others* 1. Alienated m sd .179 .121 .180 .144 .235 .130 .166 .087 .147 .102 2. A c tiv is t m sd .484 .222 .456 .140 .481 .193 .405 .150 .445 .160 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n m sd .586 .195 .536 .134 .596 .101 .530 .139 .519 .103 4. Active Conformi st m sd .655 .089 .582 .129 .553 .157 .575 .131 .555 .131 5. Lonely m sd .432 .160 .411 .193 .504 .155 .352 .144 .337 .175 6. Gameplayer m sd .540 .183 .426 .154 .461 .116 .384 .154 .392 .122 7. D r ifte r m sd .330 .102 .330 .208 .344 .132 .280 .142 .281 .135 8. Fieldcommitted m sd .519 .168 .538 .102 .558 .139 .536 .146 .520 .158 9. S elf-R ealizer m sd .793 .092 .772 .109 .773 .144 .766 .117 .777 .097 10. Interpersonal Relations m sd .884 .101 .797 .122 .791 .127 .769 .121 .840 .101 11. Narcissist m sd .396 .165 .344 .182 .387 .197 .358 .167 .393 .155 12. Freedom m sd .632 .116 .591 .145 .684 .134 .587 .192 .581 .165 13. Humanitarian m sd .550 .150 .576 .121 .524 .212 .549 .174 .584 .180 *A11 Others: c le r ic a l, sales, craftsmen, foremen, service workers, re tire d , unemployed, disabled, deceased, and no record. m * mean*, sd *= standard deviation. 85 Table 5.23—Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data fo r Father's Occupation: Covary on O rientation Data. N=113 F Significance of F 1. Alienated .085 .987 2. A c tiv is t .649 .629 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .014 1.000 4. Active Conformist .439 .780 2.220 .073 6. Gameplayer .868 .486 7. D r ifte r .229 .921 8. Fieldcommitted .560 .693 9. S elf-R ealizer .134 .970 10. Interpersonal Relations 1.715 .153 11. Narcissist 1.306 .273 12. Freedom Independent .236 .917 13. Humanitarian .158 .959 Variate 5. Lonely covariance {Table 5.26) indicated a s ig n ific a n t difference on the dimen­ sion o f D r ifte r (.0 1 0 ). The standardized mean scores indicated that cluster 5, technical tra in in g , had the highest score (.4 7 3 ), while the less than high school group had the next highest (.3 5 6 ). Both groups, some high school and high school graduates, were low with a standardized mean of .260 while the college education group had a mean score of .318. However, Chapter IV indicated th a t th is value dimension had a low r e l i a b i li t y (.3 7 ) and high standard e rro r (.4 6 ). The s ta tis tic a l data supported the reje ctio n of Ho-8b. I t was also noted that the s ig n ific a n t difference was on a dimension with low r e l i a b i li t y . Table 5.24— Frequency o f Parent Educational Level on Graduation Data. Category Fathers' Education Relative Cumulative Absolute Frequency Adjusted Frequency (Pe?cent} Frequency 1. Less than high school 17 15.0 15 2. Some high school 14 12.4 3. High school graduate 46 4. Some college 5. N = 113 Mothers' Education Cumulative Absolute Adjusted Frequency (PeJLent) Frequency I Percent) ( Percent) 8 7.1 7.1 27.4 13 11.5 18.6 40.7 68.1 60 53.1 71.7 10 8.8 77.0 13 11.5 83.2 College graduate 8 7.1 84.1 10 8.8 92.0 6. Beyond B.A. degree 2 1.8 85.8 3 2.7 94.7 7. Technical Training 12 10.6 96.5 3 2.7 97.3 8. No record 4 113 3.5 100 3 113 2.7 100 100 100 87 Table 5.25--Graduat1on Value Dimensions* Standardized Means and Standard Deviations By Father's Education. Cluster 1 Less than High School N-17 Varlate Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Some High High School School Graduate N*14 N-46 1. Alienated m sd .238 .125 .126 .069 .159 .117 .202 .128 .171 .092 2. A ctivist m sd .455 .199 .419 .107 .433 .174 .474 .175 .395 .086 3. Perceptual G ratification m sd .564 .116 .496 .138 .532 .138 .672 .135 .552 .143 4. Active Conformist m sd .608 .115 .583 .099 .568 .141 .558 .151 .610 .128 5. Lonely m sd .399 .164 .357 .154 .375 .166 .380 .172 .473 .217 6. Gameplayer m sd .474 .144 .396 .121 .389 .138 .466 .169 .422 .185 7. D rifte r m sd .356 .149 .260 .153 .260 .134 .318 .113 .432 .246 8. FleldCoiml tted m sd .591 .154 ,547 .118 .544 .116 .462 .161 .519 .127 9. SelfRealizer m sd .795 .102 .759 .129 .792 .109 .731 .108 .770 .108 10. Interpersonal Relations m sd .782 .135 ,832 ,099 .790 .110 .839 .127 .768 .156 11. Narcissist m sd .434 .173 .369 ,172 .353 .175 .350 .159 .372 .182 12. Freedom Independent m sd .598 .167 .613 .168 .590 .157 .653 .157 .579 .160 13. Humanitarian m sd .596 .214 .605 .198 .545 .147 .520 .136 .606 .157 m • mean; sd * standard deviation. a Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Some College Technical College Graduate Training Beyond B.A. Degree N-12 N=20 88 Table 5 .2 6 --U n iv a ria te Analysis o f Covariance on Graduation Data fo r Father's Education: Covary on O rien tation Data. N=113 F Significance o f F 1.240 .300 2. A c tiv is t .396 .811 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .632 .641 4. Active Conformist .632 .641 5. Lonely .893 .472 6. Gameplayer 1.086 .368 7. D r ifte r 3.550 *.0 1 0 8. Fieldcommitted 1.927 .113 .620 .649 1.048 .387 11. N arcissist .554 .697 12. Freedom Independent .321 .863 1.323 .267 V ariate 1. Alienated 9. S e lf-R e a liz e r 10. Interpersonal Relations 13. Humanitarian ♦ S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. Residency o n /o ff Campus— Ho-8c: Frequencies on graduation in fo r ­ mation indicated th a t 88 students {77.9 percent) liv e d on campus while 25 students (22.1 percent) did not liv e on campus. Standardized mean scale scores were derived on graduation data (Table 5 .2 7 ). A m u lti­ v a ria te analysis o f variance indicated a s ig n ific a n t overall d iffere n c e (.0 3 8 ) on value dimensions o f those students residing on and o f f campus (Table 5 .2 8 ). However, a u n iv a ria te analysis o f variance on graduation data indicated no s ig n ific a n t d ifferences on s p e c ific dimensions (Table 5 .2 9 ). 89 Table 5.27— Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Residency On/Off Campus. V a ria te Residency On Campus N=88 Residency O ff Campus N=25 1. Alienated m sd .183 .123 .150 .083 2. A c tiv is t m sd .448 .166 .419 .151 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n m sd .534 .133 .569 .129 4. Active Conformist m sd .564 .130 .619 .131 5. Lonely m sd .399 .175 .357 .160 6. Gameplayer m sd .416 .150 .420 .156 7. D r ift e r m sd .304 .163 .311 .145 8. Fieldcommitted m sd .545 .131 .503 .153 9. S e lf-R e a liz e r m sd .771 .112 .777 .113 10. Interpersonal Relations m sd .808 .120 .774 .118 11. N a rcis s is t m sd .367 .171 .367 .174 12. Freedom Independent m sd .601 .158 .606 .188 13. Humanitarian m sd .562 .164 .552 .167 m - mean; sd = standard d e viatio n . 90 Table 5.28—M ultivariate Analysis of Variance on Graduation Data fo r Student Residency On/Off Campus. N = 113 F 1.904 Hypothesis D.F. 13.000 Significance of F *.038 ♦Significance at the .05 level. In addition, when orientation results were used to equalize the groups, a m ultivariate analysis of covariance revealed no overall difference (Table 5.30). Table 5.29—Univariate Analysis of Variances on Graduation Data for Student Residency On/Off Campus. Univariate F Tests with (1, 111) D.F. N=113 F Significance of F 1. Alienated 1.525 .220 2. A c tiv is t .595 .442 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n 1.342 .249 4. Active Conformist 3.483 .065 5. Lonely 1.186 .279 6. Gameplayer .015 .902 7. D r ifte r .050 .842 1.816 .181 .045 .832 1.582 .211 11. N arcissist .000 .994 12. Freedom Independent .020 .889 13. Humanitarian .073 .787 Variate 8. Fieldcommitted 9. S elf-R ealizer 10. Interpersonal Relations 91 Table 5.30—M ultivariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data for Student Residency On/Off Campus: Covary on Orientation. N = 113 F 1.310 Hypothesis D.F. 13.000 Significance of F .223 This indicated that any overall difference in students residing on or o ff campus resulted from in it ia l differences between the groups. A univariate analysis of covariance revealed no significant differences on specific value dimensions between these groups (Table 5.31). Table 5.31—Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data for Student Residency On/Off Campus: Covary on Orientation Data. Univariate F-Tests with (1, 98) D.F. N=113 F Significance of F 1. Alienated .521 .472 2. A c tiv is t .490 .486 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .507 .478 4. Active Conformist 2.601 .110 5. Lonely 2.178 .143 6. Gameplayer .180 .672 7. D rifte r .142 .707 8. Fieldcoirmitted .910 .343 1.112 .294 1.253 .266 11. Narcissist .010 .919 12. Freedom Independent .000 .989 13. Humanitarian .000 .989 Variate 9. S elf-R ealizer 10. Interpersonal Relations 92 S ta tis tic a l data supported the rejection of Ho-8c. I t was noted that graduation differences found between students residing on and o ff campus may have been due to i n i t i a l differences in the groups. In s titu te of Agriculture Student Roommate--Ho-8d: Frequencies secured on graduation data indicated that 29 students (25.7 percent) had a roommate who was also a student in the agricultural in s titu te , while 84 students (74.3 percent) did not. Standardized mean scale scores were derived on graduation data (Table 5.3 2 ). A m ultivariate analysis of variance on graduation information revealed no overall difference between these groups of students. A univariate analysis of variance indicated a s ig n ific a n t difference (.027) on the dimension Interpersonal Relations (Table 5.33) with nonagricultural roommate students scoring higher. In Chapter IV i t was revealed th at this dimen­ sion had a low r e l i a b i li t y score (.3 7 ) and a high standard error (.3 9 ). A univariate analysis o f covariance computed on graduation data and covarying on orientatio n scores revealed no specific difference on value dimensions between student roommate groups (Table 5 .3 4 ). This indicated th at the difference found on the Interpersonal Relations dimension at graduation might have resulted from i n i t i a l differences in these two groups. S ta tis tic a l data supported the rejectio n of Ho-8d. The d if f e r ­ ence found may have been caused by i n i t i a l differences in these groups. Weekends Per Term Spent Off Campus— Ho-8e: Frequencies derived on graduation data (Table 5.35) fo r weekends per term spent away from campus revealed a mean score of 5.04 weekends. While 15.9 percent of 93 Table 5.3 2— Graduation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations by Agricultural In s titu te Roommate. Variate In s titu te Roommate N=29 Mon In s titu te Roommate N=84 1. Alienated m sd .195 .129 .169 .111 2. A c tiv is t m sd .429 .175 .446 .159 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n m sd .547 .104 .540 .141 4. Active Conformist m sd .567 .104 .579 .140 5. Lonely m sd .388 .180 .391 .171 6. Gameplayer m sd .424 .163 .415 .146 7. D r ifte r m sd .332 .202 .296 .141 8. Fieldcommitted m sd .528 .118 .538 .143 9. S elf-R ealizer m sd .751 .105 .780 .113 10. Interpersonal Relations m sd .759 .136 .815 .112 11. Narcissist m sd .348 .153 .374 .177 12. Freedom Independent m sd .606 .127 .601 .176 13. Humanitarian m sd .517 .165 .575 .163 m = mean; sd - standard deviation. 94 Table 5.33—Univariate Analysis of Variance on Graduation Data for A gricultural In s titu te Roommate. Univariate F-Tests with (1 , 111) D.F. N=113 Variate F Significance of F 1.121 .292 2. A c tiv is t .230 .632 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .071 .791 4. Active Conformist .182 .671 5. Lonely .006 .938 6. Gameplayer .071 .790 1.134 .289 8. Fieldcommitted .119 .731 9. S e lf-R ea lize r 1.368 .245 5.000 *.027 11. N arcissist .489 .486 12. Freedom Independent .022 .882 2.663 .106 1. Alienated 7. D r ifte r 10. Interpersonal Relations 13. Humanitarian ^S ign ificant a t .05 le v e l. the students stayed on campus every weekend, 12.4 percent spent every weekend away. A Pearson Correlation C o efficien t was used to assess any relationship between weekends spent away from campus and specific value dimensions scores at graduation (Table 5 .3 6 ). Results revealed very low co effic ie n ts which indicated no relationship between students spend­ ing time o ff campus during the weekends and th e ir responses to specific value dimensions a t graduation. S ta tis tic a l results did not support the rejectio n of Ho-8e. An additional analysis was done to assess whether any differences in value dimensions were present a t orientation between students who 95 Table 5.34—Univariate Analysis of Covariance on Graduation Data for A gricultural In s titu te Roommate: Covary on Orientation Data. Univariate F-Tests with (1 , 98) D.F. N=113 F Significance of F 3.505 .064 2. A c tiv is t .598 .441 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .945 .333 4. Active Conformist .011 .916 5. Lonely 1.501 .223 6. Gameplayer 1.225 .271 7. D r ifte r 3.625 .060 .010 .922 2.223 .139 2.772 .099 11. N arcissist .233 .630 12. Freedom Independent .365 .547 13. Humanitarian .540 .464 Variate 1. Alienated 8. Fieldcommitted 9. S e lf-R e a lize r 10. Interpersonal Relations graduated from the in s titu te 18 months la te r and those who fa ile d to graduate. Table 5.37. Standardized mean scale scores were derived and reported in A m ultivariate analysis of variance used (Table 5 .3 8 ), revealed an overall s ig n ific a n t difference between students who graduated and those who did not graduate. A univariate analysis of variance used on orientation data (Table 5 .3 9 ), showed s ig n ific a n t difference between graduates and non­ graduates on the dimensions of A c tiv is t (.0 0 2 ), Perceptual G ra tific a tio n (.0 1 3 ) and D r ifte r (.0 4 6 ). Students who did not graduate from the in s titu te 18 months a fte r orientation responded s ig n ific a n tly higher in 96 Table 5.35--Frequency o f Weekends Spent Off Campus Per Term on Graduation Data. N=113 ■ r-T-f a a t a i t e s a i. ■ ■ Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency (Percent) Cumulative Adjusted Frequency (Percent) 0 18 15.9 15.9 1 6 5.3 21.2 2 13 11.5 32.7 3 11 9.7 42.5 4 13 11.5 54.0 5 5 4.4 58.4 6 13 11.5 59.9 7 2 1.8 71.7 8 5 4.4 76.1 9 3 2.7 78.8 10 9 8.0 86.7 11 1 .9 87.6 12 14 113 12.4 100 Number of Weekends O ff Campus 100 mean 5.04 standard deviation 3.99 variance 15.900 a ll three o f these dimensions, than did students who did graduate. dimension of D r ift e r had a low r e l i a b i li t y score indicated in Chapter IV. The 97 Table 5.36— Pearson C orrelation C o efficien t on Graduation Value Dimensions and Weekends Spent Off Campus Per Term. V ariate N=113 C o efficien t 1. A1ienated .059 2. A c tiv is t .051 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n .034 4. Active Conformist .149 5. Lonely .141 6. Gameplayer .129 7. Dri f te r .066 8. Fieldcommitted .096 9. S e lf-R e a lize r -.031 -.112 10. Interpersonal Relations .073 11. N arcissist -.011 12. Freedom Independent 13. Humanitarian .067 Summary I t was the main objective of th is study to use the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire in assessing 13 value dimensions of students enrolled in the In s titu te of A g ricultural Tech­ nology a t Michigan State U n iversity. Information fo r analysis was gathered a t o rie n ta tio n and a t graduation 18 months la te r . In addition to the overall value description o f the students in ten programs, the e ffe c ts of program c lu s te rs , sex o f student, parent occupation, parent education, residency o n /o ff campus, a g ric u ltu ra l in s titu te roommate and weekends spent o ff campus were analyzed. 98 Table 5.37— O rien tation Value Dimensions' Standardized Means and Standard Deviations fo r Graduates and Non-Graduates. V ariate Graduate N=138 Non-Graduate N=67 1. Alienated m sd .201 .130 .226 .160 2. A c tiv is t m sd .418 .164 .496 .150 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n m sd .513 .138 .564 .133 4. A ctive Conformist m sd .605 .145 .591 .142 5. Lonely m sd .453 .173 .443 .193 6. Gamepl ayer m sd .379 .153 .413 .158 7. D r ift e r m sd .339 .153 .383 .179 8. Fieldcommitted m sd .546 .141 .530 .137 9. S e lf-R e a liz e r m sd .762 .105 .765 .113 10. Interpersonal Relations m sd .789 .130 .793 .138 11. N a rcis s is t m sd .332 .162 .360 .169 12. Freedom Independent m sd .585 .167 .160 .164 13. Humanitarian m sd .562 .179 .563 .156 m = mean; sd = standard deviation . 99 Table 5 .3 8 —M u ltiv a ria te Analysis o f Variance on O rientation Data: Graduated, Non-Graduated E ffe c t. N = 205 F 1.791 Hypothesis D.F. 13.000 S ignificance o f F *.0 4 7 *S ign ifican ce at the .05 le v e l. Table 5.39— U n ivariate Analysis of Variance on O rientation Data fo r Graduates and Non-Graduates. U n ivariate F-Tests with (1 , 203) D.F. N=205 F S ignificance o f F 1. Alienated 1.457 .229 2. A c tiv is t 9.948 *.0 0 2 3. Perceptual G ra tific a tio n 6.272 *.0 1 3 4. Active Conformist .432 .512 5. Lonely .120 .729 6. Gameplayer 2.137 .145 7. D r ift e r 4.403 *.0 4 6 8. Fieldcommitted .582 .446 9. S e lf-R e a liz e r .033 .855 .049 .825 1.305 .255 12. Freedom Independent .593 .442 13. Humanitarian .001 .973 V ariate 10. Interpersonal Relations 11. N arcissist ^ S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. 100 I t was found th a t no differences in the 13 dimensions were present among f ir s t - y e a r students w ith in the ten programs a t time of o rie n ta tio n . However, i t was found th a t an overall d iffe re n c e , and s p e c ific d ifferen ce on dimension Fieldcommitted, existed a t o rie n tatio n between those students enrolled in farm oriented and agri-business programs. Using a u n iv a ria te analysis of variance te s t a t graduation, i t was found th a t second-year students w ithin the ten programs displayed s ig n ific a n t differences on the dimensions Alienated and Active Con­ fo rm ist. An analysis o f covariance indicated s ig n ific a n t differences on Active Conformist and Fieldcommitted. I t was discussed th a t th is technique, in s t a t is t ic a lly equalizing the groups around o rie n ta tio n re s u lts , revealed th a t the d iffere n c e in Alienated might have resulted from i n i t i a l differences in the students. I t was also discussed th a t the differen ce in Fieldcommitted resulted only a f te r the extraneous variation s from o rie n ta tio n res u lts were removed. Results o f a u n iv a ria te analysis o f variance used on graduation data revealed a s ig n ific a n t d iffere n ce between second-year farm oriented and agri-business students on the Active Conformist and N arcissist scales, with farm oriented students scoring higher in both dimensions. However, a fte r removing the v aria tio n s from o rie n ta tio n re s u lts , using an analysis of covariance, no s p e c ific s ig n ific a n t differences were found between second-year c lu s te r students. This ind icates differences found on A ctive Conformist and N arcissist might have resulted from i n i t i a l differences between the farm oriented and agri-business students. 101 Matched pair t-te s ts were used to assess change from orienta­ tion to graduation on students' responses in the overall programs. Results indicated a sign ifican t difference on the seven value dimensions of Alienated, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n , Active Conformist, Lonely, Gameplayer, D rifte r and Narcissist. Students increased th e ir scores in Gameplayer, Perceptual G ra tifica tio n and Narcissist while they decreased responses in Alienated, Active Conformist, Lonely and D rifte r. I t was noted that Chapter IV indicated a low r e lia b ilit y and high standard error on the D rifte r dimension. Matched pair t-te s ts were also used on farm oriented and a g ri­ business student responses to assess change from orientation to gradua­ tio n . Farm orientated students sig n ifica n tly increased responses in Gameplayer, Perceptual G ra tific atio n and Freedom Independent while they decreased scores in Active Conformist and Lonely dimensions. Results of agri-business students revealed a sign ifican t decrease in responses on Alienated, Active Conformist and Lonely dimensions from orientation to graduation. In assessing male and female students, with a m ultivariate analysis of variance, results indicated an overall sig n ifican t d if f e r ­ ence between th e ir responses at time of orientation. A dditionally, a univariate analysis of variance displayed sign ifican t difference in male and female fir s t-y e a r students on the dimensions Gameplayer, D r ifte r , Narcissist and Humanitarian. Male students scored higher in Gameplayer, D rifte r and N arcissist, while female students scored higher in the Humanitarian scale. Low r e lia b ilit ie s found in Chapter IV on the D r ifte r and Humanitarian scales were noted. 102 Graduation data on second-year male and female students showed no o verall differen ce between the two groups, but revealed a s ig n ific a n tly higher male student response to the dimension of Gameplayer. However, an analysis o f covariance, which covaried on o rie n ta tio n scores, revealed no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e , thus ind icatin g the d ifferen ce on Gameplayer might have been the re s u lt o f i n i t i a l differences in male and female students. A matched p a ir t - t e s t was used to assess change on the s p e c ific value dimensions between o rie n ta tio n and graduation fo r male and female students. Results indicated male students changed s ig n ific n a tly on the fiv e dimensions of: A lienated, Perceptual G r a tific a tio n , Active Con­ fo rm is t, Lonely and D r ift e r w ith only the Perceptual G ra tific a tio n scale being higher at graduation. Results fo r female students indicated no s ig n ific a n t changes in responses on value dimensions from o rie n ta tio n to graduation. Frequencies were computed from graduation inform ation on parent occupation and educational le v e ls . T h ir ty -fiv e percent o f fathers worked in operative and related occupations, while 27 percent worked in farm or farm manager occupations. housewives. Sixty-seven percent o f mothers were Forty-one percent of fathers were high school graduates with no fu rth e r formal education, 9 percent were college graduates and 11 percent had technical tra in in g . F ifty -th re e percent o f mothers were high school graduates, 12 percent college graduates and 3 percent had technical tra in in g . Twenty-seven percent of fathers and 19 percent o f mothers had not graduated from high school. 103 With the low range o f occupations fo r mothers, fa th e rs ' data was used fo r analysis. M u ltiv a ria te and u n iv a ria te analysis of variance showed no s ig n ific a n t differences in student value responses based on fa th e rs ' occupation. No o verall difference was found between students' responses based on fa th e rs ' education. However, a s ig n ific a n t differen ce on responses to the D r ift e r dimension was found using a u n iv ariate analysis of variance based on fa th e rs ' occupation. The 'technical tra in in g ' group scored highest in th is dimension with the 'less than high school' next highest. The 'some high school' and 'high school graduate' groups were lowest in the D r ift e r responses. I t was noted the D r if t e r dimension had a low r e l i a b i l i t y and high standard e rro r. On the question o f whether residency on or o f f campus affected graduation value dimensions of students, a m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance indicated an o ve ra ll s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e . However, in removing the variance on o rie n ta tio n scores w ith an analysis o f covari­ ance technique, no o v e rall difference remained. This indicated th a t the o v e ra ll d iffere n c e found might have resulted from i n i t i a l differences between students liv in g on or o f f campus. No s ig n ific a n t s p e c ific value differences were found between groups. The question o f the a ffe c t o f having an in s t itu te o f a g ric u ltu re student roommate on graduation value dimension responses o f students was assessed. Results indicated no o v e ra ll d ifferen ce between those students having, or not having, an a g ric u ltu ra l technology roommate. However, a u n iv a ria te analysis o f variance used revealed a s ig n ific a n tly higher score in the Interpersonal Relations scale, by students not 104 having an agricultural in s titu te roommate. An additional univariate analysis of covariance displayed no significant difference on any dimen­ sion thus indicating the difference found might be accounted for by in i t i a l group differences. I t was also noted that the Interpersonal Relations dimension had a low r e lia b ilit y and high standard error. A Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used to assess the re la ­ tionship between weekends spent away from campus and specific value dimension scores at graduation. Results revealed low correlation coefficients which indicated no relationship between number of weekends spent o ff campus and th e ir responses to value dimensions at graduation. An additional analysis was done to assess differences in value dimensions at orientation between those students who graduated 18 months la te r and those who did not graduate. A m ultivariate analysis of variance revealed an overall difference between students who graduated and those who did not, on value responses at orientation. A univariate analysis of variance indicated significant differences between students on the dimensions of A c tiv is t, Perceptual G ra tifica ta tio n and D r ifte r. Students who did not graduate from the in s titu te responded s ig n ific a n tly higher in a ll three of these dimensions. I t was again noted that the D r ifte r dimension had a low r e lia b ilit y score indicated in Chapter IV. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The major purpose of this study was to describe and analyze 13 value dimensions of students enrolled in the Michigan State University In s titu te of Agricultural Technology. This was accomplished by admin­ istering the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire to students at the time of th e ir entry orientation and again 18 months la te r upon th e ir graduation. Values were theorized as being beliefs organized along a con­ tinuum of re la tiv e importance, that motivate and determine one's attitudes and behaviors. Components of the to tal b e lie f system have the primary purpose of maintaining and enhancing one's to tal conception of s e lf. Assuming the importance values play, i t was suggested that in fo r­ mation on the value dimensions of student groups could serve as an aid to colleges in providing an environment that would motivate and enhance the to ta l educational growth of students. The lite ra tu re review indicated that while e ffo rt had been placed in studying the value characteristics of college students, major sub-sections of the to ta l student population had been neglected. One such neglected group included the population of this study, agricultural technology students. I t was also revealed that while great e ffo rt had 105 106 been placed in understanding the impact of college upon attitudes and values, l i t t l e emphasis had been placed on descriptive value information of entering students. Value change was also discussed in relation to the kinds of students admitted to college and that various colleges most lik e ly a ttra c t d iffe re n t types of students. Information presented supported a freshman-senior difference in attitudes and values in the direction of greater liberalism and sophistication in p o litic a l, social and religious outlook. The major change took place some time during the f i r s t two years of college with peer group influence having a major impact. Research indicated that e ffo rts need to be made in sub-group analysis, but more discriminating groupings need to be recognized requiring the development and u tiliz a tio n of more refined value instru­ ments. Studies indicated that rural high school students wanting to farm occupationally d iffered from rural students not wanting to farm in being less confident in social a b ilit ie s , lower in achieving success in a c tiv itie s and more negative toward changes in patterns of liv in g . Research described agricultural four-year students as lower in in t e l­ lectual a b ility and higher in stereotypic and dogmatic attitudes than many other four-year college students. An additional study comparing four-year and technical agricultural students indicated technology students being s ig n ific a n tly more dogmatic, less in te llig e n t, less mature and s elf-co n fid en t, and less open to new ideas. This study administered the American College Personnel Associa­ tion Value Questionnaire to students enrolled in the In s titu te of Agri­ cultural Technology a t summer orientation and again 18 months la te r 107 during fin a ls week of th e ir graduation term. Null hypotheses stated that there would be no difference in value dimensions fo r students w ithin the In s titu te 's ten programs, or in program clusters of farm oriented and agri-business at time of orientation or at graduation. I t was furth er hypothesized that there would be no change in value dimensions from orientation to graduation and no sex difference. A dditionally, i t was hypothesized that there would be no relationship between gradua­ tion value dimensions and the factors of: parent occupation, parent education, residency on/off campus, agricultural technology students as a roommate, or weekends spent o ff campus. niques were u tiliz e d including: Appropriate analysis tech­ means, frequencies, matched p air t - tests, analysis of covariance, correlations, and r e lia b ilit ie s . A separate section was used to describe the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire administered in this study. This instrument was recently constructed and holds a potential of significance fo r the area of values research and individual counseling. This questionnaire, which measures 13 value dimensions, was an e ffo rt to provide a valid instrument for the area of college student values measurement in that few measures were available to this specific population. Results of correlation and r e lia b ilit y analyses from this study indicated the majority of dimensions discriminated in a consistent and re lia b le manner. The dimensions Narcissist and Gameplayer had a correlation which indicated some possible overlap of content measured. The dimensions D r ifte r, Interpersonal Relations and Humanitarian had lower r e lia b ilit y scores and higher standard errors. I t was noted that consideration of this was used in interpreting results. 108 Analyses results indicated no differences in the 13 dimensions among fir s t-y e a r students within the ten programs at orien tatio n . An overall difference and specific difference on the Fieldcommitted dimen­ sion existed at orientation between farm oriented and agri-business students. Second-year students within the ten programs displayed s ig n ifi­ cant differences on Alienated and Active Conformist dimensions at graduation. However, an analysis of covariance technique indicated the Alienated dimension difference might have resulted from i n i t i a l group variation s, while i t also added a new dimension difference of Fieldcommitted. Graduation results on second-year students revealed s ig n ific a n tly higher scores on Active Conformist and Narcissist scales fo r those in farm oriented programs. Once again, an analysis of covariance revealed that these differences may have been the res u lt of i n i t i a l variations between these groups. Results on orientation to graduation change in value dimensions fo r students in the overall programs indicated s ig n ific a n t differences on seven dimensions: Alienated, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n , Active Con­ form ist, Lonely, Gameplayer, D r ifte r and N arcissist. Gameplayer, Per­ ceptual G ra tific a tio n and Narcissist dimensions refle cte d increased scores while decreases were found in Alienated, Active Conformist, Lonely and D r ifte r . Results on change in students based on program clusters revealed farm oriented students s ig n ific a n tly increased responses in Gameplayer, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n and Freedom Independent while they decreased scores in Active Conformist and Lonely dimensions. 109 Agri-business students decreased th e ir responses on Alienated, Active Conformist and Lonely dimensions from orientation to graduation. Results displayed a s ig n ific a n t overall difference between male and female students on orientation value dimensions. Specific differences were also revealed with male student scores s ig n ific a n tly higher on Gameplayer, D r ifte r and Narcissist dimensions, while female students responded s ig n ific a n tly higher on the dimension Humanitarian. Graduation data showed no overall difference, but indicated a specific difference on Gameplayer with male scores being s ig n ific a n tly higher. However, a fte r orientatio n scores were used to elim inate i n i t i a l variance between groups, no difference on this dimension remained. Data analyzed on change between orientation and graduation value responses indicated male students s ig n ific a n tly decreased scores on the Active Conformist, Lonely and D r ifte r scales and s ig n ific a n tly increased scores on the Perceptual G ra tific a tio n dimension. Female students did not s ig n ific a n tly change on any value dimensions. No s ig n ific a n t differences in student value responses were found based on fathers' occupation. While no overall difference was found in student responses based on fath ers' education, a s ig n ific a n t difference in responses to the D r ifte r dimension was revealed. Students with fathers having technical train in g scored highest in this scale with students having fathers with less than high school education next high­ est. Lowest scores found in responses to D r ifte r were students having fathers with some high school education and high school graduates. An overall difference was revealed on value dimensions between students residing on campus and those not liv in g on campus. However, 110 when the variance in the groups on orientation scores was removed, no difference remained thus indicating that difference found resulted from i n i t i a l group variations. Results from the question on e ffe c t of having an ag ricu ltu ral student roommate indicated s ig n ific a n tly higher scores in the Interp er­ sonal Relations scale by students not having an a g ricu ltu ral technology roommate. However, an analysis of covariance indicated that this d if ­ ference might have resulted from i n i t i a l variance between groups. Correlation coefficients indicated no relationship between week­ ends spent away from campus and specific value dimension scores at graduation. Those students who graduated 18 months a fte r o rientatio n were found to be s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t on three dimensions than those students who did not graduate; students who graduated scored s ig n if i­ cantly lower on the scales of A c tiv is t, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n arid D r ifte r. Conclusions 1. There were no differences among fir s t-y e a r students enrolled w ithin the ten programs of the In s titu te of A gricultural Technology on 13 value dimensions measured by the American College Personnel Associa­ tion Value Questionnaire at summer orientatio n. 2. There was a s ig n ific a n t overall and sp ecific difference between fir s t-y e a r students enrolled in farm oriented and agri-business programs of the In s titu te of A gricultural Technology on value dimensions measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Question­ naire at summer o rie n ta tio n . 3. There were s ig n ific a n t differences in second-year students enrolled w ithin the ten programs of the In s titu te o f A g ricultural Tech­ nology on value dimensions measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire during fin a ls week of graduation. Ill 4. There were s ig n ific a n t differences between second year students in farm oriented and agri-business programs of the In s titu te of A g ricu ltu ral Technology on value dimensions measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire during fin a ls week of graduation. 5. There were s ig n ific a n t changes in value dimensions from o rie n ta tio n to graduation on students enrolled in the In s titu te o f A g ric u ltu ra l Technology as measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. 6. There were s ig n ific a n t changes in value dimensions from o rie n ta tio n to graduation on students enrolled in farm oriented programs and students enrolled in agri-business programs o f the In s titu te of A g ricu ltu ral Technology as measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. 7a. There was a s ig n ific a n t overall d iffere n c e , and sp ec ific d ifferen ces, in value dimensions between fir s t -y e a r male and female students enrolled in the In s titu te o f A g ricu ltu ral Technology as mea­ sured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire a t o rie n ta tio n . b. There was no overall d iffe re n c e , but there was a s ig n ific a n t s p e c ific d iffere n c e , between second-year male and female students measured by the same instrument during fin a ls week of graduation. c. There were s ig n ific a n t changes in value dimensions from o rie n ta tio n to graduation on male students, while there were no s ig n if i­ cant changes in value dimensions from o rien tatio n to graduation on female students as measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire. 8. For students enrolled in the In s titu te of A g ricu ltu ral Technology who were measured during fin a ls week of graduation by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire: a. there was no s ig n ific a n t difference in value dimensions based on fath ers' occupation; b. there was a s ig n ific a n t difference on a value dimension based on fathers' education; c. there was s ig n ific a n t overall d iffe re n c e , but no s p e cific differences, on value dimensions based on whether the students resided on or o ff campus; d. there was a s ig n ific a n t sp ec ific difference in a value dimension based on whether or not students had an a g ri­ c u ltu ral roommate; 112 e. there were no s ig n ific a n t relationships between sp ecific value dimensions and number o f weekends spent o ff campus. 9. There was an overall s ig n ific a n t d iffere n c e , and s ig n ific a n t sp e c ific d ifferences, on value dimensions of f ir s t-y e a r students measured a t o rie n ta tio n by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire, between those students who graduated and those who did not graduate 18 months la te r from the In s titu te . Discussion Results from th is study indicated the overall population of students who entered the In s titu te of A g ricultural Technology at Michigan State U niversity were s im ila r on 13 value dimensions measured by the American College Personnel Association Value Questionnaire (King and Powell, 1972). These students responded highest in the value dimensions of Interpersonal R elations, S e lf Realizer and Active Conformist. Character­ is t ic components of these value dimensions included showing a f f i l i a t i v e needs, valuing friendships and having a personal b e lie f th at relation s with others are good. In add itio n, being goal oriented, not acceding to social pressure unless personally meaningful, showing good ego strength, being tr a d itio n a lly oriented in supporting status quo and showing middle class social values while condemning others who do not, were also included. In Chapter IV i t was revealed th a t three dimensions, D r if t e r , Humanitarian and Interpersonal Relations, had low r e l ia b ili t ie s and high standard errors. Care was taken in the in te rp re ta tio n of resu lts including these dimensions. Lowest value scores of the entering student population were on the Alienated and N arcissist dimensions. The Alienated dimension 113 reflected ch aracteristics including passive, withdrawn, uncommitted, a fe elin g o f hopelessness and other ch aracteristics opposite of In te rp e r­ sonal Relations. Characteristics in the N arcissist dimension included concern with looks, physique, valuing s e lf well above others, s e lfis h and unable to form deep relationships w ith others. Both of these dimen­ sions revealed contrasting ch aracteristics to the dimensions on which entering students scored high. The results reported above both supported and contradicted some previous findings. Lehmann and Ikenberry (1959) reported th a t both male and female college students with farm backgrounds had high tr a d itio n a lvalue scores. This indicated a leaning toward personal re s p e c ta b ility , respect fo r others, valuing hard work as good in i t s e l f , placing personal and individual desires equal to or above the desires of the group, and an o rien tatio n toward the future. Elson (1970) stated th at a g ric u ltu ra l technology students depended upon people around them fo r help in making decisions. In addition, according to Elson, by the time they reached college they had the specific goal of being a farmer or working with farmers. Anderson spoke of this goal o rien ta tio n when he commented He has made up his mind so early in l i f e , and so fir m ly , he now d is lik e s change. Changes or physical m obility which would take him away from what he knows are not rated highly in his value system (1965:88-89). Anderson, in comparing Michigan State U niversity a g ric u ltu ra l four-year and technology students, concluded th at technology students were less emotionally mature, more suspicious, more dogmatic and less stable than degree students. Anderson's study included fiv e technical programs and excluded a ll female students. In th at the present study included ten 114 technical programs and female students, who were found in th is research to be s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t than male students on value dimensions, some variations from Anderson's results would be expected. In summary, fir s t-y e a r a g ric u ltu ra l technology students responded to items indicating strongest preferences in the value dimensions of Interpersonal Relations, S elf R ealizer and Active Conformist. Character­ is tic s in these dimensions tended to support previous research findings of technology students being goal oriented in a g ric u ltu ra l occupations; tra d itio n a lly oriented to maintain status quo and middle class social values, sometimes to the extent of being dogmatic and not open to change or physical m obility; and valuing relatio n s with others as good, to the extent of sometimes being too dependent on others in making decisions fo r them. This description might have indicated the type of 'public image' the In s titu te of A g ricultural Technology portrays in a ttra c tin g certain characteristics of students (C la rk , 1959). While results indicated no d ifference in f ir s t -y e a r students across a ll programs, s ig n ific a n t differences were revealed between f i r s t year students clustered in farm oriented and agri-business programs. These results were important in th a t previous studies done on th is college population had only included farm oriented programs and students. These results 1ended support to H a lle r and W o lff's (1962) contention th a t d iffe re n t personality c h a rac teristic s e x is t between rural students with high farm occupational aspirations and those rural students with high non-farm occupational aspiratio ns. In th is study, agri-business students scored s ig n ific a n tly higher in the value dimension Fieldcommitted. This indicated th a t agri-business students responded p o s itiv e ly to more 115 questions re fle c tin g an id e n tific a tio n w ith a special f ie ld o f in te r e s t, a commitment or involvement in sports, job or some other area to the exclusion o f more s o c ia lly oriented concerns, probably res u ltin g in few friend s and a somewhat narrow o rie n ta tio n to l i f e . A dditional analyses on o rie n ta tio n data revealed the important findings o f s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s , o verall and s p e c ific , on value dimensions between students who did graduate 18 months la te r and those who did not graduate from the In s t itu te . Students who did not graduate scored s ig n ific a n tly higher in the dimensions o f A c tiv is t, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n and D r ift e r . These students id e n tifie d themselves more w ith questions re fle c tin g c h a ra c te ristic s of m ilita n c y , concern about working fo r change, and deep commitment. In a d d itio n , questions re fle c te d a personal e x is te n tia lis t where s e lf , being and a po licy fo r the here and now create a selfishness in the sense th a t social and in t e r ­ personal concerns tend to be closed out. Questions in the D r ift e r dimension, which proved to have lower r e l i a b i l i t y , re fle c te d the charac­ t e r is t ic s , along fo r the r id e , uninvolved, follow ing the path of le a s t resistance, and attaching oneself to what is going on but never com­ m ittin g to i t . These c h a ra c te ris tic s were in major contrast to the dimensions o f Interpersonal R elations, S e lf R ealizer and Active Conform­ i s t , which were highest in the overall student responses. Whether th is group o f students did not graduate because o f c o n flic t with peers, d is ­ agreement w ith fa c u lty and s t a f f , or ind ividu al in a b ilit y to stay committed to the course o f study was not known. However, i f students w ith a high p ro b a b ility o f not graduating could be id e n tifie d , then 116 in d iv id u a lize d educational programming, or a lte rn a tiv e student choices, could be supported and explored. These res u lts also indicated support fo r Rokeach's (1973, 1968, 1960) contention o f the power value's measure­ ment and research holds in understanding and predicting behavior. He theorized th a t values are fundamental components o f an in d iv id u a l's b e lie f system which are m otivational and determine a ttitu d e s as well as behavior. In th is respect, when students who did not graduate indicated t h e ir b e lie f and value preferences a t o rie n ta tio n by responding to value c h a ra c te ris tic s s ig n ific a n tly d iffe r e n t from students who would graduate, they revealed a m otivational base which led to decisions and behaviors re s u ltin g in non-graduation. I t would be o f importance to the In s titu te to explore whether these students' value c h a ra c te ris tic s resulted in th e ir decision not to accept or achieve w ith in the programs, or i f i t was the programs th a t would not accept, or allow to achieve, students who displayed these b e lie f c h a ra c te ris tic s . Analysis was done on second-year students to assess what changes in value dimension responses had occurred from o rie n ta tio n to graduation and to provide a descriptive analysis o f student value dimensions fo r those who graduated from the In s titu te o f A g ric u ltu ra l Technology. Data from th is group o f students represented a s ig n ific a n tly d iffe r e n t population from o rie n ta tio n re s u lts , which included non-graduating students. An analysis o f covariance technique was used to assess i f the s ig n ific a n t differences found a t graduation resulted from i n i t i a l group v a ria tio n s , or re fle c te d differences from o rie n ta tio n to graduation, by s t a t is t ic a lly using o rie n ta tio n re s u lts as covariates to "control" 117 groups. The S ta tis tic a l Package fo r the Social Sciences publication referred to th is procedure as in sertin g covariates in to a design to remove extraneous va riatio n s from the dependent v a ria b le , thereby increasing measurement pre­ cisio n . Regression procedures are used to remove va riatio n s in the dependent v a ria b le due to one or more covariates, and a conventional analysis of variance is then performed on the 'corrected' scores (1975:409). Chapter V revealed th a t s ig n ific a n t changes occurred in value responses from o rie n ta tio n to graduation fo r students w ith in the ten programs. These changes included increased scores in Gameplayer, Perceptual G ra tific a tio n and N a rc is s is t, and decreased scores in the dimension o f A lienated, Active Conformist, Lonely and D r ift e r . These changes corresponded with previous research in d ic a tin g a d ifferen ce over time in college in the d ire c tio n o f greater lib e ra lis m and sop histicatio n in p o litic a l and social outlook, w ith a general broadening of in te re s t (Sanford, 1962). A lon gitud inal study by the Center fo r the Study of Higher Education reported students became " . . . more lib e r a l in the sense of being sophisticated and independent in th e ir th in k in g , and placing greater value upon in d ivid u al freedom and w ell-b eing " (1962:828). Results of th is study indicated a change in student responses, from o rie n ta tio n to graduation, on value dimension c h a ra c te ris tic s which re fle c te d an increased concern with s e lf , including looks and physique, in valuing s e lf above others, o f being more p o lit ic a l and m anipulative in working as a s tr a te g is t, valuing rela tio n sh ip s as s o lid , but only entering in to them s u p e r fic ia lly . Results indicated decreased responses on items which re fle c te d being less a fra id o f the world around on eself, not so overwhelmed, not spending so much time alone, less tr a d it io n a lly 118 and a u th o ritatively oriented, less passive, more committed, an increased feeling of hope fo r change and improvement, an increased involvement to what is going on, and an increased willingness to face challenge and resistance. In that this population had the in it ia l tendency to use relationships with others to the extent of being dependent on them fo r decisions, the increased scores to the scale Narcissist was seen as a positive movement toward increased s e lf value and functioning. This was highlighted given that the Narcissist scale was one of the three lowest scales at graduation. The changes over time reported in Chapter V for farm oriented and agri-business students reflected sim ilar findings to the discussion above. A s ig n ific a n tly decreased score on the Lonely dimension was found in students within the ten programs, as well as in both program clusters. I t appeared that while having technology students take a ll classes together might have lim ited th e ir interaction with students of degree majors outside the in s titu te , i t seemed to bring about a "com­ radeship" and an increased interaction among the technology students themselves. This might have influenced th e ir sign ifican t decrease in the Lonely dimension which represented less fear of the world around oneself, less overwhelmed in one's personal l i f e and the world in general, less time alone, wanting more interpersonal relationships and finding them easier to a tta in . With a ll the changes that occurred between orientation and graduation value dimension responses, second-year students within the ten programs were found to be s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t on some specific 119 value scales. This contrasted with the orientation findings on f ir s t - year students, of no significant differences on value dimensions within students of the ten programs. Results on graduation data indicated that while second-year students s t i l l responded highest in the scales Interpersonal Relations and S elf Realizer, as did firs t-y e a r students, the next highest dimension responded to at graduation was Freedom Independent, rather than the Active Conformist scale of firs t-y e a r students. This change again supported previous research in that i t reflected a decrease in supporting the status quo as desirable, less trad itio n al and autho ritatively oriented, an increased desire to be freed from control and authority, and less bothered by personal inhibitions or social pressures. Analysis of graduation data on farm oriented and agri-business second-year students revealed sign ifican t differences in the Active Conformist and Narcissist scales, with farm oriented students scoring higher in both. These results again supported the contention of H aller and Wolff (1962) that personality differences existed between high farm occupational aspiration and high non-farm aspiration groups among rural students. They stated rural students wanting to farm occupationally tended to be less stable emotionally, less confident in th e ir social a b ilitie s to work and mix with others, expressed a hesitancy to move from fa m ilia r surroundings and displayed a negative attitu d e toward changes in th e ir patterns of liv in g . The results of the graduation differences between farm oriented and agri-business student value dimen' sions reflected sim ilar characteristics. 120 Results reported 1n Chapter V on male and female students revealed significant differences in value dimensions at orientation and at graduation. While there was an overall difference, and four specific value scale differences, at orientatio n, there was no overall difference and only one specific scale difference a t graduation. At orientation, firs t-y e a r male students scored s ig n ific a n tly higher in the Gameplayer, D rifte r and Narcissist scales, while female students were higher in the Humanitarian dimension. At graduation, second-year male students were found to be sig n ifica n tly higher in the Gameplayer scale, but this was attributed to i n it ia l differences in the two groups. In addition, results of analysis used to assess changes in scores from orientation to graduation indicated male students s ig n ific a n tly increased responses in the Perceptual G ratificatio n dimension while they decreased responses in the scales of Alienated, Active Conformist, Lonely and D rifte r. Results on female students revealed no sig n ific an t differences from orientation to graduation on th e ir value dimension scores. I t is noted that the smaller number of female students required greater difference in scores to have been s ig n ifican t changes. This information indicated that while there was sign ifican t difference in fir s t-y e a r male and female students, males changed more than female students on gradua­ tion data in th e ir value responses. The male change was in the direction of those value dimensions held by female students. These results both supported and contradicted some previous findings. Lehmann and Dressel in studying four-year students at Michigan State University concluded Although subjects, in general, regardless of sex and amount of college education changed by th e ir attitu d es , values, b e lie fs , and 121 opinions between 1958 and 1962, the females underwent a more marked change during this period than did th e ir male counter­ parts (1963:160). In another study Lehmann and Dressel stated, "Males are sig n ifica n tly more stereotypic, dogmatic, and unreceptive to new ideas than females. Males are s ig n ific a n tly more trad itio n al-valu e oriented than females" (1962:265). No s ig n ifican t differences were found in second-year students' value dimensions based on d ifferin g fathers'occupations. However, there was a significant difference found on the D rifte r dimension based on fathers' education. Students having fathers with 'technical train in g ' had the highest scores, the 'less than high school education' the next highest, while the 'some high school' and 'high school graduated' groups were lowest in responses to the D r ifte r dimension. These findings, while showing an e ffe c t on fathers' education, were not consistent with some previous results. Lehmann and Dressel reported a sign ifican t relationship between socio-economic status as measured by fathers' occupation and/or level of parent education and attitudes and values. They stated, "Those students from lower social stratum tend to be more stereotypic and have higher trad itio n a l-v alu e scores than students from upper-middle or upper-social stratum" (1962:266). A s ig n ifican t overall difference was found at graduation on value dimensions between those students residing on campus and those not residing on campus. This difference did not remain a fte r orientation scores were used to remove in it i a l variations. This indicated that the overall difference probably was the resu lt of in i t i a l differences between 122 groups, and did not re fle c t any d iffe re n tia l impact of liv in g on campus and value dimensions of second-year students. Data on second-year students who had an agricultural student roommate showed a s ig n ific a n tly lower score on the value dimension Interpersonal Relations than students not having an in s titu te roommate. I t was indicated that this difference was from i n it ia l group variations rather than related to the e ffe c t of roommate. However, i t was of in te re s t to note, that the decision to have an agricultural roommate when f i r s t entering the university might have been related to a lower value preference fo r a f f i l ia t i v e needs, a b e lie f in friendships and a shared experience with others. I t was found that l i t t l e correlation existed between value dimensions of second-year students and the number of weekends spent o ff campus per term. The variables of residency on or o ff campus, a g ri­ cultural in s titu te roommate and weekends per term spent o ff campus were selected in that they represented possible effects of influences outside the in s titu te . I t had long been a concern of some Agricultural Tech­ nology s ta ff that th e ir students spent too much class time together, too much time at home on weekends and tended to socialize only within the in s titu te 's population. L it t le or no e ffe c t between some of these variables and second-year students' value dimensions were found. Limitations While the study achieved its main purpose of assessing and des­ cribing agricultural technology students a t summer orien tatio n , gradua­ tion and change over tim e, some lim itatio n s must be noted. The results 123 o f this research applied only to the population of th is study and should not be generalized to other student populations. Limitations inherent in the measurement of conceptual factors are acknowledged. The question­ naire used in this study measured 13 value dimensions found in the college student population. While the m ajority were found to discrim­ inate value content in a consistent and re lia b le manner, the three dimen­ sions D r ifte r , Interpersonal Relations and Humanitarian were found to have lower r e l i a b i li t y than the other dimensions. these three must be interpreted with caution. Any results including In addition, inherent to any measurement requiring responses on paper is the p o s s ib ility of receiving fa ls e information. Implications This study was in itia te d as a f i r s t step in better understanding the value characteristics of the specific population of agricultural technology students at Michigan State University. Results revealed a group of students who entered the university with s im ila r value dimen­ sions, but graduated with some very specific differences. research on th is population is implied. Further While the present study offered a descriptive and developmental view w ithin this student population, additional research comparing them to other sub-components of the to ta l college population is necessary. P rofiles provided in this study helped define the order of value dimensions within this population. However, comparisons of these p ro file s to other groups is needed to reveal the comparative degrees of in ten sity within dimensions as w e ll. 124 This study revealed s ig n ific a n t differences on value dimensions between students who graduated and students who did not. exploration of these differences should be made. Further I f students can be id e n tifie d at o rie n ta tio n , or before, as possessing values which are "at risk" indicators to non-success within the In s titu te , then in d ivid u al­ ized counseling and educational planning can be provided in an attempt to prevent fa ilu r e . Further research into these differences may also provide insights into a lte rn a tiv e programming and course content th at could be offered by the In s titu te to provide success opportunities for students who presently do not graduate. Results of this study revealed a difference in farm oriented and agri-business students. Further research on these clusters might add insight and fu rth e r understanding of the technology population which may be overlooked in only studying the overall population. While differences in male and female students' value character­ is tic s have been recognized previously, this study revealed l i t t l e value change in female students from orientation to graduation, while male students changed in several dimensions. Further exploration of this would be helpful to the In s titu te in better understanding why the present environment offered is d iffe r e n tia lly stim ulating and supporting to values growth in male and female students. I f the In s titu te is s t i l l male oriented, in that having a large number of female students is a r e la tiv e ly new addition to the population, then the school should adapt its program in a manner that w ill be constructive to both male and female students' growth. 125 This study used an instrument which holds s ig n ific a n t promise fo r the f ie ld o f values research and individual student counseling. Results in th is research have already revealed one such promising use, the measurement and id e n tific a tio n of students who have value dimensions which are related to not graduating. Further research using th is in s tru ­ ment can be done in describing other student populations a t various types of in s titu te s , assessing developmental changes in value systems over tim e, discrim inating other value-laden student groupings on various campuses, and studying non-college youth of s im ila r age groups. How­ ever, fu rth e r research and refinement on the instrument i t s e l f is also needed. Results of th is study indicated low r e l i a b i li t i e s on three value dimensions, and some possible overlap of content discrim ination between two dimensions. Additional research and refinement on this questionnaire would assist g rea tly in providing a much needed instrument fo r use with the college student population. LIST OF REFERENCES 126 LIST OF REFERENCES A llp o rt, G.W., Vernon, P .E ., and Lindzey, G. Houghton, M if f lin , 1960. A study of values. A llp o rt, G.W. Pattern and growth in p e rs o n a lity . Rinehart, and Winston, 1961. New York: Boston: H o lt, Anderson, Donald. The history and development o f short courses at Michigan State U n iversity!! College o f A g riculture,' Michigan State U n iversity, 1966. Anderson, Duane. A comparative descriptive analysis of f i r s t year a g ricu ltu re short course and degree students a t Michigan State U niversity. Doctoral d is s e rta tio n , Michiaan State U n iversity. 1965. Aresnian, S. Changes in evaluative a ttitu d e . Psychology. 1943, 27, 338-349. Axelrod, J. and Freedman, M.G. Jossey-Bass, 1969. Journal of Applied Search fo r relevance. San Francisco: Brookover, W.B., G o ttlie b , P ., Lehmann, I . J . , Richards, J .F ., Thaden, J .F ., and Verner, A.M. The College Student. New York: The Center fo r Applied Research in Education, 1965. Brown, Norm. Student survey of College of A griculture and In s titu te of A g ricultural Technology. Michigan State U n iversity, 1969. Burchindl, L. Differences in educational and occupational aspiration of farm, small-town, and c ity boys. Rural Sociology, June 1961, XXVI, 107-121. Burton, M.V. The e ffe c t of college attendance upon personality as measured by the Verneuter Personality Inventory. Journal of Educational Research, 1945, 38, 708-711. Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs fo r research. Chicago: Rand-McNally and Company, 1963. C lark, B.R. College image and student selectio n. In T.R. McConnell (E d .), Selection and educational d iffe r e n tia tio n . Berkeley, 127 128 C a lifo rn ia : Field Service Center and Center fo r the Study of Higher Education, 1959. C lark, B.R. The Open Door College: H ill/1960. A Case Study. New York: McGraw- C lark, B.R. and Trow, M. The organizational context. In T.M. Newcomb and E.K. Wilson (E d s .), College peer groups: problems and prospects fo r research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Corey, S.M. Change in the opinion of female students a fte r one year a t a u n iv e rs ity . Journal of Social Psychology, 1940, Y\_t 341-351. Dressel, P.L. and Mayhew, L.B. General education: explorations in evaluation. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1954/ Elson, D. The technical student in the un iversity community. sente3- aTTh5“ anruiiTTorr?irInce- o?rThi~lIatTonaT- Ass^^ Colleges and Teachers o f A g ricu ltu re, 1970. Paper preof Elson, D. An evaluation of the Landscape and Nursery Technician program at Michigan State U n iv e rs ity . Doctoral d isseratio n, Michigan State U n iversity, 1971. Eddy, E.P. Changing values and a ttitu d es on the campus. In Long range planning fo r education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1957. Eddy, E.P. The college influence on student character. American Council on Education, 1959. Washington, D.C.: Feldman, K. and Newcomb, T. The impact of college on students. Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1969. San Freeh, L.A. and Henneman, H.A. Non-degree or less than B.S. degree programs— offered by aqrTcultural colleges or th e ir equivalent in land grant colleges and u n iv e rs itie s / Chicago/ Farm Founda­ tio n , 1963. Gorlow, L. and N o ll, G. A study of em p irically derived values. of Social Psychology, 1967, 73, 261-269. Journal K erlinger, F.N. Foundations of Behavioral Research: Second E d itio n . New York: H o lt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973. H a lle r, A.O. and W o lff, C. Personality orientations of farm, v illa g e , and urban boys. Rural Sociology, 1958, X X III, 355-362. 129 Hollen, C. Value change, perceived in s tr ig". :ita 1 itv , and a ttitu d e changed Doctoral d is se rta tio n , N'^higan State U n iv ers ity , 1972. Ikenberry, S.O. and Lehmann, I.J . C ritic a l thinking, a ttitu d e s , and values in higher education, a prelim inary report of research. Michigan State U n iversity, 1959. Isaac, S. and Michael, W. Handbook in research and evaluation. Diego, C a lifo rn ia : Robert Knapp, 1971. San Jacob, P. Changing values in college: an exploratory study of the impact of college teaching. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. King, P.T. Speech on Values. A paper presented to the American Per­ sonnel and Guidance Association, A tla n tic C ity , 1971. King, P. and Powell, J. Values measurement and id e n tific a tio n among and w ithin college populations. A proposal fo r funding a research project on contemporary student values submitted to the Depart­ ment of Health, Education and W elfare, 1972. Kuhlen, R.B. Changes in the attitu d es of students and re la tio n of te s t responses to judgments of associates. School and Society, 1941, 53, 514-519. Larson, V.C. A survey o f short course programs in the United States and Canada. Doctoral d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n iv ersity, 1971. Lehmann, I . J . and Dressel, P. C r itic a l thinkin g, a ttitu d e s and values in higher education. Cooperative research project No. 590, O ffice of Education, U.S. Department o f Health, Education and W elfare, Michigan State U n iv ers ity, 1962. Lehmann, I . J . and Dressel, P. Changes in c r it ic a l thinking a b i l i t y , a ttitu d es and values associated with college attendance. Cooperative research project No. 1646, O ffice of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and W elfare, Michigan State U n iversity, 1963. Lehmann, I . J . and Payne, I.K . An exploration of attitu d es and value changes o f college freshmen. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1963, 41_, 403-408. Lehmann, I . J . and Mehrens, W. Educational research: readings in focus. New York: H o lt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971. Lemon, N. A ttitudes and th e ir measurement. 197"3; London: B.T. Batsford, L td ., 130 M artin, W. College student values: an h is to ric a l and conceptual perspective. A paper presented to the American Personnel and Guidance Association, A tla n tic C ity , 1971. M a rtin , W. Faculty fellow ship research qrant proposal. ^ ------C o lle g e ^ 974.------------ Canisius McConnell, T.R. and H e is t, P. The diverse college student population. In N. Sanford (E d .), The American College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. M orris, C. V a rie tie s o f human values. Chicago Press, 1956. Chicago: The U n iversity of Newcomb, T. Student peer-group influence. In N. Sanford (E d .), The American College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. P lan t, W.T. Changes in ethnocentrism associated with a two-year college experience. Journal o f Genetic Psychology, 1958, 49, 162-165. Powell, J.R. Contemporary Students 6nd A Study o f Th eir Value O rienta­ tio ns: A Prelim inary Report From.Commission V I I I , American Personnel Association, 1971. Riesman, D. and Jencks, C. The v i a b ilit y o f the American college. In N. Sanford (E d .), The American C ollege. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Rogers, E. Social change in rural s o c ie ty . C ro fts , In c ., 1960. Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Rokeach, M. B e lie f, a ttitu d e s and values. 1968. Rokeach, M. The nature o f human values. New York:Appleton-CenturyBosie Books, 1960. San Francisco: New York: Jossey-Bass, The Free Press, 1973. Sanford, N. The American college: a psychological and social in te rp re ta tio n o f the higher learn inq . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Sharp, L. and Krasnegor, R. The use o f follow -up studies in the e v a l­ uation o f vocational education. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Social Science Research, M a y ,1966. Smith, M.B. Social psychology and human values. Chicago: Stew art, J. Toward a theory fo r values development. ta tio n , Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1974. A ld in e, 1969. A doctoral d is s e r- 131 Webster, H ., Freedman, M ., and H e s it, P. Personality changes in college students. In N. Sanford (E d .), The American College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Werkmeister, W. Man and his values. Press, 19571 Lincoln: U n iversity o f Nebraska W illiam s, R.M. Values. In E. S ills (E d .), In te rn a tio n al encyclopedia o f the social sciences. New York: M acm illian, 1968. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TECHNICAL TRAINING PROGRAMS INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY 133 TECHNICAL TRAINING PROGRAMS INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY 1. Agricultural Production The demand fo r technically trained individuals in the fie ld of production agriculture is increasing rapidly and the opportunities that exist fo r s k ille d personnel are greater than ever before. The majority of the Agricultural Production graduates return to the home farm. However, many requests are received fo r young persons who are capable, industrious and have practical experiences and special­ ized training as provided through the Agricultural Production Program. This program is designed to tra in specialists by offering majors in Crops, F ru it or Vegetable Production, Animal Husbandry, and Dairy. 2. Soil and Chemical Technology This program is designed to tra in young people for a variety of jobs in the s o il, f e r t i l i z e r and pest management industries. Students w ill be able to select a summer work experience that w ill help prepare them for a career in the fie ld of th e ir choice. The increased emphasis on the production of food and fib e r has created a demand fo r trained technicians in many specialized fie ld s . The Soil Conservation Service and the chemical industry need trained technicians to give advice on the e ffec tive use and safe levels of essential chemicals used in the production and storage of agricultural products. 3. Farm Power Equipment Technology Technical a b ilit y is needed to se ll big capacity, highspeed and precision b u ilt tractors and farm equipment and to manage inventories of repair parts and provide the service fo r operating efficien c y. The strong demand fo r trained personnel continues, especially with the in tro ­ duction of lig h t construction, lawn and garden and recreational equipment by power equipment dealers. Join the dealership team fo r a technical level job with both excellent pay and opportunity fo r advancement. 4. E lectrical Technology fo r Agriculture Training is provided in re s id e n tia l, farm, commercial and indus­ t r i a l w iring, including lig h tin g , motors and controls, agricultural equipment, heating, v e n tila tio n and business operation procedures. Most 134 135 graduates become employed with rural e le c tric a l contractors and ag ri­ cultural equipment distrib u to rs. The program is recognized by the State Electrical Administrative Board and graduates receive credit for two of the four years experience required to take the journeyman ele ctric ian examination. 5. Elevator and Farm Supply Elevator and farm supply firms are seeking aggressive young people with specialized training to serve modern agriculture. Over 300 graduates of the program are employed as managers, assistant managers, feed men, grain merchandisers and salespersons with elevators, farm supply stores and grain and bean brokerage firms. This 18-month program consists of 12 months on campus plus six months of paid work experience. An MSU s ta ff member coordinates the on-campus courses and supervises the work experience phase of the tra in ­ ing. Young persons entering this fie ld w ill find a broad range of career opportunities open to them. 6. Animal Technology An 18-month training program designed to prepare young men and women fo r a career as an assistant to a veterinarian. This program is somewhat d ifferen t than the other technical programs in that admission requirements are much more demanding, and i t does not include a place­ ment training period. Graduates w ill find employment opportunities prim arily in small animal hospitals, with some jobs available in univer­ s itie s , governmental agencies, pharmaceutical companies, research laboratories and medical schools. 7. Commcercial Floriculture The flo ric u ltu re industry is one of the nation’ s most rapidly diversifying and expanding industries with more than 1500 r e ta il and wholesale flo ris ts in Michigan alone. Over one-third of a ll flo ra l products are sold in non-traditional r e ta il outlets. There are excellent employment opportunities fo r young persons with special training in the production and marketing of flowers and related products, ranging from production work in commercial greenhouses to marketing in wholesale establishments. The future in this industry is determined by the graduate's s k ill and ambition. 8. Food Processing This program is designed to tra in young people fo r a variety of jobs involved with the diverse f ie ld of the food processing industry. Job opportunities are available in e ith e r private food processing indus­ trie s or with governmental inspection and monitoring agencies. 136 9. Landscape and Nursery Opportunities for advancement are excellent for those interested in working with plants as trained landscape h o rtic u ltu ra lis ts . The demand for such trained personnel is due to the rapid expansion in industrial and home landscapes, as well as c ity , state and federal environmental improvement projects. Graduates of the program work as owners, managers, buyers or salespersons in r e ta il firm s, commercial landscape construction and nursery production firm s, as well as fo r private enterprises. 10. Turfgrass Management This program provides the fundamentals of turfgrass technology necessary for the supervision and management of golf courses, parks, a th le tic fie ld s , highway roadsides and related commercial enterprises. Responsible, year-around positions with excellent opportunities for advancement are available. Farm Oriented Other Agri-Business 1. Agricultural Production 6. Animal Technology 2. Soil and Chemical Technology 7. Commercial Floriculture 3. Farm Power Equipment Technology 8. Food Processing 4. E lectrical Technology for Agriculture 9. Landscape and Nursery 10. Turfgrass Management 5. Elevator and Farm Supply APPENDIX B THE AMERICAN COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE 137 THE AMERICAN COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE Directions This questionnaire contains a number of descriptive statements. Read each statement and decide whether i t : 1. Generally describes your feelings and/or behavior, or other people, or your current beliefs or issues, or 2. Does not generally describe your feelings and/or behavior, or other people, or your current beliefs or issues. Please mark your answers by indicating T (fo r true) or F (fo r fa ls e ) in the space provided. I f the statement generally is character­ is tic of you, your b e lie fs , or you agree with i t , mark T. I f i t is not generally ch aracteristic of you, your b e lie fs , or you do not agree with i t mark F. Before beginning, please complete the Information Sheet. A ll information w ill be confidential and you w ill not be id e n tifie d by name. 138 139 Before beginning the questionnaire please answer the questions below. I.D . Number_____________________ _______________________________ (-3 ) (4) Sex______________________________ ______________________________ (5 ) Age______________________________ _______________________________ (6) Year in college__________________ _______________________________ (7) Major (8-11) _______________________________ E xtra-cu rricu lar a c tiv itie s _______________________________ ( p o lit ic a l, so c ia l, relig io u s , honorary, e tc .) _______________________________ (12) Father's Occupation _______________________________ (13) Mother's Occupation _______________________________ (14) Father's Education _______________________________ (15) Mother's Education _______________________________ (16) Your religious preference _______________________________ ALL INFORMATION WILL BE CONFIDENTIAL Begin Work. 140 T or F 1- 1A) Becoming well rounded educationally is less important to me than knowing a lo t about one thing. 2. 2A) I am the sort of person who would jo in the Peace Corps or go overseas to help underdeveloped countries. 3. 3A) I t seems as though I cannot do anything w e ll. 4. 4A) God is the giver of a ll my tangible blessings. 5. 5A) I respect a s ta r a th le te as much fo r his a b ilit y as I do a famous s c ie n tis t. 6. 6A) Fundamentally, the world we liv e in is a p re tty lonesome place. 7. 7A) I don’ t reveal much about myself to people. 8. 8A) A fte r college, I 'd lik e a nice comfortable home and two cars. 9. 9A) No one should make serious plans because of the uncertainty of the fu tu re. 10 . 10A) I p refer spending time with friends more than by myself. 11. 11A) My friends tend to know where th ey're going in l i f e . 12 . 12A) My desire to learn takes precedence over almost every­ thing else in l i f e . 13. 13A) I don't lik e to have people t e ll me what to do. 14. 14A) High grades are worth working fo r no matter what the cost. 15. 15A) I would lik e to be more o f a scholar. 16. 16A) Power is happiness; happiness is power. 17. 17A) To influence others you must understand what goes on behind the scenes. 18. 18A) I lik e people to know about my achievements. 19. 19A) I usually tr y 20 . 20A) I ra re ly gamble unless I know the odds are in my favor. to bend people to accept my point of view. 141 T or F 21. 21 A) My body is very a ttra c tiv e to rnyself and others. 22. 22A) Let's destroy the r a c is t, c a p it a lis t ic , im p e ria lis tic , money sucking pigs and put power in the hands of the people. 23. 23A) The power of big corporations should be d ra s tic a lly reduced and people should stop being so m a te ria lis tic . 24. 24A) I think American society and everything about i t should change because we are so fa r behind. 25. 25A) Our government is destroying i t s e l f , the people of this country, and the people a ll over the world. 26. 26A) I am too busy with studies to do much serious dating. 27. 27A) You should walk over the other fello w before he walks over you. 28. 28A) What I enjoy most is a physical relationship with my ( g i r l ) (boy) frien d . 29. 29A) Small town hypocrites need to be educated and fin d out th e ir ideas a re n 't rig h t. 30. 30A) I place the welfare of society over the welfare of the in d iv id u a l. 31. 31A) Homosexuals are degenerates. 32. 32A) I would rath er remain free from commitments to others. 33. 33A) I r e a lly don't please anyone. 34. 34A) I lik e a fa s t man (or woman). 35. 35A) Sometimes you have to walk over people to get what want. 36. 36A) I t ' s good to know people in the rig h t places. 37. 37A) You c a n 't take your re s p o n s ib ilitie s too seriously. 38. 38A) Women have as much rig h t to sexual freedom as men do. 39. 39A) I f dropping names can help you get ahead, then do i t . you 142 T or F 40. (40A) I am a real push-over with others. 41. (41A) Learning to disobey au th o ritie s is an important f i r s t fo r children. 42. (42A) There are two kinds of people—weak ones and strong ones, 43. (43A) To give one's s e lf to the service of others is tru ly rewarding. 44. (44A) I get b u tte rflie s entering a room where people are gathered and ta lk in g . 45. (45A) I worry a great deal. 46. (46A) My closest friends are those with whom I can share thoughts and feelin g s . 47. (47A) I t ' s not worth i t to take a stand on any issue. 48. (48A) Nobody is ashamed of anything anymore. 49. (49A) Rules t ie me down. 50. (50A) I don't want any re s tric tio n s on my a c tiv itie s . 51. (51A) I do not lik e to accept old truths u n til I have tested them fo r myself. 52. (52A) Pain and s a c rific e are necessary i f one is going to succeed. 53. (53A) I feel superior to most people I meet. 54. (54A) I am a fra id o f having people re je c t me. 55. (55A) You re a lly have to commit you rself to your f ie ld in te re s t. of 56. {56A) Getting along w ith others is eventually more important than any in te lle c tu a l accomplishments. 57. (57A) I feel we need a sexual revolution in th is country to shake people up. 58. (58A) I s t i l l do n't know what I'm looking fo r in l i f e . 59. (59A) You do n't have to be in love to have sexualintercourse. 143 F 60. (60A One of my main goals in l i f e is to make a real contribu­ tio n to my chosen f ie ld . 61. (61A I cannot be content with being second-rate in my profes­ sion. 62. (62A I am eager to s ta r t my l i f e away from home. 63. (63A People should do th e ir own thing and they would be happier. 64. (64A I plan to devote my l i f e to the welfare of society when I graduate. 65. (65A I worry a lo t about the m orality of war. 66. (66A Happiness is a b o ttle o f vodka, a warm f i r e , and someone you love to keep you company. 67. (67A Man is a helpless and miserable creature. 68. (68A Let's do away with the class system and have equ ality fo r a ll men. 69. (69A I t ' s more typical of me to try to fin d happiness fo r the moment rath er than to plan fo r i t in the fu tu re . 70. (70A People need to take more pride in th e ir country. 71. (71A I treasure my a b ilit y to know what is rig h t and what is wrong. 72. (72A A pleasant state o f mind is the only thing to liv e fo r. 73. (73A I would rath er have peace o f mind than to be successful. 74. (74A I work hard fo r good grades to make my parents happy. 75. (75A The laws of society keep people from having a good time. 76. (76A The e n tire value system of the middle class should be revised. 77. (77A The world would be a b e tte r place i f a ll custom and tra d itio n were thrown out. 78. (78A I haven't been re a lly involved in anything during college. 144 T or F 79. (79A Social issues don't bother me much. 80. (80A I re a lly fe el uncomfortable when people are too dependent on me. 81. (81A I wish more people could be lik e me. 82. (82A 1 am a t my best when everyone 1s paying atten tio n to me. 83. (83A I 'd lik e to see the blacks and whites e ith e r get along or fig h t i t out. 84. (84A A re a lly meaningful relatio n sh ip is Impossible. 85. (85A The re s tric tio n s imposed on me by society are an a ffro n t to my independence and c r e a tiv ity . 86. (86A Success is most often a matter of simply tryin g harder. 87. (87A I am generally s e lf-c o n fid e n t. 88. (88A We should always protect our nation from outside attacks in any way we can. 89. (89A I f I had to choose between happiness and greatness, I'd choose greatness. 90. (90A Where there's a w i l l , th ere's a way. 91. (91A I believe there is a reasonable solution fo r every problem. 92. (92A I think students should be able to use a ll drugs le g a lly . 93. (93A A man who has not worked fo r some great cause has not r e a lly liv e d . 94. (94A America's main problems are social in ju s tic e and a com­ p le te ly corrupt law system. 95. ( 95A I fe e l so insecure I am unable to v is u a lize my fu tu re . 96. (96A I am r e a lly overburdened with things to worry about. 97. (97A I plan n\y moves c a re fu lly before trying anything. 98. (98 A I 'd lik e to have a s p lit-le v e l ranch s ty le home. 99. (99A I have frequently thought o f suicide. 100. (100A) When I get involved or excited about an idea, you c a n 't break me away from i t . 101 . (101A) I would rath er read a book than to go dancing. 102 . (102A) Unfortunately i t ' s necessary to r e s t r ic t the rig h ts of c e rta in p o litic a l groups, even though freedom of speech is a noble goal. 103. (103A) Assuming I had s u ffic ie n t le is u re tim e, I would lik e to use i t to develop a p a rtic u la r s k i l l . 104. (104A) I f you're going to accomplish something worthwhile, you save i t fo r the weekends. 105. (105A) I spend a lo t o f time try in g to fin d out what people are r e a lly lik e . 106. (106A) Being with someone o f the opposite sex is very import­ ant to me. 107. (107A) Knowing others only causes discord. 108. (108A) I f a person is sharp enough to cheat someone out o f a large sum of money, he should be allowed to get away with i t . 109. (109A) I spend a lo t o f time thinking about myself. 110 . (110A) I think students should s p e c ialize in a f ie ld as soon as they s ta r t college. 1 1 1 . (111A) L ife is more meaningful when you 're devoted to your f ie ld . 1 1 2 . (112A) Nothing is as important to me as being fre e . 113. (113A) Maybe some m inority groups do get rough treatment but i t ' s no business o f mine. 114. (114A) I have known what I wanted to be in l i f e since I have been in high school. 115. (115A) Knowing a person's weaknesses is a valuable s k ill in g ettin g what you want. 116. (116A) I would compromise i f i t meant no real v io la tio n of what I believe in . 146 T or F 117. (117A) I would rather work out a new way to solve a problem than follow a known way. 118. (118A) Social relationships are more important than in t e l­ lectual matters fo r me. 119. (119A) I'd lik e i t i f I could find someone who would t e ll me how to solve my personal problems. 120. (120A) I feel most content when I have a d e fin ite purpose in life . 121. (121A) I would lik e to know i f people rea lly lik e me. 122. (122A) I re a lly feel uptight when putting on a stunt at a party even i f others are particip atin g. 123. (123A) I follow the crowd only as much as I absolutely have to, 124. (124A) Standing up fo r what one believes in is more important than having'others lik e you. 125. (125A) I t is d if f ic u lt to lik e and respect a person with bad manners and habits. 126. (126A) I believe that I have a d e fin ite place in l i f e and that I must find i t . 127. (127A)I know I ' l l some day. make a great contribution to the world 128. (128A) I can understand why people would take advantage of someone who lays himself open to i t . 129. (129A)I f I had to choose where to go on a date, I'd pick a real expensive place. 130. (130A) I am usually confident of my a b ilit ie s . 131. (IB ) Success in college and getting married are my main goals fo r the future. 132. (2B) I am more interested in practical things than theoretical things. 133. (3B) I would be in favor of dividing the wealth i f i t could make everybody equal. 147 T or F 134. (4B) gain something from i t . 135. (5B) I ' l l do my own thing regardless of what people think of me. 136. (6B) 6B) I t ' s hard fo r me to be under someone's a u th o rity . 137. (7B) You r e a lly have to look out fo r yo u rself to make i t in th is world. 138. <8B) 8B) Most people ju s t d o n 't give a damn fo r others. 139. <9B) Even i f there is a ru le th a t says I c a n 't, I w i l l , and l e t the adm inistration be damned. 140. (1 OB Man's search fo r a purpose or ideal in l i f e is a story th a t is b a s ic a lly without meaning. 141. (11B .Too much of th is radical business is going on in the colleges. 142. (12B Happiness is g ettin g anything I want. 143. (13B I lik e to fig u re things out without any help from others. 144. (14B The d iscrim in ation against ra c ia l m inority groups in the United States is a real concern fo r me. 145. (15B I d o n 't have much o f a d ire c tio n in l i f e . 146. (16B P opularity is a necessity fo r g ettin g ahead in the world. 147. (17B We should liv e by the standards set by our founding fa th e rs . 148. (18B We must take some d ra s tic action to remove the Estab­ lishment from power. 149. (19B I am uncertain what I am going to do with my l i f e - th a t i s , get m arried, have a career, e tc . 150. (20B G etting ahead in the world is very important to me. 151. (21B I p re fe r f r ie n d ly , warm and outgoing groups. 152. (22B Every date should be a conquest. 148 T or F 153. (23B) I lik e to do whatever I feel and believe. 154. (24B) Nothing can be done about the world situ atio n , so why try . 155. (25B) Nothing is going to change except for the worse. 156. (26B) Lots of good things come my way; but I ju s t can't decide what to do. 157. (27B) I feel very upset when I think about the starvation in the world today. 158. (28B) I am not very interested in anything rig h t now. 159. (29B) I don't believe in premarital sex. 160. (30B) I f everybody worked hard enough, we could solve most of America's problems. 161. (31B) Children should have more respect fo r th e ir parents. 162. (32B) There's too much diplomatic ta lk going on in the world and not enough ta lk "straight from the shoulder." 163. (33B) I t is extremely important that I achieve my educational and vocational goals. 164. (34B) I wish I could be a beachcomber. 165. (35B) To be apathetic about society's problems is a serious fa u lt. 166. (36B) I often feel as i f the world is passing me by. 167. (37B) I f I could get by with cheating on an exam, I would probably do i t . 168. (38B) I don't blame anyone fo r trying to grab a ll he can get in this world. 169. (39B) I f I do not fin is h what I s ta r t, i t sticks in my mind u n til I do i t . 170. (40B) I prefer a person of the opposite sex who is " ju s tifia b ly conceited." 171. {41B) I believe the individual is more important than society. 149 T or F 172. (42B Being contented and feeling loved are the tru ly important things in l i f e . 173. (43B The way to get the most out of l i f e is to take pleasure wherever one can find i t . 174. (44B The Establishment is not going to budge, no matter what we do or say. 175. (45B I occasionally make public protests over issues when I think they deserve i t . 176. (46B My a b ility to be genuine is my most valuable personal tr a it. 177. {47B I feel great when I accomplish something new. 178. (48B Happiness is satisfaction with one's values, goals and achievements. 179. (49B I look at sex s t r ic tly as physical pleasure fo r me. 180. {50B I usually ta lk a lo t at meetings so things usually go my way. 181. (51B I liv e l i f e the way I choose regardless of what others think. 182. (52B I am pretty inhibited in social gatherings. 183. (53B I f you don't lik e something, why stick with i t . 184. (54B L ife is so impersonal that my struggles don't seem to mean much. 185. (55B I feel hopeless about startin g up a conversation with someone I'd re a lly lik e to know. 186. (56B I feel ir r ita te d when people ask me to get involved in things. 187. {57B I feel uneasy in the company of cocky and self-assured people. 188. (58B I often cross the stre et in order not to ta lk with someone I know. 189. (59B The hippy l i f e looks pretty good to me. 150 T or F 190. (60B) My f i r s t thought is the satisfaction of my pleasures and desires. 191. (61B) I focus on the "here and now." 192. (62B) I envy the happiness others seem to have. 193. (63B) I frequently feel low. 194. (64B) I t 's not the past that is important, but i t is what I achieve in the future that counts. 195. (65B) I want a discussion to accomplish something constructive. 196. (66B) Every person should take his share of community resp o n sib ilities. 197. ( 67B) Duty to my fellow man is of high 198. (68B) Most a ffa irs outside importance of marriage are purely to me. physical. 199. (69B) The very idea of giving a ta lk in public scares me. 200. (70B) I f people would only t e ll me what to do, then there would be no problem. 201. (71B) I miss opportunities because I can't make up my mind soon enough. 202. (72B) Striking up a conversation with a stranger is re a lly hard. 203. (73B) I value most the a b ilit y to be truthful and outspoken even when my ideas do not agree with the ideas of those around me. 1 * o CM (74B) The mother's primary role should be centered in home a c tiv itie s . 205. (75B) I'd lik e to go as fa r in my fie ld as I can. 206. (76B) I f ones I love are unhappy, I couldn't be happy e ith e r. 207. (77B) You should f i t moral codes to each specific situ atio n. 208. (78B) I t is hard fo r me to be natural when I am with new people. 209. (79B) No one is re a lly content. 151 T or F 210. (80B) The future doesn't hold anything fo r me. 211. (81B) I couldn't stand going to a big party without having new clothes. 212. (82B) Voting is a part of good citizen ship . 213. (83B) I lik e to s t ir up some action when I feel bored. 214. (84B) I t takes a long while before I warm up to people. 215. (85B) I worry a lo t about n\y reputation and social image. 216. (86B) I can't think o f any way in which I would lik e to change. 217. (87B) People should give to helpful causes. 218. (88B) Sure, i f I'm needed I'd sell the underground newspaper. 219. (89B) My ideal person is one who knows what he wants in l i f e and goes a fte r i t . 220. (90B) Inwardly, I re a lly d is lik e putting myself out to help other people. 221. (91B) I re a lly dig a swinging party. 222. (92B) I don't lik e to be pressured by any kind o f authority into making personal decisions. 223. (93B) Students should be voting members of facu lty hiring and fir in g committees. 224. (94B) There is not enough privacy in our lives today. 225. (95B) I'd rather work fo r a cause I believe in than fo r a company which gives me a big salary. 226. (96B) Our government should never be disobeyed. 227. (97B) Sexual relation s should be permitted only a fte r marriage, 228. (98B) Many of today's social problems would be solved i f people were more moral. 229. (99B) Events happen too fa s t fo r me to re a lly grasp them. 230. (100B) I am overwhelmed about the suffering and death going 5n in the world today. 152 T or F 231. (101B I look fo r friends who can be useful to me. 232. (102B I generally feel useless. 233. (103B I would rather be an expert in some area than be popular. 234. (104B In a group people pay l i t t l e attention to me. 235. {105B What keeps me going is my own sense of ambitiousness. 236. (106B I am more r e a lis tic than id e a lis tic . 237. (107B Doing well at some a c tiv ity is more important than what a person is doing. 238. (108B Wife swapping between consenting couples is permissible. 239. (109B I take the world as i t comes. 240. (11 OB I don't f i t in at dances or p arties. 241. (111B I enjoy showing o ff in some way i f I get the chance. 242. (112B I seem, to be easily distracted from my work or studies. 243. (113B I would risk l i f e , property and freedom to fig h t fo r the princip le of equality among men. 244. (114B Most of my fantasies are about becoming an important and well known person. 245. (115B I don't speak up in class unless I re a lly have something important to say. 246. (116B Some students have rebellious ideas, but as they get older they s e ttle down. 247. (117B We would have a more peaceful world, i f moral values could be improved. 248. (11 SB I lik e to forget about a schedule and do things when I want to. 249. (119B I hardly ever in it ia t e a conversation. 250. (120B I am re a lly disturbed about the consequences of our expanding population. 153 T or F 251. 121B) I know I'm sexually desirable. 252. 122B) I t is important fo r me to pay someone back i f he does me a wrong. 253. 123B) Understanding how friends feel about various problems they have to face is important. 254. 124B) Individuals should be free to decide about premarital sex. 255. 125B) L ife c erta in ly gives me a raw deal. 256. 126B) I want to liv e my l i f e without conforming too much to other people's values. 257. 127B) Having a lo t of money is essential to me in order to buy the things I want. 258. 128B) I t ' s fun to be the l i f e o f the party. 259. 129B) A good philosophy is: 260. 130B) The fam ily structure is re a lly disintegrating today. 261. 1C) I t is n 't d if f ic u lt fo r me to understand the dedication of a Mozart or a Rembrandt. 262. 2C) I wish I knew what l i f e had in store fo r me. 263. 3C) When i t comes rig h t down to i t , I don't give a damn about anyone else but me. 264. 4C) Everything has a rational basis fo r its occurrence. 265. 5C) People need to learn how to enjoy l i f e each day and to get the most out of i t . 266. 6C) Pledging a social group is a good way to make the rig h t connections. 267. 7C) I lik e fo r people to notice and make comments about my appearance. 268. 8C) I am an in d iffe re n t person. 269. 9C) Appearance is a very important personal value to me. don't lend anything to anyone. 154 T or F 270. (10C) A person is better o ff i f he doesn't tru s t anyone. 271. (11C) War and c o n flic t w ill always e x is t because of man's essential human nature. 272. (12C) The only meaning to existence is the one which man gives to i t . 273. (13C) Nobody re a lly cares about me. 274. (14C) The father should remain the breadwinner in the home. 275. (15C) I feel g u ilty sometimes fo r not being more involved in a c tiv itie s . 276. (16C) At a ll times I try to be perfectly poised. 277. (17C) Abortion makes liv in g easier. 278. (18C) Close friendships can often become a burden. 279. (19C) I am looking fo r a comfortable l i f e to spend with someone I love who also loves me. 280. (20C) People should have as many new experiences as they can. 281. (21C) I t ' s best not to tru s t anybody very much. 282. (22C) People re a lly don't care about other people as much as they pretend. 283. (23C) I have a sense of d r iftin g with no p a rtic u la r goal in life . 284. (24C) In order to feel happy I must love and be loved. 285. (25C) The problems of the world are more important than personal friendships, these days. 286. (26C) America must always stand fo r it s basic principles. 287. (27C) To reach the top is the only thing that matters. 288. (28C) I feel I need to find my id e n tity . 289. (29C) There should be more emphasis on joy and fu lfillm e n t these days. 155 T or F 290. (30C Having a personal relation ship is too much e f fo r t . 291. (31C I ra re ly feel g u ilty when I have a lo t of fun. 292. (32C I f someone had my values, I think I could f a l l in love with th at person. 293. (33C When I look in the m irror I admire myself. 294. ( 34C Happiness is the status quo. 295. (35C I get as much enjoyment out of studying and learning as I do s o c ia lizin g . 296. (36C I fin d more s atis fa ctio n in doing one thing well than many things moderately w e ll. 297. (37C I t is a ll important to be aware and know what one is fe e lin g . 298. (38C One o f my ch ief concerns is to remain loose. 299. (39C My in d iv id u a lity is my most prized asset. 300. (40C I usually go along with the crowd. 301. (41C I regard strangers as b e tter than I . 302. (42C I fe e l anxious most o f the time. 303. (43C I am more talented than most people. 304. (44C I am not a motivated person. 305. (45C I fe e l I should be independent o f others in making n\y own decisions. 306. (46C I can understand how a person could devote a ll of his l i f e to his profession. 307. (47C The e n tire structure o f American society needs to be revamped. 308. (48C Few people care what society wants. 309. (49C S e lf understanding is the key to m aturity. 310. (50C There is nothing wrong with me. 156 T or F 311. (51C I 'd rath er date a lo t of d iffe re n t persons than keep a steady one. 312. (52C I appreciate a cheerful comment from a frien d when I fe e l low. 313. (530 I t ' s important to have a well rounded education in order to be of use to society. 314. (54C Happiness is having fa it h in oneself as an in d iv id u a l. 315. (55C Religious b e lie fs and morals need more emphasis today. 316. (56C Being kind is more important than success. 317. (57C Only considering one's own happiness is a p retty s e lfis h thing. 318. (58C A dultery, as long as never found out, is okay. 319. (59C I r e a lly enjoy w ritin g le tte r s to my friend s. 320. (60C I lik e to do things fo r my frie n d s. 321. (61C I can r e a lly con people into my way of thinking. 322. (620 L ife must be viewed as a game. 323. (630 We have a rig h t to re v o lt when peaceful dissent doesn't get us anywhere. 324. (640 Having the rig h t connections makes a ll the difference in the world. 325. (650 I frequently struggle with my feelings o f shyness. 326. (660 I want to discover new people and learn a ll about them. 327. (670 Often I fe e l th a t I never have any real goal in l i f e . 328. (680 I t seems rid iculo us to be enthusiastic about school work. 329. (690 My voice would never be heard even i f I stood up fo r my rig h ts . 330. (700 I am glad I am b e tte r than most people. 331. (710 I t ' s not worth i t doing things fo r other people because you w ill only get i t in the neck in the long run. APPENDIX C VALUE DIMENSIONS OF AMERICAN COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE 157 VALUE DIMENSIONS OF AMERICAN COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE A lie n a te d --passive, withdraw, uncommitted. Is n 't involved and doesn't care. Hasn't committed to anything and fe els hopeless, a sense o f f u t i l i t y shown, fe els th e re 's l i t t l e p o s s ib ility of change or improvement— people c a n 't help much. To some e x te n t, an opposite o f No. 10. II. A c t iv is t - -m i1i t a n t , concerned about working fo r change, may be deeply committed. Probably involved in various campus movements and ta lk s id e a lo g ic a lly about world issues. SDS members, other p o litic a l a c tiv is ts and protestors; some other types o f campus dissidents may f i t here. III. Perceptual G r a t ific a t io n - -a personal e x is t e n t ia lis t . S e lf and being are im portant, but he cannot be seen as alto g eth er narcis­ s is t ic . S e lfis h in the sense th at social and interpersonal con­ cerns tend to be closed out. A po licy fo r the here and now and me. May use LSD, smoke pot, concentrate on sensory experiences. Some element of disregard fo r social laws. May be prone to partying and could have some elements of a delinquent fla v o r. IV . Active Conformist— supporting the status quo is d es irab le, is tr a d itio n a lly -a u th o r ita tiv e ly oriented. Probably from general m iddle-class. Believes u n iv e rs itie s generally doing a good jo b , a c tiv e ly involved in tra d itio n a l c o lle g ia te a f f a ir s , shows middle class social values and may condemn others who d o n 't follow these values. Somewhat achievement oriented. V. Lonely— a fra id o f the world around him, unhappy and wishes he were not. Feels overwhelmed by the happenings in the w orld, both his personal world and the world in general. He is affected by them, but finds i t hard to take constructive a ctio n . May spend time alone, does daydreaming, wants interpersonal re la tio n s h ip s , but finds them hard to a tta in . V I. Gameplayer-- p o l i t i c a l , a w heeler-d ealer, a m anipulator. S tirs up issues, works as a s tr a te g is t. May be a "big man on campus," back-clapper, values relatio n sh ip s fo r where they w ill take him and what he can get from them. Probably has Roberts' Rules of Order memorized. Tends to be s u p e rfic ia l in re la tio n s h ip s , but nonetheless values them as s o lid . 158 159 V II . D r ift e r — along fo r the r id e , uninvolved, follow ing the path of le a s t resistance. He attaches himself to what is going on, but never commits to i t . He may be a frin g e pro tester on occasion or a d r if t e r from one group to another, or from one issue to another. V III. Fieldcommitted— special f ie ld o f in te re s t, may be committed to an in te lle c tu a l area, have narrow aesth etic in te re s ts , be p r i ­ m arily involved in sports, a jo b , or some other area to the exclu­ sion of more s o c ia lly oriented concerns. This may include some types of engineering and science students, some business areas, e tc. Or, wants to spend a l l his time studying or pursuing some singular in te re s t. Probably has few frie n d s . Generally in a c tiv e in other pursuits. A somewhat narrow o rie n ta tio n to l i f e . IX. S e lf-R e a liz e r— goal oriented fo r himself in a meaningful way, but is not a 6 or 11. Integrates personal and social values, but doesn't accede to social pressures unless they are personally meaningful. Has a q u a lity of movement and s triv in g with personal involvement. Shows good ego strength. X. Interpersonal Relations— shows a f f i l i a t i v e needs, some sense o f a ltru ism , is personally focused on re la tio n s w ith others as good, growth-producing and valuable. Not "thing" o rien ted . Values friend ship s, shared experiences with others, has an in te ra c tio n a l concern and love. X I. Narcissist--concerned w ith looks, physique, values s e lf well above others. S e lfis h — excludes others. Loving him self or his ego, s e lf-c e n te re d , unable to form deep relatio n sh ip s w ith others, overly s e n s itiv e . May be a c la ss ica l n a rc is s is t but in a narrow sense. X II. Freedom Independent— desires to be unfettered by personal in h ib i­ tions or social pressures. Shows desire to be completely freed from control and a u th o rity and excludes any p a rtic u la r in te re s t in social values. Finds i t d i f f i c u l t to make a commitment to longer range values other than these— i . e . other l i f e processes. X III. Humanitarian— qeneric social in te re s t and concern, unselfish in a humanitarian way, concerned w ith peace and general w e lfa re . Has involvement in some projects and organizations which may help to a lle v ia te human s u ffe rin g . May be candidates fo r Peace Corps, V is ta , Teachers' Corps, e tc . Concerned w ith broad social issues rath er than d ire c t personal concern fo r another in d iv id u a l. May be seen as civic-m inded, interested in community a f f a ir s , but more in an organizational than extremely personal way. APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE 160 QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE 1. What do you value most about yourself? 2. Are there important ways in which you would lik e to see yourself changed? I f yes, in what ways? 3. What concerns you most at present? (a) In your personal l i f e ; and (b) in the world around you? 4. Are there important ways in which you would lik e to see American society changed? I f yes, in what ways? 5. What do you mean by happiness? 6. What do you most want to get out of your college experience this year? 161 How important is i t to you? APPENDIX E INTERCORRELATION MATRIX ON VALUE DIMENSIONS FROM PILOT SAMPLE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM MICHIGAN AND MISSOURI 162 INTERCORRELATION MATRIX ON VALUE DIMENSIONS FROM PILOT SAMPLE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM MICHIGAN AND MISSOURI. Value Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Alienated 1 1.000 A c tiv is t 2 .296 1.000 Perceptual G ra tific a tio n 3 .331 .436 1.000 Active Conformist 4 .260 -.1 18 .102 1.000 Lonely 5 .401 .116 .135 .276 1.000 Gameplayer 6 .394 .178 .532 .380 .179 1.000 D r ifte r 7 .474 .256 .314 .112 .573 .258 1.000 Field Connri tted 8 .137 .154 .131 .283 .042 .235 -.150 1.000 S elf Reallzer 9 .098 .183 .337 .358 -.055 .294 -.063 .445 1.000 Interpersonal Relations 10 -.132 .113 .067 .184 .009 .026 -.066 .039 .192 1.000 Narcissist 11 .195 .064 .276 .359 .043 .497 .064 .243 .256 .093 1.000 Freedom Independent 12 .266 .500 .489 -.176 .190 .251 .257 .056 .179 .022 .005 1.000 Humanitarian 13 .020 .383 .074 .111 .102 -.035 -.009 .296 .191 .301 .044 .203 13 1.000 APPENDIX F A GRAPH OF ORIENTATION AND GRADUATION VALUE DIMENSIONS' STANDARDIZED MEANS FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THE INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY 164 A GRAPH OF ORIENTATION AND GRADUATION VALUE DIMENSIONS* STANDARDIZED MEANS FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THE INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY. I = Orientation Standardized Means : = Graduation 1.0 * = Significant change from orientation to graduation at the .05 level .9 .8 .7 .6 165 .5 .4 .3 a i a a .2 .1 a <£ * -u Vt > *r“ 4-> U O *r- 44-> C O O C CJ o —I in >» 4) C. s4) >> <0 s~ o. ai 4) +-> 4- ,— e Field Committed ■o <0 c 4) •r“ c o »r— r— +J 10 r— 4 - r— i— to a> O Q. *i— S. +-> at io •u C 4J l-« OC +J I/I ■ c— 1/1 in •r- o i_ (0 4-> C a) ■o E C o a/ TJ CL 4) 4> •r- c 10 E 3 □C