INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy o f a document sent to us fo r microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations 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 through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you o f complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been film ed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “ sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin film ing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have film ed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. Z EEB RD.. A N N A R B O R . M l 4 8 1 0 6 8202407 C a h il l , S t a n l e y P a t r ic k AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS INVOLVED IN MISCONDUCT AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Michigan State University University Microfilms International Ph.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106 1981 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V 1. Glossy photographs or pages______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______ 3. Photographs with dark background______ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______ copy__ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_____ 11. Page(s)________ • author. 12. Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. lacking when material received, and not available from school or 13. Two pages numbered____________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. . Other______________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS INVOLVED IN MISCONDUCT AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY By Stanley Patrick Cahill A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in p a rtia l fu lf illm e n t of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS INVOLVED IN MISCONDUCT AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY By Stanley Patrick Cahill Purpose of the Study The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether students involved in disciplinary incidents at Northern Michigan Uni­ versity were representative of that campus's general student population. I f not, then did these students possess sim ilar demographic, academic, and financial characteristics that tended to distinguish them from the general population of nonoffenders? Methodology The sample used in this study consisted of 1,541 disciplinary cases on f i l e in the Dean of Students Office at Northern Michigan Uni­ versity from winter semester, 1972, through winter semester, 1978, in which a student was assigned a discip lin ary status of probation or greater. In addition, 100 students were randomly selected fo r each semester from winter, 1972, through w inter, 1978, fo r comparative pur­ poses with the disciplinary population. Seven variables were selected for use in the study. They were sex, age, college residence, financial aid , curriculum, class standing, Stanley Patrick Cahill and place of permanent residence. A chi-square s t a t is t ic and a t^-test were used in the analysis of the data. Major Findings 1. There was a disproportionately higher number of males than females in the offender population. 2. The majority of the offender population was under 21 years 3. Most offenders resided on campus. 4. There was a disproportionately lower number of student of age. offenders receiving financial aid than there was in the general univer­ s ity student population. 5. Student offenders in the curricula of Arts and Sciences, Business, and Education were a ll overrepresented. 6. The number of freshman and sophomore offenders was dispro­ portionately higher than would be expected. 7. Student offenders who were permanent residents of Michi­ gan's upper peninsula were underrepresented, whereas offenders from lower Michigan and out of state were found to be in disproportionately higher numbers than would be expected. 8. Female nonoffenders had s ig n ific a n tly higher semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages than a ll the other groups with whom they were compared. 9. Male and female nonoffenders had higher semester, cumula­ t iv e , and high school grade point averages than th e ir counterparts in the discip lin ary group. Stanley Patrick Cahill 10. Offenders receiving financial aid had s ig n ific a n tly lower grade point averages than did nonoffenders also receiving financial aid. 11. Offenders receiving aid had higher grade points than offenders not receiving aid. Conclusions 1. Male offenders are consistently overrepresented in d is c i­ pline studies. However, more recent investigations suggest an increase in female participation in college misconduct. 2. A d e fin ite relationship appears to exist between poor aca­ demic performance and involvement in misconduct. 3. The younger student is more prone to become involved in a disciplinary offense. 4. Students required to liv e on campus are more susceptible to involvement in disciplinary infractions. 5. Financial aid recipients seem to have a more serious a t t i ­ tude toward college and consequently were less involved in discip lin ary infractions than other students. 6. Students who lack a d e fin ite career objective are more lik e ly to become involved in incidents of misconduct than are other students. 7. Underclassmen who are not from Michigan's upper peninsula have a greater tendency to become disciplinary offenders because of new group and in s titu tio n a l requirements imposed on th e ir personal style of liv in g by the university. Stanley Patrick Cahill Recommendations 1. The un iversity's ju d ic ia ry program coordinator should work with representatives from the various academic colleges to develop a preventive discip lin e program. 2. A bi-annual review of the residence hall s t a f f training program in regard to discipline should be conducted. 3. A student on academic probation should have his d is c i­ plinary record considered before allowing him to continue his academic program. 4. Consideration should be given to a continuing student's disciplinary record before deciding whether he should be granted a financial aid award from the university. 5. A group of students, fa cu lty , and s t a f f should be estab­ lished to annually review the university's ju d ic ia l program. This study is dedicated to the following individuals without whose support and encouragement none of this would have been possible: Lynda Adele Cahill Meagan Elizabeth Cahill Kirsten Lynn Cahill W illis and Margret Conover Brian Wayne Cahill Gayle Ann Sullivan Louis C. Stamatakos and f in a l l y to my parents, Stanley and V irgin ia M. C a h ill. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................. v Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 Purpose ......................................................................................... Need for the S t u d y ................................................................. Scope of the S t u d y ................................................................. Limitations of the Study ..................................................... Hypotheses and Methodology ................................................. Definition of Term s................................................................ S e t t i n g ......................................................................................... 3 4 8 9 10 14 16 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................................................... 18 Summary......................................................................................... 39 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 43 General Design of the S tu d y ................................................. S u b j e c t s ..................................................................................... Collection of the D a t a ......................................................... Offense Categories ................................................................. Analysis of the D a t a ............................................................. H y p o th e s e s ................................................................................. 43 48 48 49 50 52 ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A .................................... Discussion of Chi-Square and Significance Levels . . Introduction ......................................................................... S e x ............................................................................................. A g e ............................................................................................. College Residence ................................................................. Financial A i d ......................................................................... C u r r ic u lu m ............................................................................. Class S t a n d i n g ..................................................................... Permanent Residence ............................................................. Discussion of the T-Test Results ..................................... Introduction ......................................................................... S e x ................................ iii 55 55 55 55 56 56 57 58 58 59 60 60 61 Page V. College Residence ..................................................................... Class S t a n d i n g ............................ C u r r i c u l a ................................ Financial Aid ......................................................................... Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 61 62 62 62 63 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 67 Overview of the S t u d y ................................................................. Purpose......................................................................................... S a m p l e ......................................................................................... Methodology................................................................................. H y p o t h e s is ................................................................................. Major Significant Findings and Discussion ............................. S e x ................................................................................................. A g e ............................................................................ College Residence ..................................................................... Financial A i d ............................................................................. C u r r ic u lu m ................................................................................. Class S t a n d i n g ......................................................................... Permanent Residence ................................................................. Comparison With Other Studies ................................................. Conclusions..................................................................................... Recommendations ............................................................................. Northern Michigan University ............................................. Recommendations for Further Research ............................. General Recommendations ......................................................... Personal Learning Experience ................................................. 67 67 70 71 71 71 72 74 75 77 79 83 85 86 88 91 92 95 97 98 APPENDIX................................................................................................................. 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY 125 ......................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Page Selected Demographic Factors of the Student Population of Northern Michigan University, 1977-1978 101 Selected Demographic Factors of the Student Offender, Nonoffender, and General University Population at Northern Michigan University, 1977-1978 ................................. 102 Selected Demographic Factors of the Student Offender, Nonoffender, and General University Population at Northern Michigan University, 1977-1978 . . . ................ 103 Observed and Expected Frequencies of Offenders in Each Violation Category in Regard to the Variable Sex . . . 104 Observed and Expected Frequencies of Offenders in Each Violation Category in Regard to the Variable Age . . . 105 Observed and Expected Frequencies of Offenders in Each Violation Category in Regard to the Variable College Residence .......................................................................... . 106 Observed and Expected Frequencies of Offenders in Each Violation Category in Regard to the Variable Financial A i d .................................................................................. 107 Observed and Expected Frequencies of Offenders in Each Violation Category in Regard to the Variable Class S t a n d i n g .............................................................................. 108 Observed and Expected Frequencies of Offenders in Each Violation Category in Regard to the Variable C u r r ic u lu m ...................................................................................... 109 Observed and Expected Frequencies of Offenders in Each Violation Category in Regard to the Variable Permanent Residence ...................................................................... 110 Chi-Square and Significance Levels for the Independent Variables and Each Offense Category in the D isci­ plinary OffenderPopulation ........................................................ Ill v Page 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Sex and the Dependent Variable of Semester Grade Point Average............................................................................................. 112 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Sex and the Dependent Variable of Cumulative Grade Point A verage............................................................................................. 112 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Sex and the Dependent Variable of High School Grade Point A verage............................................................................................. 112 A Comparison of Semester, Cumulative, and High School Grade Point Averages of Offender and Nonoffender Groups in Regard to S e x ............................................................. 113 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of College Residence and the Dependent Variable of Semester Grade Point A verage................................................................................. 114 J-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of College Residence and the Dependent Variable of Cumulative Grade Point A verage..................................................................... 114 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of College Residence and the Dependent Variable of High School Grade Point A verage..................................................................... 114 A Comparison of Semester, Cumulative, and High School Grade Point Averages of Offender and Nonoffender Groups in Regard to College Residence ................................. 115 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Financial Aid and the Dependent Variable of Semester Grade Point A verage............................................................................................. 116 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Financial Aid and the Dependent Variable of Cumulative Grade Point Average................................................................................. 116 vi Page 22. T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Financial Aid and the Dependent Variable of High School Grade Point Average................................................................................. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 116 A Comparison of Semester, Cumulative, and High School Grade Point Averages of Offender and Nonoffender Groups in Regard to Financial A i d ......................................... 117 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Class Standing and the Dependent Variable of Semester Grade Point.Average...................................................................... 118 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Class Standing and the Dependent Variable of Cumulative Grade Point.A verage..................................................................... 118 T"Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Class Standing and the Dependent Variable of High School Grade Point.Average..................................................................... 119 A Comparison of Semester, Cumulative, and High School Grade Point Averages of Offender and Nonoffender Groups in Regard to Class Standing ..................................... 120 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Curric­ ulum and the Dependent Variable of Semester Grade Point A verage................................................................................. 121 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Curriculum and the Dependent Variable of Cumulative Grade Point A verage..................................................................... 122 T-Test Results for the Comparison Between Nonoffenders and Offenders on the Independent Variable of Curriculum and the Dependent Variable of High School Grade Point A verage..................................................................... 123 A Comparison of Semester, Cumulative, and High School Grade Point Averages of Offender and Nonoffender Groups in Regard to Curriculum Enrolled ............................. 124 v ii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Discipline in a college environment is a necessity i f students are to grow and develop not only in t e lle c tu a lly but also socially and emotionally. To ensure students a ll the rights and privileges that have been accorded to them by the courts, procedures for the adjudica­ tion of infractions of a college's rules and regulations are prevalent on most campuses. However, most of these procedures are reactive rather than proactive in th e ir approach. That is , the individuals charged with implementing the disciplinary system only come into contact with students who have already committed a v io la tio n . L i t t l e , i f anything, is done by the majority of colleges to prevent violations of campus regulations. Mueller concurred: Unfortunately i t is the weakness rather than the strength of preventive work that characterizes the present day campus pro­ grams fo r discip lin e. . . . The personnel o ffic e r must take the lead in launching his own specific educational campaigns. Why he has not done so has been a matter for his own conscience, only when such preventive campaigns become a matter for the con­ science of the general professional or personnel workers as a whole, may we expect to see actual progress.* Wrenn, apparently agreeing with Mueller, said, "a discipline program should attempt to prevent conditions that cause delinquent \ a t e Hevner Mueller, "Problems in the Discipline Program," Personnel and Guidance Journal 34 (March 1956): 416. 1 behavior." 2 Yeager reported Williamson as saying, "An important approach to the prevention of disciplinary cases is the early id e n ti­ fic a tio n and counseling of individuals who are l ik e ly to become involved in misconduct." 3 Osborne, Sanders, and Young supported Williamson's contentions: One of the basic assumptions of college counseling and guidance programs is that early preventive counseling w ill reduce the number and seriousness of student personnel adjustment problems and disciplinary offenses. . . . Where i t is not possible to give a ll students the benefit of personal adjustment counseling, the standard operating procedure is to attempt to screen out dis­ c ip lin a ry prone students for early individual attention and coun­ seling. 4 In 1955, T r u it t conducted a study of the organization, admin­ is tr a tio n , and operation of student disciplinary programs at ten selected un iversities. Of his findings, T r u it t remarked that "Per­ sonnel administrators revealed that the overall function of the d is c i5 pline program should be preventive and remedial in nature." Although i t has been agreed that preventive programs need to be developed, the incentive to do so appears to be lacking. The only overt practice used by many colleges and universities that could per­ haps be considered preventive is the publishing and d istrib ution of th e ir student rules and regulations. I t is apparent that at least o C. G ilbert Wrenn, Student Personnel Work in College (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1951), pp. 472-73. O Don Cornelius Yeager, "An Analysis of Selected Characteris­ tics of Male Students Involved in Misconduct at Arizona State Univer­ sity" (Ph.D. dissertation , Arizona State University, 1972), p. 16. 4Ibid. 5 John Willard T r u i t t , "A Study of Student Disciplinary Programs in Ten Selected U niversities," Dissertation Abstracts 15 (1955): 1537. 3 some educators agree on the importance on the preventive aspect of the disciplinary program. However, the reasons for in s titu tio n s remain­ ing complacent about this issue remain unclear. Student development theorists intimate th a t, i f accepted, the inherent principle on which th e ir philosophy is based can, in and of i t s e l f , be a preventive disg ciplinarymeasure. I t is not known whether, in developing and imple­ menting a wide variety of student programs, the majority of student personnel administrators believe that these programs w ill have a posi­ tiv e e ffe c t on the prevention and/or reduction of disciplinary problems. Purpose The purpose of this study was to analyze selected characteris­ tic s of male and female students involved in incidents of misconduct at Northern Mi chi gan University from winter semester, 1972, through winter semester, 1978, and who received a penalty of probation, sus­ pension, or expulsion. This time period was chosen for two reasons. F ir s t, the data for these years were readily available and second, previous researchers, s p e c ific a lly LeMay,^ indicated that a study of d iscip lin ary offenders spanning at least fiv e to six years would he necessary to produce findings of any consequence. Through the exami­ nation of the results obtained in this study, the researcher w ill attempt to determine whether students involved in disciplinary ^"A Student Development Point of View of Education" (paper discussed in Education 882, Seminar in College Student Personnel, Michigan State- University, Fall Term, 1972, Louis C. Stamatakos, Professor). ^Morris LeMay, "College Disciplinary Problems: A Review," Journal of College Student Personnel 9 (May 1968): 184. 4 incidents are representative of the general student population. If they are not, then do these students possess sim ilar demographic, academic, fin a n c ia l, and racial characteristics that would tend to distinguish them from the population of nonoffenders? Need for the Study Before i t becomes possible to channel incoming or currently enrolled students for "personal adjustment counseling" or whatever procedures a college chooses to employ in working with discip lin aryprone students., these students must f i r s t be id e n tifie d . Knowledge of a commonality of characteristics that would tend to distinguish these students from others would seem to be a necessity i f student •personnel administrators are to be perceived as serious in th e ir attempts to reduce discip lin ary problems on campus. Investigations of these characteristics would also serve as an overt commitment to the concept of preventive d is c ip lin e . However, while there has been l i t t l e substantive research in the general area of d is c ip lin e , inves­ tigations s p e c ific a lly studying the "characteristics of offenders" have been even more rare. Packwood believed that the small amount of research on discipline is attributed to the fa c t that the concept and d e fin itio n of discipline and, there­ fo re , the c r it e r ia fo r judging an individual as a disciplinary case keep changing and the fact that the concept involves sev­ eral variables which cannot be adequately managed for research purposes, granting that they can even be id en tified.® Tisdale and Brown offered another perception, that is : O William T. Packwood, College Student Personnel Services (S pring field , 111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1977), p. 266. 5 Although considerable interest has been expressed in students whose conduct brings them before college disciplinary committees, few published a rtic le s have presented data concerning these stu­ dents. The reasons fo r this paucity are not e n tire ly c le a r, although possible reluctance on the part of some college admin­ is tra to rs to making such information public may be a fa cto r. Bailey, in an early study, made the following observation on the research on discipline in higher education: The most striking fa c t about the lite r a tu r e on discipline is it s paucity. There are occasional papers dealing with the p h il­ osophy of discipline and the administrative organization for discipline both in theory and in practice. The published case studies are fragmentary and scattered and evaluation studies and accounts of practicable means for preventing discip lin ary cases from arising are completely la c k in g .'0 Bailey, in speculating about the absence of published studies concern­ ing disciplinary cases, attributed the reasons for this as being a reluctance of adminstrators to acknowledge the existence of miscon­ duct among students, a fa ilu r e of personnel administrators to re a liz e the value of such studies, and a general lack of in te re s t on the part of investigators to conduct research in this a re a .^ Gladstein's examination of doctoral research revealed nodoc­ toral dissertations on the topic of discipline prior to 1950, and only ten a fte r that date.^2 Several of the studies that have dealt with °John R. Tisdale and Fredrick G. Brown, "Characteristics of College Misconduct Cases," Journal of College Student Personnel 6 (November 1965): 359. W. Bailey, "Disciplinary Procedures," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Walter S. Monroe (New York: Macmillan, 1941), p. 296. 11 I b i d . , p. 1330. 12G. A. Gladstein, "Doctoral Research in College Student Personnel Work: Past, Present, Future" (speech read at the APGA Convention, Washington, D.C., April 1966). 6 the characteristics of disciplinary offenders have generally centered on the male student. However, even in this area, research is lacking. Bevilacqua and Dole concurred in stating , "Among the r e la tiv e ly few studies on collegiate d is c ip lin e , noticeably absent are empirical longitudinal investigations of the characteristics of male students referred fo r misconduct involving serious offenses of university social’ regulations." 13 The research that has been conducted about the characteristics of d iscip lin ary offenders has often been inconclusive due to small samples, time periods covered, or has been inconsistent when compared with the findings of other studies. For example, Packwood cited the findings of some of these studies below to ill u s t r a t e some of the inconsistencies that do exist in the available research: Disciplinary d i f f ic u l t i e s were more l ik e ly to involve younger students on campus and those students are disproportionately l i k e l y to be male. Disciplined students have been found to have the same scholastic a b i l i t y as the rest of the student body and to have less scholastic a b i l i t y ; to have lower grade point averages and sim ilar grade point averages. Other studies suggest that the fathers of offenders do not have particu lar occupational backgrounds; offenders are more l ik e ly to get into disciplinary d i f f ic u l t i e s again, and offenders are more l ik e ly to involve fr a te r n ity and sorority members.^ While the preventive aspect of a disciplinary program is cer­ t a in ly important, Bevilacqua and Dole also believed that "in a time when social codes seem to be in tra n s itio n , knowledge of the offenders' demographic, social, and academic characteristics might assist in Joseph P. Bevilacqua and Arthur A. Dole, "Characteristics of Male Disciplinary Students at a Catholic University," Research in Higher Education 3 (1975): 19. ^Packwood, College Student Personnel Services, p. 266. developing appropriate retention programs." 15 To provide the in fo r ­ mation for personnel administrators that would be necessary for designing appropriate disciplinary prevention and retention programs, a strengthening of descriptive studies of students involved in mis­ conduct is of prime importance. LeMay recommended that a study be completed covering a f iv e - to six-year time span, grouping disciplinary referrals according to the type of offense and by the sex of the o ffe n d e r.^ Those researchers who have conducted investigations concern­ ing the characteristics of disciplinary offenders have, in a majority of cases, recommended further study in this area. Interest has seem­ ingly waned in this f ie ld a fte r a b rie f burst of enthusiasm in the midto late 1960s. Relatively few researchers have seen the necessity to explore this area fu rth er. However, i t is believed that much can s t i l l be learned about the disciplinary offender. Generally, such knowl­ edge could be of v ita l importance in developing and implementing measures to prevent and/or reduce the number of discip lin ary incidents on campus. I t could also be of assistance to admissions personnel in th e ir recruiting e f fo r t s , beneficial fo r s t a f f working with newstudent orie n ta tio n , and important for s ta ff-tra in in g e ffo rts for campus security personnel, residence h a l l, and counseling center s t a f f . S p e c ific a lly , i t is f e l t that a more thorough understanding of the demographic, academic, fin a n c ia l, and racial characteristics of the 15 Bevilacqua and Dole, "Characteristics of Male Disciplinary Students at a Catholic University," p. 19. 16 LeMay, "College Disciplinary Problems: A Review," p. 184. 8 dis c ip lin a ry offender at Norhtern Michigan University can assist the Dean of Students s t a f f in developing preventive disciplinary programs of a pragmatic nature. In so doing, i t is believed that perhaps some of those students who might become involved in disciplinary d i f f i c u l ­ tie s and, as a consequence of th e ir behavior, be forced to leave campus, can be id e n tifie d e a rly , perhaps during new-student orienta­ tio n , and provided with appropriate assistance so that th e ir involve­ ment in a discip lin ary incident becomes less l i k e l y . In addition, the investigator believes that knowledge of the characteristics of the discip lin ary offender can be of value in the training of undergraduate residence hall s t a f f assistants. Such knowledge would enable the s ta ff to possess a more complete understanding of those who are most inclined to vio la te the un iversity's rules and regulations and thereby provide the s t a f f with an opportunity to channel those individuals into posi­ tiv e developmental experiences. Scope of the Study The study w ill include those cases of reported violations of university rules and regulations on f i l e in the Dean of Students Office fo r the academic years 1972 through winter semester, 1978. Only those male and female students who received a penalty of warning probation or greater w ill be considered in the study. Cases on f i l e in the Dean of Students Office were adjudicated by e ith e r an Associate or Assistant Dean of Students, a Resident Director, the Residence Hall Judiciary, or the Student-Faculty Judiciary. A survey of the cases revealed that the majority of offenses occurred in the residence 9 halls and were processed by a Resident Director. Demographic and academic information maintained by the Records O ffice, financial aid data kept in the Financial Aids O ffice, the American College Testing (A.C.T.) information f ile d in the Admissions Office w ill be used in studying the disciplinary offender. This information w ill be tabu­ lated, then analyzed by using two s ta tis tic a l techniques: square and the t - t e s t . the chi These tests w ill be helpful in determining the v a lid it y of the research hypothesis for this study. Limitations o f the Study Of the approximately 1,800 disciplinary cases processed by the Dean of Students Office between the winter semester, 1972, and winter semester, 1978, only those students who were given a disciplinary sanction of warning probation through expulsion were examined. Cases in which the student was found not g u ilty are not kept on f i l e by the Dean of Students Office but immediately destroyed a fte r the hearing is completed. The investigator did not believe that those students given only a warning, the lig h te s t disciplinary penalty, merited inclusion in the study. Those students accounted fo r less than 1 per­ cent of the entire disciplined population. When students received only a penalty of Warning, th e ir involvement in a disciplinary in fra c ­ tion was f e l t to be minimal. Therefore, th e ir impact on this research was believed to be in s ig n ific a n t. In addition, vocational s k ill center students enrolled at Northern Michigan University have entrance requirements d iffe rin g from those of regular academic students. The variables that the 10 investigator wished to study were not readily available fo r vocational students. Therefore, any vocational student involved in a disciplinary incident was also excluded from this study. The total disciplined population was composed of less than 1 percent of vocational s k ill center students. Variables that were not included in this study, but were found in several others, were marital status; socioeconomic status of the father; method of entry to the college, i . e . , d ire c tly from high school, a community college, junior college, or from another four-year in s titu tio n ; high school rank; involvement in varsity a th le tic s ; mem­ bership in a f r a t e r n it y or sorority; and psychological characteris­ tic s . In addition to information being unavailable for some of the above-mentioned variables, the investigator, in reviewing other studies, was not persuaded to believe that many of these variables played an important role in the id e n tific a tio n of characteristics of the dis c ip lin a ry offender. Hypotheses and Methodology In choosing to investigate the characteristics of male and female d is c ip lin a ry offenders, the researcher was attempting to deter­ mine i f these students possess s im ilar demographic, academic, finan­ c i a l , and racial characteristics that would tend to distinguish them from the population of nonoffenders. In reviewing the research com­ pleted on the characteristics of discip lin ary offenders, many contra­ dictions seem to e x is t. These contradictions appeared to be due to any number of factors, among them being size of sample, time period 11 covered, incomplete or unavailable data, and inherent in s titu tio n a l differences, i . e . , size, reputation, public versus p rivate, etc. However, some characteristics have, more often than others, been found to be associated with the discip lin ary offender: the offender is young, 18 to 20 years of age, a freshman or sophomore, enrolled in the College of the Arts and Sciences, ranked in the lower ha lf of th e ir high school graduating class, possessing a cumulative grade point average of 2.00 or less, male, an ou t-o f-state resident, and liv in g on campus. S p e c ific a lly , the research hypothesis for this study w ill incorporate the above characteristics in addition to one previously uninvestigated factor: financial aid status of the student offender. Therefore, the research hypothesis that has been developed for this study is: Students involved in incidents of misconduct w ill be male, 20 years of age or younger, underclassmen, enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences, possess a semester and cumu­ la tiv e grade point average of 2.00 or less, w ill be f u l l ­ time students, liv e on campus, w ill not be residents of the upper peninsula of Michigan, and w ill not be receiving financial aid. In stating the primary null hypothesis, the investigator believed i t necessary and prudent to develop a comprehensive statement without regard to specific offense categories. This hypothesis is as follows: In relation to each of the selected variables, there are no s ign ifican t differences between students id e n tifie d as d is ­ c iplin ary offenders and students in the general campus popu­ latio n at Northern Michigan University. 12 While the primary null hypothesis is comprehensive in nature, the following sub-nul1 hypotheses were also developed for each offense category. 1. There are no s ig n ific a n t differences within the selected variables under the offense category of General Regulatory Statement. 2. There are no s ig n ific a n t differences within the selected variables under the offense category of Drugs. 3. There are no s ig n ific a n t differences within the selected variables under the offense category of Alcohol. 4. There are no s ig n ific a n t differences within the selected variables under the offense category of Social Violations. Social Violations include: violation of the residence hall v is ita tio n p riv ile g e , violation of the residence hall quiet hour policy, personal abuse and harassment, violation of the regulation regarding members of the opposite sex in residence h a lls , the regulation regarding overnight guests in residence h a lls , and the un iversity's dress code. 5. There are no sig n ific a n t differences within the selected variables under the offense category of Physical Violations. Physical Violations include: destruction of property, dis­ orderly conduct, disruption of ju d ic ia l hearings, gate crashing, disruptive conduct, noncompliance with o f f ic ia l requests from university o f f i c i a l s , a th le tic a c tiv it ie s in residence h a lls , and water, food, and shaving cream fights in residence h a ils . 6. There are no s ig n ific a n t differences within the selected variables under the offense category of Safety Violations. Safety violations include: dangerous materials such as com­ bustibles, turning in a false alarm of f i r e , fireworks, weapons in the residence h a lls , candles in the residence h a lls , and e le c tric a l appliances that are unauthorized for residence hall use. 7. There are no s ig n ific a n t differences within the selected variables under the offense category of Theft. Theft includes: removal of food from the c a fe te ria , fraudulent receipt of goods and services, possession and use of university property, and movement of furniture in the residence halls. 13 8. There are no s ig n ific a n t differences within the selected variables under the offense category of Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous violations include: academic dishonesty; false testimony a t university hearings; le tte rin g ; f a ls if ic a t io n of records and id e n tific a tio n ; smoking in unauthorized locations on campus; s o lic itin g , s e llin g , and publicizing without proper permission; unauthorized use of sound-amplifying equipment; unauthorized use of the university's name; unauthorized use of antennas in the residence h a ll; fa ilu r e to bus your tray in the c a fe te ria ; housing a pet in the residence h a ll; unauthor­ ized posting of notices; unauthorized room changes in the residence h a ll; unauthorized removal of screens from a r e s i­ dence hall room; and fa ilu r e to comply with d iscip lin ary decisions. The methodology used in this study is sim ilar yet not id e n ti­ cal to that used by Yeager. I t was believed that the general approach and methodology used by Yeager provided a good basis fo r a follow-up study. This study, however, goes beyond that completed by Yeager in several aspects, i . e . , time period covered, the inclusion of females in the sample, more specific and a greater number of offense cate­ gories are used, a greater number of variables are used, and one new variable not appearing in previous descriptive studies concerning the characteristics of the discip lin ary offender is also included. The sample consisted of approximately 1,550 discip lin ary cases on f i l e in the Dean of Students Office at Northern Michigan University from winter semester, 1972, through winter semester, 1978 (a six-year period), in which a student was assigned a penalty of warning proba­ tion or greater. Information for the study was obtained from the Student Directory, the Records O ffic e , the Registrar's O ffic e , the Financial Aids O ffice, and the Dean of Students O ffice. 14 A chi-square s t a t i s t i c , used in "testing a hypothesis that a certain proportion of a population exhibits a particu lar a t t r i b u t e , " ^ and a t - t e s t , used to determine whether two means are s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t at a selected probability le v e l, sis of the data. 18 were used in the analy­ One hundred students were randomly selected for each semester from winter, 1972, through winter, 1978, for comparison with the discip lin ary population. D efinition of Terms Due to the nature of this study and because of the use of terminology associated with the processing of disciplinary action that may be unfamiliar to the reader, the following working d e f in i­ tions are provided. Misconduct: A violation of the established rules and regula­ tions of Northern Michigan University. Student Code: A document formulated through the combined e ffo rts of students, fa cu lty , and administrative personnel to inform a ll members of the Northern Michigan University community about what is expected of students in regard to th e ir social behavior. Offense: A violation of the university's student rules and regulations. Offender: An individual committing a violation of the estab­ lished university rules and regulations for students. 17 L. R. Gay, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e rrill Publishinq Co., 1976), p. 202. 18Ib i d . , p. 160. 15 Adjudication: The entire process of due process in handling a d iscip lin ary case from the point of the alleged infraction to the point of a fin a l decision. D isciplinary case: A specific incident involving one or more alleged violations of regulations. Discipline population: The to ta l number of students enrolled at Northern Michigan University during the time period covered by the study. Resident d ir e c to r : The housing administrator responsible for a ll aspects of the student development program in a residential unit housing from 150 to 375 students. I f a student pleads g u ilty to an incident of misconduct, a resident director can adjudicate the case i f i t does not subject the student to a penalty of suspension or expul­ sion. Residence Hall Judiciary: An o f f i c i a l l y constituted body whose purpose is to hear a ll cases in which students plead innocent to alleged infractions of university regulations that do not include sus­ pension or expulsion as maximum penalties. Student-Faculty Jud iciary: An o f f i c i a l l y constituted body consisting of students, fa c u lty , and administrative personnel whose purpose is to hear a ll cases in which students plead innocent to alleged infractions of university regulations that include maximum penalties of suspension or expulsion should the individual be found g u ilty . Warning probation: A temporary status during which further violations of the Student Code may resu lt in more severe discip lin ary 16 action. Warning probation may not exceed four months but may include additional conditions that are deemed relevant and appropriate to the p a rtic u la r case. Disciplinary probation: A temporary status during which further violations of the Student Code may result in suspension or expulsion. This penalty may not exceed one year but may include addi­ tional conditions which are deemed relevant and appropriate to the particu lar case. Suspension: student. Termination of a student's status as an enrolled This penalty may not exceed one year but may include other conditions that apply to the time the disciplinary decision is ren­ dered or to a period following the student's reinstatement. Expulsion: Termination of a student's status as an enrolled student fo r an in d e fin ite period of time. Setting Northern Michigan University is located on the shores of Lake Superior in Marquette, a c ity of 24,000 inhabitants. Northern's main campus covers 300 acres, with another 175 acres used for summer research camps. The to ta l student population numbers 9,000, with approximately 7,500 undergraduates and 1,500 graduate students. The student population consists of individuals from p ra c tic a lly every1 state, with several foreign countries also represented. However, most of the students are from the Michigan-Wisconsin geographical area. Approximately 3,400 students reside on Northern's campus. At the end of f a l l semester, 1977, the mean cumulative grade point average for 17 a ll undergraduate students was 2.61. At that same time, the cumula­ tive grade point average fo r a ll residence hall students was 2.56. During the 1976-77 academic year, the average A.C.T. score for Northern students was 18.6 compared to a national average of 18.4. In the following chapters, the investigator w ill present a review of previous and current lite r a tu r e pertaining to the d is c i­ plinary offender, an analysis of the data collected at Northern Michi­ gan University concerning the approximately 3,000 disciplinary offenses that occurred there from 1972 to 1978, and a summary of the findings made in relation to these data. In addition, the conclusions of the investigator based on the findings w ill be presented. The conclusions w i l l , in conjunction with the information contained in the review of the l it e r a t u r e , provide the basis for recommendations to educators and future investigators. In the fin a l chapter, the investigator allows himself the privilege of making speculations and inferences about the study, it s meaning, and the learning experience i t provided. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The importance of id e n tific a tio n and conceptualization of characteristics associated with certain individuals and/or groups has been defined by Magoon and Maxwell and, i t is believed, can be appropriately extended to include the discip lin ary offender. In 1965, these writers published an a r t i c l e in the Journal of College Student Personnel that discussed, in p a rt, the implications of research whose primary objective was to study selected demographic, academic, and sociological factors of a specific group. Succinctly, they said, The u t i l i t y of such material is prim arily c l i n i c a l , i . e . , in increasing the amount of information available to an individual in understanding the characteristics of another. The research use of such data is doubly useful, however. I t enables con­ ceptualizing common characteristics of large numbers of in d i­ viduals, and i t f a c i l it a t e s the making of more systematic, normative interpretations of the characteristics of any in d i­ vidual or subgroup o f in d iv id u a ls ^ In the following paragraphs, the investigator w ill elaborate on the importance of including the chosen variables in this study, to discuss a variety of proactive measures that might be implemented based on information obtained from th is and sim ilar studies, and to explain the importance of and need for the id e n tific a tio n of 18 19 characteristics associated with a particu lar individual and/or group, in this instance, those of the disciplinary offender. A discussion of the importance of the variables used in this study and to what extent they could be important to student personnel administrators w ill follow prior to discussing the findings of other researchers who have investigated the characteristics of disciplinary offenders. Through proper collection and s ta tis tic a l analysis, demographic and general information such as home address, college residence, age, year in school, month of incident, number involved in the incident, the number of incidents in which a student was involved, the semester committed and the offense committed, could permit the researcher to draw inferences about the disciplinary offender. The above-mentioned variables have been used in many of the studies investigating the characteristics of disciplinary offenders, and, in many instances, i t has been found that the academic as well as demographic variables do possess a certain correlative significance in predicting the type of student who is l ik e ly to become involved in a discip lin ary i n c i ­ dent. The investigator is of the b e lie f that the use of variables such as a student's fin a n c ia l-a id status and race w ill also prove to be sign ifican t predictors of disciplinary offenders. The variables used in the present study, while kept in d i f ­ ferent o ffic e s , were r e la t iv e ly easy to obtain and could be gathered prior to the beginning of each academic year for the purpose of iden­ tify in g students who have a better-than-average probability of becoming involved in a disciplinary incident. Such a proactive measure would 20 allow student personnel administrators to plan a c tiv it ie s such as the following: 1. Disperse disciplinary-prone students throughout a r e s i­ dence hall system, thus preventing, insofar as possible, the proba­ b i l i t y of a large random grouping of such students in one hall or on one flo o r. Implementing this suggestion may, in the long run, help residence hall s t a f f to avoid spending an inordinate amount of time on disciplinary problems. The investigator would not encourage the development of a flo o r , h a ll, or housing complex in which d is c ip lin a ry prone students would be housed since such a liv in g environment could create a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophesy in regard to these students. I t is also f e l t that no positive results would be obtained from such a l i v ­ ing arrangement. 2. Provide training sessions for residence hall s t a f f that place emphasis on certain areas of the conduct code that are more li k e l y to be violated, o ffe r assertiveness training techniques for handling disciplinary situations, discuss community-development tech­ niques and th e ir effectiveness, and require training in basic academic and personal advising techniques. 3. Involve counseling center personnel in the development of preventive discipline programs a fte r predicting the probable nature and size of this population. 4. Develop required new-student orientation sessions for students with characteristics sim ilar to those involved in d is c i­ plinary incidents. Such sessions could subtly emphasize the many 21 opportunities for personal and academic development, thus directing such students toward positive alternative behaviors. The remainder of this chapter is a survey of the lite r a tu r e discussing the findings and implications of other research studies concerned with the characteristics of disciplinary offenders. Since the American system of higher education began with the establishment of Harvard College in 1630, college fa c u ltie s and admin­ istra tio n s have been concerned with the housing, health, general welfare, and social control of th e ir students. 2 Brubacher reported that Throughout the colonial period and well into the nineteenth century in s titu tio n s of higher learning had voluminous rules prescribing student conduct to the minimalist d e t a il. Nothing seemed too ins ig n ific an t on which to le g is la te , from hours of study and play to the cut of one's clothes and modes of courtesy. Early student disturbances seem to have been due in part to the oppressive s p i r i t engendered by overregulation. Therefore, i t was thought to be a great step forward when, toward the end of the nineteenth century, these rules, were relaxed and sometimes discarded. The new policy was that i f young men were treated lik e gentlemen they would behave lik e gentlemen. This o p ti­ mistic view seemed to work well enough u n til the la te 1950's, when there was an outbreak not only of c iv il disobedience and violent rio tin g but also of boorish manners and obscene speech.3 One probable reason for the inordinate number of regulations mentioned by Brubacher was that from.the early 1600's throughout most of the 1800's students were, on the average, only 14 years of age. Most were boys whose families could be categorized as. "w ell-to-do." 2 Eleanor N. Schetlen, "Disorders, Deans, and Discipline: A Record of Change," Journal of National Association of Women Deans and Counselors 30 (Summer 1967): 169. 3 John S. Brubacher, The Courts and Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I n c . , 1971), p. 15. 22 Studies of the characteristics of those involved in "acts of mis­ behaviors" during this period were e ith e r esoteric or nonexistent since there was no specific o ffice (or individual) that was designated as prim arily responsible fo r student behavior and/or the dispensing of penalties until 1869. At that time, Swarthmore opened with a matron to "oversee the conduct and health of the young w o m e n . P r i o r to this occasion, enforcement of the regulations was a prerogative of the college president, who was authorized to act in loco parentis. However, Schetlen has said that "trustees and, at one time or another, almost everyone connected with the college participated in enforcing regulations." 5 With so many taking responsibility for the disciplinary process, i t was d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, for any meaningful research regarding the characteristics of disciplinary offenders to be conducted. In fa c t, i t was not until a fte r the early years of this century that theories concerning student misconduct began to appear. As a consequence of such theory development, i t was only as recently as 1952 that any systematic research was attempted in the areas of offender characteristics. Researchers at the University of Minnesota, under the leader­ ship of E. G. Williamson, were interested in the hypothesis that "students that commit misbehaviors are a random sample of students 4 Schetlen, "Disorders, Deans and Discipline: A Record of Change," p. 169. 5Ibid. in general."^ Williamson and his fellow researchers based th e ir hypothesis on the assumption that students undergo certain "tra n s i­ tional readjustments" when moving away from a more sim plistic l i f e style to the independent s e lf-s u ffic ie n c y that is characteristic of a college or university environment.7 Records of 1,570 students involved in discip lin ary infractions at the University of Minnesota were examined for the academic years 1941-42 through 1947-48. careful examination of the results, the data revealed: After (1) students involved in disciplinary cases over the seven-year period represented less than 2 percent of the total student population of the university; (2) cases involving men occurred more frequently than those involving women, in proportion to the male-female ra tio of the student body; (3) more students enrolled in the Arts College were involved in mis­ conduct, while the Graduate School and the College of Agriculture had less than the average number of disciplinary offenders; (4) freshmen, sophomores, and juniors were found in the discip lin ary population in s lig h tly , but not s ig n ific a n tly , larger numbers than were found in the general student body; (5) students involved in d iscip lin ary cases were average in rank fo r a ll freshmen in high school grades and in aptitude test scores; (6) disciplinary caSes involving ou t-o f-s ta te students occurred in greater proportion than was true of the general student body; and (7) students residing o ff campus accounted for more than 70 percent of the cases. Williamson concluded that students ^E. G. Williamson, W. Jarve, and Barbara Lagerstadt-Knudson, "What Kinds of College Students Become Disciplinary Cases?" Educa­ tional and Psychological Measurement 12 (1952): 608. 7Ibid. 24 involved in incidents of misconduct were not s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t from students in general. 8 The thoroughness of Williamson's research was not replicated un til 17 years la te r when Caskey and Duvall completed a study of selected characteristics of a ll disciplinary offenders involving action resulting in probation or suspension at Texas Technological University for a six-year period from 1963-69. 938 d iscip lin ary cases. Their population consisted of The average age of students in the sample was 19.5 years, with a class standing of s lig h tly below sophomore. majority of the students were males. A Mean cumulative grade point average was 1.72; mean semester grade point average was 1.57; and the average class load was 14 hours a semester. The average socio­ economic condition of the students' families was just above the s k illed occupational le v e l. The average sanction imposed for the total sample tended toward probation. The researchers also found that more often offenses were committed by individuals rather than groups. 9 Four of the primary findings of the study were: (1) freshmen had considerably more than th e ir share of disciplinary offenses; (2) the College of Arts and Sciences and Business Administration had 6 percent and 5 percent, respectively, higher rates of disciplinary offenders than th e ir percentage of enrollment would indicate; (3) male 8 Ibid. g 0. L. Caskey and Virginia Duvall, "A Study of Selected Char­ a c te ris tic s of All Disciplinary Offenders Involving Action Resulting in Probation or Suspension at Texas Tech University for the Six-Year Period 1963-69" (ED 040 473). students committed only 37 percent of the offenses as individuals, whereas 63 percent of the offenses involving female students were committed by individuals as opposed to a group; and (4) grade point averages of offenders were considerably and consistently lower than the all-campus grade point averages.^ In addition to the above find ings, the researchers indicated several d is tin c t differences between the male and female student offenders. were s lig h tly older than the females: On the average, the males 19.5 versus 19.2, respectively However, female students had higher grade point averages and enrolled in s ig n ific a n tly more semester hours than did the male students. In addition, the two groups were s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t on a ll three College Entrance Examination Board scores. higher on the math and total scores. Female students scored Comparison of the male and the female student offenders' CEEB test math and verbal scores with the 1968 entering freshmen's scores indicated that student disciplinary offenders scored only s lig h tly lower than the 1968 entering fresh­ men.^ There were s ig n ific a n tly more group offenses among male stu­ dents than female. In addition, the socioeconomic scale did not vary s ig n ific a n tly between these two groups, both being just above the s k ille d le v e l. The two groups did, however, d i f f e r s ig n ific a n tly in regard to the d iscip lin ary sanction imposed; i . e . , male students received suspension more often than did female students. 12 26 In a sim ilar yet smaller study, Bevilacqua examined selected measures of demographic, social, and academic characteristics for a male disc ip lin a ry population at Villanova University. His hypothesis was sim ilar to Williamson's in that he posed the question of whether there would be s ig n ific a n t differences between male disciplinary stu­ dents, graduate and undergraduate, and a comparison group of V i l l a ­ nova male students in two succeeding graduating classes on selected variables. 13 The study also examined the a b i l i t y of these variables to predict membership in eith er group from one graduating class to the next. There were 32 subjects in the 1964-68 time period and 47 for the 1965-69 time period. An equal number of students, not involved in a d iscip lin ary s itu a tio n , were selected for the compari­ son group from the graduating classes of 1968-69. In the class of 1968, Bevilacqua found that graduating disciplinary students tended to be on-campus residents and sons of college graduates. Nongraduat­ ing d is c ip lin a ry students were more lik e ly to have lower grade point averages, were less involved in a c t i v i t i e s , were sons of w hite-collar workers and college graduates, and from more nonmanufacturing home towns than comparison students. 14 In the class of 1969, graduating d iscip lin ary students were more lik e l y to have higher SAT math scores and grade point averages and to be college-prep graduates, athletes, and sons of professional workers than comparison students. Non­ graduating dis c ip lin a ry students were more li k e ly to be campus 13 Joseph P. Bevilacqua, "Characteristics of Male Disciplinary Students at Villanova University" (Ph.D. dissertation , University of Pennsylvania, 1972). 27 residents, to have lower grade point averages, higher SAT verbal and comparative reading scores, higher secondary school ranks, to have come from home towns with less manufacturing emphasis, and to have graduated from public secondary schools than comparison students. 15 The findings of Bevilacqua's research d i f f e r from those of other studies done in this area. He found no consistent evidence th a t, as a group, disciplinary refe rra ls were academically or i n t e l ­ le c tu a lly in f e r io r , younger or less receptive to counseling services than students who were not involved in disciplinary problems. Yeager also conducted research concerning selected character­ is tic s of male students involved in misconduct. His population con­ sisted of 234 cases of male students involved in misconduct at Arizona State University during the period covering the f i r s t and second semesters of the 1967-68 and 1968-69 academic years. The findings of his study indicated that male students in the disciplinary population were characterized by a number of common factors that tended to set them apart from male students in the university population. Students in the disciplinary group were more l ik e ly to be under 21 years of age, freshmen, to be enrolled in e ith e r the College of Liberal Arts or the College of Business Administration, and to be ranked in the second quarter of th e ir high school graduating class. They tended to have cumulative grade point averages of below 2.00, be out-ofstate students, liv in g on campus, and a member of a fra t e r n it y . From 28 the results, Yeager concluded that students in the misconduct group were not representative of the population of the university. 1 f\ Much of the research about disciplinary offenders in the col­ lege or university setting was concerned primarily with the male student. However, in 1969 a study was completed by Brousseau at Marquette University that dealt s p e c ific a lly with determining the characteristics and differences among women resident offenders and nonoffenders. Women residents disciplined by one of three ju d ic ia l boards during the 1967-68 academic year were classified as offenders. A random sample of on-campus female residents was used as the control group. The c r i t e r i a for comparison consisted of university and demo­ graphic variables, grade point averages, and test results of the sub­ jects on the College Entrance Examination Board tests and the Adjective Check List (ACL) te s t. The findings of Brousseau's study revealed that the discipline subjects as a group, when compared to the nondiscipline group, were younger and fin a n c ia lly supported by th e ir parents, came from better economic-educational backgrounds, and tended to rank in the lower three-fourths of th e ir high school graduat­ ing c la s s J 7 As a group, the offenders indicated less academic achievement as evidenced by a lower grade point average. However, there was no s ig n ific a n t difference in the academic potential of the offenders and the nonoffenders as measured by College Entrance ^Yeager, "An Analysis of Selected Characteristics of Male Students Involved in Misconduct at Arizona State University." ^7Mary Aline Brousseau, "A Comparison of Disciplined and Non-Disciplined Women Residents, Marquette University, 1967-68" (Ph.D. dissertation, Marquette University, 1969). 29 Examination Board (CEEB) te s t scores. On the ACL, disciplined sub­ jects were characterized as having self-concept characteristics of less order and endurance, and needs of succorance, aggression, and abasement.^ A study whose purpose was to contribute to the basic under­ standing of the factors involved when certain individuals get them­ selves in disciplinary situations while others do not was undertaken by Parker at,Michigan State University. His population con­ sisted of freshman males enrolled during the f a l l semester of 1958 who came from the Standard Metropolitan S ta tis tic a l Areas. The dis­ cipline groups consisted of those situations reported to the Dean of Students Office during the f a l l term. Matriculation data collected were size of the metropolitan area, c e n tra l-c ity growth r a te , outsidec e n tra l-c ity growth rate , parental education le v e l, fa th e r's occupa­ tio n , College Q ualification Test scores, Test of C r itic a l Thinking scores, Michigan State University Reading Test scores, and D ifferen­ t i a l Values Inventory scores. In applying a m ultiple discriminant function analysis technique to the data, a reading-socioeconomic background function d iffe re n tia te d the groups at a .07 level of sig­ nificance. The remaining functions resulting from the analysis were of negligible s t a t is tic a l significance. 19 Ibid. 19 0. B. Parker, "An Analysis of Metropolitan Male College Students Involved in Discipline Problems" (Ph.D. dis s e rta tio n , Mi chi gan State University, 1964), p. 61. 30 Wrenn discussed an early study of students involved in dis­ ciplin ary incidents that was completed by Koepske at the University of Minnesota. 20 She found that males were prim arily involved in dis­ orderly conduct, whereas females were involved in misconduct. She d iffere n tia te d between the two categories by defining disorderly conduct to include such violations as fighting or excessive drinking and misconduct as the infraction of numerous dormitory regulations. Wrenn commented that the large number of women misconduct cases was related to the fact that the majority of women involved in such dis­ cipline situations lived in dormitories that had a considerable number of regulations. In contrast, approximately 63 percent of the men involved in discip lin ary incidents lived o ff campus or at home. Koepske found that the Cooperative English Test scores for those in the discipline category were s ig n ific a n tly lower than those not in this category. This was p a rtic u la rly true in regard to men. There was a marked difference between th e ir English test scores and the test scores for men in general. Since this was true for almost every clas­ s ific a tio n of offense, i t was suggested that there may be a language or semantic factor involved in the extent to which students abide by reg ulation s.^ The studies in the lite r a tu r e concerning discip lin ary offenders generally compared a group of offenders that had been assigned a wide variety of penalties to a control group. 20 However, Schoemer, in his C. G. Wrenn, "Student Discipline in a College," Educational and Psychological Measurement 9 (1949): 625-33. 21I b i d . , p. 625. 31 1 research at Indiana University, compared only those students who were suspended to students who had not been previously involved in any misconduct incidents. The purpose of his study was to discover whether students suspended from the university for disciplinary reasons were characterized by common factors in th e ir backgrounds and college records that tended to distinguish them from other students at the university. 22 Schoemer had three major thrusts to his research. The f i r s t was to survey 273 students suspended during the academic years 1951-52 through 1964-65 and to classify for analysis the types of disciplinary offenses and other appropriate campus characteristics relating to the offenses. The second was an analysis of the academic and intelligen ce factors of the 141 students suspended during the academic years 1960-61 through 1964-65. The third and fin a l area was an analysis of the various sociological and demographic characteris­ tic s of the suspended group. A review of the study's findings in d i­ cated that in terms of family background and in te lle c tu a l aptitude, the suspended student had the same opportunity for success in college as did other students; he compared favorably with nonsuspended stu­ dents on family composition and socioeconomic le v e l, and in te lle c tu a l capacity. 23 However, the findings also revealed him to be a rather passive, apathetic ind ividu al. He was disinclined to participate in the academic and extracurricular a c tiv itie s available as evidenced by 22 J. R. Schoemer, "An Analysis of Students Suspended From Indiana University for Disciplinary Reasons" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1966), pp. 76-77. 32 his lack of participation in a c tiv it ie s and organizations and by the fact that he was not li k e l y to occupy any formal positions of leader­ ship in his peer group. Academically, Schoemer described the typical suspension case at Indiana to be a th e ft or burglary occurring on campus during the second semester and to be perpetrated by a sopho­ more on academic probation. The individual was ty p ic a lly a male, 20.8 years of age, and had had a previous disciplinary record. Schoemer also discovered that over one-half of the suspended students returned to the university a f te r th e ir suspension period had passed. Of the remaining group, 20 percent withdrew before graduation, 55 per­ cent graduated, and 25 percent were s t i l l attending when he concluded his study. Only one student was suspended a second time. 24 In a study completed in the early 1960's at Columbia Univer­ s ity , T e r r i l l indicated that disciplinary offenders could most lik e ly be described as 19-year-old females and 20-year-old males. Her study was not s p e c ific a lly concerned with the disciplinary offenders but rather with specific incidents of campus misbehavior and procedures used in discip lin ary c a ses.^ Tisdale and Brown studied the records of 130 students involved in discip lin ary incidents during the 1961-62 academic year at Northern Iowa University. 26 In analyzing th e ir data, they found that the group consisted of primarily male underclassman students from large c it ie s . 25 Isabel T e r r i l l , "Disciplining Students in College," Disser­ tation Abstracts 25 (July 1964): 331. 26 Cases." Tisdale and Brown, "Characteristics of College Misconduct 33 The offenders tended to be freshmen liv in g in f r a t e r n it y or sorority houses and enrolled in the College of Engineering or Sciences and Humanities. They were also more l i k e l y to be in d i f f i c u l t y again and to leave school without graduating. 27 An analysis of personality and demographic factors concerning students involved in disciplinary infractions at Central Michigan Uni­ versity was completed by Bealer in a dissertation study at Michigan State University. 28 The intent of his study was an attempt to d is ­ criminate between offenders and nonoffenders with measures of per­ sonality, demographic data, academic majors, curriculum, and th e ir tenure at the university. His population consisted of 92 male and 36 female students who were involved in discip lin ary incidents during the 1960-64 academic years at Central Michigan University. The data were analyzed with the multiple discriminant analysis technique. Variables making the largest contribution to the discrimination were: personal educational aspirations and peer parental relationships on the f i r s t discriminant function, and rank in class and impulse expres­ sion on the second discriminant function fo r males. For females, i t was involvement in extracurricular a c tiv it ie s and rank in class on the f i r s t discriminant function, and rank in class and religious attend­ ance on the second discriminant function. I f an ind iv id u a l's scores were low, he was l ik e ly to be involved in misconduct. 28 Conversely, i f J. E. Bealer, "An Analysis of Personality and Demographic Factors Concerning Students Involved in D isciplinary Problems" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967). 34 his scores were high, he was less lik e ly to be involved. Bealer found these relationships to be consistent for both sexes. In 1967, Kaiser and Britton conducted a discipline study at Kansas State University involving 59 male residence hall discip lin ary 29 offenders. A control group of the same size was selected fo r com­ parative purposes. Thirty d iffe re n t factors were obtained from uni­ versity records for analysis in the study. A significant difference in in te lle c tu a l factors was found when the two groups were compared on college and high school grade point averages. The discipline group was found to be lower in both potential and performance. The curricu­ lum chosen also differed s ig n ific a n tly between the two groups. Agri­ culture and engineering were disproportionately represented in the control group, whereas general, biological science, social science, physical education, and participation in varsity athletics were sig­ n ific a n tly disproportionately represented in the discipline group. The researchers did not find age to be a distinguishing factor between the dormitory-housed predominantly freshmen and sophomores. Jones, in 1968, completed a study of the characteristics, perceptions, and values of students who were placed on discip lin ary probation or suspended at the University of Tennessee during the academic years 1964-65 and 1965-66. 30 His control group consisted of on Herbert E. Kaiser and Gale B ritto n , " In te lle c tiv e and NonIntel le c tiv e Characteristics of Students Involved in Dormitory Disci­ pline Problems," The Journal of College Student Personnel 8 (November 1967. D o n a ld Evert Jones, "Characteristics, Perceptions, and Values of Students Who Were Placed on Disciplinary Probation or Suspended at the University of Tennessee During the Academic Years of 1964-65 and 1965-66," Dissertation Abstracts, Id e n tific a tio n No. 29.8-A/2481. 35 126 students; 88 were in the probationary group and 14 in the sus­ pended group. The students involved in disciplinary incidents tended to be open, mobile, isolated, less bright (as measured by the high school grade point averages and ACT scores), and freshmen or sopho­ mores. There were no s ig n ific a n t differences in the CCI scores when comparisons were made between: 1. 2. 3. 4. the sample and probation groups: a. enrolled in the college of education, b. from home towns with populations between 100,000 and 250,000, and c. graduating from high schools with graduating classes numbering from 50 to 100; the sample and suspended groups from out of state; the probation and suspended groups with ACT composite scores less than 22; and the suspended, probation, and sample groups in regard to place of residence.31 Jones also compared the values of the three groups by again using the CCI scales. He found no s ig n ific a n t differences when com­ parisons were made between: 1. 2. 3. the sample and probation groups: a. the home towns with populations about 25,000, b. graduating from high schools with graduating classes numbering between 50 and 100, c. enrolled in a college of education, and d. enrolled in a college of engineering; the sample and suspended groups: a. not owning automobiles, b. residing in residence h a lls , c. from out of s tate , and d. from home towns with populations between 12,000 and 50,000; and the probation and suspended groups: a. residing in residence h a lls , b. residing o ff campus, and c. from home towns with populations between 1Q0,000 and 250,000.32 31Ibid. 36 In 1968, Johnson conducted an investigation, the purpose of which was to study differences of educational and personality char­ a c te ris tic s between two groups of male college student d iscip lin ary offenders and a random sample of nonoffenders.“ consisted of 103 male nonoffenders, while His control group his discipline groups con­ sisted of 93 males involved in minor misconduct and 135 males involved in th e ft and burglary offenses. year period. were: The time of the study covered a one- Twelve d iffe re n t variables were used in the study. They college residence, admission year, age at admission, urban/ rural status, academic aptitude test rank, high school rank, course withdrawal, college grade point average, graduation/nongraduation status, and the raw scores as well as "T" scores of the 13 basic scales of the MMPI. Both the single-variable approach and the m u lti­ variate approach were used to analyze the variables. The single­ variable approach yielded no sign ifican t differences among the three c rite rio n groups on: college residence, admission year, age at admission, academic aptitude test rank, high school rank, or college grade point average. He did find that the students defined as "rural" were involved in both minor misconduct and th e ft and burglary offenses more often than "urban" students. In addition, he found that d is c i­ plinary offenders had more course withdrawals than did nonoffenders but graduated from the University of Minnesota more often than did the nonoffenders. 33 The MMPI results showed s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t Duane Monroe Johnson, "Educational and Personality Char­ a c te ris tic s of Two Groups of College Disciplinary Offenders," Dissertation Abstracts, Id e n tific a tio n No. 30/5-A/1867. 37 differences among the three groups on 8 of the 13 basic scales. He stated that his findings suggested that disciplinary offenders could be id e n tifie d by means of educational and personality variables and th a t, fu rth e r, the groups must be helped and treated in d iffe re n t manners. Research completed by Filder at the University of South Carolina in 1974 concerned the state of residency of students involved in major discipline offenses during the ten-year period from 1963 to 1973. 34 F ild e r's sample consisted of 346 students found g u ilty of conmitting a major offense by the university discipline committee. His results indicated the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. O ut-of-state students committed major offenses in greater numbers than would be expected based on the percent of these students and the to ta l male undergraduate popula­ tion; ou t-o f-s ta te students from the middle a tla n tic states committed a greater number of discipline offenses than those from the southern states based on the re la tiv e percent of a ll undergraduate male students enrolled at USC from these regions; over ha lf of both ou t-o f-s ta te and in -s ta te offenders were freshmen; and ou t-o f-s ta te offenders graduated almost twice as often in the lower h a lf of th e ir high school class as compared with in -s ta te counterparts. Fild er suggested the following recommendations to the student a ffa irs division at the University of South Carolina: 1. 2. admissions policies rela tin g to ou t-o f-state male students should be period ically reviewed; the incidents of major discipline offenses by o u t-o f-state students should be a matter of continued observation; and Paul T. F ild e r, "Analysis of Students Committing Major Discipline Offenses During the Ten Year Period 1963-73 by State of Residence," ERIC Id e n tific a tio n No. ED 082 629. 38 3. state residences should be considered a research variable in other student studies. In a study of d is c ip lin a ry cases at the I l l i n o i s Normal School, Bazik and Meyering found that student offenders and nonoffenders tended to have equal a b i l i t y but that offenders earned lower grades and more males than females became d iscip lin e cases. and were primarily freshmen and sophomores. The offenders were younger 35 Two researchers from Brigham Young University, Jackson and Clark, conducted an investigation to study students involved in thefts on campus. 36 They explained the reasoning for th e ir s e le c tiv ity in choosing only individuals involved in th e ft cases as follows: The administration of d is c ip lin a ry action has been one of the most d i f f i c u l t areas for workers in student personnel services, and i t has been found at many u n iv e rs ities , including Brigham Young, that students involved in th e ft constitute a large pro­ portion of the d iscip lin ary cases. . . . Theft is found to be the most frequent major crime committed in American colleges and u n iv e rs itie s .37 The purpose of Jackson and Clark's study was to attempt to determine the characteristics of those students apprehended for t h e ft. In so doing, the researchers f e l t that counseling of students with sim ilar characteristics might help to eliminate or reduce the number of thefts. The study consisted of 120 students involved in thefts between January 1, 1952, and February 1, 1956, at Brigham Young 35 Bevilacqua and Dole, "Characteristics of Male Disciplinary Students at a Catholic University," pp. 19-27. o/r Karma Rae Jackson and Selby G. Clark, "Thefts Among College Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal 46 (April 1958): 557-62. 39 University. The researchers defined th e ft as larceny, robbery, bur­ glary, embezzlement, and ille g a l promotional "undertakings." Their null hypothesis was, "Students apprehended for th e ft do not d if f e r from the general population of students at Brigham Young University in the personal and environmental characteristics selected for analy­ sis." In comparing the th e ft group with a sample taken from the uni­ versity population, Jackson and Clark found a sign ifican t difference existed in academic achievement as measured by cumulative grade point averages. Students involved in thefts did not achieve as well aca­ demically as did members of the sample population. Another interesting but expected finding was that the number of males in the th e ft group was s ig n ific a n tly high. In addition, freshmen and sophomores were found in a disproportionate ra tio to th e ir percentage in the general , . 38 university population. Summary Schoemer reported that there is much conflicting and l i t t l e conclusive evidence in the lite r a tu r e that would lead one to in fe r th a t, in terms of demographic and intelligence factors, academic achievement of suspended students is d iffe re n t than that of those not suspended.39 Williamson, in 1952, found that his sample of discipline students compared favorably with nonoffenders on the aptitude 38 39 I b i d . , p. 562. Schoemer, "An Analysis of Students Suspended From Indiana University for Disciplinary Reasons," pp. 76-77. 40 te s t. 40 Campbell reported that the main intelligence test score for his "dishonest" group was 1.5 deviations below the mean group as a whole. 41 Schoemer remarked that the mass of con flicting data about students involved in a ll types of misconduct has caused student personnel facu lty to "assume that no differences e x is t between the suspended and non-suspended s t u d e n t . W h i l e the mass of data con­ cerning the characteristics of the disciplinary offender c e rta in ly does seem to be c o n flic tin g , some commonalities do emerge. For instance, 11 of the 18 studies reviewed described the disciplinary offender as being a male, less than 21 years old, and a freshman or sophomore. Nine studies found that the d is c ip lin a ry offender had a grade point average of 2.00 or less or a grade point less than that of the campus's general student population. Five researchers d is ­ covered that the offender graduated in the lower half of his graduat­ ing high school class; four found he was enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences; another four that he resided on campus; s t i l l another four that he was equal in academic a b i l i t y to his campus's general student population; three found that he was an o u t-o f-s ta te student, whereas another three found that the offender graduated as often as did the nonoffender; two found that the offender was an off-campus resident; two that he was a member of a f r a t e r n it y ; two 40 Williamson, Jarve, and Lagerstadt-Knudson, "What Kinds of College Students Become Disciplinary Cases?" pp. 614-15. 41 J. R. Schoemer, "The College Pushout," Personnel and Guidance Journal 46 (March 1968): 678. 42 I b i d . , p. 677. 41 that the offender scored lower than the nonoffender on the Cooperative English Test; and two that there was no difference between the offender and his campus's general student population. A melange of results from the other studies indicated that the disciplinary offender was a fu ll-tim e student, received an average sanction of probation, was less involved in campus a c tiv it ie s than the nonoffender, was an a th le te , the son of a w h ite-co llar worker, a graduate of a public high school, was passive and apathetic, had a previous disciplinary record, had a low attendance in religious a c t i v it i e s , had more course withdrawals than the nonoffender, was from a large urban high school, that male offenders were older than female offenders, female offenders were enrolled in more semester hours than males, there were more offenses committed in groups by males than by females, males were suspended more often than females, the offender was a rural rather than an urban student, and two separate studies found that there were ju s t as many offenders from the Colleges of Business Administration and Engineering as from the College of Arts and Sciences. While s im ila r itie s do ex is t in the studies, con flictin g data also abound. I t is believed that only two studies, Williamson's and Caskey and Duvall's, covered a time period or a large-enough sample to allow the investigators to draw inferences about th e ir subjects and to have these inferences generalized to other colleges of sim ilar size and with student bodies of sim ilar composition. For the most part, inferences from the other studies could not be generalized as cogently due to small sample size, time period covered, type of 42 in s titu tio n in which the research was conducted, i . 'e . , a private Catholic university, number and type of variables used, and the s t a t i s ­ tic a l techniques used to assess the findings of the study. In the almost ten years since the la s t comprehensive study concerning the characteristics of disciplinary offenders was completed, two new generations of college students have matriculated and, by and large, graduated from many institu tio n s of higher learning. In v e s ti­ gations of disciplinary offenders during these years cannot, in any sense, be described as p le n tif u l. Therefore, i t was believed that the time was propitious fo r an investigation that would encompass a six-year period, over 1,000 students, use a number of variables pre­ viously associated with the disciplinary offender, use several new variables, and be completed at an in s titu tio n f e l t to be representa­ tive of the many four-year ins titu tio n s so that the results could be generalized more widely than those of many other studies. From the results obtained, i t is hoped that a more accurate description of the offender can be developed and that such knowledge can be used for the purpose of reducing discip lin ary offenses and/or developing e ffe c tiv e preventive disciplinary programs. CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY General Design of the Study The purpose of this study was to analyze selected character­ is tic s of male and female students involved in incidents of miscon­ duct at Northern Michigan University from winter semester, 1972, through winter semester, 1978, and who received a subsequent penalty of probation, suspension, or expulsion. Through examination of the results obtained, the researcher attempted to determine whether stu­ dents involved in discip lin ary incidents are representative of the general student population. I f they are not, then could these stu­ dents possess sim ilar demographic, academic, fin a n c ia l, and racial characteristics that would tend to distinguish them from the popula­ tion of nonoffenders? I f i t was found that they did share such char­ a c te ris tic s , could these findings then prove useful to student personnel administrators in developing and implementing measures to prevent and/or reduce the number of discip lin ary incidents on campus? This issue is discussed in Chapter V, where specific recommendations are made regarding the possible reduction or elimination of at least certain types of disciplinary infractions. The investigator believed that this study lent i t s e l f most appropriately to a descriptive research approach. Van Dalen and Meyer explained this type of research in the following manner: 43 44 The purpose of descriptive research is to describe systematic­ a lly the facts and characteristics of a given population or area of in te re s t, fa c tu a lly , and accurately. Descriptive research is used in the l i t e r a l sense of describing situations or events. I t is the accumulation of a data base that is solely d e s c r ip tiv e --it does not necessarily seek or explain relationships, test hypotheses, make predictions, or get at meanings and implications, although research aimed at these more powerful purposes may incorporate descriptive methods. Research au th o rities, however, are not in agreement on what constitutes "descriptive research" and often broaden the term to include a ll forms of research except historical and experi­ mental J Fox offered another explanation in stating: A typical example of an analytical study, one that is usually labeled causal comparative involves the analyzation of char­ a cte ris tic s associated with two d iffe re n t groups of subjects. Characteristics which are observed to be closely related to one group but not the other might be presumed to have some causal relationship to the factor on which the groups d if f e r . For example, we might compare one group to another. From this we may discover that one group possesses a p a rtic u la r char­ a c te ris tic in a more marked degree than the other groups. This type of study describes relationships but doesn't attempt to determine why there is a lin k between variables or whether i t ' s a d e fin ite causal l i n k . 2 Causal-comparative, or ex post facto, research is another form of descriptive research in which the researcher attempts to determine the cause, or reason, for existing differences in the behavior or status of groups or individuals. 3 The basic causal-comparative approach involves starting with an e ffe c t and seeking possible causes. Causal-comparative studies attempt to id e n tify cause-effect ^Stephen Isaac and William B. Michael, Handbook in Research and Evaluation (San Diego, C a l i f . : EDITS Publishers, 1977), p. 18. 2 Yeager, "An Analysis of Selected Characteristics of Male Stu­ dents Involved in Misconduct at Arizona State University," pp. 24-25. 3 Gay, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, p. 202. 45 relationships. A difference that exists in causal-comparative groups is that one may have had an experience that the other did not have, or one group may possess a characteristic that the other group does not. In causal-comparative studies, independent variables are variables that cannot be manipulated, should not be manipulated, or simply are not manipulated but could be. 4 This type of research study can iden­ t i f y relationships but i t cannot necessarily determine whether those relationships are causal relationships. Gay stated that "the alleged cause of an observed e ffe c t may in fact be the e f f e c t , or there may be a third variable which has 'caused' both the id e n tifie d cause and e ffe c t." 5 Furthermore, he warned that "interpretation of the fin d- ings in a causal-comparative study requires considerable caution." The basic causal-comparative design involves selecting two groups that d i f f e r on some independent variable(s) and comparing them on some dependent variable.^ The groups may d i f f e r in that one group possesses a characteristic that the other does not, or the groups may d i f f e r in degree; one group may possess more of a characteristic than the other, or the two groups may have had d iffe re n t kinds of experiO ences. The important consideration is to select samples that are ^Ibid. 5Ibid. 61bid. , p. 203. 7 Ibi d. 8Ibid. 46 representative of th e ir respective populations and sim ilar with respect to c r it ic a l variables other than the independent variable. This study closely replicated the methods and general hypothe­ sis used by Yeager in a sim ilar investigation completed at Arizona State University in 1 9 7 2 .^ between the studies were: However, four sig n ific a n t differences (1) the time period covered was of greater duration, (2) males and females were included in the study, (3) more specific offense categories were used, and (4) more and d iffe re n t variables were used. As a consequence of the investigator's in te re s t in student discip lin e, the lite r a tu r e in the area was examined to determine i f a suitable area of investigation existed. Yeager's study on the char­ acteristics of male disciplinary offenders at Arizona State Univer­ s ity was found to be p a rtic u la rly interesting . This was especially so since i t was discovered that very l i t t l e research had been con­ ducted on the characteristics of d iscip lin ary offenders. Further examination of the pertinent lite r a tu r e disclosed that two major studies existed covering an extended time period, male and female offenders, and a variety of offense categories: These studies were conducted at institu tio n s whose academic environment and student body permitted generalization of the research findings to other four-year state collegiate in s titu tio n s . Yeager's study provided what this investigator believed to be a good foundation for further research. 9 Ibid. ^Yeager, "An Analysis of Selected Characteristics of Male Students Involved in Misconduct at Arizona State U niversity," p. 1. 47 The need fo r additional research with regard to the characteristics of d iscip lin ary offenders was recommended by Yeager at the conclu­ sion of his study. He, too, f e l t that early id e n tific a tio n of the d iscip lin ary offender could afford an in s titu tio n the opportunity to develop proactive measures to prevent and/or reduce disciplinary offenses on campus. While his study used only males and covered a re la tiv e ly short time period, two academic years, i t provided the basis for the present, larger study. I t was believed that expanding on the scope and depth of Yeager's study would produce results that could be generalized over a wider spectrum of colleges and universi­ tie s . At present, the majority of studies conducted on the d is c i­ plinary offender appear to be relevant only to the in s titu tio n where the research was conducted. While Yeager's general hypothesis and method of investigation are also used in this study, an additional s t a t is tic a l t e s t, the t - t e s t , was used to strengthen the analysis of the data. The ;t-test was used to compare disciplinary offenders of each individual class standing with each of the other class standings on the variables lis te d . In addition, i t was used to compare offenders enrolled in each individual college within the university with offenders of the other colleges on the variables lis te d . In using such procedures, i t was expected that a more complete and accurate description would be obtained of the d is ­ c ip lin a ry offender. 48 Subjects The subjects fo r this study were obtained from the discipline f il e s maintained in the Dean of Students Office at Northern Michigan University. The study covered a six-year period from winter semes­ t e r , 1972, through the 1977-78 academic year. During this time, there were 1,800 cases of misconduct reported to the Dean's Office. Of those cases, approximately 1,500 received penalties of warning pro­ bation through expulsion. The f i l e s in the Dean's Office represented those cases that were adjudicated by eith er a resident directo r, assistant dean, the associate dean, the residence hall ju d ic ia ry , or the student-faculty ju d ic ia ry . These f i l e s contained the majority of the reported cases of misconduct occurring on campus. Collection of the Data The following information was contained in the student's con­ duct f i l e in the Dean of Students Office: type of violation commit­ ted, description of the actual incident, the number of individuals involved, student's name, social security number, local address, the decision rendered in the incident, and, where appropriate, the type of penalty and length of time imposed. The variables selected to be studied in this research were sim ilar to those used by many other investigators conducting sim ilar research. Those variables were: sex, age, cumulative grade point average, semester grade point average, college residence, state of residence, year in school, college enrolled, enrollment status, number of students involved in the incident, and action taken. Yeager stated that the above variables 49 have been recognized by other researchers as being associated with students involved in incidents of misconduct.^ A master l i s t of each student involved in a disciplinary incident and assigned a penalty of warning probation or greater was used in the collection of data, for the d iffe re n t variable categories. This l i s t was, of necessity, kept c o n fid ential. Additional informa­ tion from records other than those found in the Dean's Office was also used. Those records included: the Student Directory and records from the Records O ffice, the Financial Aids O ffic e , and the Regis­ t r a r 's Office concerning cumulative and semester grade point averages, college enrollment and number of hours enrolled, class rank, school session, high school grade point average, financial aid status, and size of high school. The A.C.T. student information f i l e was also used to determine racial background. Offense Categories Twenty-seven university regulations and 15 administrative policies form the basis fo r student behavior that is prohibited by Northern Michigan University. C o lle c tiv e ly , these regulations and policies are known as the Student Code. Over the academic years 1971 through 1975, one university regulation and fiv e administrative p o li­ cies have been deleted from the Student Code. These deletions are noted in the appropriate tables. was examined in terms of the variables discussed above. 11 I b i d . , p. 27. Eachof the regulations and policies 50 Analysis of the Data In analyzing the data, a chi-square s t a t is t ic was one of the two s t a t is tic a l methods used. Van Dalen described the employment of the chi-square in the following manner: There are many occasions in educational research where the investigator is interested in testing a hypothesis that a certain proportion of the population exhibits a particu lar a ttr ib u te . He selects a sample from the population and deter­ mines the proportion possessing the a ttrib u te and the propor­ tion not possessing the a ttr ib u te . The significance te s t is determined in terms of the probability that the observed pro­ portion is a chance departure from the expected proportion. The test of significance is called Chi S q u a r e . 12 The formula for this test is as follows: ,2 r Z *■ (fo -fe )2 -| -I fe -P /-V I t should be noted that the phi s t a t i s t i c , a measure of asso­ c ia tio n , i . e . , a measure of strength of relationship, was also used as part of the analysis with the chi-square te s t. 13 Phi makes a correction fo r the fact that the value of chi-square is d ire c tly proportional to the number of cases (N) by adjusting the chi-square value. Phi takes on the value of zero when no relationship e xists, and the value of +1 when the variables are perfectly rela te d , i . e . , a ll cases f a l l ju s t on the main or minor diagonal. In addition, another test of association, Cramer's V, is a s lig h tly modified version of phi, which is suitable fo r larger tables. 14 When phi is 12I b i d . , p. 29. 13 Norman H. Nie, C. Hadulai H u ll, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin SteinBrenner, and Dale Bent, S ta tis tic a l Package for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975), p. 222. 14I b i d . , pp. 223-24. 51 calculated for a cross-tabulation table that is not 2 x 2, i t has no upper l im i t . Therefore, Cramer's V is used to adjust phi fo r eith er the number of rows or the number of columns in the ta b le , depending on which of the two is smaller. V also ranges from 0 to +1 when several nominal categories are involved. Thus, a large value of V merely suggests that a high degree of association e x is ts , without revealing the manner in which the variables are associated. Another test of significance that was used in analyzing the data was a t - t e s t . The t - t e s t is used to determine whether two means are s ig n ific a n tly d iffe r e n t at a selected probability le v e l. a given sample size, the t 15 For indicates how often a difference as large or larger (X-j - X2 ) would be found when there is no true population 1£ \ difference. The strategy of the t^-test is to compare the actual mean difference observed (X-j - X2 ) with the difference expected by chance. The t - t e s t involves forming the ra tio of these two values. In other words, the numerator fo r a t - t e s t is the difference between the sample means, X-j and X2 , and the denominator is the chance d i f ­ ference that would be expected i f the null hypothesis were tru e--th e standard error of the difference between the means. The t - r a t i o determines whether the observed difference is s lig h tly larger than a 15 Gay, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, pp. 285-86. 1 6 T• • j Ibid. Ibid. difference that would be expected by chance. 18 The formula fo r the t - s t a t i s t i c is as follows: *1 - X2 *i z xlVi A \ nl + n2 - 2A "l + V Hypotheses Hypotheses are classified as research hypotheses or s t a t i s t i ­ cal hypotheses; research hypotheses are stated in declarative form, and s ta tis tic a l hypotheses are stated in null form. A research hypothesis states an expected relationship or difference between two variables, in other words, "what relationship the researcher expects to v e rify through the collection and analysis of data." 19 A s t a t is ­ t i c a l , or n u ll, hypothesis states that there w ill be no relationship, or difference, between two variables, and that any relationship found w ill be a chance relationship, not a true one. 20 S t a t is t i c a l , or n u ll, hypotheses are used because they suit s ta tis tic a l techniques that determine whether an observed relationship is probably a chance relationship or probably a true relationship. 21 The research and null hypotheses developed by the investigator for this study appear in the following paragraphs of this section. 53 Even though previous investigators cited in the review of the' lite r a tu r e reported results that were contradictory with other studies or inconclusive, much of the evidence collected a c te ris tic s of disc ip lin a ry offenders seemed to regarding the char­ indicate that they are young, generally 18 or 20 years of age, freshmen or sophomores, enrolled in the College of Liberal Arts, ranked in the lower half of th e ir high school graduating class, possessing a cumulative grade point average of 2.00 or less, male, nonresidents, and liv in g on cam­ pus. This, then, is the fundamental premise on which the research hypothesis for this study is based. That hypothesis is that: Students involved in incidents of misconduct w ill be male, 20 years of age or younger, underclassmen, enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences, possess a semesterand cumu­ la tiv e grade point average of 2.00 or less, liv e on campus, not reside in the upper peninsula of Michigan, and are not receiving financial aid. A null hypothesis sim ilar to that used by both Williamson is again employed in this study. That null hypothesis is 22 and Yeager that: In relation to each of the selected variables, there are no sig n ific a n t differences between students id e n tifie d as discip lin ary offenders and students in the general campus population at Northern Michigan University. The above hypothesis was designed to be comprehensive. I t encompassed the population of students involved in misconduct in it s e n tire ty , without regard to specific offenses. However, the investigators also believed i t to be necessary to examine each offense category more 22 Williamson, Jarve, and Lagerstadt-Knudson, "What Kinds of College Students Become Disciplinary Cases?" p. 608. 23 Yeager, "An Analysis of Selected Characteristics of Male Students Involved in Misconduct at Arizona State University," p. 29. 23 54 closely. For the sake of b revity, however, the following sub-null hypothesis is proffered fo r each offense category, i . e . , There are no sig n ific a n t differences within the selected variables under each offense category. (Because of the large number of variables and offense categories to be examined, Yeager also found i t necessary to employ the sub-null hypothesis technique used in this study.) As previously mentioned, both a chi-square and a t^-statistic were used in testing the above comprehensive and subhypotheses. To determine whether a ll or part of these hypotheses should be accepted or not accepted, the minimum level of significance used was .05. Significance refers to the predetermined probability of obtaining a difference between a population s t a t i s t i c and a sample s t a t i s t i c —or between two sample s t a t is t ic s - - t h a t is a function of chance. 24 The level of significance is the probability that a researcher is w illin g to risk in rejecting the null hypothesis. I f the level of significance is set at .05, the null hypothesis w ill be rejected i f the estimated probability (jd) of the observations made by the researcher can occur by chance in only fiv e or less of every 100 observations. 25 Isaac and Michael said that "in educational research the most commonly oc used levels of significance are the .05 and the .01 le v e ls." 24 Isaac and Michael, Handbook in Research and Evaluation. p. 335. 25 Ibid. 26T. . . Ibid. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Discussion of Chi-Square and Significance Levels Introduction In examining the data, the investigator employed two s t a t i s t i ­ cal tests to determine whether any sign ifican t differences existed between the dependent and independent variables tested. A chi-square test of s t a t is tic a l significance was used to summarize the relationship depicted in Table 11, page 111, of the seven variables being tested. This te s t, as mentioned in the preceding chapter, helps to determine whether a systematic relationship exists between two variables. Sex The chi-square analysis performed on the differences between male and female offenders and males and females in the general student population was s ig n ific a n t, X (1) = 403.31, p < .001. The analysis revealed that there was a disproportionately higher number of males in the offender population, whereas the number of females in this population was disproportionately lower than expected. Since the chi-square obtained was well beyond the .001 level of significance, the primary null hypothesis was not accepted. In relation to individual violation categories, i t was found that males and females in the offender population were proportionately 55 56 represented in seven of the eight categories examined. The eighth category, drugs, revealed that males in the offender population were underrepresented whereas females were overrepresented. of this category proved to be sig n ific a n t with X p < .001. The analysis (7) = 26.94, Therefore, the sub-null hypothesis rela tin g to drugs was not accepted. Since the analysis of the data did not prove s i g n i f i ­ cant for the other seven violation categories in relation to the variables of sex, these sub-null hypotheses were accepted. Age The analysis comparing age of student offenders and the age of those students found in the general student population yielded sig2 n ific a n t results, X (1) = 264.15, p < .001. As might be expected, the under-21 disciplinary population was overrepresented, whereas the over-21 disciplinary population was underrepresented. Since the analysis between the age of offenders and students in the general population proved to be s ig n ific a n t, the general null hypothesis for this variable was not accepted. When compared with the variable of age, none of the violation categories was found to be s ig n ific a n t. As a consequence, the sub- null hypotheses relating to each of the violation categories were accepted. College Residence Student offenders differed s ig n ific a n tly from the general 2 university population in terms of on- and off-campus housing, X (1) = 2158.74, p < .001. As a consequence of this analysis, the general 57 null hypothesis for this variable was not accepted. Offenders liv in g on campus were disproportionately overrepresented in comparison with th e ir expected number. Concomitantly, off-campus offenders were underrepresented in comparison with the number expected in the general population. When the variable of college residence was compared with each of the violation categories, no sign ifican t differences were obtained. Each of the on- and off-campus student offenders was proportionately represented in each of the violation categories. Therefore, the sub- null hypotheses relating to the variable of college residence were accepted. Financial Aid The chi-square analysis performed on the differences in financial aid frequencies between offenders and students in the general university population was s ig n ific a n t, X (1) = 819.41, p < .001. The analysis revealed that there was a disproportionately lower number of students in the offender population receiving financial aid than there was in the general university population. Since the chi-square obtained was well beyond the .001 level of significance, the general null hypothesis in regard to this variable was not accepted. A comparison of the variable financial aid with each of the violation categories produced no sign ifican t differences. Therefore, the sub-null hypotheses rela tin g to each of the violation categories were accepted. 58 5 Curriculurn The analysis comparing the curriculum of student offenders and the general university population yielded s ig n ific a n t res u lts , 2 X (5) = 430.04, p < .001. As a consequence of this finding, the primary null hypothesis rela tin g to curriculum was not accepted. It was found that student offenders in the curricula of Arts and Sciences, Business, and Education were a ll overrepresented, whereas those in Nursing, one- and two-year programs, and the graduate school were underrepresented. Since the preceding result seemed p a r t ia lly a ttrib u ta b le to the low representation of graduate students in the offender sample, an additional chi-square analysis was performed which excluded graduate students. also s ig n ific a n t, The results of this analysis were (4) = 174.77, p < .001. Since the analysis of the data did not prove s ig n ific a n t for any of the eight violation categories in relation to the variab le, curriculum, the concomitant sub-null hypotheses for these violation categories were accepted. Class Standing The chi-square analysis revealed that the class standing f r e ­ quencies differed s ig n ific a n tly between offenders and students in the general university population, indicating a disproportionately high number of freshmen and sophomores in the offender group. Conversely, the numbers of ju n io r, senior, and graduate students were underrepre­ sented. The level of significance in the i n i t i a l analysis was 2 X (4) = 673.02, p < .001. Since this re s u lt, as in the analysis of 59 curriculum; seemed p a r t ia lly a ttrib u ta b le to the low representation of graduate students in the offender sample, an additional chi-square analysis was performed that excluded graduate students. The results 2 of this analysis were also s ig n ific a n t, X (3) = 357.72, p < .001. Therefore, the general null hypothesis relating to this variable was not accepted. When the variable of class standing was compared with each of the violation categories, no sign ifican t differences were obtained. Each class of student offenders was proportionately represented in each of the violation categories. Therefore, the sub-null hypotheses relating to the variable of academic class were accepted. Permanent Residence The analysis comparing the permanent place of residence for student offenders and the general university population yielded sig2 n ific a n t results, X (1) = 57.05, p < .001. The expected frequency of offenders from the upper peninsula of Michigan was 817 compared with the observed frequency of 678. Lower peninsula and out-of-state offenders accounted for an observed frequency of 863 and an expected frequency of only 709. With a chi-square for this variable well beyond the .001 level of p ro b a b ility , the primary null hypothesis was not accepted. A comparison of the variable permanent residence with each of the violation categories produced no sig n ific a n t differences. There­ fore, the sub-null hypotheses relating to each of the violation cate­ gories were accepted. 60 Discussion of the T-Test Results Introduction In the following paragraphs, the investigator was primarily interested in determining and evaluating the differences between the e ffe c ts , i . e . , sex, class standing, college residence, curriculum, and financial aid status of both the offender and control group, rather than the effects themselves. To make this determination, -the most common type of analysis is the comparison of two groups of subjects with the group means used as a basis for comparison,. The basic prob­ lem that confronted the investigator was to determine whether or not a difference between two samples implies a true difference in the parent population under study. Since i t was highly probable that two samples from the same population would be d iffe re n t due to the natural v a r i­ a b i l it y in the population, i t was clear that a difference in the sample means did not necessarily imply that the populations from which they were drawn actually differe d on the characteristic being studied. The goal of the s t a t is tic a l analysis, in this instance the Student's T s t a t i s t i c , was to establish whether or not a difference between two samples was s ig n ific a n t. "Significant" here does not mean "important" or of consequence; i t is used here to mean "indicative of" or "sig­ nifying" a true difference between the two populations. The total number of offenders and nonoffenders used in this analysis was 2,764: 1,541 disciplinary offenders and 1,223 control subjects. To present the next section succinctly, only a summary of the findings in each category is offered. 61 Sex The f i r s t set of independent variables to be tested included the sex of the offenders and the nonoffenders in relation to the dependent variables of semester grade point average, cumulative grade point average, and high school grade point average. Female nonoffenders had s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) semes­ t e r , cumulative, and high school grade point averages than a ll the other groups with whom they were compared. In addition, both male and female nonoffenders had higher semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages than th e ir counterparts in the offender group. Tables 12-14 on page 112 of the appendix i llu s t r a t e the differences in actual semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages for the variables of sex. An inference could be made, therefore, that male and female discip lin ary offenders generally had semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages that were lower than th e ir nondisci piinary counterparts. College Residence Off-campus nonoffenders were found to have s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages than e ith e r on- or off-campus offenders. Tables 16-18 on page 114 in the appendix i l l u s t r a t e the differences in actual semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages for the two categories of college residence. 62 Class Standing In reviewing the data, i t was found that freshman and sopho­ more offenders, respectively, had s ig n ific a n tly lower (p < .05) semes­ te r and cumulative grade point averages in comparison with the o-ther groups being analyzed. Tables 24-26 on pages 118-119 in the appendix ill u s t r a t e the differences in actual semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages for the four categories of class standing. Curricula In regard to semester grade point average, students enrolled in one- and two-year programs had s ig n ific a n tly lower (p < .05) semester grade point averages than students enrolled in the other fiv e curricula with whom they were compared. Nonoffenders in Arts and Sciences, Business, Education, Nursing, and A llie d Health, one- and two-year programs, a ll had s ig n ific a n tly higher semester grade point averages than th e ir offender counterparts. This finding was also true for the same fiv e nonoffender groups when compared with offenders on cumulative grade point average. Comparison between offender and nonoffender groups in regard to high school grade point average produced fewer sig n ific a n t results. Financial Aid When comparing semester grade point average and the variable of financial aid, i t was found that disciplinary offenders receiving financial aid had s ig n ific a n tly lower (p < .05) semester grade point averages than did th e ir counterparts in the nonoffender group. In 63 additiorij offenders receiving financial aid had s ig n ific a n tly higher grade point averages than did offenders not receiving financial aid. When the results for the analysis of financial aid and cumu­ la tiv e grade point average were examined, i t was again found that nonoffenders receiving financial aid had s ig n ific a n tly higher grade point averages than did th e ir offender counterparts. Offenders receiving financial aid were also found to have higher grade point averages than offenders not receiving financial aid. In the fin a l category of high school grade point average, the only major finding was that offenders receiving financial aid had s ig n ific a n tly higher high school grade point averages than offenders not receiving financial aid. Throughout the analysis of semester and cumulative grade point averages, two consistent findings were: (1) offenders receiving finan­ cial aid had s ig n ific a n tly lower grade point averages than did non­ offenders also receiving financial aid, and (2) offenders receiving aid had higher grade point averages than offenders not receiving aid. Chapter Summary The chi-square analysis of selected variables for the 1,541 individuals found in the disci piinary-offender population resulted in not accepting the primary null hypothesis. In summarizing the fin d ­ ings for each of the variables, i t was found that there was a dispro­ portionately higher number of males than females in the offender population. In addition, when individual offense categories were examined, males were found to be s ig n ific a n tly underrepresented in 64 regard to the regulation concerning drugs, whereas females were over­ represented. The majority of the offender population was under 21 years of age, thus resulting in a sig n ific a n t finding in regard to the variable of age. Such a finding is also consistent with the results of several other studies.^ Most student offenders were found to reside on campus. O ff- campus offenders were underrepresented in comparison with the number expected in the general population. A clear distinction was found between offenders receiving financial aid and students in the general university population. There was a disproportionately lower number of student offenders receiving financial aid than there was in the general university stu­ dent population. When examining the variable, curriculum, i t was determined that student offenders in the curricula of Arts and Sciences, Business, and Education were a ll overrepresented, whereas those in Nursing, one- and two-year programs, and the graduate school were underrepre­ sented. The chi-square analysis of the variable class standing yielded a finding that the number of freshman and sophomore offenders was dis­ proportionately higher than would be expected. Conversely, the number of ju n io r, senior, and graduate students was underrepresented. ^Yeager, "An Analysis of Selected Characteristics of Male Students Involved in Misconduct at Arizona State University"; and Caskey and Duvall, "A Study of Selected Characteristics of All Dis­ ciplin ary Offenders Involving Action Resulting in Probation or Suspension at Texas Tech University for the Six Year Period, 19631969." 65 The fin a l variable examined, permanent residence, revealed upon analysis that student offenders who were permanent residents of Michigan's upper peninsula were underrepresented, whereas offenders from lower Michigan and out of state were found to be in dispropor­ tio n a te ly higher numbers than would normally be expected. The fin a l analysis completed in this chapter was that of the t - t e s t for the comparison between the nonoffender and offender popu­ la tio n of 2,764 on selected independent variables and the dependent variable of semester, cumulative, and high school grade point average. I t was found that female nonoffenders had s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages than a ll the other groups with whom they were compared. In addition, both male and female nonoffenders had higher semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages than th e ir counterparts in the disciplinary group. When t-te s ts were completed on off-cainpus nonoffenders, they were found to have had s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) semester, cumu­ la t iv e , and high school grade point averages than eith er on- or o f f campus offenders. Freshman and sophomore offenders, respectively, had the lowest semester and cumulative grade point averages when compared with the other groups studied. In regard to semester grade point average, students enrolled in one- and two-year programs had s ig n ific a n tly lower semester grade point averages than students in the other fiv e curricula with whom they were compared. Nonoffenders in a ll fiv e curricula had s i g n i f i ­ cantly higher semester grade point averages than th e ir offender 66 counterparts. This was also true for the same fiv e nonoffender groups when compared to offenders on cumulative grade point average. Comparisons between offender and nonoffender groups regarding high school grade point average produced fewer sign ifican t results. With respect to financial a id , the analysis of semester and cumulative grade point averages of the population under study produced two con­ sistent findings: (1) offenders receiving financial aid had s i g n i f i ­ cantly lower grade point averages than did nonoffenders also receiv­ ing financial aid, and (2) offenders receiving aid had higher grade points than offenders not receiving aid. In addition, offenders receiving financial aid had s ig n ific a n tly higher high school grade point averages than offenders not receiving financial aid. Throughout this chapter, the results of the analysis conducted on the data indicated that the primary null hypothesis developed in Chapter I should not be accepted. The investigator believes that a cogent body of evidence has been developed to support such a decision. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the previous chapters the investigator stated the purpose of this study and the perceived need for i t , presented a review of previous and current lit e r a t u r e pertaining to the disciplinary offender, explained the methodology that would be used in analyzing the data collected, and analyzed the data that were collected concern­ ing 1,550 students involved in discip lin ary incidents at Northern Michigan University from winter semester, 1972, through winter semes­ t e r , 1978. The investigator w ill now summarize the findings made in relation to these data. In addition, the conclusions of the in v e s ti­ gator, which are based on the major findings, w ill also be presented. The conclusions w i l l , in conjunction with the information obtained in the review of the li t e r a t u r e , provide the basis for recommendations to educators and future investigators. In this chapter, the in v e s ti­ gator w ill also allow himself the privilege of making speculations and inferences about the study, it s meaning, and the learning experi­ ence i t provided. Overview of the Study Purpose The purpose of th is study was to analyze selected characteris­ tic s of male and female students involved in incidents of misconduct 67 68 at Northern Michigan University from winter semester, 1972, through winter semester, 1978, and who received a penalty of probation, sus­ pension, or expulsion. Through an examination of the results obtained, the investigator expected to determine whether students involved in discip lin ary incidents were representative of the general student population. I f they were not, then did these students possess sim ilar demographic, academic, and financial characteristics that would tend to distinguish them from the population of nonoffenders? While there has been l i t t l e substantive research in the gen­ eral area of d is c ip lin e , investigations s p e c ific a lly studying the "characteristics of offenders" have been even more rare. The research that has been conducted about the characteristics of disciplinary offenders has been inconclusive due to small samples and b r ie f time periods covered, or has been inconsistent when compared with the fin d ­ ings of other studies. To provide the information for student-affairs administrators that would be necessary for designing appropriate disciplinary prevention and retention programs, a strengthening of descriptive studies of students involved in misconduct is of prime importance. Although r e la t iv e ly few researchers have seen the neces­ s ity to explore this area fu rth e r, i t is believed that much can s t i l l be learned about the disc ip lin a ry offender. Generally, such knowl­ edge could be of v ita l importance in developing and implementing measures to prevent and/or reduce the number of disciplinary incidents on campus. Such knowledge could also be of assistance to admissions personnel in th e ir recruiting e f fo r t s , beneficial for s t a f f working with new-student o rie n ta tio n , and important for s ta ff-tra in in g e ffo rts 69 for campus security personnel, residence hall s t a f f , and counseling center s t a f f . S p e c ific a lly , i t was f e l t that a more thorough understanding of the demographic, academic, and financial characteristics of the disciplinary offender at Northern Michigan University would assist the Dean of Students s t a f f in developing preventive disciplinary programs of a pragmatic nature. In so doing, i t was believed that perhaps some of those students who might become involved in d is c i­ plinary d i f f i c u l t i e s and, as a consequence of th e ir behavior, be forced to leave campus, could be id e n tifie d e a rly , perhaps during newstudent o rie n ta tio n , and directed into special programs so that th e ir involvement in a discip lin ary incident would become less lik e ly . Before i n it ia t in g any of the preceding research, certain conjectures were made by the investigator regarding what general findings might be produced by this study and how those findings could be used. A fter examining a number of studies concerned with some aspect of the characteristics of disciplinary offenders, the in v e s ti­ gator hypothesized that the findings of this study might tend to show the dis c ip lin a ry offender at Northern Michigan University as being under 20 years of age, a male, residing on campus, having a permanent ou t-o f-state home address, enrolled in the curriculum of Arts and Sciences, having a class standing of e ith e r freshman or sophomore, having a semester and cumulative grade point average of 2.00 or less, and not receiving financial aid. The analyses of the data for this study did produce the above findings. As a consequence, the in v e s ti­ gator believed that such findings could be useful in: (1) assisting 70 the faculty in the Arts and Sciences and Business curricula to develop a pragmatic approach in providing special developmental programs for freshmen and sophomores enrolled in this curriculum; (2) implementing the same pragmatic approach for residence hall students since the majority of these students are freshmen and sophomores; (3) deciding whether a student on academic probation who has consistently fa ile d to maintain a 2.00 cumulative grade point average should also have his disciplinary record considered prior to any decision regarding his continued relationship with the in s titu tio n ; (4) deciding whether a student's disciplinary background should be considered prior to eith er granting or continuing a financial aid award from the university; and (5) determining whether a student who was conditionally admitted to the university should also be channeled into one of the special developmental programs mentioned above. The preceding proposals have purposely been limited to five that the investigator believes could be s p e c ific a lly applied to Northern Michigan University. In the recommendation section of this chapter, additional proposals have also been suggested for not only Northern Michigan, but for other colleges and u n iv e rs ities , and inves­ tigators conducting further research into this p articu lar topic area. Sample The sample used in this study consisted of 1,541 disciplinary cases on f i l e in the Dean of Students Office at Northern Michigan Uni­ versity from winter semester, 1972, through winter semester, 1978 (a six-year period), in which a student was assigned a warning probation 71 status or greater. Information fo r this study was obtained from the Student Directory, the Records O ffice, the Registrar's O ffic e , Financial Aids O ffice, the and the Dean of Students Office. Methodology A chi-square s t a t i s t i c , used in testing a hypothesis that a certain portion of a population e xhib it a p a rtic u la r a t tr ib u t e , and a t -te s t used to determine whether two means are s ig n ific a n tly d i f f e r ­ ent at a selected probability level were used in the analysis of the data. One hundred students were randomly selected for each semester from winter semester, 1972, through winter semester, 1978, for compara­ tive purposes with the disciplinary population. Hypothesi s The research hypothesis that was developed for this study is: Students involved in incidents of misconduct w ill be male, 20 years of age or younger, underclassmen, enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences, possess a semester and cumulative grade point average of 2.00 or less, be fu ll-tim e students, liv e on campus, and liv e in a part of Michigan other than the upper peninsula, and not be receiving financial aid. In stating the primary null hypothesis, the investigator believed i t necessary and prudent to develop a comprehensive statement without regard to specific offense category. That hypothesis is: In relation to each of the selected variables, there are no sign ifican t differences between students id e n tifie d as d is ­ cip lin a ry offenders and students in the general campus popu­ latio n at Northern Michigan University. Major Significant Findings and Discussion A review of the major s ig n ific a n t findings obtained from the analysis of the data w ill be discussed in the following paragraphs. 72 At this juncture, the investigator emphasizes that the findings discussed in the following section were believed to be the most sig­ n ific a n t to this study and the concomitant recommendations. A more complete delineation of a ll the findings obtained as a result of the s ta tis tic a l analysis can be found in the summary in Chapter IV. Sex The chi-square analysis performed on the variable sex yielded s ign ifican t results at the .001 le v e l. The analysis revealed that there was a disproportionately higher number of males, 1,180, compared with the number of females, 361, in the offender population. In addi­ tio n , males were s ig n ific a n tly underrepresented in the violation 2 category of drugs. The chi-square for this category was X (7) = 26.96, p < .001. The observed number of males was 102 compared with an expected number of 131. The number of females, however, was dis­ proportionately higher than expected, 69 observed compared with 40 expected. The use of drugs by both sexes has continued to increase,^ and several conjectures are offered as to why the number of females is overrepresented in this violation category. Since experimentation with drugs, p a rtic u la rly marijuana, has become t a c it l y accepted by society, individuals believe i t "safe" to violate this university regulation with l i t t l e fear of receiving a severe penalty i f caught. Drug experimentation could also f a l l into the category of "social" violations of the type which females are tra d itio n a lly more lik e ly to become involved. Koepske's research in this area also indicated ^BC, "NBC Nightly News," 5 July 1979. 73 a sim ilar finding. 2 Drug abuse by female students is one area in which increased educational programming e ffo rts should be directed. The number of males involved in this violation category also indicates that they, too, might benefit from exposure to educational programs regarding drug abuse. While such programming e ffo rts are not seen as a panacea for this problem, providing the opportunity to better under­ stand the effects of the "in vogue" drugs on the body might at least make students more cautious in th e ir experimentation. When the control and experimental groups were analyzed by using a t - t e s t , i t was found that female nonoffenders consistently and s ig n ific a n tly (p < .05) had higher semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages than a ll the other groups with which they were compared. In addition, both male and female nonoffenders had s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages than th e ir counterparts in the offender group. This finding not only confirms the investigator's hypothesis regarding the grade point averages of disciplinary offenders, but is also con3 si stent with the findings of a majority of other studies reviewed. Although not a ll individuals with low grade point averages can be assumed to have been involved in disciplinary in fra c tio n s , a d e fin ite relationship between poor academic performance and involvement in a p C. G ilbert Wrenn, Student Personnel Work in College (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1951), pp. 472-73. 3 Yeager, "An Analysis of Selected Characteristics of Male Students Involved in Misconduct at Arizona State University"; and Caskey and Duvall, "A Study of Selected Characteristics of All D isci­ plinary Offenders Involving Action Resulting in Probation or Suspension at Texas Tech University fo r the Six-Year Period 1963-69." 74 disciplinary incident does seem to e x is t. Therefore, perhaps a college or university should consider identifying such poor academic performers as quickly as possible, i . e . , through e ith e r A.C.T. or S.A.T. scores, or through grade point average a fte r the f i r s t semester, in order to provide these students with the appropriate assistance and s k ills necessary to improve th e ir chances for academic survival. Concurrently, such academic assistance programs, e . g . , study s k i l l s , how to prepare for an examination, how to write a term paper, e t c ., could be developed in conjunction with personal growth develop­ ment workshops intended to improve a student's overall developmental process. Examples of such workshops would be those concerned with time management, assertiveness, decision making* etc. While involve­ ment in such programs or workshops certainly does not guarantee that a student would not become involved in a disciplinary in fra c tio n , i t is a concerted attempt at a preventive program that has heretofore been conspicuously missing. Age When the age of students in the offender population was com­ pared with the age of students in the general university population, the analysis produced a s ig n ific a n t finding, X (1) = 264.15, p < .001. The under-21 offender population was overrepresented, while the over-21 offender population was underrepresented. Caskey and Duvall, Yeager, and Schoemer obtained sim ilar findings in th e ir research in regard 4 to the age of the disc ip lin a ry offender. Williamson's conjecture 4Schoemer, "An Analysis of Students Suspended from Indiana University fo r Disciplinary Reasons," pp. 76-77. 75 that new university students proceed through a "transitional readjust­ ment" period upon f i r s t entering the college or university environment might well provide at least a partial answer for the higher number of younger students in the discipline population. 5 In addition, the university's housing regulation requires a ll freshmen and sophomore students to reside on campus. Consequently, this population lives in a more "controlled environment" where rules and regulations are s t r i c t l y enforced. Therefore, the probability is greater for freshmen and sophomores to become involved in a discip lin ary incident than an upperclassman who is liv in g o ff campus. While the primary null hypothesis fo r the variab le, age, was rejected, no sign ifican t differences were obtained when this variable was compared with each of the violation categories. Therefore, the sub-null hypotheses relating to each of the violation categories were accepted. Suggestions for reducing the number of discip lin ary offenses occurring in this age group are offered in the sections which concern college residence and class standing. College Residence When the variable of college residence was analyzed, i t was found that student offenders differed s ig n ific a n tly from the general university population in terms of on- and off-campus housing. The observed frequency for on-campus offenders was 1,471, with an expected 5 Williamson et a l . , "What Kinds of College Students Become Disciplinary Cases?" p. 608. 76 frequency of 585.58. Conversely, the observed frequency of off-campus offenders was 70, with an expected frequency of 955.42. ? square obtained was X (1) = 2158.74, p < .001. The chi- Therefore, the primary null hypothesis in regard to this variable was not accepted. Addi­ tio n a lly , no significant differences were obtained when the variable of college residence was compared with each of the violation categories. Consequently, the sub-null hypotheses related to this variable were accepted. When the control and experimental groups were analyzed by using a t - t e s t , i t was found that both on- and off-campus nonoffenders had s ig n ific a n tly higher semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages than th e ir offender counterparts. The university has placed much emphasis on the on-campus residence hall experience for students during th e ir f i r s t two years of college simply because of the tremendous impact that this experi­ ence can have on th e ir total growth and development--not only socia lly , g but in te lle c tu a lly and s p ir it u a lly . Those students who e ith e r move o ff campus or have always resided o f f campus are l e f t basically to themselves to become exposed to those types of situations and experi­ ences which are regularly a part of the residence hall experience. The investigator believes, however, that the residence hall experience can be improved and, as a consequence of such improvement, can have a sign ifican t and positive impact in reducing the incidents of student rule violations by residence hall students. I t is f e l t that g Packwood, College Student Personnel Services, p. 266. 77 the recommendations made e a r lie r in regard to s t a f f training can help to reduce the number of disciplinary incidents in the h a ll. While remaining cognizant of the financial necessity to retain a certain percentage of students on campus in order to maintain the occupancy of the residence h a lls , i t is f e l t that more emphasis could be placed on maximizing student satisfaction with this liv in g environ­ ment by permitting students to paint th e ir residence hall rooms and/or corridors, developing student leadership workshops, encouraging student government so that students have more input into decisions affecting th e ir environment, developing more effe c tiv e social and educational programming, etc. As a consequence of such opportunities, students would hopefully want to reside on campus and would view residence hall liv in g as a positive and not negative experience. I f i t were pos­ sible to foster this a ttitud e to a greater extent, the investigator feels that at least some of the disciplinary problems now being experi­ enced by a number of colleges and universities would decline. Financial Aid The chi-square analysis performed on the differences in finan­ cial aid frequencies between offenders and students in the general university population was s ign ifican t: 2 X (1) = 819.41, p < .001. Examination of the frequency distributions revealed an observed f r e ­ quency of 300 males in the offender population with financial aid compared with an expected frequency of 909.19 males in the general student population with financial aid. In regard to females, the observed frequency was 123 in the offender population compared with 78 an expected frequency of 631.81 in the general university population. Since the chi-square obtained was well beyond the .001 level of sig­ nificance, the primary null hypothesis for this variable was not accepted. When the variable of financial aid was analyzed in regard to each of the v iolation categories, no significant differences were found. Therefore, the sub-null hypotheses relating to each of the violation categories were accepted. When the control and experimental groups were analyzed by using a t - t e s t , i t was found that both offenders and nonoffenders receiving financial aid had s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) semester and cumulative grade point averages than did the offenders and non­ offenders not receiving financial aid. In addition, nonoffenders receiving financial aid had s ig n ific a n tly higher semester and cumula­ tiv e grade point averages (p < .05) than did th e ir offender counter­ parts. Since the number of students in the disciplinary population receiving financial aid was well below 50 percent, an inference that the investigator believes could be made would be that financial depend­ ence seems to be associated with a more serious a ttitu d e toward col­ lege and a greater degree of maturity. Perhaps such dependence also acts as a p a rtia l in h ib ito r against involvement in a disciplinary in fra c tio n . Depending on the nature of the incident and the severity of the penalty received, the investigator believes that consideration should be given to whether a potential financial aid recipient who was involved in a discip lin ary infraction should be granted an award. procedure to exclude serious disciplinary offenders from receiving A 79 financial aid funds has not, heretofore, been established at Northern Michigan University. However, an argument could be made that such students have fo rfe ite d th e ir privilege of applying for and receiving university financial aid awards to remain in college. In addition, perhaps another condition could be developed stipulating that a finan­ cial aid award might be withdrawn should the recipient become involved in any serious discip lin ary d i f f i c u l t y . I t is believed that such regu­ lations would have a d e fin ite impact on the number of student rule infraction s. Curriculum The next variable analyzed was that of curriculum. The observed frequencies of this variable for the curricula of Arts and Sciences, Business, and Education were 730, 333, and 244, respectively. The expected frequencies for these curricula were 601 , 200, and 215.7. The next three curricula that were studied were those of Nursing, oneand two-year programs, and the graduate school. Each of the observed frequencies for these curricu la, i . e . , 109, 40, and 2, were less than th e ir expected frequencies, i . e . , 154, 154, and 215.7. ing chi-square obtained in this analysis was X The correspond- (5) = 430.04, p < .001. Since the preceding result seemed as i f i t might be p a r t ia lly due to the low representation of graduate students in the offender group, an additional analysis was performed which excluded graduate students. The results of this analysis were also s ig n ific a n t, X p < .001. (4) = 174.77, As a consequence of both these findings, the primary null hypothesis relating to curriculum was not accepted. When each of the 80 eight violation categories was analyzed in relation to this variable, none of the analyses was found to be s ig n ific a n t. Therefore, the sub-null hypotheses for this variable were accepted. When the control and experimental groups were analyzed by using a t - t e s t , i t was found that nonoffenders in fiv e of the six cur­ ricula analyzed had s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) semester grade point averages than th e ir offender counterparts. The only nonoffender group that had a lower semester grade point average than th e ir respec­ tiv e offender group were those few students enrolled in the graduate school. In regard to cumulative grade point average, four nonoffender groups had s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) cumulative grade point averages than did the offenders in the respective curricula. The two nonoffender groups that did not were those of one- and two-year pro­ grams and the graduate school. The majority of male and female discip lin ary offenders included in this study were enrolled in the curriculum of Arts and Sciences. Many of the other studies reviewed in Chapter I I also found this to be the dominant curriculum or college in which discip lin ary offenders tended to be e n ro lle d .7 A probable cause for the relationship between disciplinary offenders and this p a rtic u la r curriculum at Northern Michigan University might be that students who have not yet declared a major are automatically placed in Arts and Sciences. Generally, students are not required to make a decision about th e ir major f ie ld of study u n til the end of th e ir sophomore year. At that time, they 7Caskey and Duvall, "A Study of Selected Characteristics of All Disciplinary Offenders Involving Action Resulting in Probation or Sus­ pension at Texas Tech University for the Six-Year Period 1963-69." 81 have the option of transferring into another curriculum or remaining in the curriculum of Arts and Sciences. The investigator is of the b e lie f that this is the primary reason why so many discip lin ary offend­ ers, not only at Northern Michigan University but also at other col­ leges and un iversities, seem to be id e n tifie d with this curriculum. Individuals enrolled in Arts and Sciences, especially freshmen and sophomores, might tend to be less goal oriented or career oriented than students in other curricula. As a consequence, these students might choose to stay in this curriculum for the lack of a more specific career choice or commitment. Of course, i t could also be suggested that such students have chosen to stay within Arts and Sciences because it s breadth of curriculum choices is generally broader than those found in Engineering, Business, Education, etc. A fin a l conjecture by the investigator is that individuals enrolled in Arts and Sciences might also be less conforming to con­ ventional modes of dress, behavior, and thinking than individuals found in other curricula. The investigator suggests that the above findings could have a real impact on the Arts and Sciences curriculum and those respon­ sible fo r i t s implementation. Since this curriculum has been id e n ti­ fied as enrolling the highest percentage of discip lin ary offenders, i t would be more advantageous to the individuals responsible for the campus disciplinary program at Northern Michigan University to work with the faculty and s t a f f of Arts and Sciences to develop a lte rn a ­ tive program a c tiv itie s in which to involve th e ir students. Such a c tiv itie s could be directed toward required or strongly encouraged 82 attendance in a specific number of cultural and personal enrichment programs mentioned in the section in which the variable of sex was discussed. Employment of such suggested techniques might be one method to hasten the "transitional readjustment" period spoken of by O Williamson et a l . While the curriculum of Arts and Sciences enrolled the majority of disciplinary offenders, the Business curriculum also had a s i g n i f i ­ cant percentage of these students. Studies by Caskey and Duvall, Williamson et a l . , and Yeager produced sim ilar findings in regard to Business students. The investigator recommends that representatives of the faculty and s ta ff in this curriculum also meet with the chief ju d ic ia l o ffic e r from the Dean of Students Office to discuss the development of positive program experiences similar to those suggested for the Arts and Sciences students. Since disciplinary offenders from both the Arts and Sciences and Business curricula were found to have lower grade point averages than th e ir nonoffender counterparts, perhaps one program approach would be to id e n tify marginal academic performers at th e ir time of entry by high school grade point average, A.C.T. or S.A.T. scores and channel these specific individuals into the program mentioned e a r lie r . In addition, these students should also be id e n tifie d for required tutoring assistance in order to increase th e ir chances fo r academic success. O Williamson et a l . , "What Kinds of College Students Become Disciplinary Cases?" 83 Class Standing The chi-square analysis comparing the class standing of stu­ dent offenders and students in the general university population 2 yielded sign ifican t resu lts, X (4) = 673.02, p < .001. The observed frequencies for freshmen and sophomores, 862 and 420, respectively, were well above th e ir expected frequencies of 508.53 and 292.79. Conversely, observed frequencies for juniors, seniors, and graduate students, 185, 73, and 1, were well below th e ir expected frequencies of 261.97, 261.97, and 215.74. Since the results obtained for this variable were similar to those obtained when the variable of curriculum was studied, the chisquare analysis was conducted a second time excluding graduate stu2 dents. The results of this analysis were also s ig n ific a n t, X (3) = 357.72, p < .001. Therefore, the primary null hypothesis relating to this variable was not accepted. When the variable of class standing was compared with each of the violation categories, no sig n ific a n t differences were obtained. Consequently, the sub-null hypotheses relating to this variable were accepted. A t - t e s t was used to compare the semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages of students in the offender and experi­ mental groups. In using this te st i t was found that except for seniors, nonoffenders of freshman, sophomore, and junior status a ll had s i g n i f i ­ cantly higher (p < .05) grade point averages. All four nonoffender groups had s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) cumulative grade point averages. In regard to high school grade point average, nonoffender 84 freshmen, sophomores, and seniors had s ig n ific a n tly higher (p < .05) grade points while juniors did not. Freshmen and sophomores have t r a d itio n a lly been found to be the students involved in the majority of disciplinary offenses, and this has also been the finding of the current study. Several reasons offered as a p a rtia l explanation for this phenomenon are: (1) the university housing requirement prohibits underclassmen from moving o ff campus u n til they are 22 years of age or have reached junior-class standing; (2) the "transitional readjustment period" described by Williamson; and (3) students who have reached ju n io r, senior, or graduate levels have generally mastered, or at least p a r t ia lly so, many of the developmental vectors spoken of by C h ickering .^ By this time, i t is f e l t that students become more academically serious in regard to th e ir course of study and more closely id e n tifie d with the major personality characteristics and behavioral expectations of th e ir major f ie ld of study. With the prospect of th e ir f i r s t f u l l ­ time job facing them in the very near fu tu re , many upperclassmen seem to adopt a more serious a ttitu d e toward the occupational and personal goals they hold for themselves. Freshmen and sophomores, however, are generally s t i l l experimenting with th e ir values and beliefs and also continuing th e ir search fo r a major f ie ld of study and future career. Until some of this insecurity is r e c t if ie d , substantial upheaval in 9 Ibid. ^ A rth u r W. Chickering, Education and Id e n tity (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, In c ., 1972). 85 th e ir personal and academic lives w ill continue to remain a real probability. Permanent Residence When the variable of place of permanent residence was analyzed for the offender and general university population, the resultant chisquare was sig n ific a n t at the .001 le v e l. There was a dispropor­ tio nately lower number of offenders from the upper peninsula of Michigan than from the lower peninsula or from out of state. The l a t t e r two groups were.found to have a disproportionately higher number of offend­ ers than would be expected. Since the findings of this analysis were sign ifican t at the .001 le v e l, the primary null hypothesis was not accepted. After comparing this variable with each of the violation cate­ gories, no sign ifican t findings were produced. Therefore, the sub- null hypotheses relating to each of the violation categories were accepted. The above findings are sim ilar to and supported by Williamson et a l . ' s and F ild e r's research fin d in g s .^ The "transitional readjust­ ment" period mentioned by Williamson et a l . has already been discussed as a possible cause of student involvement in d iscip lin ary infractions in several previous sections. I t might also be one of the reasons why students attending Northern Michigan University from the lower penin­ sula or out of state are somewhat more lik e ly to become involved in ^ F i l d e r , "Analysis of Students Committing Major Discipline Offenses During the Ten Year Period 1963-73 by State of Residence." 86 a discip lin ary in fra c tio n . Williamson et a l . ' s hypothesis was that "among college students certain disciplinary situations tend to arise out of un fam iliarity with the in s titu tio n 's mores and regulations." 12 However, the residence hall s t a f f can be of tremendous assistance in helping new students to cope with th e ir new liv in g and working environ­ ment. Such s t a f f are trained in certain counseling techniques to help them assist students with adjustment problems. Such training is impor­ tant in order to minimize the problems that could occur i f the poten­ t i a l adjustment d if f ic u l t i e s of new students were to be ignored. Comparison With Other Studies While the previous investigations concerning the characteris­ tics of the disciplinary offender have produced data that are some­ times conflicting from one study to the next, certain commonalities have emerged. Those commonalities were also present when the findings of the current study under investigation were compared with the fin d ­ ings of previous research completed in this area. For instance, 11 of the 18 studies discussed in Chapter I I describe the disciplinary offender as being a male, less than 21 years old, and a freshman or sophomore. Nine studies found that the disciplinary offender had a grade point average of 2.00 or less, or a grade point average less than that of the general campus population. Four studies found that he was enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences, while another found that he resided on campus, and three studies revealed that the 12 Williamson et a l . , "What Kinds of College Students Become Disciplinary Cases?" 87 offender was an ou t-o f-state student. A melange of results from the other studies reviewed, i . e . , Caskey and Duvall and Tisdale and Brown, indicates that the disciplinary offender is also from a large urban high school, has a previous disciplinary record, that there are more offenses committed by males than females, and that males are suspended more often than females. 13 While the findings of other studies were aTso discussed in the Review of the Literature chapter, the majority of the above fin d ­ ings were the ones which were consistent with what the investigator found to exist in his current research. A composite description of the disciplinary offender, gleaned from the analysis of the data of this study, would be that he is a male, less than 21 years of age, a freshman, possesses a grade point average of 2.00 or less, is enrolled in the curriculum of Arts and Sciences, resides on campus, has a per­ manent address eith er out of state or in the lower peninsula of Michi­ gan, and is not receiving financial aid. The investigator found that the s t a tis tic a l analyses that were conducted on the data, i . e . , chi-square and t - t e s t s , revealed that sig n ific a n t differences at eith er the .001 or .05 level did exist in relation to each of the selected variables. Therefore, based on the evidence collected, the investigator concluded that the primary null 13 Caskey and Duvall, "A Study of Selected Characteristics of All Disciplinary Offenders Involving Action Resulting in Probation or Suspension at Texas Tech University for the Six-Year Period 1963-69"; and Tisdale and Brown, "Characteristics of College Misconduct Cases." 88 hypothesis should not be accepted. The primary null hypothesis stated, In relation to each of the selected variables, there are no sig n ific a n t differences between students id e n tifie d as dis­ ciplin ary offenders and students in the general campus popu­ lation at Northern Michigan University. Conclusions The conclusions offered in the following paragraphs have been developed as a resu lt of the review of the lite r a tu r e found in Chapter I I and the analysis of the data found in Chapter IV. 1. As was also found in many of the studies reviewed, gender plays a d e fin ite role in the determination of a disciplinary offender. Males are consistently overrepresented in discipline studies with no exception to the current investigation. However, several of the studies reviewed and the investigation herein suggest an increase in female participation in college and university misconduct. 2. A d e fin ite relationship appears to exist between poor aca­ demic performance and involvement in misconduct. has also been noted by other researchers. Such a relationship This relationship is most readily apparent in the freshman and sophomore years. The investigator believes that perhaps one explanation for such an occurrence could be the "transitional readjustment" period that these individuals experi­ ence when leaving home for the f i r s t time, coupled with a d e fin ite lack of career goals. Furthermore, marginally admitted students who become discip lin ary offenders might also tend to account for a por­ tion of the lower-than-average grades of underclassmen even though 89 these individuals might be goal directed but simply unable to perform academically. 3. The younger student is more prone to become involved in a disc ip lin a ry offense. The turbulent, growth-producing freshman and sophomore years are a time of testing and exploring personal boundaries. Consequently, these are the years in which the greatest number of discip lin ary offenses occur. Generally, the students involved in these offenses are between the ages of 18 and 20. In addition to the tran sition al d i f f ic u l t i e s experienced with the onset of young adulthood, this population is also required to liv e in a "controlled residence hall environment" where the rules are s t r i c t l y enforced. Therefore, i t does not seem unusual that most disciplinary offenders are underclassmen. 4. College residence plays a p a rtic u la rly sign ifican t role in the determination of whether or not a student w ill become involved in a dis c ip lin a ry incident. The investigator believes th a t, and as the analysis of data supports, students residing on campus seem to be much more susceptible to involvement in disciplinary infractions because of th e ir "group" liv in g situation and the rules which are necessary in such a liv in g environment. Those students residing o f f - campus are less l i k e l y to be apprehended committing a violation of the Student Code simply because they have more freedom of movement and are not residing in a more "controlled liv in g situation" such as a r e s i­ dence h a ll. The un iversity's housing requirement might have a nega- tiv e impact on some of the students and make them f e e l, at least i n i t i a l l y , less part of the residence-hall community than they would - 90 i f they had voluntarily wished to liv e in this s itu atio n. The inves­ tig a to r knows that some students view the residence halls as not re a lly th e ir home or liv in g environment, but as an environment tem­ porarily created for them in which they are "forced" to liv e by the university. Because of the expression of such a ttitu d e s , the in v e s ti­ gator is of the b e lie f that these students are less l ik e ly to accept residence-hall l i f e and, in fa c t, contribute to the negative aspects of liv in g in this type of group situ atio n. 5. Evidence was found that suggests that financial dependence seems to be associated with a more serious a ttitu d e toward college and that financial aid recipients were less involved in disciplinary infractions than were other students. 6. Students who lack a d e fin ite career objective are more lik e ly to become involved in incidents of misconduct than are other students. The college of Arts and Sciences contains the greatest number of disciplinary offenders. However, i t is also the largest of the six colleges and the one to which a ll majors are assigned. students with undeclared After the f i r s t two years, students are required to select a major and are then transferred to the college of th e ir choice. With the general lack of direction or career-orientation experience of many students, i t is not unusual fo r a number of "career shifts" during the f i r s t two years of college. With a more d e fin ite career plan established, i t seems as i f students would become less involved in misconduct and more concerned with the preparation neces­ sary for th e ir chosen f ie l d . a ttitu d e toward one's Perhaps the onset of a more serious chosen vocation would be hastened i f students 91 were required to declare a major at the end of th e ir f i r s t year rather than th e ir second. The investigator suspects that too much time is allowed for the choosing of a major. The investigator also suspects that those students who have decided on a d e fin ite career choice might be less lik e ly to become involved in disciplinary infraction s. How­ ever, the typical college freshman possesses l i t t l e knowledge about occupations and his own in te lle c tu a l a b i l i t i e s , in te re s ts , and s k il l s . Deciding on a major is an extremely d i f f i c u l t and risky task. There­ fore, i f students were required to declare a major at the end of th e ir freshman year, a concomitant responsibility of the university must be accepted, i . e . , strengthening of the career-planning programs in the student a ffa irs division and in the various curricula. 7. The investigator believes that the transitional d if f ic u lt i e s of students that were mentioned e a r lie r provide, at least to some extent, an explanation as to why some students from Michigan's lower peninsula or from out of state are somewhat more prone to become involved in disciplinary infractions than are area students. Students, p a rtic u la rly new students who face new group and in s titu tio n a l require­ ments imposed upon th e ir personal style of liv in g , are lik e ly to encounter some tran sition al d i f f ic u lt i e s which would involve them in disciplinary situations. Recommendations The following recommendations have been divided into three d is tin c t categories: (1) those specific to Northern Michigan Univer­ s ity , (2) those that are intended for future researchers investigating 92 this topic, and (3) those that are general in nature and are not spe­ c i f i c to the direct findings of this study. Northern Michigan University 1. The individual from the Dean of Students Office responsible for the campus ju d ic ia l program should meet with representatives of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Business during the summer and p eriodically throughout the year to discuss the development of "posi­ tive program experiences," i . e . , student leadership and government workshops, which are extra -c u rric u la r in nature and aimed at freshmen and sophomores enrolled in this curriculum. These workshops could be a gradual ski 11-development process offered to students during th e ir f i r s t two years of enrollment. Such experiences could provide them with s k ills necessary to not only successfully cope with th e ir new environment but to become a more active participant in i t . A leadership-development series could be offered which began with some of the simplest s k ills necessary to be a group member. From that point i t could progress to practical group and leader s k i l l s , conceptual leadership theories, and then f i n a l l y evolve to where selected students who have successfully completed this entire two-year experience are now offered the opportunity to instruct freshmen and sophomores who are ju s t beginning this process. Successful completion of the preceding process could also contribute to students' development in terms of the vectors spoken of by Chickering or of the aspect of self-esteem and fu lfillm e n t described by Maslow. 14 14 Chickering, Education and Id e n tit y ; and A. H. Maslow, "Motivation," Handout for Education 250 at Northern Michigan University, Winter 1976. 93 2. Since the residence halls are where a majority of student rule infractions occur, additional training for the residence hall s t a f f during the f a l l should be provided in regard to extra-cu rricular programming and government a c t i v i t ie s , in an attempt to a ttra c t pos­ sible disciplinary offenders into "positive developmental experiences." Residence hall s t a f f have an ideal situation in which they have what could almost be termed a "captive audience" with which to work. Supplemental American College Testing information from the Admissions Office could be made available to residence hall s ta ff that would indicate such things as the extent of a student's involvement in high school, a variety of his s k ill areas, and where he feels he e ith er wants or needs assistance. This information, coupled with a student's A.C.T. scores and high school grade point average, could help to determine a population at which certain programs, i . e . , leader­ ship workshops, student government workshops, social a c t i v i t i e s , and academic assistance seminars, could be aimed. Involvement in such developmental s k ill a c tiv it ie s might help to prevent a student from becoming involved in a c tiv it ie s leading to a disciplinary incident. 3. Prior to deciding whether a student on academic probation should be permitted to continue his academic program, consideration should be given to whether or not he has a discip lin ary record and, i f he has, how serious i t is . I f the discip lin ary record was of a serious nature, perhaps the best solution would be to deny the student further enrollment for a spe­ c i f i c period of time. During this time, i t would be the responsibility of the student to re-examine his goals and, prior to readmittance, 94 present a ju s t if i a b l e rationale to the Admissions Committee as to why his readmission request should be honored. Included in such a rationale should be an explanation of what steps the student plans to follow in order to improve his academic and disciplinary record. Unless a s a tis ­ factory explanation is provided, the student should not be permitted to re -e n ro ll. To permit a student to do so would be to do him a disservice since prior evidence would indicate that he is unable to adequately cope e ith er in t e lle c tu a lly or socially in a college or university environment. 4. Before deciding whether a student should be granted a financial aid award from the university, consideration should be given to whether or not he has a disciplinary record, and i f he has, how serious i t is . Students who are recognized as disciplinary offenders should be made to rea lize that there could be consequences to bear other than ju s t a disciplinary sanction for the infraction of a regulation. I t is suggested that guidelines for the awarding of financial aid be developed to include a determination as to when, i f ever, a student who is currently on a d iscip lin ary status be granted aid. Perhaps students involved in what would be termed minor infractions could s t i l l be considered, whereas students involved in more serious types of offenses would not. In e ith e r case, a student's disciplinary record should play a role in determining whether a student w ill be granted financial aid. 5. Students involved in disciplinary infractions should be dispersed throughout the residence hall system, thus preventing, 95 insofar as possible, a large random grouping of such students in one hall or on one flo o r. Housing of a large number of students who were involved in disciplinary infractions in one hall or on one flo o r of a residence hall could create a p o te n tia lly chaotic situation for hall s t a f f . Even i f s t a f f were given additional training in how to work with such a population, the potential for problems would be great. Therefore, dispersing this population would, most probably, be the most advan­ tageous procedure. 6. Have the individual responsible for the discip lin ary pro­ gram conduct periodic reviews of the penalties received by males and females for sim ilar d iscip lin ary offenses. Such a procedure could help to eliminate and/or reduce any intentional or unintentional penalty discrimination or bias on behalf of the ind ividu al(s) impos­ ing a penalty. 7. Academic-assistance programs, e . g . , study s k i l l s , how to prepare for an examination, how to w rite a term paper, e t c . , should be developed in conjunction with personal growth development workshops intended to improve a student's overall developmental process. Examples of such workshops would be those concerned with time manage­ ment, assertiveness, decision making, etc. Recommendations for Further Research 1. I t is suggested that future researchers using a research format and procedures s im ilar to those followed in this study might want to use an analysis of variance s t a t is t i c in working with th e ir 96 data in addition to chi-square and t -t e s ts . The analysis of v a r i­ ance is a technique that separates the variation that is present into independent components; then these components are analyzed in order to test certain hypotheses. 15 A lim ita tio n of the t - t e s t technique is that i t cannot be used to perform tests on the differences more than two means. between An analysis of variance, however, can be used test a hypothesis using three or more group means. to For instance, in the current study i t could be used to test a hypothesis involving sex, class standing, and financial aid. An analysis of variance is a test of the hypothesis that several means are equal. As a consequence of this technique being able to manipulate several variables simul­ taneously, i t is a stronger and more exacting s ta tis tic a l procedure. 2. The investigator would encourage future researchers to consider the variables of race and religious a f f i l i a t i o n for analysis. I t is believed that these two variables can produce additional useful information in regard to characteristics of the disciplinary offender. Perhaps these ducted at mid-size to studies, to be most e ffe c tiv e , should be con­ large urban colleges and universities where the diversity of ethnic, r a c ia l, and religious backgrounds of the students would tend to be greater than those found at small colleges and uni­ versities or those schools that tend to be out of the "mainstream" of population centers. 3. I t is recommended that a survey of a variety of i n s t i t u ­ tions of higher education be conducted to determine what, i f any, N.Y.: ^ H . T. Hayslett, J r . , S ta tis tic s Made Simple (Garden City, Doubleday and Co., 1968), p. 158. 97 successful preventive discip lin ary programs have been developed and implemented and to determine what aspects of these programs have a p p lic a b ility to other in s titu tio n s . 4. I t is recommended that a study regarding the impact of disciplinary penalties and th e ir re h a b ilita tiv e e ffe c t on students be conducted to provide educators with a basis for what types of penalties imposed on students by an educational in s titu tio n tend to be the most e ffe c tiv e . General Recommendations 1. Provide training sessions for residence hall s ta ff in the f a l l and periodically throughout the year that place emphasis on those areas of th e ir in s titu tio n 's conduct code that are more lik e ly to be violated by freshmen and sophomores during the f a l l semester. Such sessions could a le r t s t a f f as to methods of confronting d is c i­ plinary infractions, approximate type of in fra c tio n , and time in the semester when a majority are l ik e ly to occur. In addition, some pre­ ventive techniques that might be used to reduce certain problem behav­ iors could also be discussed. Involvement of the college's counseling center s t a f f and campus security personnel in such sessions should also be encouraged. 2. Offer assertiveness-training techniques to residence hall s t a f f during the f a l l and period ically throughout the academic year to aid them in handling disc ip lin a ry confrontations. I t should not be assumed that the paraprofessional members of a residence hall s t a f f have adequate confrontation s k i l l s . Assertiveness-training techniques 98 can be very useful tools in correctly handling disciplinary s itu a­ tions once they occur. In addition, disciplinary infractions that are confronted appropriately might result in the reduction of the over­ a ll number of problems because students soon come to re a lize that unacceptable behavior w ill not be tolerated. 3. Establish a committee of students, fa c u lty , and s t a f f to conduct an annual review of the in s titu tio n 's rules and regulations for undergraduate and graduate students. The purpose of this review would be to discard antiquated rules, develop new ones when necessary, and modify existing ones, or leave them unchanged. Several benefits that could accrue to not only the students, s t a f f , and faculty but also the in s titu tio n are: (1) the aforementioned group would have an opportunity for input into in s titu tio n a l decision making that could have a real impact on students; (2) being asked to provide such input could certainly enhance one's self-esteem; and (3) such a committee would give students an opportunity to develop th e ir leadership s k ills and learn more about in s titu tio n a l decision making. Personal Learning Experience The opportunity to conduct research in this p a rtic u la r subject area has provided the investigator with a more thorough understanding of the characteristics of disciplinary offenders, the nature of empirical research, the importance of accurate s t a tis tic a l analysis, and the amount of time, energy, and personal motivation that is necessary to complete such a task. Support and encouragement from the investigator's professional peers, family, and academic advisor 99 contributed greatly in assisting the investigator to maintain the motivation and attitu d e necessary to complete this study. I t is hoped that a d e fin ite contribution has been made to the lite r a tu r e regarding the characteristics of disciplinary offenders. I t is further hoped that additional research w ill be conducted in the area of both preventive disciplinary programming and the characteristics of disciplinary offenders, since i t is f e l t that disciplinary i n c i­ dents appear to be increasing on many college and university campuses, and s t a f f tend to spend an inordinate amount of th e ir time and energy in dealing with such incidents. APPENDIX Table 1 .— Selected demographic fa c to rs o f the student population o f Northern Michigan U n iv e rs ity , 1977-1978. Freshman M F Upper p e n in s u la 670 638 Lower p e n in s u la 784 Sophomore T M F 1368 397 437 645 1429 467 1454 1343 2797 113 51 164 7 4 11 1574 1398 322 J u n io r T M F 834 381 385 357 824 347 352 864 794 1658 728 737 43 24 67 47 10 2 12 7 2972 917 820 1737 276 598 757 661 1009 939 1948 188 115 303 98 55 68 123 S e n io r M F 766 453 359 699 303 307 1465 756 20 67 1 8 782 758 1418 627 623 98 196 99 57 60 117 52 5 1 6 4 T G raduate T o ta l M F 812 437 585 1022 2338 2464 4802 610 44 34 78 1945 1695 3640 666 1422 481 619 1100 4283 4159 8442 30 30 60 45 43 88 278 168 446 6 2 8 31 19 50 61 28 89 1540 792 698 1490 557 681 1238 4622 4355 8977 1250 733 664 1397 333 389 722 2772 2612 5385 1009 939 1948 91 190 23 11 34 44 96 35 22 57 4 1 1 2 T T M F T G eographical D is t r ib u t io n M ich ig an t o t a l Out o f s ta te F o reig n & U .S . possession TOTAL Type o f E n ro llm e n t R e tu rn in g F ir s t - t i m e freshman T ra n s fe r Readmission New n o n tra n s fe r - - F ir s t - t i m e g ra d u a te s tu d e n t TOTAL M a r it a l S in g le M a rrie d TOTAL 408 315 723 81 121 202 280 315 595 1 5 6 11 7 18 142 166 308 142 166 308 557 681 1238 4622 4355 8977 1574 1398 2972 917 820 1737 782 758 1540 792 698 1490 1408 1234 2642 804 712 1516 625 642 1267 608 575 1183 187 231 418 3632 3394 7026 166 164 330 113 108 221 157 116 273 184 123 307 370 450 820 990 961 1951 1574 1398 2972 917 820 1737 782 758 1540 792 698 1490 557 681 1238 4622 4355 8977 S ta tu s 102 Table 2 . --Selected demographic factors of the student offender, non­ offender, and general university population at Northern Michigan University, 1977-1978. Offender Nonoffender General Age Under 21 1265 725 5619 Over 21 276 498 3358 1541 1223 8977 1471 929 3427 70 294 5550 1541 1223 8977 1180 361 4622 604 619 4355 1541 1223 8977 423 457 6372 1118 766 2605 1541 1223 8977 TOTAL Residence On campus Off campus TOTAL Sex Male Female TOTAL Financial Aid Aid No aid TOTAL 103 Table 3 . --Selected demographic factors of the student offender, non­ offender, and general university population at Northern Michigan University, 1977-1978. Offender Nonoffender General Curricula Arts and Sciences 730 476 3484 Business 333 168 1192 Education 244 328 1271 Nursing/Allied Health 109 178 912 One/two-year programs 123 71 880 Graduate 2 2 1238 TOTAL 1541 1223 8977 Freshman 862 399 2972 Sophomore 420 262 1737 Junior 185 290 1540 Senior 73 272 1490 Graduate 2 2 1238 TOTAL 1541 1223 8977 Class Table 4 .—Observed and expected frequencies of offenders in each v io latio n category in regard to the variable sex. General Regulatory Statement Misc. Total 259 (245) 94 (89) 143 (129) 96 (95) 102 (131) 63 (52) 79 (87) 1180 Female 117 (108) 61 ( 75) 22 (27) 25 ( 39) 28 (29) 69 ( 40) 5 (16) 34 (27) 361 461 320 116 168 124 171 68 113 1541 TOTAL aNumbers in parentheses designate expected frequency. Drugs Safety Violations 344 (353) a Alcohol Physical Violations Male Theft Variable Soci al Violations Offense Category Table 5 .--Observed and expected frequencies of offenders in each violatio n category in regard to the variable age. Misc. 100 (95) 138 (145) 102 (102) 133 (140) 57 (56) 88 (93) 1265 Over 21 101 ( 83) 40 ( 57) 16 (21) 23 ( 30) 22 ( 22) 38 ( 31) 11 (12) 25 (20) 276 461 320 116 168 124 171 68 113 TOTAL i Total General Regulatory Statement 280 (263) Drugs Safety i Violations 360 (378)a Alcohol Physi cal Violations Under 21 Variable Theft Social Violations i Offense Category aNumbers in parentheses designate expected frequency. 1541 Table 6 .—Observed and expected frequencies of offenders in each violatio n category in regard to the variable college residence. Theft Alcohol D ru g s General Regulatory Statement Mi sc. Total 451 a (440) 302 (306) 114 (111) 145 (155) 124 (124) 166 (163) 60 (64) 109 (109) 1471 Off campus 10 ( 21) 18 ( 15) 2 5) 17 ( 7) 6 6) 5 8) 7 ( 3) 5 5) 70 461 320 j 1 TOTAL I Safety Violations On campus Physical Violations Variable Social Violations Offense Category ( 116 162 ( 130 Numbers in parentheses designate expected frequency. ( 171 67 ( 114 1541 Table 7 .—Observed and expected frequencies of offenders in each violatio n category in regard to the variable fin ancial aid. Safety Violations Alcohol Drugs General Regulatory Statement Misc. 117 a (129) 89 ( 89) 27 (32) 43 ( 47) 41 (37) 59 ( 48) 28 (19) 26 (29) 430 No finan­ cial aid 344 (332) 231 (231) 89 (84) 125 (121) 93 (97) 112 (123) 40 (49) 77 (74) 1111 461 320 116 168 134 171 68 103 1541 TOTAL aNumbers in parentheses designate expected frequency. Total Physi cal Violations Financial aid Theft Variable Social Violations Offense Category Table 8 . --Observed and expected frequencies of offenders in each violatio n category in regard to the variable class standing. Alcohol Drugs General Regulatory Statement Mi sc. Total 164 (179) 64 (65) 87 (94) 65 (69) 130 (97) 41 (41) 63 (63) .862 Sophomore 131 (124) 89 ( 87) 39 (32) 49 (46) 41 (34) 27 (47) 14 (20) 30 (31) 420 Junior 49 ( 53) 55 ( 37) 8 (13) 20 (20) 10 (14) 9 (20) 11 ( 9) 17 (13) 179 Senior 27 ( 27) 12 ( 17) 5 ( 6) 12 ( 9) 8 ( 6) 5 ( 9) 8 ( 4) 3 ( 6) 80 455 320 116 168 124 171 74 113 I TOTAL I Theft 248 . (255) Safety 1 Violations I Physical Violations Freshman Variable ! i Social Violations i Offense Category aNumbers in parentheses designate expected frequency. 1541 Table 9 .--Observed and expected frequencies of offenders in each violatio n category in regard to the variable curriculum. Physical Violations Safety Violations Theft Alcohol Drugs General Regulatory Statement Misc. Arts and Sciences 214 (217) 151 (153) 54 (55) 82 (80) 50 (59) 101 (81) 24 (32) 54 (54) 730 Business 104 (101) 71 ( 71) 16 (26) 46 (37) 37 (27) 27 (38) 17 (15) 22 (25) 340 Education 85 ( 74) 60 ( 52) 23 (19) 24 (27) 14 (20) 16 (28) 248 (ID 17 (18) Nursing 36 ( 33) 20 ( 23) 9 ( 8) 5 (12) 12 ( 9) 13 (12) 7 ( 5) 8 ( 8) 110 One and two year programs 9 ( 14) 7 ( 10) 8 ( 3) 5 ( 5) 2 ( 4) 5 ( 5) 5 ( 2) 5 ( 3) 46 Graduate 10 ( 20) 14 ( 14) 6 ( 5) 6 ( 7) 9 ( 5) 9 ( 7) 6 ( 3) 7 ( 5) 67 458 323 116 168 124 171 68 113 Variable TOTAL aNumbers in parentheses designate expected frequency. 9 Total Social Violations i Offense Category 1541 Table 10.—Observed and expected frequencies of offenders in each v io latio n category in regard to the variable permanent residence. Physical Violations Safety Violations Theft Alcohol Drugs General Regulatory Statement Misc. Upper peninsula 158 a (146) 102 ( 99) 33 (36) 56 ( 52) 36 (39) 39 ( 53) 23 (21) 32 (32) 479 Lower peninsula/ out of state 313 (325) 218 (221) 83 (80) 112 (116) 88 (85) 132 (118) 45 (47) 71 (71) 1062 TOTAL 471 320 116 168 124 171 68 103 1541 Variable aNumbers in parentheses designate expected frequency. Total Social Violations l 1 i Offense Category Table 11.--Chi-square and significance levels for the independent variables and each offense category in the disciplinary offender population. General Regulatory Statement 1.35 NS 6.80 NS .083 NS 26.94 .001* 10.39 NS Age 4.60 NS 6.41 NS 1.65 NS 2.19 NS 0.00 NS 1.76 NS College residence 6.55 NS .490 NS 2.51 NS 13.60 NS 0.00 NS Financial aid 1.60 NS 0.00 NS 1.18 NS .531 NS 11.42 NS 4.05 NS .368 NS .942 NS Class standing i 1 Total Drugs 3.54 NS Misc. Theft .93 NS Alcohol Safety Violations Sex Independent Variables | Social Violations Physical Violations Offense Category Permanent residence 1.39 NS .115 NS Curriculum 9.47 NS 2.88 NS *Indicates significance. 11.75 NS 2.39 NS . 52.423 .001* .191 NS 1.34 NS 18.144 .05* 1.57 NS 4.40 NS 0.00 NS 60.80 .001* .538 NS 3.37 NS 5.64 NS 1.43 NS 3.26 NS 28.69 NS 5.42 NS 3.05 NS 58.253 .001* .409 NS .387 NS 5.50 NS .232 NS 0.00 NS 8.40 NS 14.09 NS 8.63 NS 1.815 NS 67.04 .001* 7.44 NS 11.67 NS .504 NS 13.38 NS 112 Table 1 2 .--T -te s t results fo r the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of sex and the depend­ ent variable of semester grade point average. Nonoffenders Male Female Offenders Male Female .000^ .000^ .000^ .000^ *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 1 3 .--T -te s t results for the comparison betwe-en nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of sex and the depend­ ent variable of cumulative grade point average. Nonoffenders Male Female Offenders Female Male .000^ .000^ .000^ .000^ ♦Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 1 4 .--T -te s t results for the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of sex and the depend­ ent variable of high school grade point average. Nonoffenders Male Female Offenders Male Female .000^ .000^ .000^ .000^ ♦Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 15.--A comparison of semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages of offender and nonoffender groups in regard to sex. Sex Semester GPA -----------------------------------Offender Nonoffender Cumulative GPA -----------------------------------Offender Nonoffender High School GPA -----------------------------------Offender Nonoffender Male 1.92 2.33 1.58 1.99 1.72 1.36 Female 2.02 2.58 1.37 2.18 2.09 2.04 114 Table 16.--T -te s t results fo r the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of college residence and the dependent variable of semester grade point average. Offenders Nonoffenders On-Campus On-campus Off-campus Off-Campus .000^ .000^ .000^ .000^ ♦Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 17.--T -t e s t results for the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of college residence and the dependent variable of cumulative grade point average. Nonoffenders On-campus Off-campus Offenders On-Campus Off-Campus .000^ .000^ .000^ .000^ ♦Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 18.—T -test results for the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of college residence and the dependent variable of high school grade point average. Nonoffenders On-campus Off-campus Offenders On-Campus .000^ .013^ ♦Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Off-Campus .000^ .004^ Table 19.--A comparison of semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages of offender and nonoffender groups in regard to college residence. Semester GPA Cumulative GPA High School GPA Offender Nonoffender Offender Nonoffender Offender On-campus 1.95 2.30 1.50 1.98 1.83 2.01 Off-campus 1.80 2.46 2.05 2.09 1.27 1.70 Nonoffender 115 College Residence 116 Table 2 0 .--J -te s t results fo r the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of fin an cial aid and the dependent variable of semester grade point average. Offenders Nonoffenders Financial Aid Financial aid No financial aid ' No Financial Aid .000* .000* .000* .000* *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l . Table 21.- -T -t e s t results for the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of financial aid and the dependent variable of cumulative grade point average. Nonoffenders Financial aid No financial aid Offenders Financial Aid No Financial Aid .000* .000* .000* .000* *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 22.- -T -t e s t results for the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of financial aid and the dependent variable of high school grade point average. Nonoffenders Financial aid No financial aid Offenders Financial Aid .093 .000* *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. No Financial Aid .098 .062 Table 2 3 .—A comparison of semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages of offender and nonoffender groups in regard to financial aid. Financial Aid Semester Grade Point Average Offender Nonoffender Cumulative Grade Point Average Offender Nonoffender High School Grade Point Average Offender Nonoffender Financial aid 2.02 2.55 1.63 2.26 2.01 1.86 No financial aid 1.91 2.40 1.49 1.98 1.73 1.61 118 Table 2 4 .--T -te s t results fo r the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of class standing and the dependent variable of semester grade point average. Nonoffenders Offenders Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Freshmen .000* .000* .013* .819 Sophomores .000* .000* .000* .049* Juniors .000* .000* .000* .006* Seniors .000* .000* .003* .316 *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 2 5 .- - T -t e s t results for the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of class standing and the dependent variable of cumulative grade point average. Nonoffenders Offenders Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Freshmen .028* .000* .000* .000* Sophomores .000* .000* .001* .967 Juniors .000* .000* .004* .821 Seniors .000* .000* .000* .000* *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. 119 Table 2 6 .- - T -t e s t results for the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of class standing and the dependent variable of high school grade point average. Nonoffenders Offenders Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Freshmen .000* .000* .000* .000* Sophomores .386 .022* .000* .000* Juniors .000* .000* .805 .000* Seniors .000* .000* .075 .001* *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 2 7 .--A comparison of semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages of offender and nonoffender groups in regard to class standing. Semester GPA Cumulative GPA Offender Nonoffender Offender Nonoffender Freshmen 1.83 2.32 1.07 1.24 Sophomore 2.04 2.52 2.08 Junior 2.10 2.61 Senior 2.29 2.42 High School GPA Offender Nonoffender 2.06 2.32 2.39 1.74 1.98 2.11 2.36 1.27 1.28 2.38 2.75 - .546 1.04 120 Class Standing Table 2 8 .—T -te s t results for the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of curriculum and the dependent variable of semester grade point average. Arts and Sciences Business Educati on Nursing/ Health One and Two Year Programs Graduate Miscellaneous Offenders Arts & Sciences .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .759 .000* Business .000* .000* .000* .000* .001* .992 .002* Education .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .725 .000* Nursing/Health .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .617 .000* One & two year programs .005* .000* .015* .003* .001* .787 .001* Graduate .958 .753 .946 .995 .949 .954 .981 Miscellaneous .006* .000* .010* .003* .001* .670 .001* Nonoffenders *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 2 9 .--T -te s t results fo r the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of curriculum and the dependent variable of cumulative grade point average. Nursing/ Health One and Two Year Programs Graduate Miscellaneous .000* .000* .002* .000* .000* .368 .000* Business .000* .001* .300 .015* .000* .405 .000* Education .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .314 .000* Nursing/Health .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .335 .000* One & two year programs .550 .563 .420 .634 .062 .497 .002* Graduate .688 .688 .574 .686 .888 .895 .967 Mi seellaneous .386 .389 .093 .402 .784 .684 .311 Business Arts & Sciences Nonoffenders Arts and Sciences Education Offenders *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 3 0 .—T -te s t results fo r the comparison between nonoffenders and offenders on the independent variable of curriculum and the dependent variable of high school grade point average. Education Nursing/ Health One and Two Year Programs Graduate Miscellaneous .079 .418 .039 .004* .168 .109 Business .937 .790 .103 .260 .070 .199 .612 Education .000* .000* .194 .001* .000* .139 .001* Nursing/Health .058 .092 .002* .683 .918 .180 .238 One & two year programs .740 .838 .145 .574 .300 .127 .979 Graduate .000* .000* .000* .000* .000* .059 .000* Miscellaneous .290 .333 .069 .749 .992 .191 .443 I Business .102 1 Arts & Sciences i Nonoffenders Arts and Sciences Offenders *Denotes significance beyond the .05 le v e l. Table 3 1 .--A comparison of semester, cumulative, and high school grade point averages of offender and nonoffender groups in regard to curriculum enrolled. Semester GPA Cumulative GPA Curriculum Enrolled Offender Arts & Sciences 1.98 2.39 1.53 Business 1.88 2.41 Education 2.02 Nursing/Health Nonoffender Offender High School GPA Offender Nonoffender 2.05 1.81 1.68 1.53 1.90 1.83 1.80 2.46 1.79 2.31 1.60 1.45 1.87 2.68 1.54 2.20 1.99 2.06 One and two year programs 1.71 2.35 1.17 1.64 2.08 1.87 Graduate9 2.00 1.86 .80 1.00 2.62 0.00b Mi seellaneous 1.80 2.58 .94 1.27 1.87 2.08 Nonofferider a Represents only four individuals: bNot reported. two in offender group and two in the nonoffender group. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bailey, H. W. "Disciplinary Procedures." In Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by Walter S. Monroe. New York: Macmillan, 1941. ________ . "Disciplinary Procedures." In Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by Walter S. Monroe. New York’: Macmillan, 1950. Chickering, Arthur W. Education and Id e n tity . Bass, I n c . , 1972. San Francisco: Jossey- Gay, L. R. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Appli­ catio n. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e rrill Publishing Co., 1976. Hayslett, H. T . , Jr. S ta tis tic s Made Simple. Doubleday and Co., 1968. Garden City, N.Y.: Isaac, Stephen, and Michael, William. Handbook in Research and Eval­ uation. San Diego, C a l i f . : Edits Publishers, 1972. Nie, Norman; H u ll, H.; Hadulai, C.; Jenkins, Jean G.; Steinbrenner, Karin, and Bent, Dale. S ta tis tic a l Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975. Packwood, William T. College Student Personnel Services. 111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1977. Springfield, Van Dalen, Deobold,B. Understanding Educational Research: An In tro ­ duction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973. Wrenn, C. G ilb e rt. Student Personnel Work in College. Ronald Press Co., 1951. New York: Young, D. Parker. Higher Education: The Law and Student Protest. Athens, Ga.: In s titu te of Higher Education, Center for Contin­ uing Education, University of Georgia, June 1970. 126 127 Periodicals Bevilacqua, Joseph P ., and Dole, Arthur A. "Characteristics of Male Disciplinary Students at a Catholic University." Research in Higher Education 3 (1975): 19-27. Jackson, Karma Rae, and Clark, Selby G. "Thefts Among College Stu­ dents." Personnel and Guidance Journal 46 (April 1958): 557-62. Kaiser, Herbert E., and B ritto n , Gale. " In te lle c tiv e and NonIn te lle c tiv e Characteristics of Students Involved in Dormitory Discipline Problems." The Journal of College Student Personnel 8 (November 1967). LeMay, Morris. "College Disciplinary Problems: A Review." of College Student Personnel 9 (May 1968): 184. Journal Mueller, Kate Hevner. "Problems in the Discipline Program." and Guidance Journal 34 (March 1956): 416. Personnel Schetlen, Eleanor N. "Disorders, Deans and Discipline: A Record of Change." Journal of National Association of Women Deans and Counselors 30 (Summer 1967): 169. Schoemer, J. R. "The College Pushout." Journal 46 (March 1968): 678. Personnel andGuidance Tisdale, John R ., and Brown, Frederick G. "Characteristics of College Misconduct Cases." Journal of College Student Personnel 6 (November 1965): 359. Williamson, E. G.; Jarve, W.; and Lagerstadt-Knudson, Barbara. "What Kinds of College Students Become Disciplinary Cases?" Educational and Psychological Measurement 12 (1952): 608-19. Wrenn, C. G. "Student Discipline in a College." Psychological Measurement 9 (1949): 625-33. Educational and Other Sources Bealer, J. E. "An Analysis of Personality and Demographic Factors Concerning Students Involved in Disciplinary Problems." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Bevilacqua, Joseph P. "Characteristics of Male Disciplinary Students at Villanova University." Ph.D. dissertation , University of Pennsylvania, 1972. 128 Brousseau, Mary Aline. "A Comparison of Disciplined and Non-Disci piined Women Residents, Marquette University, 1967-68." Ph.D. disserta­ tio n , Marquette U niversity, 1969. Caskey, 0. L ., and Duvall, V irg in ia . "A Study of Selected Characteris­ tic s of All D isciplinary Offenders Involving Actions Resulting in Probation or Suspension at Texas Tech University for the Six Year Period 1963-69." ED 040 473. Fild e r, Paul T. "Analysis of Students Committing Major Discipline Offenses During the Ten Year Period 1963-1973 by State of Resi­ dence." ERIC Id e n tific a tio n No. ED 082 629. Gladstein, G. A. "Doctoral Research in College Student Personnel Work: Past, Present, Future." Speech read at the A.P.G.A. Con­ vention, Washington, D.C., April 1966. Johnson, Duane Monroe. "Educational and Personality Characteristics of Two Groups of College Disciplinary Offenders." Dissertation Abstracts, Id e n tific a tio n No. 30/5-A/1867. Jones, Ronald Evert. "Characteristics, Perceptions, and Values of Students Who Were Placed on Disciplinary Probation or Suspended at the University of Tennessee During the Academic Years of 1964-65 and 1965-66." Dissertation Abstracts, Id e n tific a tio n No. 29/8-A/2481. Maslow, A. H. "Motivation." Class handout f o r Education 250: Leader­ ship Theory and Practice. Northern Michigan University, Winter 1976. Parker, 0. B. "An Analysis of Metropolitan Male College Students Involved in Discipline Problems." Ph.D. dissertation , Michigan State University, 1964. T e r r i l l , Isabel. "Disciplining Students in College." Abstracts 25 (July 1964): 331. Dissertation Yeager, Don Cornelius. "An Analysis of Selected Characteristics of Male Students Involved in Misconduct at Arizona State Univer­ s ity ." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Arizona State University, 1972.