INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify 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)”. I f 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 complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8315471 Kim, Hyung Kwan A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF FOREIGN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS, SELECTED FACULTY, AND STUDENT PERSONNEL STAFF OF THE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT OF M ICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Michigan State University University Microfilms International Ph.D. 1983 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106 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______ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered____________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Other . copy______ ^ ______________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF FOREIGN UNDER­ GRADUATE STUDENTS, SELECTED FACULTY, AND STUDENT PERSONNEL STAFF OF THE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Hyung Kwan Kim A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t o f the requirements fo r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1983 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF FOREIGN UNDER­ GRADUATE STUDENTS, SELECTED FACULTY, AND STUDENT PERSONNEL STAFF OF THE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY by Hyung Kwan Kim The perceived environment of an American u n iversity is a powerful fa c to r a ffe c tin g the foreign undergraduate student's edu­ cational l i f e and growth, and the fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff are the major sources of academic and nonacademic guidance fo r the student. This study's purpose was to examine whether foreign undergraduate students (and th e ir subgroups) d if f e r from fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff in the perceptions of campus environ­ ment at Michigan State U niversity. The un iversity environment was described in re la tio n to the fiv e basic s c a le s -p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, community, awareness, and propriety—of the second e d itio n of the College and University Environment Scales (CUES I I ) . The participants were 190 foreign undergraduate students, e ig h ty-s ix fa c u lty , and eighty-seven student personnel s ta ff members. The students' subgroups were formed by age, sex, class le v e l, academic areas of study, fin an cial sponsorship, liv in g arrangements, s e lf-ra te d English a b il it y , and country type. The m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance and the u n ivariate F -te s t were Hyung Kwan Kim used to determine differences in perceptions among the three re fe r­ ence groups and the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students. The t - t e s t was u tiliz e d to determine differences in perceptions between each of the students' subgroups and fa c u lty , and between each of the students’ subgroups an'* student personnel s t a ff . The findings indicated that s ig n ific a n t differences in per­ ceptions existed on p ra c tic a lity and scholarship dimensions of the campus between the compared groups. Although there were some sub­ groups exhibiting no differences in perceptions, most of the foreign undergraduate students tended to view the campus as being more practical than did the fa c u lty and student personnel s t a ff . Like­ wise, a m ajority of the students tended to regard the u n iversity as being more academic than did the fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff. While there were two subgroups exhibiting s ig n ific a n t d if f e r ­ ences in perceptions on community dimension, most of the students were in close agreement with the fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff in viewing community, awareness, and propriety dimensions of the u n iv ers ity . The foreign undergraduate students1 perceptions of the campus environment seemed to be affected by class le v e l, country type, English a b i l i t y , and age. The campus environment was per­ ceived somewhat d iffe r e n tly between the students' subgroups based on the above four variab les. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was possible to complete with the advice and assis­ tance of many individuals. The author wishes f i r s t to express his appreciation to the foreign undergraduate students, teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff who were w illin g to p a rtic ip a te in th is study. A deep sense of gratitude is f e l t toward Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, under whose constructive guidance this study was con­ ducted. His encouragement, understanding, and regard were indeed helpful throughout the e n tire program of the author's study. Special gratitude is extended to Dr. Vandel Johnson, Dr. Howard Hickey, and Dr. Louis Hekhuis whose constructive guidance and c ritic is m contributed to the completion of the study. A special expression of thanks is extended to Dr. James Studer, Dr. August Benson, Mrs. Peggy M ille r , and Mrs. K it Machinchick fo r th e ir assis­ tance in the process of data c o lle c tio n . Special appreciation is also extended to Mr. Khalil E laian , research consultant a t the College of Education, M .S.U ., fo r his assistance in the s ta tis tic a l computa­ tio n of the study. A special debt o f gratitude is extended to the w rite r's fa m ily , Youngja, Yoon, and Chung who encouraged, persevered, and bore the stress of the w rite r's demands during the e n tire time of study. thank you to Mrs. Nancy Heath fo r typing th is manuscript. F in a lly , TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ..................................................................................... v LIST OF APPENDICES.............................................................................. xi Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ................................................. Purpose of the Study ...................................................... Formulation of Research Design .................................... Hypotheses .............................................................................. Significance of the S tu d y ................................................ D efin itio n of the Terms ................................................ Organization of the Study ................................................. 4 6 7 8 11 12 13 REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................................................ 15 Academic Performance of Foreign Students . . . . Adjustment Problems and S atisfaction of Foreign S tu d e n ts .............................................................................. Factors A ffecting Foreign Student's Adjustment . . Foreign Students' Perceptions of Some Aspects of the U.S. University Environment .............................. Foreign Undergraduate Students on. American Cam­ puses .................................... The Reference Group Theory .......................................... 15 RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE 22 36 44 46 49 .......................................... 53 Population and Sample Selection .................................... Selection of Foreign Undergraduate Students . . Selection of F u ll-tim e Undergraduate Teaching F a c u l t y ........................................................................ Selection of Student Personnel S ta ff . . . . Instrumentation .................................................................. The CUES Development...................................................... V a l i d i t y .............................................................................. R e l i a b i l i t y ........................................................................ Data C o l l e c t i o n ................................................................... Treatment and Analysis of the D a t a .............................. 53 54 iii 54 56 57 58 62 63 63 65 Chapter IV. Page DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION .......................................... 68 Actual Respondents ............................................................. 70 Foreign Undergraduate Student Respondents . . . 70 Undergraduate Teaching Faculty Respondents . . 76 Student Personnel S ta ff Respondents ......................... 73 Presentation of Research Results .............................. 79 Comparisons of the Total Group of Foreign Under­ graduate Students with Undergraduate Teaching Faculty, and Student Personnel S ta ff . . . . 79 Comparisons o f the Subgroups of Foreign Under­ graduate S t u d e n t s ....................................................... 85 Comparisons of Undergraduate Teaching Faculty with the Subgroups of Foreign Undergraduate 114 S t u d e n t s ................................................................. Comparisons o f Student Personnel S ta ff with the Subgroups of Foreign Undergraduate Students . 131 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 150 Summary of Purpose and Method ..................................... P u r p o s e ....................................................................... 150 D e s i g n ........................................................................ 151 Sam pling........................................................................ 151 Data C o l l e c t i o n ..................................................... 152 A n a ly s is ........................................................................ 153 Summary of F in d in g s ..................................................... 153 Comparisons of the Total Group of Foreign Under­ graduate Students with Undergraduate Teaching Faculty and Student Personnel S ta ff . . . . Comparisons of the Subgroups of Foreign Under­ graduate S t u d e n t s ............................' ......................... Comparisons of Undergraduate Teaching Faculty with the Subgroups of Foreign Undergraduate S t u d e n t s .................................................................. 156 Comparisons of Student Personnel S ta ff with the Subgroups of Foreign Undergraduate Students . C o n c lu s io n s .................................................................. 160 Recommondations ................................................................... Recommendations fo r Application .............................. Recommendations fo r Further Study ........................ APPENDICES.......................................................................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................... iv 150 153 154 158 163 163 165 167 193 I 1ST OF TABLES Table III-l Page Id e n tifie d population, in vited sample, and response rates of foreign undergraduate students, undergradu­ ate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff . 64 Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by age c a te g o rie s ................................................................... 71 Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by g e n d e r ............................................................................... 71 Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by class l e v e l ......................................................................... 72 Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by academic areas of study categories ......................... 73 Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate stduents by liv in g arrangement categories ..................................... 73 Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by sponsorship categories ................................................. 74 Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by s e lf-ra te d English a b ilit y categories . . . . 75 Actual respondnets of foreign undergraduate students by home country type categories ..................................... 76 Faculty id e n tifie d population, fa c u lty in v ite d sam­ p le, and fa c u lty respondents by college a f f i l i a ­ tion ........................................................................................... 77 IV - 10 Student personnel s ta ff sample and student personnel s ta ff respondents by functional areas of service . 80 IV-1 IV-2 IV-3 IV-4 IV - 5 IV-6 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-11 Number, mean, and standard deviation of responses of foreign undergraduate students, undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff to the fiv e environment scales ............................................................. v 81 Table IV-12 IV-13 Page W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff to the fiv e environment scales . . W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students and undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and foreign under­ graduate students and student personnel s ta ff to the fiv e environment scales . . IV -14 Univariate F -te s t on responses of foreign under­ graduate students and undergraduate teaching fa c u lty to the fiv e environment scales with (1 , 360) D.F................................................................... 83 84 IV -15 Univariate F -te s t on responses of foreign under­ graduate student and student personnel s ta ff to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 360) D.F.. . . IV-16 85 Number, mean, and standard deviation of responses of foreign undergraduate students by age cate­ gories to the fiv e environment scales........ ..................... IV -17 W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by age categories to the fiv e environment scales. . . . IV-18 IV-19 IV-20 U nivariate F -te s t on responses of foreign under­ graduate students by age categories to the fiv e environment scales with (1 , 188) D.F................... 82 87 87 88 W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by gender to the fiv e environment scales........ ..................... 89 Number, mean, and standard deviation of responses of foreign undergraduate students by class level to the fiv e environment scales ........................................... 90 IV-21 W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by class level to the fiv e environment s c a l e s ............. 91 IV-22 W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance fo r six comparing p a ir groups by class level of foreign undergraduate students ....................................................... vi 92 Table Page IV-23 U nivariate F -te s t on responses of freshmen and senior foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 186) D.F............. 94 IV-24 U nivariate F-tests on responses of sophomore and senior foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 186) D.F............. 94 IV-25 U nivariate F -te s t on responses of ju n io r and senior foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environ­ ment scales, with (1 , 186) D.F......................................... 95 W ilk's m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by academic areas of study categories to the fiv e environment scales ............................................................. 96 W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by liv in g arrangement categories to the fiv e environ­ ment s c a l e s ......................................................................... 98 Number, mean, and standard deviation on responses of foreign undergraduate students by sponsorship categories to the fiv e environment scales . . . 99 IV-26 IV-27 IV -28 IV-29 IV-30 IV-31 IV-32 IV-33 W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by sponsorship categories to the fiv e environment s c a l e s .................................................................. 100 W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance fo r three comparing p air groups by sponsorship cate­ gories of foreign undergraduate students . . . . 102 Number, mean, and standard deviation on responses of foreign undergraduate students by s e lf-ra te d English a b ilit y categories to the fiv e environ­ ment s c a l e s ......................................................................... 103 W ilk's m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by s e lf-ra te d English a b ilit y categories to the fiv e environment scales .............................................................. 104 W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of "good" and "average" English a b ilit y foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environ­ ment s c a l e s ......................................................................... 105 v ii Table IV-34 IV-35 Page Univariate F -te s t on responses of "good" and "average" English a b ilit y foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 182) D.F. . . 106 Number, mean, and standard deviation of responses of foreign undergraduate students by home country type categories to the fiv e environment scales . . . . 107 IV-36 W ilk's m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by home country type categories to the fiv e environment 108 s c a l e s ......................................................................... IV-37 W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance fo r six comparing p air groups by home country type cate­ gories of foreign undergraduate students . . . . IV-38 U nivariate F -te s t on responses of foreign under­ graduate students from low-income and middle-income countries to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 184) D . F . ............................................................. 112 IV-39 Univariate F -te s t on responses of foreign under­ graduate students from low-income and high-income in d u s tria lize d countries to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 184) D.F......................................... IV-40 IV-41 IV-42 IV-43 IV-44 110 113 U nivariate F -te s t of responses of foreign under­ graduate students from middle-income and highincome in d u s tria lize d countries to the fiv e environ­ ment scales, with (1 , 184) D.F.......................................... 114 T-tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by age c a te g o rie s .................................................................. 116 T -tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and female and male foreign under­ graduate s tu d e n ts .................................................................. 117 T-tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by class level ........................................................................ 119 T -tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by academic areas ofstudy categories ........................ 121 v iii Table IV-45 IV-46 IV-47 IV-48 IV-49 IV-50 IV-51 IV -52 IV-53 IV -54 IV-55 IV-56 Page T-tests on comparison between the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by liv in g arrangement categories (with whom they l i v e ) ........................................................................................... 123 T -tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by sponsorship categories .................................................. 125 T -tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by English a b ilit y categories . . . 127 T -tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by home country typecategories ....................................... 129 T -tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign graduate students by age cate­ gories ..................................................................................... 133 T -tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and female and male foreign undergraduate s tu d e n ts ..................................................................................... 135 T-tests of comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by class l e v e l ........................................................................................... 136 T -tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by academic areas of study c a t e g o r ie s ................................................. 138 T -tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and undergraduate students by liv in g arrange­ ment categories (with whom they liv e ) ........................ 140 T-tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by sponsor­ ship c a t e g o r i e s ................................................................... 143 T-tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by English a b ilit y categories ............................................................ 144 T-tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by home country type categories ....................................................... 147 ix LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. I n i t i a l Cover L e tte r of the Researcher .......................... 168 B. Memo to the In vited Foreign Undergraduate Students from Foreign Student Advisor .......................................... 170 Memo to the In vited Undergraduate Teaching Faculty from Foreign Student Advisor .......................................... 172 Memo to the In vited Student Personnel S ta ff from Assistant Vice President fo r Student A ffa irs and S e r v i c e s ..................................................................................... 174 E. Follow-Up L e tte r of the Researcher ............................... 176 F. Personal Data Form fo r Foreign Undergraduate S t u d e n t s ..................................................................................... 178 G. Q u e s t io n n a ir e ......................................................................... 180 H. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations fo r Each Item of the Five Scales by Foreign Undergraduate Students, Undergraduate Teaching Faculty, and Student Personnel S t a f f ........................................................................................... 187 C. D. x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Thousands of foreign students come to the United States every year to study a t American colleges and u n iv e rs itie s . Recent s ta tis ­ tic s of the In s titu te of In ternational Education show that 286,340 foreign students from 186 d iffe re n t countries and te r r ito r ie s enrolled a t American colleges and u n iv ers ities in the academic year of 19791980.1 year. This number shows an 8 .5 percent increase over the previous This growth rate has occurred through most o f the past twenty- six years. 2 However, i t is s ig n ific a n t to note th a t the proportion of undergraduate students to graduate students has increased in recent years. According to information from the In s titu te of In te r ­ national Education, of the to ta l foreign student population in 19791980, 64.7 percent were undergraduates, while 35.3 percent were 3 graduate students. With th is great in flu x of foreign undergraduate students, American in s titu tio n s of higher education are becoming increasingly important in th e ir ro le of educating them. The potential influence ■^Douglas R. Boyan and A lfred C. J u lia n , Open Doors: 1979/1980, Report on International Educational Exchange (New York: In s titu te of International Education, 1981), p. 2. 2Ib id . 3I b i d . , p. 21. 1 2 of American colleges and u n iv e rs itie s cannot be overstated as these in s titu tio n s seek to contribute to the in te lle c tu a l and emotional development of these students. However, in spite of the rapid growth of foreign undergraduate students and growing concerns about the students' college l i f e on American campuses, there is s t i l l a ques­ tion as to how college l i f e a ffe c ts them and ju s t how th is impact varies w ithin in s titu tio n s and in divid uals. American colleges and u n iv e rs itie s have many diverse goals in admitting foreign students. A lis t a ir W. McCrone summarizes the purposes of accommodating foreign students on American campuses a t the th ird colloquim on foreign students in fiv e points: (1) to give d ire c t education to the foreign students, (2 ) to enable foreign students to b e tte r s a tis fy th e ir professional and educational aspira­ tio n s , (3) to enable American colleges and u n iv ers ities to do a b e tte r job of educating American students, (4) to enable American colleges and u n iv e rs itie s to contribute to the social and economic development of other nations through the education and train in g of leaders, (5 ) to fu rth e r communication and understanding among people 4 of d iffe re n t nations, thereby favoring world peace. Acceptance of these goals of American colleges and u n iversi­ tie s should lead to a careful examination of the ways in which various segments of a campus can contribute to the favorable educa­ tio nal experience of foreign undergraduate students. I t seems obvious V l i s t a i r W. McCrone, "In Quest of the Id e a l," The Foreign Undergraduate Students: In s titu tio n a l P r io ritie s fo r Action (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1975), pp. 2 0 -2L 3 th at a foreign undergraduate student's educational experiences on an American campus do not take place only in the classroom and labora­ to ry . A student spends most of h is/h e r time outside the formal instruction s itu a tio n , th a t is , in the environment o f the e n tire campus, not ju s t the classroom. Therefore, what happens in the interactions with the campus environment during th is time may well be crucial in reinforcing or obstructing the foreign student's educational experience. Metraux states th is point as follows: The relatio n s of the student w ithin the un iversity are much more important in shaping a ttitu d e s and in achieving the general aims of cross-cultural education than his relations with government agencies. The in s titu tio n of higher learn­ ing remains the focus of specific experience in crosscu ltu ral education: and the re sp o n s ib ility fo r successfully reaching the immediate and long-range goals of exchange programs rests prim arily with the u n iv ers ities and colleges, and with the human beings who fo r various reasons have undertaken to work fo r and with foreign s tu d e n ts . 5 The environment of any campus is a mixture of "such psycho­ lo g ic a l, s o c ia l, and physical components as these: campus mores, tra d itio n s , rules; acceptable standards o f behavior and achievement; innovative-conservative balance; issues and controversies; grounds, a rc h ite c tu re , f a c i l i t i e s ; value orientations and p r io r itie s ; organi­ zational s tru c tu re ."6 Therefore, the emphases and variations of these components are among the factors th a t explain the differences among colleges and u n iv e rs itie s . Paul Biol and discusses the importance of Guy S. Metraux, Exchange of Person: The Evolution of CrossCultural Education (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1952), pp. 35-36. cisco: 6Paul L. Bressel, Handbook of Academic Evaluation (San Fran­ Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1976), p. 166. 4 campus environment on college students' educational development: . . . the educational experience cannot be thought of solely or even prim arily as a classroom dominated experience. Research evidence is beginning to accumulate th at indicates that much of the educational potency of a p a rtic u la r in s t i­ tution lie s in the impact of it s environment or clim ate upon the learning students. I t is the t o t a lit y of the learning experience, formal and inform al, c u rric u la r and e x tra c u rri­ c u la r, th at is in flu e n tia l and i t is th is t o t a lit y th a t requires fu rth e r examination and assessment i f education is to be maximized.7 C erta in ly , the same thing can be said of foreign undergraduate stu dent's educational growth and development on American campus. Statement of the Problem One important consideration in viewing a campus environment is the perceptions of the people who make up the u n iversity commuO n ity . A foreign undergraduate student's perceptions of the campus environment are important because they may be some of the most c r it ic a l factors in motivating and directing the student's behavior on a foreign campus. As a growing student body, foreign undergradu­ ate students can provide valuable information with th e ir perceptions concerning whether American in s titu tio n a l environments are meeting th e ir educational needs. Faculty perceptions of the campus environment are important to foreign undergradute students in th a t the content and direction 7Paul A. Bloland, Student Group Advising in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: The American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1967), p. 4. 8Leonard L. B aird, "Importance o f Surveying Student and Faculty Views," in Understanding Student and Faculty L if e , ed.: Leonard L. Baird, Rodney T. H artnett and Associates (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980), p. 2. 5 of th e ir advising and conseling may p a r tia lly evolve from th e ir perceptions of the ch aracteristics o f the u n iv ers ity . They are also important because the fa c u lty has a major role in defining and in terp retin g the in s titu tio n a l goals and policies related to the processes of education by being in a position to re fe r foreign under­ graduate students to academic services. The importance of fa c u lty perceptions can fu rth e r be demonstrated by re fe rrin g to F itz g e ra ld ’ s statement that " i t is essential th a t a ll professional workers charged with educational re s p o n s ib ilitie s perform th e ir d is tin c tiv e functions on the basis of shared understanding and mutual respect." c Student personnel s ta ff perceptions of the campus environments of an in s titu tio n are also important because, lik e the fa c u lty , th e ir personnel services fo r the foreign undergraduate student may be based on th e ir perceptions of the campus environment. Furthermore, student personnel professionals, including foreign student advisors, are playing an important leadership role in providing mediation fo r many factors impinging on the foreign sutdent's d a ily l i f e on and o ff campus. They provide foreign students with specialized assistance to meet th e ir unique and varied needs. By providing information, re fe rrin g students to other resources, in terp retin g regulations and laws, and suggesting a lte rn a tiv e s , professional personnel workers play a decisive ro le in helping foreign students lead successful ^Laurine E. F itzg e ra ld , "Faculty perceptions of Student Personnel Functions," in College Student Personnel; Readings and B ibliographies, ed.: Laurine E. F itzg e ra ld , Walter F. Johnson, and W illa Norris (Boston: Houghton M if f lin Company, 1970), pp. 159-160. liv e s on American campuses.^ In summary, i t seems obvious th a t the teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff are s ig n ific a n t re fe r­ ence groups fo r foreign undergraduate students taking an educational journey on a foreign campus. Comparison of the perceptions of the above three reference groups of the campus environment of a un iversity would thus provide valuable information. Differences in perceptions might indicate problems in communication among foreign undergraduate students, fa c u lty , and student personnel s t a ff . Also, differences in percep­ tions might indicate the areas to be reviewed more and analyzed fo r the enhancement of goals of the in s titu tio n in admitting foreign undergraduate students. In view of the above considerations, the following questions are n a tu rally raised: How do foreign undergraduate students perceive the campus environment in which they are educated? Do foreign under­ graduate students d if f e r from the other s ig n ific a n t groups--teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s t a ff — in th e ir perceptions of the cam­ pus environment? Do foreign undergraduate students’ perceptions depend on th e ir personal characteristics? This study is intended to fin d some answers to these questions a t Michigan State U niversity. Purpose of the Study The purpose of th is study was to examine whether foreign undergraduate students d if f e r from undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and 10Ivan Putman, J r . , "Internation al Students," in Handbook of College and U niversity A dm inistration, ed.: Asa S. Knowles (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970), p. 7-244. 7 student personnel s ta ff in th e ir perceptions of the campus environment a t Michigan State U niversity (M .S .U .), and to determine whether fo r ­ eign undergraduate students' perceptions d if f e r between the sub­ groups as id e n tifie d on the basis of th e ir background variab les. To carry out these purposes, more s p e c ific a lly , four comparative forms of objectives were provided. 1. Comparisons of the to ta l group of foreign under­ graduate students with undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s t a f f . 2. Comparisons of the subgroups of foreign under­ graduate students. 3. Comparisons of undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students. 4. Comparisons of student personnel s ta ff with the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students. Formulation of Research Design As stated above, the primary objective of th is study was to describe the difference and/or s im ila rity of perceptions of foreign undergraduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff in re la tio n to the campus environment. To f u l f i l l the o b jective, the environmental perceptions were measured by the second edition of the College and University Environment Scales (CUES I I ) , developed by C. Robert Pace.11 CUES I I consists of fiv e “ c. Robert Pace, College and U niversity Environment Scales. 2nd ed. (Princeton, N .J .: Educational Testing Service, 1969). 8 basic scales and two subscales, but th is study is lim ite d to a description of how the three reference groups perceive the campus environment in re la tio n to the fiv e basic scales, th at is : (1) prac­ t i c a l i t y , (2) scholarship, (3) community, (4) awareness, and (5) prop riety. These scales w ill be f u lly described in Instrumenta­ tion of Chapter I I I . In a d d itio n , the perceptions of foreign undergraduate stu­ dents are described on the basis of the variables which were chosen as hypothesized to a ffe c t the environmental perceptions of in dividua ls . 12 That is , the foreign undergraduate students' perceptions are described in re la tio n to the variables o f age, gender, class le v e l, academic areas of study, liv in g arrangements (with whom they l i v e ) , fin an cial sources of support, s e lf-ra te d a b ilit y in English, and types of home country. 13 Hypotheses The hypotheses to be tested in th is study were developed in the order of the stated objectives. H, : There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected ch a rac te ris tic s of the campus environ­ ment when foreign undergraduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff are compared to one another. 12 More d e ta ils about the variables chosen w ill be explained in Chapter IV. 13 The World Bank categorizes a ll the countries of the world into fiv e developmental types with main respects of per-capita income, other s o c ia l, educational, and economic in d icatro s, e tc . This study w ill use the World Bank's c la s s ific a tio n in categorizing the foreign undergraduate students' home country types. World Developmental Report (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, August 1980). 9 H « T h e r e w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics o f the campus environ­ ment when the ages of foreign undergraduate students are grouped into two categories: 18-23 and 24-38. ^2-2: There w iH i>e no differences in the perceptions of the selected ch aracteristics of the campus environ­ ment between female and male foreign undergraduate students. Ho_3 *‘ There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environ­ ment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir class le v e l. ^2-4*’ There w in be no differences in the perceptions of the selected c h a racteristics of the campus environ­ ment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir academic areas of study. H2_c : There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir liv in g arrangements. H2 -6 : There w ill &e no differences in the selected characteristics of ment when foreign undergraduate on the basis of th e ir fin a n c ia l the perceptions of the campus environ­ students are compared sponsorship. H2_7: There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir s e lf-ra te d a b ilit y in English. H2 There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected c h aracteristics of the campus environment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir home country type. H, There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the two age groups of foreign undergraduate students (18-23 and 24-38). H3_2: There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected c h a racteristics of the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with female and male foreign undergraduate students. 10 H3_3: There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environ­ ment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the class level categories of foreign under­ graduate students. H3_4: There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environ­ ment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the academic areas of study categories of foreign undergraduate students. H3 5 : There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environ­ ment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the liv in g arrangement categories of foreign undergraduate students. H3_g: There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environ­ ment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the sponsorship categories of foreign under­ graduate students. H - 7 : There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environ­ ment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the English a b ilit y categories of foreign under­ graduate students. H , g : There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics o f the campus environ­ ment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the country type categories o f foreign under­ graduate students. H. There w ill be differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s t a ff with the age groups of foreign undergraduate students (18-23 and 24-38). h4 _2 : There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with female and male foreign undergraduate students. H. 3: There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics o f the campus environ­ ment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the class level categories of foreign undergraduate students. 11 H4 -4 : There 1)6 n0 differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environ­ ment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the academic areas of study categories of foreign undergraduate students. H4_5: There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected ch aracteristics of the campus environ­ ment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the liv in g arrangement categories of foreign under­ graduate students. H4_6: There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected ch aracteristics o f the campus environ­ ment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the sponsorship categories of foreign undergraduate students. H, There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environ­ ment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the English a b ilit y categories of foreign undergraduate students. H* There w ill be no differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environ­ ment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the country type categories of foreign undergraduate students. Significance of the Study This study is s ig n ific a n t in gathering information fo r in s titu tio n a l s e lf-e v a lu a tio n . How do foreign undergraduate stu­ dents, a s ig n ific a n t u n it of the student body, perceive the campus environment, a powerful fa c to r a ffe c tin g th e ir educational expe­ rience and growth? Do certain groups of foreign undergraduate stu­ dents need more a tten tio n than others in helping them gain the greatest b e n e fit from the u n iv e rs ity 's academic and nonacademic experiences? The underlying assumption is that in s titu tio n a l environ­ ment can be changed and a lte re d . Therefore, there must be evaluation 12 of the campus environment i f the u n iversity is interested in enhanc­ ing the educational experience and development of foreign under­ graduate students. The determination of how a u n iversity environment is viewed by foreign undergraduate students and its subgroup(s) is important fo r the fa c u lty and the student a ffa ir s professionals who in te ra c t with foreign undergraduate students on campus. The fa c u lty may want to know how foreign undergraduate students see the campus environ­ ment. The student personnel s ta ff also needs to concern it s e l f with foreign undergraduate students in th e ir various liv in g areas and how they feel about th e ir campus environment. I f differences in perceptions are found, i t might be necessary to consider possible adjustment and changes in the programs of personnel service provided by the u n iv ers ity . In any case, the to ta l u n iversity s t a ff needs to know whether they are working with foreign undergraduate students who perceive the campus environment somewhat s im ila rly or in many d iffe re n t ways. The re su lt of th is study may provide the to ta l university s ta ff with the necessary information to work e ffe c tiv e ly toward a more successful educational experience fo r foreign under­ graduate students. D e fin itio n o f the Terms The terms which were used in th is study were defined as follows: Foreign Undergraduate Students re fe r to a ll students from abroad enrolled in undergraduate schools or colleges of Michigan 13 State University in the spring term of 1982 who were pursuing a f u l l ­ time program of study, but who had temporary visa status a t the time of this study. Teaching Faculty refers to in structional personnel whose fu ll-tim e teaching load included instruction of undergraduate stu­ dents in the schools or colleges of M.S.U. in which foreign under­ graduate students were enrolled in the academic year of 1981-82. Student Personnel S ta ff refers to fu ll-tim e professional personnel who were working in the area of service a v a ila b le to foreign undergraduate students a t Michigan State U niversity in the spring term of 1982. Campus Environment includes the various factors of in teractio n th at the students go through in the stages of th e ir educational growth and development, p a rtic u la rly p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, community, awareness, and propriety of the campus. Organization o f the Study This study was organized into fiv e chapters. an introduction to the study. Chapter I was I t consisted of a ll the necessary d e ta ils such as introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, formulation of research design, hypotheses, s ig n if i­ cance of the study, and d e fin itio n of the terms used in th is study. In Chapter I I a review of lite r a tu r e was presented. To f u lly understand foreign undergraduate students' campus liv e s in American in s titu tio n s , the related studies were reviewed. Also, the reference group theory was presented to explain how the foreign 14 undergraduate students' perceptions of the campus environment became a comparison reference fo r the teaching fa c u lty 's and student person­ nel workers' perceptions. The research design and procedure of the study was exten­ sively discussed in Chapter I I I . Population and sample selectio n , instrumentation, data c o lle c tio n , and treatment and analysis of the dara were covered in th is chapter. In Chapter IV the analysis of the data was reported under the two sections t it le d : (1) Actual Respondents, and (2) Presentation of the Research Results. Chapter V. F in a lly , the study is summarized in This chapter also concluded the study and included recom­ mendations fo r application and fu rth e r research. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE Over the past three decades there has been a great amount of lite r a tu r e published on the subject of foreign students in the United States. For example, Walton analyzed 200 studies produced between 1946 and 1967.* More re ce n tly, Spauling and Flack in th e ir l i t e r a ­ ture review covered more than 450 items which were w ritte n during the period from 1967 to 1976. 2 However, an extensive review of l i t e r a ­ ture indicates th at very few of these publications have d e a lt d ire c tly with the question of how the three s ig n ific a n t reference groups (undergraduate foreign students, teaching fa c u lty , and student per­ sonnel s ta ff) perceive the environment. The lite r a tu r e review also indicates th a t the studies which have d e a lt exclusively with under­ graduate foreign students are very lim ite d , although some have treated them as an independent variable to be d iffe re n tia te d from graduate level students. The lite r a tu r e review fu rth e r indicates th a t under­ graduate and graduate foreign students seem to share some common experiences in th e ir schooling in the United States. *Barbara J. Walton, Foreign Students Exchange in Perspective: Research on Foreign Students in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Department of State Publication, 1967). 2Seth Spaulding and Michael Flack, The World's Students in the United States: A Review and Evaluation of Research on Foreign Students (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976). 16 The w r ite r , therefo re, has chosen to divide th is chapter into six sections with emphasis on foreign students' academic and social l i f e in American colleges and u n iv e rs itie s . The f i r s t section w ill present a review of studies on the academic performance of foreign students. The second section w ill be a presentation of research completed in which foreign students' adjustment problems and s a tis ­ faction were investigated on American campuses. The th ird section w ill present a review of studies id e n tify in g the factors a ffectin g foreign students' adjustment to the American campus environment. The fourth section w ill present a few research findings from studies of foreign students' perceptions of the various aspects of the U.S. in s titu tio n a l environment. The population of foreign students fo r the current study is delim ited to undergraduate foreign students as previously mentioned. In the f i f t h section, th e re fo re , a review of studies which focused on undergraduate foreign students w ill be exam­ ined. The fin a l section w ill be a b r ie f description of the reference group theory which is used to explain how the undergraduate foreign students' perceptions of campus environment become a comparison reference fo r the teaching fa c u lty 's and student personnel workers' perceptions. Such organization is deemed useful in handling the lite r a tu r e review in terms of the purposes of the current study. Academic Performance of Foreign Students Before presenting a review of research on foreign students' academic performance, i t seems appropriate to f i r s t examine what the international student seeks on American campuses, since th e ir goals 17 may greatly influence th e ir academic performance* and fu rth e r d ire c t th e ir behavior in the United States. The evidence indicates th at the goals of foreign students are basically educational. Holland stated that foreign students are p rim arily personally oriented toward d e fin ite academic achievement and professional development, while the other concerned groups often emphasize broad social goals such as in ternational understanding and friendship. Han's survey, which was conducted to id e n tify the goals of Far Eastern Students enrolled in the Universtiy of Southern C a lifo rn ia , found that the principal goals foreign students wanted to achieve were to acquire s k ills and knowledge in th e ir major fie ld s , 4 to obtain a degree, and to improve career opportunities a t home. Sim ilar findings were also indicated in a study by Singh who examined the reasons fo r foreign students coming to the U.S. Singh concluded on the basis of information collected from the foreign students of twenty-one countries a t the University of Tennessee th at a m ajority of the students came to the U.S. to get train in g and degrees in th e ir fie ld s and to study how people function in th e ir professions so they could take home knowledge th a t would be useful to th e ir 3Kenneth Holland, " S ta tis tic s and Comments on Exchange with the United S tates," International Social Science B u lle tin 8 (1956): 636. ^Pyung Eui Han, "A Study of Goals and Problems o f Foreign Graduate Students from the Far East a t the U niversity of Southern C a lifo rn ia ," D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 36, 68A, 1975. countries. 5 Likewise, Hull reported th a t academic goals were the most important to foreign students.® Spaulding and Flack reached comprehensive conclusions a fte r th e ir extensive review o f lite r a tu r e . They stated that the major reasons foreign students come to the U.S. are: (1) to get advanced education or train in g th at is not availab le a t home; (2) to acquire prestige through a degree from a U.S. in s titu tio n ; (3) to take advantage of a v ailab le scholarship funds; (4 ) to escape unsettled p o litic a l or economic conditions in th e ir home country; and (5) to learn more about the United S ta te s.7 Academic performance of foreign students has been a major area of study, and i t is generally reported th a t foreign students perform favorably in terms of th e ir academic achievement. Thompson examined the academic records of 681 foreign students enrolled in Ohio State U niversity. He reported that 240 earned degrees a t d iffe re n t le v e ls , i . e . , t h ir t y received th e ir Bachelors, 148 th e ir Masters, and sixty-two the Doctor of Philosophy, while 203 of the to ta l number were s t i l l in the process of earning degrees. Thompson 5Harmohinder Paul Singh, "A Study of Socioeconomic Problems and Non-return of Selected Foreign Graduate Students ad the University of Tennessee." Dissertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 37, 4835A, 1977. 6W. Frank H u ll, IV ., Foreign Students in the United States of America: Coping Behavior w ithin the Educational Environment (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1978), pp. 82-84. States, 7Spaulding and Flack, The World's Students in the United p. 23. 19 observed th a t " I t is undoubtedly safe to assume th a t no other large O group of students has been able to achieve th is record. Studies on the academic performance of foreign students ( e .g ., Koenig, 1953; Thompson, 1951; Putman, 1952; Lins and M illig a n , 1950; Moore, 1953; Warmbrunn and S p alter, 1957; and Hountras, 1955) were summarized by Putman. Putman indicated th at these studies d iffe re d in methodology and were somewhat in c o n flic t in re s u lts , but he reached the conclusion th a t foreign students achieve generally g as well as American students do. C ieslak's study also reported s im ila r findings. He mailed questionnaires to ninety-two in s titu tio n s asking about the academic performance of th e ir foreign student group in comparison to th a t of th e ir general student group. Among the ninety-two in s titu tio n s , fif t y - t h r e e answered th at i t was about the same, and th irty -tw o reported th at i t was "better than the general scholastic average." As a re s u lt of his survey, th erefo re, Cieslak concluded th a t "the academic performance of foreign students as a group in American colleges and u n iv ers ities compares very favorably with th a t of American s tu d e n ts ."^ D Ronald B. Thompson, "Academic Records of Foreign Students," College and U niversity 27 (October 1951): 29-33. ®Ivan Putman, J r . , "The Academic Performance of Foreign Students," The Annals of the American Academy of P o litic a l and Social Science 335 (May 1961): 47-49. 10Edward C. C ieslak, The Foreign Students in American Colleges: A Survey and Evaluation of Adm inistrative Problems and Practices (D e tro it: Wayne University Press, 1955), p. 130. 20 There has been an endeavor to predict the academic achieve­ ment of foreign students. Such studies generally have been conducted by examining the relationship between foreign students' academic records such as grade-point average (GPA) and personal background variab les, but the evidence seems to be inconclusive. Hountras con­ ducted a study to find out the predictive relationship of personal, scholastic, and psychological factors to the academic achievement of 587 foreign graduate students a t the University of Michigan from 1947 to 1949. In the control group, 330 were studied, 157 of whom were on probation. Even though these large numbers of students were on probation, Hountras found no predictive significance between academic success and the factors of sex, age, m arital status, length of stay in graduate school, major f ie ld of study, or geographical a re a .** However, Ellakany's study reported d iffe re n t findings. Ellakany investigated the relationship between 454 foreign students' academic achievement and th e ir personal background variables through interviews and data from university records a t Iowa State University. He found th at sex, age, source of support (fo r undergraduate students o n ly ), native language, and m arital status had s ig n ific a n t predictive relationships with academic achievement of foreign students. 12 **Panos T. Hountras, "Factors Associated with the Academic Achievement of Foreign Students a t the University of Michigan from 1947 to 1949" (Ph.D. d iss e rtatio n , University of Michigan, 1955). *^Farouk A. A. Ellakany, "Prediction of Academic Achievement of Foreign Students a t Iowa State U niversity, 1959-70," Dissertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 31, 1575A, 1970. 21 Telleen 's study developed a model which can be used to pre­ d ic t Indian students' academic achievement. She f i r s t reviewed forty-one studies which were conducted on the subject of foreign students' academic achievement fo r the period between 1924 and 1969. Of the f i f t y - f o u r factors included in those studies, fifte e n were found to be s ig n ific a n tly related to the academic achievement of 300 Indian graduate students who attended the U niversity of Michigan from 1947 to 1968. Again, eight factors were selected fo r use in the predictive model, and the model was found to accurately predict the cumulative le t t e r grade of Indian students who were not a part of the o rig in al student group in the study. However, the eight factors mostly were related to the students' academic careers in India except fo r age, presence of scholarship, and source of fin an cia l support. 13 At Iowa State U niversity more recen tly, Chongolnee again investigated the factors a ffec tin g the academic achievement of foreign students. The information fo r the study was gathered from 144 gradu­ ate students through a survey questionnaire, and cumulative GPA was used fo r measuring achievement. He found th a t the useful variables to predict foreign students' academic achievement were undergraduate GPA, admission status, f i r s t quarter GPA, degree sought, presence of 13Judy G. Johnson T elleen , "A Predictive Model of the Cumu­ la tiv e Academic Achievement of Graduate Students from India" D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 32, 1284A, 1971. 22 scholarship, length o f stay in the U .S ., age, and other a v ailab le services to them. 14 Adjustment Problems and S atisfaction of Foreign Students A considerable number o f previous studies have been done on the adjustment of foreign students to the American campus environ­ ment. However, the term "adjustment" has been used with various meanings according to the views of individuals using i t . In Lysggard's study, adjustment meant s a tis fa c tio n . He stated th a t "the concept is used as a convenient reference to the respondent's subjective reports on th e ir feelings of s atisfactio n with d iffe r e n t aspects of the stay." 15 In F lo rs ta t's study adjustment was defined as d if fic u lt ie s foreign students encounter 1 C in specific areas. of adaptation. P ru itt thought adjustment as one component He stated th a t "adaptation has two components, adjustment and assim ilatio n . Adjustment means coping with one's environment s u ffic ie n tly well to be happy, comfortable, and f a ir ly fre e of problems. Assimilation means in teracting fre e ly with people ^Burunchai Chongolnee, "Academic, S itu a tio n a l, Organismic, and A ttitu d ia l Factors A ffecting the Academic Achievement of Foreign Graduate Students a t Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y Dissertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 39, 4078A, 1979. 15 S. Lysggard, "Adjustment in a Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees V is itin g the United S tates," In ternational Social Science B u lle tin 7 (1955): 46. ^Reisha F lo rs ta t, "Adjustment Problems of In ternatio nal Stu­ dents," Sociology and Social Research 36 (September-October 1951): 25-30. 23 from the host country and accepting th e ir c u ltu re ." 17 In some of the studies, however, the d e fin itio n of adjustment included several aspects. S e llt iz e t a l . , fo r example, included d if fic u lt ie s one encountered during the stay, general reactions such as feelings of loneliness and homesickness, and s a tis fac tio n with various aspects IQ of l i f e in the category of adjustment. In the follow ing, the w rite r w ill present a review o f studies on the problems foreign students encounter and s a tis fac tio n they feel while they are studying a t American in s itu tio n s . S e lltiz e t a l . interviewed 375 foreign students enrolled in three d iffe re n t kinds of in s titu tio n s : small colleges in towns and small c it ie s , large u n iv ers ities in small c it ie s , and large un iversi­ tie s in large c it ie s . The students were interviewed tw ice--th e f i r s t time was a t the beginning and the second was a t the end of the aca­ demic year. They found th a t although "many" foreign students had problems in one or more of the academic, s o c ia l, and psychological areas of adjustment, "few" students had serious trouble. th a t such problems declined over time. Further, they found English language and academic work were most frequently id e n tifie d as sources of tro u b le, p articu ­ la r ly a t the beginning o f the academic year. But a t the end of the 17Frances J. P r u itt, "The Adaptation of Foreign Students on American Campuses," Journal of NAWDAC 41 (Summer 1978): 144-145. 18 C. S e lltiz et a l . , A ttitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the UnitecHTEates (M in n e a p o lis :U n iv e rs ity of Minnesota Press, 1963), pp. 123-130. 24 year more than h a lf of the students reported th a t they were "quite s a tis fie d " with the train in g they were receiving, and th a ta s im ila r proportion were "quite pleased" with th e ir own progress. As fo r the food, pace of liv in g , and American customs, only small proportions of the students reported d if f ic u lt ie s . Emotionally the m ajority of the students described themselves as e ith e r "not a t a ll" or only "a l i t t l e " lonely or homesick, and they reported th at they were usually or always in good s p ir its . 19 A more comprehensive view of foreign students' adjustment problems was offered by Moore. He stated th at foreign students encountered the follow ing d if f ic u lt ie s : (1) problems related to English proficiency; (2) problems caused by differences in the edu­ cational systems; (3) problems in adjusting to American cultu re; (4) problems related to the complexity of the situ atio n in terms of the number of adjustments required and the time allowed fo r making them; (5) problems of legal impediments to study abroad; (6) problems of academic performance; (7) problems of inadequate resources; and (8 ) problems of social adjustment. However, Moore indicated th at foreign students' d iss a tis fa c tio n with th e ir American experience was not with the general, but with the specifics. 20 Moore's views were supported by many subsequent studies. Han’ s study a t the U niversity of Southern C alifo rn ia id e n tifie d 19I b i d . , pp. 254-255. 20Forrest G. Moore, The C ollegiate Environment; the Expe­ rience and Reactions of Foreign Students, Government-Sponsored and Self-Sponsored (p relim iary d ra ft fo r Bureau of Social Science Research Meeting, October 13-17, 1965). 25 finance and English-related problems as the most serious encountered by foreign students from the Far East. 21 isolated foreign students' d if f ic u lt ie s . In his study, Nenyod also Four hundred who were enrolled in state colleges and u n iv ers ities in Texas participated in th is study by answering a survey questionnaire. Nenyod found th at the major problems of foreign students were communication, academics, finance, housing and food, re lig io n , and social and personal things in descending order. Adjustment to the American systems and standards of education were indicated as creating other academic d if f ic u lt ie s . 22 More recen tly, Collins investigated foreign students' adju st­ ment problems by use of the Mooney Problem Check L is t a t Howard U niversity. The information was collected from 112 students repre­ senting twenty-eight countries and four major geographical areas: A fric a , Asia, the Caribbean, and the Near East. This study revealed th a t the major problems of international students in descending order of importance were: social and recreational a c t iv i­ tie s ; finances, liv in g conditions, and employment; home and fam ily; personal psychological re la tio n s ; and courtship, sex, and marriage. 23 01 Han, "A Study of Goals and Problems of Foreign Graduate Students from the Far East a t the University of Southern C a lifo rn ia ," Dissertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 36, 68A, 1975. 22Boonmee Nenyod, "An Analysis of Problems Perceived by Foreign Students Enrolled in State Colleges and U niversities in the State of Texas," D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 36, 5091A, 1976. 23Paul L. C o llin s , "Self-Perceived Problems of International Students Attending Howard U n iv e rs ity ," D issertation Abstracts In te r ­ national , 37, 4895A,1977. 26 However, problems of foreign students seem to change over time. Emphasizing the s itu a tio n a l factors affec tin g the psychiatric aspect o f adjustment of foreign students, Klien e t a l. reported th at early in th e ir stay, foreign students experienced pyschological depression and lo nelin ess, followed by varying academic stresses and la t e r by emotional and interpersonal problems and c o n flic ts about the impending return home. Thus, Klein et a l . suggested th a t those dealing with the problems of foreign students s h ift the focus from the foreign aspect of foreign students to the human aspect. 24 Penn and Durham's study focused on the problems which foreign students might have in in teractio n with American students. They used a questionnaire fo r gathering information from foreign students and American students a t Oregon State U niversity. They found that foreign students considered d if f ic u lt y in understanding English and u n fa m ilia rity with American customs as the greatest b a rrie rs to in te r ­ action with American students. On the other hand, American students stated the follow ing b a rrie rs : (a) u n fa m ilia rity with foreign cus­ toms; (b) m isinterpreation of actions; (c) d is lik e of p a rtic u la r national groups; (d) d is lik e of personal c h aracteristics such as aggressive behavior and a ttitu d e s toward members of the opposite sex; (e) lack o f common in te re s ts ; and ( f ) language problems. 25 OA M arjorie H. Klein e t a l . , "The Foreign Students Adaptation Program: Social Experience of Asian Students in the U .S .," In te r ­ national Educational and Cultural Exchange 5 (Winter 1971): 82-83. ^ J . Roger Penn and Marvin L. Durham, "Dimensions of CrossCultural In te ra c tio n ," Journal of College Student Personnel 19 (May 1978): 264-267. 27 I t seems helpful to id e n tify foreign students' adjustment problems by examining them in re la tio n to those of native students. A few studies, reviewed below, investigated foreign students' prob­ lems in comparison with those of American students. Arjona compared the foreign students' adjustment problems with those of a comparable American student group as a control group. The Mooney Problem Check L is t was administered to 62 foreign and 62 American students enrolled in Indiana U niversity. Foreign students seemed to have more problems than did the American students in each of the personal, emotional, and academic areas. But the problems related to home and fam ily relationsh ips, and morals and re lig io n were of le a s t concern to both foreign and American students. Only the problems in the emotional areas were found to be s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t between the two groups. Foreign students had more problems OC than did American students in the emotional area. Johnson also designed a study which consisted of a threephase survey used to id e n tify foreign students' adjustment problems. In the f i r s t phase of the survey, a questionnaire containing 13 item problem sections was mailed to 214 foreign students enrolled in the U niversity of Tennessee. The students were asked to indicate whether each item was a "very important problem," an "important problem," or "not a problem." Unexpectedly, the results showed that many areas 2®A. Q. Arjona, "An Experimental Study of the Adjustment Problems of a Group of Foreign Graduate Students a t Indiana University" (Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Indiana U n iv e rsity, 1956). 28 thought to be of great concern to foreign students were not evaluated by them as being s ig n ific a n t. For example, the most frequently mentioned "very important problem" was English language f a c i l i t y , ye t only 20 percent of the students gave i t th is high ra tin g . Rather, 40 percent of the respondents reported that English p ro fi­ ciency was "not a problem." With the same questionnaire, Johnson investigated American students' opinions of the problems of foreign students. The sample of the American students was 34. The finding was th a t the American students expected the foreign students to have more d if fic u lt ie s than the foreigners reported. Only in three of the th irte e n problem areas did the m ajority of the two group coin­ cide in th e ir evaluation: English language proficien cy, a b ilit y to get along fin a n c ia lly , and separation from fa m ily .. With the wide discrepancy between the expectations of Ameri­ can students and foreigners' actual reports, Johnson conducted the th ird phase of the survey—comparison of the problems of the foreign and American students. The resu lts revealed th a t only in the cases of food, homesickness, and separation from fam ily were s ig n ific a n t differences found between the responses of the two groups. In te re s t­ in g ly , the percentage of American students who reported having prob­ lems with food was higher than th a t of foreign students. Homesickness and separation from fam ily were reported as greater problems by the foreign students than by the American students. Observing the results 29 of the study, the author commented th at "foreign students are more student than foreig n ." 27 Von Dorpowski investigated foreign students' adjustment prob­ lems by comparing foreign students' perceptions of problems encoun­ tered on U.S. campuses with perceptions foreign student advisors had of foreign students' problems. The information was collected from 536 foreign students and 174 foreign student advisors in U.S. colleges and u n iv ers ities by the use of the Michigan International Student Problem Inventory, which consists of eleven areas related to student personnel services. This study found that the advisors tended to view the problmes as more serious than foreign students themselves. However, both group agreed that fin an cial a id , the English language, and placement were the most c r it ic a l problems fo r the foreign stu­ dents. Likewise, both groups came to an agreement th at health and relig io u s services were the le a s t problem areas. 28 In general, foreign students do not seem s a tis fie d with the fu lfillm e n t of th e ir expectations and needs in the U.S. in s titu tio n s of higher education, although most of them are s a tis fie d to a certain degree with various aspects of th e ir experience, rather than unsatis­ fie d . The study conducted by Culha a t the University of Minnesota investigated foreign students' needs and s a tis fac tio n by comparing 27Dixon C. Johnson, "Problems of Foreign Students," In te r ­ national Educational and Cultural Exchange 7 (F a ll 1971): 61-68. 2®Horst Von Dorpowski, "The Problems of O rie n ta l, Latin American, and Arab Students in U.S. colleges and U niversities as Perceived by These Foreign Students and by Foreign Student Advisors," D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 38, 7160A, 1978. 30 them with those of a group o f American students. He developed the Foreign Student Importance Questionnaire and the Foreign Student S atisfaction Questionnaire to accomplish his study, and he adminis­ tered these instruments to selected foreign and American student groups. He found that a ll needs considered important by foreign students were also considered important by American students, except on the emotional security scale. The American student group reported emotional security more important than the foreign student group did. On the s atisfactio n scales, the highest s a tis fac tio n areas of the foreign student group were Overall Experience, Basic Values, and In structors. The lowest s a tis fac tio n areas were Financial S ecurity, Living Conditions, and Social Security. For the American student group, however, the highest s atisfactio n areas were Overall Experience, Basic Values, and Friends and Emotional Security and the lowest were U niversity Rules and Procedures, Living Condi­ tio n s, and In structors. However, in general, i t was found th a t fo r ­ eign students were less s a tis fie d than American students on almost a ll s a tis fac tio n scales. 29 Lather was also concerned with foreign students' per­ ceived needs importance and s a tis fac tio n derived in re la tio n to four educational components: (a) fa c u lty advisors' a c tiv itie s ; (b) course work; (c) university a c tiv itie s and services; and (d) cross-cultural communication. He collected the data from 400 foreign students 2%1eral U. Culha, "Needs and Satisfactions of Foreign Stu­ dents a t the U niversity of Minnesota," D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 35, 4141B, 1975. 31 enrolled in Western Michigan U niversity through a mailed survey questionnaire. He found th a t there were s ig n ific a n t differences between perceived levels of importance and derived levels of s a tis ­ factio n in a ll the four educational components. Importance values were higher than s a tis fac tio n levels in every component. 30 A comprehensive national survey of foreign students’ needs and s a tis fac tio n was conducted by Lee e t a l. They developed a ques­ tio n n aire which consisted of twenty-four categories of needs. In administering the questionnaire, they asked foreign students how they perceived the importance and s a tis fac tio n of each need item. The information was gathered from 1,857 foreign students of develop­ ing countries (c la s s ifie d on the basis of the World Bank's social and economic in dicators) who enrolled in 30 U.S. u n iv e rs itie s . They found that in every category of needs, there were some which were not s a tis fie d to the level of the perceived importance of the students, although most of the needs were s a tis fie d to a certain extent rather than un satisfied . Needs fo r practical experiences and anticipated post-return needs were among the le a s t met. Also, fin an cial needs and pre-return information needs were le a s t met according to th e ir expectations. informational needs were best met. 3D Among a ll the needs of the students, Students were also quite s a tis fie d Frances L. Lather, "Foreign Student Perceptions of Four C ritic a l Components Related to Educational Experiences a t Western Michigan U niversity," D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 39, 3403A, 1979. 32 with the achievement of th e ir educational goals which they regarded as being of the highest importance. 31 During the 1950s and 1960s, a group of social s c ie n tis ts who were concerned with cross-cultural education b u ilt a model which could be applied to the adjustment process of foreign students, the so-called "U-Curve" hypothesis. At the top of the curve, in the in i t i a l "spectator phase," the foreign student is a detached observer with a minimum involvement. A fte r a period of stay, the "involve­ ment phase" brings a decline in morale as fru s tra tio n s are expe­ rienced and images about the United States and the host u n iversity may decline and subject to m odification. I f the students remain long enough, they go through th is adaptive stage and enter a "coming to terms phase" where morale rises and interactions with Americans increase. phase." 3? Dubois, in discussing these phases, added a "predeparture Ford summarized Dubois' postulation as follow s: 1. The spectator phase—which is early in the student's sojourn and is characterized by psychological detach­ ment from the new experience; a time when the student s t i l l has a to u ris t a ttitu d e o f enjoying the new e n v ir­ onment without having to meet many of it s demands. 2. The adaptive phase--characterized by active involvement in the problem of adjustment, when the student must master the s k ills required by the host cultu re in general and by the academic environment in p a rtic u la r. I t is the phase of the most acute s train and stress, of unresolved c o n flic t when the so-called culture shock may be most acute. 31Motoko Y. Lee e t a l . , Needs of Foreign Students from Develop­ ing Nations a t U.S. Colleges and U niversities (Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, 1981), p. 107. op Cora Dubois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States (Washington, dTc . : American Counsel on Education, 1956), pp. 66-77. 33 3. The coming-to-terms stage- - i n which an equilibrium is reached in the struggle fo r adjustment. Regardless of whether a ttitu d e s toward the host culture and the s e lf are p o s itiv e , negative, or o b je ctiv e, th is stage is characterized by re la tiv e s t a b ilit y . 4. The predeparture stage--which concludes the sojourn; a t th is stage the expectations of return to the home country dominate the student's feelings and a ttitu d e s . The tenor of th is period again may be negative or posi­ t iv e , depending on the nature of the adjustment and of l i f e expectations upon r e t u r n . 33 The "U-curve" hypothesis stimulated research in the area of cross-cultural education, and was supported by the evidence of several e arly studies. Lysggard's study found the "U-curve" pattern in the social relations of Norwegian students with Americans and e s t i­ mated th at the f i r s t phase occurred during the f i r s t six months and the second phase was between the six and eighteenth months in the United S ta te s .34 Coelho's study found that Indian students' evalua- tions of both home and the U.S. followed the "U-curve" pattern . 35 M orris' study also confirmed the curve fo r the sample of foreign students a t UCLA. S e llt iz e t a l . found th a t the foreign students of th e ir sample consistently traced the pattern of the "U-curve" on Charles C. Ford, "A Case Study of the Adaptational Patterns of Asian Graduate Students in Education a t Michigan State University" {Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U niversity, 1969), p. 29. 34S. Lysgaard, "Adjustment in a Foreign Society; Norweigian Fulbright Grantees V is itin g the United S tates," In ternational Social Science B u lle tin 7 (1955): 45-51. OC G. V. Coelho, Changing Images of America: A Study of Indian Student's Perceptions (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958). 3^Richard T. M orris, The Two-Way M irror: National Students' Adjustment (Minneapolis: U niversity of Minnesota Press, I9 6 0 ). 34 th e ir attitu d e s and social relatio n s with Americans in the eighth or ninth months. 37 Focusing on the readjustment of foreign students' returning home, Gullahorn and Gallahorn extended the "U-curve'1 to "W-curve." Based on the experiences of Americans returning from abroad, they found th at the individual goes through a readjustment process in his home country s im ila r to th a t which he experienced abroad. 38 However, the "U-curve" hypothesis created controversy and has been challenged by other s c ie n tis ts . For example, Becker con­ ducted a comparative study of Indians, Is r a e lis , and Europeans' a ttitu d e to the United States a t UCLA. The d iffe re n t n a tio n a litie s of the students sampled represented the under-developed, semideveloped, and highly developed countries. He found th at the "U- curve" pattern operated in reverse fo r students from under- or semideveloped countries. Students from these two groups arrived in the U.S. with greater anxieties and expressed h o s tile a ttitu d e s in early and la te periods of th e ir sojourn, but in the middle period of th e ir stay exhibited more favorable a ttitu d e s . Therefore, Becker suggested a hypothesis of "anticipatory adjustment" which means "a process of selective adoption of attitu d e s on the basis of th e ir u t i l i t y in eas­ ing the in d iv id u a l's adjustment to anticipated imminent and drastic changes in his environment." 39 3^ S e lltiz e t a l . , pp. 189-193. 3®J. T. Gull horn and Jeanne E. Gull horn, "An Extenstion of the U Curve Hypothesis," Journal of Social Issues 19 (July 1963): 33-47. 3Q Tamar Becker, "Patterns of A ttitu d in a l Changes among Foreign Students," The American Journal o f Sociology 73 (January 1968): 431-442. 35 Ford developed three adaptational patterns of foreign stu­ dents to the academic environment of the College of Education, Michigan State U niversity. Fifteen Asian graduate students were in ten sively interviewed fo r gathering information. The three patterns were: 1. Negative-anxious—Those who were highly and openly d is s a tis fie d with th e ir educational experiences and were highly c r it ic a l of the fa c u lty and u n iv ers ity . 2. Negative-accommodating—Those who were generally d is s a tis fie d with th e ir educational experienced but who tended to accept the conditions th a t they perceived as being in e v ita b le . 3. P ositive—Those who were s a tis fie d with th e ir educational experiences.^ The investigation of relationships between s ig n ific a n t, independent, and dependent variables is in trin s ic to social and behavioral science research and also crucial fo r the management of complexity in cross-cultural research.^1 The w rite r in this study has chosen eight independent variables as hypothesized to a ffe c t undergraduate foreign students' perceptions of the campus environment. In the follow ing section, the w rite r w ill review the publications ^ F o rd , "A Case Study of the Adaptational Patterns of Asian Graduate Students in Education a t Michigan State U n iversity," p. 44. ^John Useem and Ruth H. Useem, "Generating Fresh Research Perspectives and Study Design fo r Transnational Exchanges among the Highly Educated," paper prepared fo r German-American Conference, Bonn, November 1980, p. 16. 36 in which the selected eight variables were investigated. variables are: The eight (1) age, (2) sex, (3) class le v e l, (4) major f ie ld of study, (5) liv in g arrangements, (6) primary fin an cia l sources of support, (7) s e lf-ra te d a b ilit y in English, and (8) home country's development le v e l. Factors A ffecting Foreign Student's Adjustment Age o f foreign students has been investigated as one of the possible independent variables influencing th e ir adjustment to the American campus environment, but the findings seem to be inconclusive. Han's study reported that foreign students who were more than 30 years old encountered more adacemic d if fic u lt ie s than students less than 30 years old. 4? Such a finding seemed to be supported by the resu lt of H u ll's study which revealed that older students were more involved with academic works, while younger students were more f r e ­ quently involved with Americans and were more s a tis fie d with the nonacademic aspects of th e ir sojourn. 43 However, th is conclusion was reversed in Porter's study. Porter developed an inventory, The International Student Problem Inventory, to measure the problems of foreign students in the areas of student personnel services: English language, academic records, ^H an, "A Study of Goals and Problmes of Foreign Graduate Students from the Far East a t the University of Southern C a lifo rn ia ," Dissertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 36, 68A, 1975. 43 H u ll, Foreign Students in the United States of America: Coping Behavior w ithin the Educational Environment, pp. 50-51. 37 fin an cia l aids, liv in g -d in in g , social-personal, admission and selec­ tio n , placement, and orientation services. The students in the sample were from Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, Canada, and A ustralia enrolled a t Michigan State U niversity. Porter found that no differences existed between the problems of foreign students according to age. Further, other studies showed th a t there was no s ig n if i­ cant relationsh ip between age and adjustment problems of foreign students. Sharma analyzed foreign students' problems using the devised inventory covering academic, personal, and social problems. Subjects were sampled from students representing countries of the Far East, South Asia, the Middle East, A fric a , and Latin America. Sharma found th a t age upon a rriv a l in the U.S. had l i t t l e e ffe c t on 45 foreign student problems. Lather also studied how foreign students perceived four basic educational components in terms of perceived importance and s a tis fac tio n as mentioned before. He found th a t there were no differences between age groups on any of the four educational aspects. 46 Lee e t a l . also revealed th at there were no large d i f f e r ­ ences between age groups of foreign students in terms of th e ir needs 44John W. Porter, "The Development of an Inventory to Deter­ mine the Problems of Foreign Students" (Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n iversity, 1962), p. 163. 45Sarla Sharma, "A Study to Id e n tify and Analyze Adjustment Problems Experienced by Foreign Non-European Graduate Students Enrolled in Selected U niversities in the S ta te o f North Carolina" Dissertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 32, 1866A, 1971. 4®Lather, "Foreign Student Perceptions of Four C r itic a l Com­ ponents Related to Educational Experiences a t Western Michigan U niversity," Dissertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 39, 3403A, 1979. 38 and s a tis fa c tio n . But, they indicated th at older students tended to be more s a tis fie d with the way academic planning took place and with relevancy of e d u catio n .^ Sex differences also has been investigated in re la tio n to the adjustment of foreign students. P orter's study reported th a t female students checked more problems than males on the Michigan In ternatio nal Student Problem Inventory. 48 P r u itt stated th a t men African students were b e tte r adjusted than women counterparts to the U.S. environment. 49 However, C o llin 's study results were in reverse in th a t male foreign students experienced s ig n ific a n tly more problems than fem ales.50 This may be supported by Clubine's study. Clubine reported th a t female foreign students seemed to be more fa m ilia r with resource persons on campus than male students. 51 Further, Lather reported th a t there were no differences between male and female students in th e ir perceived educational importance and s a tis fa c tio n . 52 ^ L e e et a l . , Needs of Foreign Students from Developing Nations a t U.S. Colleges and U n iv e rs itie s , p. 76. ^8P orter, "The Development of an Inventory to Determine the Problems of Foreign Students," p. 158. ^ P r u i t t , "The Adaptation of Foreign Students on American Campuses," p. 146. 50C o llin s , "Self-Perceived Problems of In ternational Students Attending Howard U n iv e rsity," D issertation Abstracts I n t . , 37, 4895A,1977. 51Eugine Clubine, "The Foreign Student's D iffe re n tia l Knowledge and Use of S ta ff Members in Response to Problem Situations" (Master's Thesis, Iowa State U n iv e rs ity , 1966). 5^Lather, "Foreign Student Perceptions of Four C ritic a l Com­ ponents Related to Educational Experiences a t Western Michigan Uni­ v e rs ity ," D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 39, 3403A, 1979. 39 Lee 3 t a l. also reported th a t, In general, sex categories d id n 't CO show any differences on the needs and s a tis fa c tio n composites. In th is study the w rite r has chosen the academic status of foreign undergraduate students (freshmen, sophomores, ju n io rs , and seniors) as an independent v a ria b le , since i t is supposed th a t percep­ tions o f campus environment might be d iffe re n t according to academic status. According to the extensive review of lit e r a t u r e , no study was found th a t investigated the relationsh ip between the academic status and the adjustment of foreign undergraduate students. A foreign student's major f ie ld of study seems to influence h is/h e r educational experience and adjustment in American colleges and u n iv e rs itie s . According to H u ll's study, those foreign students id e n tify in g with the Arts and Humanities were the most involved with Americans as compared with those majoring in other academic d is c i­ plin es. Hull concluded th a t students majoring in sp ecific areas of study vary somewhat in th e ir in teractio n with the educational environ­ ment.5^ A s im ila r finding in Quinn's study revealed th a t students majoring in Arts and Humanities adjusted more successfully than those in the s c ie n tific f ie ld s .55 Lee e t a l . also found th at foreign students' needs and s a tis fac tio n were d iffe r e n t, to some e x ten t, 53 Lee et a l . , Needs of Foreign Students from Developing Nations a t U.S. Colleges and U n iv e rs itie s , p. 76. 5^ H u ll, Foreign Students in the United States of America: Coping Behavior w ithin the Educational Environment, pp. 31-33. 55Walter A. Quinn, "A Study of Selected Sojourn Preferences and P r io r itie s of Stanford U niversity Foreign Students," Disserta­ tion Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 35, 7576A, 1975. 40 according to th e ir major fie ld s of study. A gricultu ral students placed higher importance on needs fo r academic planning, relevancy of education, train in g to apply knowledge, e x tra c u rric u la r learning experience, f a c ilit a t io n o f course work, and other academic environ­ ments than those in other fie ld s , p a rtic u la rly than those in engineer­ ing, and natural and l i f e sciences. Also, they found that a g ri­ cultu ral students' needs fo r academic planning were more s a tis fie d than students in other fie ld s . Natural and l i f e sciences' students were more s a tis fie d than Engineering students with p ractical experiences. 56 However, Siriboonma reported that the curriculum of a foreign student did not have any s ig n ific a n t e ffe c t on th e ir levels o f s a tis fac tio n as measured by the instrument, College Student S a tis ­ faction Questionnaire (Form C ) . ^ In studies of foreign students, i t has been generally assumed th a t "with whom the foreign student liv e s " w ill a ffe c t h is/h e r forming of social relationsh ips, and consequently h is/h e r li f e s t y le , prob­ lems, and s a tis fa c tio n . Lee e t a l. investigated the relationship between s a tis fac tio n based on needs and the liv in g arrangements of foreign students, th a t is , "with whom they liv e d ." They found that s a tis fac tio n of some needs was s ig n ific a n tly related to with whom the students liv e d . Those liv in g with U.S. students, except those with spouses and c h ild ren , compared to those liv in g with home country C f Lee e t a l . , Needs of Foreign Students from Developing Nations a t U.S. Colleges and U n iv e rs itie s , p. 83. ^Umporn Siriboonama, "An Analysis of Student S atisfaction as Perveived by Foreign Students a t Iowa State University" Disser­ ta tio n Abstract In te rn a tio n a l, 39, 5983 A, 1979. 41 students or alone were more s a tis fie d with the fu lfillm e n t of uni­ ve rs ity information needs, community information needs, l i f e informa­ tion needs, housing needs, needs fo r practical experiences, and needs fo r a c tiv itie s with Americans. In add itio n , they reported th a t foreign students liv in g with Americans and other foreigners perceived a higher likelihood o f achieving th e ir primary goals than those residing with fello w country students.66 Wilson also reported th a t foreign students liv in g on campus and having American roommate(s) were related to high social a c tiv itie s and involvement with Americans. 59 Research results on the e ffec ts of sponsorship on foreign students' adjustment seem to be inconclusive. P ru itt revealed in a study of African student adaptation th at the students who were supported by th e ir home governments had b e tte r adjustment than those who supported themselves.66 According to H u ll's study, however, foreign students without scholarships were more involved with Americans.61 Siriboonma's study reported th at source of support did not have any s ig n ific a n t e ffe c t on the students' levels of s atisfactio n to the aspects of working conditions, compensation, 66Lee e t a l . , Needs of Foreign Students from Developing Nations a t U.S. Colleges and U n iv e rs itie s , pp. 96-98. 59Douglas W. Wilson, "Social Relationships of International Students Attending Oklahoma State U niversity*" D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 36, 7223A, 1976. 60P r u itt, "The Adaptation of Foreign Students on American Campuses," p. 146. 61H u ll, Foreign Students in the United States of America: Coping Behavior within the Educational Environment, p. 33. 42 q u ality of education, social l i f e , recognition, and to ta l s a tis fa c ­ tio n .*^ The m ajority of research findings have agreed th a t English proficiency was p o sitiv e ly related to foreign students' academic and social adjustment problems, and s a tis fa c tio n . According to the c ita tio n o f S e llt iz et a l . , Niyekawa found that lack of English f a c i l i t y led to the feelings of in fe r io r ity and depression in commun itcatio n fo r Japanese students in Hawaii. 63 Nenyod revealed that most of the communication and academic problmes of foreign students was a ttrib u te d to th e ir lack of English p ro fic ie n c y .^ Lee e t a l . indicated that the most s ig n ific a n t predictor of s a tis fac tio n of many needs of foreign students was self-evaluated English f a c i l i t y . 65 Spaulding and Flack concluded in th e ir extensive review of lite r a tu r e th at students who had d if fic u lt ie s with oral or w ritte n English tended to have academic and social adjustment problems. 66 The Useems suggested th at home country development level or status of foreign students might be a good independent variab le to 62Siriboonma, "An Analysis of Student S atisfaction as Perceived by Foreign Students a t Iowa State U niversity." 63 S e llt iz e t a l . , A ttitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United S tates, pp. 80-81. ^Nenyod, "An Analysis of Problems Perceived by Foreign Students Enrolled in State Colleges and U niversities in the State of Texas." ® \e e e t a l . , Needs of Foreign Students from Developing Nations a t U.S. Colleges and U n iv e rs itie s , pp. 80-81. States: ^Spaulding and Flack, The World's Students in the United A Review and Evaluation of Research on Foreign Students, pp. 50-51. 43 be studied in cross-cultural education.®7 A few studies have been p a r tia lly concerned with how foreign students' adjustment and experience are d iffe re n t on the basis of th e ir home country's developmental le v e l. Becker conducted a study which related to the adjustment patterns of foreign students from under-, semi-, and developed countries as mentioned above. He found that the students from under- and semi-developed countries displayed "almost" opposite patterns of a ttitu d in a l and behavioral changes as compared with the go students from developed countryies. Deutsch also d iffe re n tia te d between students from under­ developed areas and developed areas in investigating foreign students' adjustment problems. He considered Asia, A fric a , and Latin America as underdeveloped regions. He reported th a t students from under­ developed countries most frequently encountered problems related to fin an cia l m atters, jobs, housing, food, homesickness, in tera c tio n with Americans, American patterns of dating and American social e tiq u e tte . On the other hand, students from developed countries most frequently faced problems with finance, jobs, and homesickness. 69 ®7Useem and Useem, "Generating Fresh Research Perspectives and Study Design fo r Transnational Exchanges among the Highly Education," pp. 14-15. go Becker, "Patterns of A ttitu d in a l Changes among Foreign Students," pp. 431-442. ^Steven E. Deutsch, International Education and Exchange: A Sociological Analysis {Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve U niversity Press, 1970), pp. 78-83. 44 Foreign Students1 Perceptions of Some Aspects of the U.S. U niversity Environment Foreign students' perceptions of Americans or American stu­ dents seem to be complex. Maslog studied national stereotypes with forty-seven Philippine and fifty -tw o Indian students a t the U niversity of Minnesota. According to the results of the study, Philippine and Indian students had s im ila r images of Americans as hard-working, p ra c tic a l, and m a te r ia lis tic .^ 0 Such perceptions of foreign students toward Americans or American students are supported in part by the findings of Heath's study. Heath investigated foreign students' a ttitu d e s toward American students a t the In te r ­ national House of UCLA. He interviewed foreign students from Europe, South America, Far East, Southeast Asia, A fric a , Middle East, and A u s tria lia and Canada. He reported th a t "the students regarded Americans as democratic, ambitious, fr ie n d ly , and easy-going, but also immature and m a te r ia lis tic . They were impressed with American's optimism, e g alitarian ism , and in fo rm a lity (p a rtic u la rly in the professor-student re la tio n s h ip ), but they also discerned su p erficial and ephemeral social re la tio n s . . . ." 71 Hamilton investigated how foreign students perceived the university environment by comparing th e ir views with th a t of American students. The scale he used was the College C haracteristics Index 70Crispin C. Maslog, " F ilip in o and Indian Students' Images: Of Themselves, of Each Other, and of the United States," D issertation Abstract In te rn a tio n a l, 28, 4589A, 1968. ^Louis Heath, "Foreign Student A ttitudes a t International House, Berkeley," International Educational and Cultural Exchange 5 (Winter 1970): 66-67. 45 (C C I), which is intended to measure the environmental perceptions of the students on eleven fa c to rs . I t is based on items re fe rrin g to curriculum, teaching and classroom a c t iv it ie s , rules and regula­ tio n s , p o lic ie s , student organizations, a c t iv it ie s , in te re s ts , fe a ­ tures of the campus, services and f a c i l i t i e s , and relationships among students and fa c u lty . The information was gathered from sopho­ mores, ju n io rs , seniors, and graduate students of 30 foreign and 28 American students. The results indicated that foreign students' perceptions d iffe re d from American students on fiv e o f the eleven factors measured by the CCI. The differences were: (a) the foreign students tended to regard the adm inistration as being more receptive to change than the American students; (b) foreigners f e l t the compe­ t it io n fo r grades to be more intense and th a t professors are more demanding; (c) foreigners envisioned th at they had greater opportu­ n itie s to develop leadership potential and assurance; (d) foreigners regarded th e ir group a c tiv itie s as warmer and more frie n d ly ; (e) f o r ­ eigners intenalized more f u lly the press of a vocational o rie n ta ­ tio n .72 Tuso examined how A frican graduate students perceived th e ir academic experiences a t Michigan State U niversity. He in te rv ie w e d forty-seven African students with a structured questionnaire. The m ajority of the students rated le c tu re s , group discussions, audio­ visual presentations, and class reports as e ffe c tiv e in acquiring 17 James T. Hamilton, "A Comparison of Domestic and In te r ­ national Students' Perceptions of the U niversity Environment," Journal of College Student Personnel 20 (September 1979): 443-446. 46 knowledge. On types of evaluation, most of the students rated the quiz type of te s t negatively. The m ajority of the students wished to w rite term papers related to African concerns, but were d is ­ couraged due to the lack of relevant data and lite r a tu r e and the lack of professors' international experience. The m ajority of the stu­ dents perceived that they had not been le n ie n tly graded, e ith e r because they were foreigners or Africans. On in teraction with fa c u lty members, p a rtic u la rly with advisors, most of the students f e l t they had s u ffic ie n t in tera c tio n in terms of frequency, q u a lity , and comfort. F in a lly , the m ajority of the students judged th a t th e ir academic experiences would be "generally useful" fo r th e ir future professional a c t iv it ie s . 73 Foreign Undergraduate Students on American Campuses The studies conducted exclusively on undergraduate foreign students were very ra re , as previously mentioned. Most research dealt with the academic and social l i f e of a ll foreign students on a par­ tic u la r campus or of a ll students of a p a rtic u la r n a tio n a lity without d iffe re n tia tin g between undergraduate and graduate foreign students. But, some studies distinguished between undergraduates and graduates on certain items. In general, undergraduate foreign students seem to be less successful academically than graduate foreign students. Some studies on the academic performance of undergraduate foreign students were 73Hamdesa Tuso, "The Academic Experience of African Graduate Students a t Michigan State University" (Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n iversity, 1981), p. 417. 47 summarized in an a r tic le by Walton. An early study by Koenig (1953) revealed th at the proportion of "above average" grades increased a t higher academic le v e ls . Warmbrunn and S p alter's study (1957) also found th a t undergraduates fa ile d twice as often as graduates. Kincaid (1961) reported that among non-European students in C a lifo rn ia , only 27 percent of the undergraduates had a grade average of "B" or higher compared with 78 percent of graduate foreign students.7^ As fo r the problems encountered by foreign students, under­ graduate foreign students also seem to have more problems than gradu­ ates. Porter found that undergraduate students checked more problems in the Michigan International Student Problem Inventory than graduate students. 75 Siriboonma reported th at undergraduate foreign students were less s a tis fie d with working conditions, compensation, q u ality of education, recognition, and overall college experience than graduate students. 7fi Lee et a l. found th at the perceived importance of needs and s a tis fac tio n was d iffe re n t in some aspects between under­ graduate and graduate foreign students. On th e ir needs regarding academic planning, university environment, and practical experience, undergraduates placed higher importance than graduates d id , while graduates were more s a tis fie d than undergraduates with the same needs. With regard to the needs fo r f a c ilit a t in g course work, fin an cia l needs, ^Barbara J. Walton, "Research on Foreign Graduate Students," International Educational and Cultural Exchange 6 (Winter 1971): 19-20. ^ P o r te r , "The Development of an Inventory to Determine the Problems of Foreign Students," p. 160. 76Siriboonma, "An Analysis of Student S atisfaction as Per­ ceived by Foreign Students a t Iowa State U niversity," 48 and needs fo r a c tiv itie s with Americans, undergraduates placed higher importance than graduates, even though there were no d if f e r ­ ences as to s a tis fac tio n between the two groups. Therefore, Lee e t a l. concluded th a t, in general, graduate students tended to be more s a tis fie d than undergraduates, while undergraduate students tended to fe e l stronger needs than graduates in certain issues. 77 Gezi's study on Arab students a t C alifo rn ia colleges and uni­ v e rs itie s also found a fa r higher degree o f general s a tis fac tio n among graduate foreign students than undergraduates. He commented th at "since graduate students usually come to the U.S. with c le a rcut purposes, such as the attainment of advanced train in g or a pro­ fessional degree, they are more lik e ly to adapt themselves to the requirements of th e ir colleges and to the d iffe re n t demands of the college environment. . . . " 78 More recently, Harfoush studied the adjustment problems and attitudes of United Arab Emirates (UAE) undergraduate students. The findings of th is study were: (1) UAE undergraduate students came to the U.S. with a favorable image, (2) English language and getting used to food were found to be most d i f f i c u lt fo r UAE undergraduate 77Lee e t a l . , Needs of Foreign Students from Developing Nations a t U.S. Colleges and U n iv e rs itie s , p. 81. 7®Khalil I . Gezi, The Acculturation of Middle Eastern Arab Students in Selected American Colleges and U niversities (New York: American Friends of the Middle East, 195$), p. 102. 49 students, and (3) there was no e ffe c tiv e planning fo r preparation before coming to the U.S. 79 The Reference Group Theory This study involves the reference group theory. The concept of reference group provides an explanation of how the undergraduate foreign students' perceptions of the campus environment become a comparison reference fo r the fa c u lty 's and student personnel s ta ff's perceptions. The reference group concept, since the term was f i r s t intrdouced by Hyman, has been u tiliz e d with varying emphasis and meaning in the theoretical and empirical studies of a ll the social sciences in a v a rie ty of s itu a tio n s . 80 However, i t can be noted th a t a ll discussions of reference groups involve some id e n tifia b le grouping to which an individual is related in some manner to the norms, and values shared in th a t group. 81 I t is found that the reference group serves as the point of reference fo r comparisons or contrasts when individuals make 79Samira M. Harfoush, "A Study of Adjustment Problems and A ttitudes of United Arab Emirates Undergraduate Students in the United States during the Fall .of 1977," D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l, 39, 2085-A, 1978. on Herbert H. Hyman and Eleanor Singer, eds., Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research {New York: The Free Press, 1963), p. 7. 81 Tamotsu Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspectives," in Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, ed.: Herbert H. Hyman and Eleanor Singer (New York: The Free Press, 1968), pp. 103-104. 50 judgments about themselves. Hyman found th at judgments of one's economic status shifted with changes in the group used as reference. 82 Newcomb also disclosed in his famous Bennington College study that students' a ttitu d e s during the college years changed with s h ifts or resistance to s h ifts in to ta l membership groups and one or more reference groups. 83 Kelley also emphasized the comparative function of reference groups as d iffe re n tia te d with the normative function of reference groups.8^ The concept of reference groups is extended to s ig n ify that groups with which an individual constitutes the frame of reference fo r perceptual perspective. S herif speaks of reference groups as groups whose values and norms constitute the major anchorages in structuring one's perceptual f ie ld . 85 Merton and Rossi also speak of reference groups as a "social frame of reference" fo r 82 Herbert H. Hyman, "The Psychology of S tatus," in Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, ed.: Herbert H. Hyman and Eleanor Singer (New York: The Free Press, 1968), pp. 147-165. 83 Theodore M. Newcomb, "A ttitude Development as a Function of Reference Groups: The Bennington Study," in Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, ed.: Herbert H. Hyman and Eleanor Singer (New York: The Free Press, 1968), pp. 374-386. QA Harold H. K elle y , "Two Functions of Reference Groups," in Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, ed.: Herbert H. Hyman and Eleanor Singer (New Vork: The Free Press, 1968), pp. 77-83. or Muzafer S h e rif, "The Concept of Reference Groups in Human Relations," in Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, ed.: Herbert H. Hyman and Eleanor Singer (New York: The Free Press, 1968), pp. 84-87. in terpreations. 86 Shibutani fu rth e r id e n tifie s reference groups as those groups whose outlook is used by the actor as the frame of reference in the organization of his perceptual f ie ld . 87 T ra d itio n a lly , culture refers to a perspective th a t is shared by those in a p a rtic u la r group. I t consists of those "conventional understandings manifest in act and a r t if a c t , th a t characterize so c ie tie s ." 88 In his discussion o f social c o n tro l, Mead implies that an individual approaches his world from the standpoint of the culture of his group. Each perceives, th in ks, forms judgments, and controls him /herself according to the frame of reference of the group in which he/she is p a rtic ip a tin g . 89 A ll kinds of groupings, no matter what the s iz e , composition, and stru ctu re, may become reference groups. But, of greatest impor­ tance fo r most people are those groups in which they p a rtic ip a te d ire c tly (membership groups). These groups may contain a number of persons who stand in primary relationships or may assume the perspec­ tiv e a ttrib u te d to some social category, a social class, an ethnic 88Robert K. Merton and A lice K. Rossi, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior," in Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, ed.: Herbert H. Hyman and Eleanor Singer (New York: The Free Press, 1968), pp. 31-36. 87 Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspectives," p. 104. 88R. Redfied, The Folk Culture of Yucatan (Chicago: s ity of Chicago Press, 1941), p. 132. 89G. H. Mead, Mind, S e lf, and Society (Chicago: of Chicago Press, 1934), pp. 152-164. Univer­ U niversity 52 group, those in a given community, or those concerned with some special in te re s t. 90 In summary, a great number of foreign undergradute students come to American colleges and u n iv ers ities to study every year. Their goals are b asically educational. They s triv e to achieve th e ir educational goals of in te lle c tu a l and personal growth with the fa c u lty and student personnel workers on American campuses. It seems obvious th at the groups of teaching fa c u lty and student per­ sonnel s ta ff become s ig n ific a n t reference groups fo r the foreign students. Then.howdo these subgroups of in s titu tio n s perceive the environment in which they try to achieve th e ir goals? commonality of perception exists? How much In the follow ing chapter, the study method used to answer these questions w ill be described in d e ta il. 90 Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Persepctives," p. 107. CHAPTER I I I RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE The purpose of th is study was to examine whether foreign undergraduate students and th e ir subgroups d if f e r from selected teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff in th e ir environmental perceptions of the Michigan State University campus. In th is chapter, the method used to f i l f i l l purpose was discussed in d e ta il. the research More s p e c ific a lly , this chapter included sections on population and sample selectio n , instrumenta­ tio n , data c o lle c tio n , and treatment and analysis of the data. Population and Sample Selection The targ et population fo r th is study consisted of foreign undergraduate students, fu ll-tim e undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff working a t Michigan State U niversity. P rior to sampling selection and design, the researcher con­ sulted with his doctoral committee members and research consultants a t the College of Education, Michigan State U n iversity, to fin a liz e the sampling procedures and s ize . Several meetings were held where discussions took place on the issues re la tin g to the nature of this study and sampling selection and design. procedure resulted from these meetings. 53 The following sampling 54 Selection of Foreign Under­ graduate Students The to ta l population of foreign undergraduate students enrolled a t Michigan State University fo r the Spring Term, 1982, as recorded a t the R egistra's o ffic e , was 272. To put i t more concretely, one hundred and three students were enrolled in the College of Engineer­ ing as th e ir major f ie ld of study, t h ir t y - f iv e students were enrolled in the College of Business, eight students in the College of Human Ecology, eighteen students in the College of A gricultural and Natural Resources, eleven students in the College of Education, th irte e n stu­ dents in the College of Social Science, th irty -o n e students, including six premedical and preveterinary students, were enrolled in the College o f Natural Science, nine students in the School of Medical Technology, twenty students in the College of Arts and L e tte rs , eleven students in the College of Communication Arts and Science, and two students were enrolled in James Madison College. had not yet chosen a major f ie ld of study. Eleven students Since the to ta l enrollment fig u re was considered to be re la tiv e ly sm all, a ll of these students were in vited to p a rtic ip a te in th is study. Selection of F u ll-tim e Under­ graduate Teaching Faculty As mentioned above, the teaching fa c u lty sample was selected from among fu ll-tim e fa c u lty members whose teaching re s p o n s ib ilitie s included teaching undergraduate students and who were employed a t the school or colleges in which foreign undergraduate students were enrolled a t the time of th is study. 55 In this sampling procedure, fu ll-tim e fa c u lty members were defined as those whose ranks were assistant professor, associate professor, or professor who were employed a t the school or colleges in which foreign undergraduate students were enrolled. Thus, a ll the fu ll-tim e fa c u lty members, as distinguished from part-tim e fa c u lty members, were id e n tifie d from the fa c u lty roster in the Michigan State University Publication: 1981-82 Academic Programs.* Since there is no d istin c tio n between undergraduate and graduate fa c u lty a t Michigan State U n iv e rsity, as a technique to id e n tify undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members, the Schedule B ulle­ tin of Courses, which is published every term, was u t iliz e d . One academic year's course schedule books ( F a ll, 1981; W inter, 1982; and Spring, 1982) were examined by each department and college in order to id e n tify the maximum number of fa c u lty members who had teaching loads including undergraduate students. The academic courses a t the 399 level and below in the schedule books were regarded as those fo r undergraduate students, and the instructors who were assigned to teach these courses were looked upon as the fa c u lty members whose teaching re s p o n s ib ilitie s included teaching under­ graduate students. I f an in structor was not lis te d fo r a certain course in the schedule books, he/she was id e n tifie d through d ire c t v is ita tio n to the corresponding department. Thus, the fu ll-tim e undergraduate teaching fa c u lty were determined to be those who were id e n tifie d as undergraduate teaching ^Michigan State U niversity Publication: 1981-82 Academic Programs (East Lansing: University Publication O ffic e , May 1981), pp. 58-92. 56 fa c u lty members and a t the same time who were id e n tifie d as f u l l ­ time teaching fa c u lty members. As a re s u lt, i t was found th at there were 1,337 fu ll-tim e fa c u lty members whose teaching re s p o n s ib ilitie s included teaching undergraduate students in the colleges in which foreign undergraduate students were enrolled during the academic year of 1981-82. Of the id e n tifie d fu ll-tim e undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members, 10 percent, or 134 subjects, were randomly selected from each college fo r the fa c u lty sample group of th is study. More in fo r­ mation about the invited fa c u lty sample is presented in Actual Respondents, Chapter IV. Selection of Student Personnel S ta ff The sample group of student personnel s ta ff was composed of a ll f u ll- t im e , professional members working in the major, nonacademic services a v aila b le to foreign students on the Michigan State Univerp s ity campus. In d e t a il, the participants in th is group were from the follow ing functional areas of service; the Student L ife Depart­ ment, Counseling Center, Financial Aids O ffic e , Intramural Sports and Recreative Services, U niversity Housing Programs, Olin Health ^Kajornsin reported in his thesis th at the major nonacademic services a v aila b le to foreign students a t the M.S.U. campus were Counseling Center, Department of Public Safety, Financial Aids, Foreign Student O ffic e , Health Services, Housing Services, Judicial Programs O ffic e , Placement Services, and Recreation and E ntertain­ ment, etc. Samnao Kajornsin, "A Study of Foreign Graduate Students: Their Awareness o f, U tiliz a tio n o f, and A ttitude toward Selected Student Personnel Services and Other Services A vailable to Them a t Michigan State University" (Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State Uni­ v e rs ity , 1979), pp. 154-159. 57 Center, Placement Services, and O ffice fo r the Foreign Students and Scholars. The s ta ff of the Department of Public Safety was excluded in the sample group because it s function seemed not pertinent to the purpose of the study. The Vice and Assistant Vice President fo r Student A ffa irs and Services also were not in vited to p a rtic ip a te in the study. O rganizationally, the positions of Vice and Assistant Vice President fo r Student A ffa irs and Services would be categorized as top adm inistrative positions in comparison with the middle and f i r s t level adm inistrative status of other student personnel p a rtic ip a n ts , especially in a large in s titu tio n such as M.S.U. th e re fo re , included 126 subjects in a l l . This group, More detailed information about the in vited sample w ill be presented in Actual Respondents, Chapter IV. Instrumentation The instrument used to c o lle c t data was the College and U niversity Environment Scales, Second Edition (CUES I I ) , developed by C. Robert Pace and published by Educational Testing Service (ETS). The CUES I I consists of 100 items forming fiv e basic scales of twenty items each and s ix ty experimental items forming two special subscales. In th is study, the fiv e basic scales were u tiliz e d in c o lle ctin g data because the two subscales are not f u lly developed. T h e fiv e b a s ic areas of the CUES I I are p r a c tic a lity , commu­ n ity , awareness, prop riety, and scholarship, in which the statements describe u n iversity l i f e —features and f a c ili t i e s of the campus, rules and regulations, student l i f e , extra c u rric u la r organizations, 58 and other aspects of the in s titu tio n a l environment which help to define the atmosphere or in te lle c tu a l-s o c ia l-c u ltu ra l clim ate of 3 the university as respondents perceive i t . Respondents are asked to indicate whether each statement is generally True or False with reference to th e ir un iversity environment: True when they think a statement is generally c h a ra c te ris tic , a condition which e x is ts , an event which occurs or might occur, the way most people generally act or fe e l; or conversely, False when they think the statement is generally not c h a rac te ris tic of the un iversity environment. There­ fo re , the te s t is a device fo r obtaining the respondents' description of the un iversity environment. In th is study, the word "college," which is used in Pace's CUES I I was changed to "university" in order to be more certain that respondents related th e ir answers to the whole un iversity and not ju s t th e ir college within the U niversity. Directions fo r the in stru ­ ment asked respondents to re la te to Michigan State U n iversity. The CUES Development As mentioned, th is study uses the second edition o f the College and University Environment Scales, developed by C. Robert Pace in 1969. I t is a shortened and improved version of the f i r s t edition published in 1963 under the same t i t l e . This f i r s t edition of the CUES o rig in a lly developed out of an e a r lie r instrument developed by George Stern and Pace in 1958 ^C. Robert Pace, College and U niversity Environment Scales: Second E d itio n , Technical Manual (Princeton, N.UTi Educational Testing Service, 1968), p. 9. 59 e n title d The College C haracteristics Index (C C I). T h eo re tic a lly , the CCI is based on Stern's need-press concept by which the environmental press of an in s titu tio n should be understood in re la tio n to the in d iv id u a l's needs.^ Stern states th a t "both needs and press are inferred from c h a ra c te ris tic a c tiv itie s and events, the former from things th a t the individual ty p ic a lly does, and the la t t e r from things th at are ty p ic a lly done to him in some p a rtic u la r s e ttin g ." In other words, i t was hoped in the CCI th at a personality te s t would measure personality needs which corresponded to a set of environmental demands. Therefore, the t h ir t y environmental press scales of the CCI were developed, each p a ra lle lin g with the t h ir t y analogous needs scales of the Stern's A c tiv itie s Index. However, analysis of the results obtained from the CCI did not conform to the intended need-press parallelism . Pace states: In other words, the dimensions along which environments d iffe re d from one another were not the same as the dimen­ sions along which students, or student bodies, d iffe re d from one other. The f i r s t edition of CUES, then, consisted of 150 of the 300 items in the CCI, selected because they successfully discriminated between environments and organized into fiv e scales th a t re fle c te d , from a fa c to r analysis of 50 colleges and u n iv e rs itie s , the main dimensions along which the environments d iffe re d : P ra c tic a lity , Community, Awareness, P ropriety, and Scholarship.6 W. Bruce Walsh, Theories of Person-Environment In teraction: Im plications fo r the College Student (Iowa C ity , Iowa: The American College Testing Program, 1973), p p . 97-124. ^George G. Stern, "Characteristics of the In te lle c tu a l Climate in College Environment," Harvard Educational Review 33 (Winter 1963): 6. 6Pace, College and University Environment Scales, p. 9. 60 In 1967, Pace g reatly modified the f i r s t version of the CUES with the same purposes as the orig inal version. Some of the items from the f i r s t ed itio n were elim inated, but the 100 most discrim inat­ ing items were retained. The fiv e basic scales were s t i l l used with the twenty most discrim inating items in each scale. Items were up-dated to r e fle c t changes in colleges over the previous few years. The new subscales were also developed: Campus Morale and Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student Relationships. The fiv e basic scales of the CUES I I , used in th is study, are defined as follows in the Technical Manual: Scale 1. P r a c tic a lity . —The twenty items in th is scale describe an environment characterized by enterprise, organization, material b e n e fit, and social a c tiv itie s . and c o lle g ia te emphases. There are both vocational A kind of orderly supervision is evident in the adm inistration and the classwork. As in many organized s o c ie tie s , there is also some personal benefit and prestige to be obtained by operating in the system-knowing the rig h t people, being in the rig h t clubs, becoming a leader, respecting one's superior, and so fo rth . The environment, though structured, is not repressive; i t responds to entrepreneurial a c tiv itie s and is generally character­ ized by good fun and school s p ir it . Scale 2. Community.--The items in th is scale describe a frie n d ly , cohesive, group-oriented campus. There is a fe e lin g of group welfare and group lo y a lty th a t encompasses the college as a 61 whole. The atmosphere is congenial; the campus is community. Faculty members know th e ir students, are interested in th e ir prob­ lems, and go out of th e ir way to be h e lp fu l. Student l i f e is char­ acterized by togetherness and sharing rather than by privacy and cool detachment. Scale 3. Awareness.--The scale re fle c ts a concern about and emphasis on three sorts of meaning— personal, poetic, and p o lit ic a l. An emphasis on self-understanding, reflectiven ess, and id e n tity suggests the search fo r personal meaning. A wide range of opportu­ n itie s fo r creative and appreciative relationships to pain tin g , music, drama, poetry, sculpture, a rch ite ctu re , and the lik e suggest the search fo r poetic meaning. A concern about events around the world, the welfare o f mankind, and the present and future condition of man suggests the search fo r p o litic a l meaning and id e a lis tic commitment. What seems to be evident in th is sort of environment is a stress on awareness--an awareness of s e lf , of society, of esthetic s tim u li. Scale 4. P ropritey.--These items describe an environment that is p o lite and considerate. evident. Caution and thoughtfulness are Group standards of decorum are important. There is an absence of demonstrative, a s se rtiv e , argumentive, ris k -tak in g a c t iv i­ tie s . In general, the campus atmosphere is mannerly, considerate, proper, and conventional. Scale 5. Scholarship.--The items included in this scale describe a campus characterized by in te lle c tu a lity and scholarship 62 d is c ip lin e . The emphasis is on com petitively high scholastic achieve­ ment and a serious in tere s t in scholarship. The pursuit of knowledge and th eories, s c ie n tific or philosophical, is carried on rigorously and vigorously. In te lle c tu a l speculation, an in te re s t in ideas, knowledge fo r it s own sake, and in te lle c tu a l d is c ip lin e --a ll these are ch a rac te ris tic of the environment.^ V a lid ity The v a lid ity data consist of correlations between CUES scores and various characteristics of students and in s titu tio n s . The v a lid ity of the CUES I I is assessed with the following key questions: 1. To what extent are the characteristics of students, programs, and campus atmosphere generally congruent with each other? 2. To what extent are the a ttitu d e s and behavior of students generally congruent with the atmosphere of th e ir college? 3. To what extent are the dimensions of college environ­ ments id e n tifie d by d iffe re n t studies and d iffe re n t methods, generally s im ila r to those id e n tifie d by CUES? The correlations reported provide positive answers to these questions. The overall network of correlations between CUES scores and other data can be characterized as broadly supportive of asso­ ciations one might reasonably expect. The conclusion is th a t CUES ^Pace, College and University Environment Scales, p. 11. 63 is supported by a good deal of concurrent v a lid it y , ranging from low .40s to high .60s. The CUES I I Technical Manual contains a O f u ll discussion of the v a lid ity data. R e lia b ility In establishing r e lia b i lit y data fo r the CUES I I , Pace reports r e lia b i lit y estimates based on Cronbach's c o e ffic ie n t alpha. This formula takes into account the sum of the variances on each item , rather than the average or mean; also each item is scored in exactly the same manner as the to ta l scale is scored. c o e ffic ie n ts fo r the basic fiv e scales are as follow s: R e lia b ility P r a c tic a lity , .89; Community, .92; Awareness, .94; P ropriety, .8 9 , Scholarship, .90. A complete discussion of the CUES r e lia b i lit y appears in the Technical q Manual. Data Collection Data were collected from the sample groups of foreign under­ graduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members, and student personnel workers during the Spring term of the 1981-82 academic year. Of the student sample group, the students who liv e d on campus were in vited to p a rtic ip a te in th is study by using the campus mail through the O ffice fo r Foreign Students and Scholars, and the stu­ dents who live d o ff campus were in vited to use the regular mail of the Post O ffic e , M.S.U. A packet containing the researcher's ® Ib id . , pp. 46-54. ^ Ib id ., pp. 36-45. 64 le t t e r requesting the student's p a rtic ip a tio n , the foreign student advisor's le t t e r urging the student's p a rtic ip a tio n , a copy of the CUES questionnaire, and a personal data sheet was mailed with a return envelope to the students. The nonrespondents to the f i r s t in v ita tio n were sent a follow-up le t t e r with a second questionnaire and a per­ sonal data sheet. Again, the students who did not respond to e ith e r in v ita tio n were called by telephone and s o lic ite d to p a rtic ip a te in the study. The response rate of the students is re flected in Table I I I - l . TABLE 1 1 1 -l. - - Id e n tifie d population, in vited sample, and response rates of foreign undergraduate students, undergradu­ ate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff Id e n tifie d Population Group In vited Sample Number of Respond­ ents Percent of Respondents Foreign undergradu­ ate students 272 272 190 69.9 Undergraduate f u l l ­ time teaching fa c u lty 1,337 134 86 64.2 126 126 87 69.0 Student personnel s ta ff The fa c u lty sample was sent a packet including a copy of the CUES questionnaire and a cover le t t e r requesting th e ir p a rtic ip a tio n through the campus mail of the O ffice fo r Foreign Students and Scholars. In th is packet, a le t t e r from a foreign student advisor 65 was also included with a hope of getting higher response rate of the fa c u lty members. A follow-up le t t e r and a second copy of the questionnaire were mailed to the fa c u lty members who did not respond to the i n i t i a l in v ita tio n . Table I I I - l indicates the response per­ centage of the sampled fa c u lty members. The sample of student personnel workers was also sent a copy of the CUES questionnaire, a cover le t t e r , and a le t t e r from the Assistant Vice President fo r Student A ffa irs and Services. I t was hoped that the student personnel workers would be encouraged to par­ tic ip a te in the study by the Assistant Vice President's le t t e r . The nonrespondents to the f i r s t in v ita tio n were mailed a follow-up le t t e r and a second copy of the questionnaire. The results are shown in Table I I I - l . Treatment and Analysis of the Data P rior to the process of analyzing the data, the research con­ sultants a t the College of Education, Michigan State U niversity (MSU), were contacted to determine with the researcher the s ta tis tic a l pro­ cedures and types of te s t suitable fo r th is study. Scoring was done, not by what Pace describes in the Manual as the "66+/33-" percent method,10 but by the s tra ig h te r, customary method. The number of items answered in the keyed directio n by each respondent of the three main groups were counted. Thus, fo r each respondent the range of scores on any one scale of the fiv e scales 10I b i d . , pp. 12-13. 66 is from zero to 20, depending on the number of items on each scale responded to in the keyed d ire c tio n . Based on th is scoring method, data collected fo r th is study were f i r s t coded on the M.S.U. Data sheets. Coded responses were sent to the Scoring O ffice a t the M.S.U. Computer Laboratory fo r key­ punching. Then, an SPSS s ta tis tic a l package was used in analyzing the data. The s ta tis tic a l techniques u tiliz e d fo r th is study were descriptive s ta tis tic s (mean and standard d e v ia tio n ), m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance te s t (MANOVA), the Univariate F -te s t, and t te s t. To te s t the differences in perceptions among the three groups of undergraduate foreign stduents, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff on the grand mean of the fiv e scales, the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance tests were u tiliz e d . Also, the same procedure was used with the comparisons among the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students as id e n tifie d on the basis of th e ir demographic variab les. In order to determine the differences among the comparing groups in the perceptions of each of the fiv e scales, the un ivariate F -te s t was fu rth e r employed. In additio n , the t - t e s t s ta tis tic a l procedure was u tiliz e d to compare between the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff with regard to the perceptions of the campus environment as measured by each of the fiv e scales of the CUES I I . 67 Each of the comparisons were s t a tis t ic a lly tested a t 0.05 significance le v e l. Chapter IV w ill be an analysis of the data collected in this study. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION The primary purpose of the w rite r in th is study was to exam­ ine whether foreign undergraduate students and th e ir subgroups d if fe r from th e ir s ig n ific a n t reference groups--undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s t a f f - - in th e ir perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment of Michigan State U niversity. This chapter consisted of two sections. In the f i r s t section, the actual respondents who participated in th is study were described in order to make some judgment about the representativeness of the data-producing sample groups. Foreign undergraduate student respon­ dents were described in terms of th e ir d is trib u tio n among the v a r i­ ables of age, gender, class le v e l, academic areas of study, liv in g arrangements, fin a n c ia l sources of support, s e lf-ra te d a b ilit y in English, and types of home country. The in vited teaching fa c u lty members a c tu a lly producing data were described in re la tio n to th e ir college a f f i l i a t i o n , although they were not investigated on the basis of th e ir minor variables fo r this study. Likewise, the respondents of student personnel s ta ff a c tu a lly producing data were presented in terms of the functional areas of th e ir services. The second section of th is chapter was composed of four parts on the basis of the objectives of th is study and was a 68 69 presentation of the te s t results of the hypotheses formed in th is study. The f i r s t part was the examination of whether the three sig ­ n ific a n t reference groups—foreign undergraduate students, under­ graduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s t a f f —d if f e r from one another in th e ir perceptions of the selected c h aracteristics of the campus environment. The second part of th is section consisted of comparisons of subgroups of foreign undergraduate students as id e n tifie d on the basis of th e ir personal v a riab les. In the th ird and fourth parts of th is section, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff were respectively compared with the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students. To determine s ig n ific a n t differences among foreign under­ graduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff fo r a ll fiv e environment scales, the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance tests were u tiliz e d . The U nivariate F-tests were also employed to determine the scale(s) in which s ig n ific a n t differences on perceptions of the campus environment occurred. Also, the same procedure was used fo r the comparisons of foreign undergraduate students' subgroups. In a d d itio n , the t-te s ts pro­ cedure was u tiliz e d to determine differences in the perceptions of the u n iversity environment between the subgroups of foreign under­ graduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student per­ sonnel s t a ff . The scales used fo r measuring the campus environment, as mentioned in Chapter I I , were the fiv e basic scales of the College and U niversity Environment Scales, Second Edition (CUES I I ) . The 70 fiv e scales are p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, community, awareness, and propriety. These scales were described in d e ta il in Chapter III. Actual Respondents Foreign Undergraduate Student Respondents A personal data sheet was attached to the instrument used fo r th is study in order to obtain some personal and demographic information about the foreign undergraduate student respondents (please see Appendix F). As mentioned in the previous chapter, there were 272 foreign undergraduate students enrolled a t M.S.U. fo r the Spring term of 1982, and questionnaires were d istrib u te d to a ll of them. cent. The number of returned responses to taled 197, or 72.4 per­ Seven responses, or 2.5 percent, of the to ta l returns were found to be unusable, and therefo re, were elim inated. The to ta l number of completed and usable responses was 190, or 69.9 percent of the to ta l number mailed. Table IV-1 indicates th a t o f the 190 foreign undergraduate students who responded and became the data-producing sample, the m ajority were members of the younger age group. The student respondents ranged in age from 18 through 38 with an average age of 21.3 (median 19.9; mode 19). Since they were academically seeking an undergraduate education, i t is generally true th a t they tended to be in th e ir e a r lie r twenties. Of the to ta l respondents, 84.2 percent were between the ages of 18 and 23 years. 71 TABLE IV-1.--Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by age categories Age Group 18 Number of Respondents Percent 160 84.2 30 15.8 190 100.0 - 23 24 - 38 TOTAL Question on gender revealed th at the m ajority of foreign undergraduate students involved in th is study were male. Of the respondents, males outnumbered females by almost 100 percent, 125 to 65, as indicated in Table IV -2. TABLE IV -2 .--A c tu a l respondents of foreign undergraduate students by gender Sex Number of Respondents Male Female TOTAL Percent 125 65.8 65 34.2 190 100.0 Table IV-3 illu s tr a te s a breakdown of the student respondents according to class le v e l. The m ajority of the students who p a r t ic i­ pated in th is study were freshmen, followed by seniors, sophomores, and ju n io rs . 72 TABLE IV-3. —Actual respondents o f foreign undergraduate students by class level Class Level Number of Respondents Percent Freshmen 69 36.3 Sophomore 41 21.6 Junior 37 19.5 Senior 43 22.6 TOTAL 190 100.0 I t can be assumed th a t students who id e n tify themselves with specific academic fie ld s w ill vary in th e ir in teraction w ithin the educational environment, and thus, d if fe r in th e ir perceptions of the un iversity environment. In this study, as seen in Table IV -4 , fiv e options were provided in order to permit the foreign student to id e n tify the area of academics most closely representing th e ir area of study. Of the respondents, the largest number, 91, iden­ t i f i e d themselves with engineering and physical sciences. Subjects were also asked to indicate with whom they lived with the assumption th at liv in g arrangements of foreign students would influence forming of social relationsh ips, and consequently, perceptions of the educational environment. The m ajority of the respondents, 40.5 percent, lived with U.S. students. The second group, 26.8 percent, of the foreign undergraduate students lived with home country students, and the th ird largest group, 13.7 percent, 73 TABLE IV -4 .—Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by academic areas of study categories Academic D iscipline Areas Number of Respondents Percent Engineering/Physical Sci. 91 47.9 Behavioral/Social Sci. 25 13.2 Arts/Humanities 16 8.4 L ife /B io lo g ic a l S ci. 13 6.8 Other 45 23.7 TOTAL 190 100.0 lived alone. Table IV-5 shows the d is trib u tio n of the respondents according to liv in g arrangements. TABLE IV -5 .— Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by liv in g arrangement categories (with whom they liv e ) Living Arrangement (with whom they liv e ) Number of Respondents Percent U.S. student(s) 77 40.5 Other foreign student(s) 11 5.8 Home country student(s) 51 26.8 Parents/spouse/child 16 8.4 Alone 26 13.7 Other 9 4.7 TOTAL 190 100.0 74 Most foreign undergraduate students enrolled a t M.S.U. seemed to be prim arily supported by th e ir parents or re la tiv e s , or th e ir home country governments. When indicating th e ir primary fin an cia l source of support, more than h a lf of the respondents, 53.7 percent, chose "p a re n ts /re la tiv e s ." The second largest group, 31.6 percent, chose "home country government's scholarship." Table IV-6 indicates the d is trib u tio n of the respondents' primary fin an cia l sources of support. TABLE IV -6 .--A c tu a l respondents of foreign undergraduate students by sponsorship categories Number of Respondents Sponsorship Working on and o ff campus Percent 6 3.1 102 53.7 Home country government 60 31.6 M.S.U. scholarship 14 7.4 U.S. or international foundation 2 1.1 Other 6 3.1 TOTAL 190 100.0 P aren ts/relatives In much of the published lite r a tu r e on foreign students studying in U.S. in s titu tio n s of higher education, i t has been gen­ e r a lly accorded th at the English a b ilit y of the foreign student is c r it ic a lly related to h is/h er academic l i f e , as well as social l i f e (see Chapter I I , p. 4 2 ). In th is in vestig atio n , thus, i t was 75 questioned i f the s e lf-ra te d English a b ilit y of foreign students affected th e ir perceptions of the campus environment. Table IV -7 , below, indicates the d is trib u tio n of foreign students' responses on th e ir s e lf-ra te d a b ilit y in English. TABLE IV -7 .—Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by s e lf-ra te d English a b ilit y categories English A b ility Number of Respondents Good Average Poor TOTAL Percent 100 57.9 74 38.9 6 3.2 190 100.0 The student respondents who p articipated in th is study repre­ sented 42 countries which were categorized into fiv e major types. The World Bank c la s s ifie d a ll the countries of the world in to fiv e major types on the basis of economy and income, adult lite ra c y ra te , and number in te r t ia r y education (see Chapter I , p. 8 ) , as indicated in the categories of Table IV -8 . Of the respondents, the largest numbers were from "middle-income countries" with 56.2 percent, followed by "high-income in d u s tria lize d countries," and "c a p ita lsurplus o il exporters." This table shows the d is trib u tio n of the respondents as to the d iffe re n t types of countries from which they came. 76 TABLE IV -8.—Actual respondents of foreign undergraduate students by home country type categories Country Type Number of Respondents Percent 10 5.2 107 56.3 High-income in d u s tria lize d countries 45 23.7 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 13.7 2 1.1 190 100.0 Low-income countries Middle-income countries Centrally-planned economies TOTAL Undergraduate Teaching Faculty Respondents As described in the previous chapter, 134 fa c u lty members were randomly in vited to p a rtic ip a te in th is study from among the id e n tifie d fu ll-tim e fa c u lty members whose teaching resp o n sib ilites included teaching undergraduate students and who were employed a t the colleges in which foreign undergraduate students were enrolled in the spring term o f 1982. The questionnaire was mailed to them and the number of returned responses totaled 91, or 67.9 percent. However, fiv e responses, or 3.7 percent of the to ta l returns, were found to be unusable, and th erefo re, were elim inated. The to ta l number of completed and usable responses was 86, or 64.2 percent of the to ta l number mailed. In th is study, the in vited fa c u lty 's perceptions of the campus environment were not analyzed on the basis of any other variab les, TABLE IV -9 .--F a c u lty id e n tifie d population, fa c u lty in v ite d sample, and fa c u lty respondents by college a f f i l i a t i o n College ft • i * _ j. j Id e n tifie d r»______1 . _____—__ In vited Sample /1 f\o j r»___.. 1 _ j_ • _____\ Faculty Respondents ---------------------------------------r rJ A g ric u ltu ra l and Natural Resources 141 14 10 71.4 Arts and Letters 334 34 23 67.6 Business 95 10 4 40.0 Communication Arts and Sciences 44 5 4 80.0 Education 82 8 6 75.0 101 10 6 60.0 50 5 3 60.0 4 0 0 0.0 13 1 1 100.0 Natural Sciences 300 30 16 53.3 Social Sciences 173 17 13 76.5 1,337 134 86 Engineering Human Ecology Medical Technology James Madison College TOTAL 78 To make some judgment concerning the representativeness of the dataproducing fa c u lty sample, however, the invited fa c u lty sample a ctu ally producing data was calculated in re la tio n to college a f f ili a t i o n . Table IV-9 indicates th a t of the eigh ty-six fa c u lty members who participated in this study, ten were a f f ilia t e d with the College of A gricultural and Natural Sciences, twenty-three were employed in the College of Arts and L e tte rs , four in the College of Business, four in the College of Communication Arts and Science, six in the College of Education, six in the College of Engineering, three in the College of Human Ecology, one in James Madison College, sixteen in the College of Natural Science, and th irte e n in the College of Social Science. In every college except one (College of Business), the data-producing respondents were greater than 50 percent of the in vited fa c u lty sample. The highest percentage of p a rtic ip a tio n (100 percent) in terms of the in vited fa c u lty sample was in James Madison College, while the lowest percentage of p a rtic ip a tio n (40 percent) in terms of the in vited fa c u lty sample was in the College of Business. Based on th is information, i t was considered that the data-producing fa c u lty respondents were adequately distrib uted in representing each college. Student Personnel S ta ff Respondents As noted in Selection of Student Personnel S ta ff, Chapter I I I , 126 student personnel workers were id e n tifie d as the q u a lifie d 79 subjects to be invited to p a rtic ip a te in this study, and the ques­ tio nnaire was mailed to a ll of them. responses totaled 89, or 70.6 percent. The number of returned Of these responses, however, two, or 1.6 percent, were found to be unusable. Therefore, the to ta l number of completed and usable responses was 87, or 69.0 percent of the to ta l number mailed. In Table IV -10 the percentage of the in vited student a ffa ir s personnel a c tu a lly producing data was calculated fo r each functional area of service in order to make some judgment concerning the repre­ sentativeness of the data-producing student personnel s t a ff . In every area except the Foreign Student O ffic e , the percentage of the in vited student personnel s ta ff sample producing data was more than 40 percent. The lowest percentage o f p a rtic ip a tio n was in the O ffice of Foreign Students, while the highest percentage of p a r tic i­ pation was among the personnel s ta ff working in Placement Services. Based on these considerations, in general, i t was considered that the responses of the student personnel s ta ff were adequately repre­ sentative of the in vited student personnel s ta ff sample. Presentation of Research Results Comparisons of the Total Group of Foreign Undergraduate Students with Undergraduate Teaching Faculty, and Student Personnel S ta ff The f i r s t research objective of th is study was to determine whether the to ta l group of foreign undergraduate students' perceptions of the campus environment d if fe r from those of the undergraduate 80 TABLE IV - 10.--Student personnel s ta ff sample and student personnel s ta ff respondents by functional areas of service Functional Area Invited Sample Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents Student L ife Department 11 9 81.8 Counseling Center 29 19 65.5 Financial Aids O ffice 18 14 77.8 Intramural Sports and Recreation Services 7 5 71.4 University Housing Programs 41 29 70.7 01 in Health Center 10 4 40.0 Placement Services 8 7 87.5 Foreign Student O ffice 2 0 0.0 126 87 TOTAL teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff when measured by the fiv e scales of the CUES I I . S t a t is t ic a lly , this objective was accomplished by using the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance and univariate F -te s t. Hypothesis 1: There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when foreign undergraduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff are compared to one another. Table IV-11 shows the number of respondents and the mean and standard deviation fo r the responses of each of the three reference groups on each of the fiv e scales. Table IV-12 presents 81 TABLE IV-11.--Number, mean, and standard deviation of responses of foreign undergraduate students, undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff to the fiv e environment scales Scale P ra c tic a lity Scholarship Community Awareness Propriety Group Number Mean Standard Deviation Foreign Students 190 10.85 2.92 Teaching Faculty 86 8.43 2.27 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 9.16 2.40 Foreign Students 190 10.97 4.20 Teaching Faculty 86 9.23 4.63 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 9.38 4.77 Foreign Students 190 9.58 3.41 Teaching Faculty 86 9.73 3.29 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 10.20 3.49 Foreign Students 190 10.50 4.01 Teaching Faculty 86 10.65 4.56 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 10.21 4.28 Foreign Students 190 7.62 2.77 Teaching Faculty 86 7.66 3.32 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 7.63 3.07 82 TABLE IV -1 2 .—W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff to the fiv e environment scales Source of Variance Approx. F Three Reference Groups 8.84236 Degrees of Freedom 10, 712 P .00001* *S ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. the te s t results of the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance fo r the data in Table IV -11, and indicates th at s ig n ific a n t differences existed in the perceptions of the overall scales among foreign undergraduate students, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and student personnel s t a ff . The value of the overall F -te s t with degrees of freedom 10, 712 was 8.84236, and the value of p was (p < .00001). This indicates th at there were s ig n ific a n t differences among the respondents of the three reference groups. In order to id e n tify the group whose perceptions d iffe re d from foreign undergraduate students, the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance was applied, in tu rn , to two pairs of the three groups. That is , the m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance was applied to the responses of: (1) foreign undergraduate students and undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and (2) foreign undergraduate students and student personnel s t a ff . Table IV-13 shows the te s t results of m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance as applied to the responses of the two pairs of comparing 83 TABLE IV -13.--WT1k *s m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students and undergradute teaching fa c u lty , and foreign undergraduate students and student personnel s ta ff to the fiv e environment seales Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom Foreign Students vs. Teaching Faculty 9.25013 5, 356 .00001* Foreign Students vs. Student Personnel S ta ff 9.36095 5, 356 .00001* P ♦S ig n ific an t a t the .05 le v e l. groups, and indicates th a t s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the campus environment occurred in both pairs of groups. When the m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance te s t was applied to the responses of foreign undergraduate students and undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty , the value of the overall F -te s t with degrees of freedom 5,356 was 9.25013, which was s ig n ific a n t a t (p < .00001). When foreign undergraduate students were compared with student personnel s ta ff in regard to th e ir perceptions of the campus environment, the value of the overall F -te s t with degrees of freedom 5 , 356 was 9.36095, which was s ig n ific a n t a t (p < .00001). Since the overall F-tests fo r foreign undergraduate students and undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , and foreign undergraduate stu­ dents and student personnel s ta ff were found to be s ig n ific a n t, the 84 Univariate F -te s t was employed to both comparing pairs of groups to id e n tify in which scale(s) the differences occurred, respectively. By testing the Univariate F -te s t a t .01 (.0 5 level of sig­ nificance t fiv e scales) le v e l, Table IV-14 below indicates th at s ig n ific a n t differences existed only on one scale—p ra c tic a lity — between the foreign undergraduate students and teaching fa c u lty in th e ir preceptions of the campus environment. Foreign undergradu­ ate students perceived the u n iversity environment as being more practical than did undergraduate teaching fa c u lty . TABLE IV -1 4 .--U n iv a ria te F -te s t on responses of foreign undergraduate students and undergraduate teaching fa c u lty to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 360) D.F. Hypothesis Mean Sq. Error Mean Sq. Practical it y 234.68507 Scholarship Source of V ariation F P 7.06306 33.22710 .00001* 100.37825 19.76012 5.07984 .02481 Community .10503 11.56345 .00908 .92413 Awareness 3.88215 17.72586 .21901 .64008 Propriety .11495 8.87890 .01295 .90947 ♦S ig n ific an t a t the .01 le v e l. Table IV - 15 also shows the results of the Univariate F -te s t as applied to the responses of foreign undergraduate students and student personnel s ta ff on each of the fiv e scales of the CUES I I , and indicates th a t s ig n ific a n t differences occurred on two scales— 85 TABLE IV -15.--U n iv a ria te F -te s t on responses of foreign undergraduate student and student personnel s ta ff to the fiv e e n v ir­ onment scales, with (1 , 360) D.F. Source of Variance Hypothesis Mean Sq. P ra c tic a lity 170.78352 Scholarship Error Mean Sq. F P 7.06306 24.17981 .00001* 150,69588 19.76012 7.62626 .00605* Community 22.67753 11.56345 1.96114 .16225 Awareness 5.12667 17.72586 .28922 .59105 Propriety .01604 8.87890 .00181 .96612 ♦S ignifican t at the .01 le v e l. the p ra c tic a lity and scholarship scales. Foreign undergraduate students perceived the un iversity environment as being more p ra c ti­ c a l, scholarly, and academic than did student personnel s t a ff . On the other scales—community, awareness, and propriety scales--o f the CUES I I , no s ig n ific a n t differences were found when comparing foreign undergraduate students' perceptions with those of the student per­ sonnel s ta ff in regard to the un iversity environment. Comparisons of the Subgroups of Foreign Undergraduate Students The second objective of th is study was to examine whether some selected demographic variables of foreign undergraduate stu­ dents had an e ffe c t on th e ir perceptions of the campus environment. To f u l f i l l th is ob jective, th erefo re, eight corresponding research hypotheses were established on the basis o f the variables conceived 86 of as influencing the perceptions of foreign undergraduate students. These variables were age, gender, class le v e l, academic areas of study, liv in g arrangements, fin an cial sources of support, s e lfrated a b ilit y in English, and type of country. In this section, the te s t results w ill be presented in the order of the established hypotheses. Hypothesis 2 -1 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when the ages of foreign under­ graduate students are grouped into two categories: 18-23 and 24-38. Table IV - 16 shows the number of respondents and the mean and standard deviation fo r the responses of each age group of f o r ­ eign undergraduate students on each of the fiv e scales. With the data in Table IV -16, the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance tests were used to determine i f there were s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the university environment between the two age groups. Table IV -17 shows the te s t results of m u ltivariate analysis of variance fo r the responses of the two age groups of foreign undergraduate students and indicates that s ig n ific a n t differences appeared in perceptions of the un iversity environment as measured by the fiv e scales of the CUES I I . The value of the overall F -test with 5,184 degrees of freedom was 2.49034, which was s ig n ific a n t at (p < .03284). To id e n tify in which scale(s) the differences occurred, therefo re, the Univariate F -te s t was employed on the responses of the two age groups of foreign undergraduate students. As a re s u lt, 87 TABLE IV -16.—Number, mean, and standard deviation of responses o f foreign undergraduate students by age categories to the fiv e environment scales Mean Standard Deviation 160 11.14 2.76 24-38 30 9.33 3.29 18-23 160 11.01 4.12 24-38 30 10.73 4.66 18-23 160 9.82 3.31 24-38 30 8.30 3.70 18-23 160 10.63 3.81 24-38 30 9.83 4.79 18-23 160 7.59 2.75 24-38 30 7.77 2.92 Scale Age Group Practical it y 18-23 Scholarship Community Awareness Propriety Number TABLE IV-17. --W ilk 's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by age categories to the fiv e environment scales Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom Age Level 2.49034 5, ♦S ig n ific an t a t the .05 le v e l. 184 P .03284* 88 as reported in Table IV -18, i t was found th at s ig n ific a n t difference existed only on the p r a c tic a lity scale. The students in the 18-23 age group perceived the campus as being more practical than did the students in the 24-38 age group. TABLE IV -1 8 .--U n iv a ria te F -te s t on responses of foreign under­ graduate students by age categories to the fiv e environment scales with (1 , 188) D.F. Source of Variance Hypothesis Mean Sq. Error Mean Sq. P ractical it y 83.37544 8.20780 10.15807 Scholarship 2.46711 17.80997 .13852 .71017 Community 58.27204 11.36193 5.12871 .02467 Awareness 15.83333 16.07270 .98511 .73777 Propriety .86853 7.72506 .11243 .73777 F P .00168* ♦S ig n ific an t a t the .01 le v e l. Hypothesis 2 -2 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment between female and male foreign undergraduate students. To te s t the above hypothesis, responses on the fiv e scales were compared according to respondents' gender as an independent v a ria b le . The m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance te s t, as reported in Table IV -19, reveals th a t there were no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of responding female and male foreign under­ graduate students with regard to the campus environment as measured by the fiv e scales of the CUES I I . 89 TABLE IV -19.--W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis o f variance on responses o f foreign undergraduate students by gender to the fiv e environment scales Source of Variation Approx. F Degrees of Freedom Gender 1.26407 5, 184 p* .28132 ♦Tested a t the .05 le v e l. Table IV-19 shows th at gender with degrees of freedom p was (p > .28132). the value of the overall F te s t fo r 1,184 was 1.26407, and the value of This indicates that existed between genders a t the no s ig n ific a n t difference .05 level of confidence.Hypothesis 2-2 cannot be rejected on the basis of the results obtained. Hypothesis 2 -3 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics o f the campus environment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir class le v e l. This hypothesis is to answer the question of whether foreign undergraduate students' perceptions of the campus environment are d iffe re n t according to th e ir class level--freshm en, sophomore, ju n io r, and senior. Table IV-20 shows the number of respondents and the mean and standard deviation fo r the responses of each group of class level on each of the fiv e scales. As reported in Table IV -21, the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance was used to te s t the hypothesis and indicates th a t according to class le v e l, foreign undergraduate students perceived the campus environment d iffe r e n tly . The value of the overall F -te s t fo r class 90 TABLE IV-20.--Number, mean, and standard deviation of responses of foreign undergraduate students by class level to the fiv e environment scales Scale Practical it y Scholarship Community Awareness Propriety Class Level Standard Deviation Number Mean Freshmen 69 11.77 2.73 Sophomore 41 11.07 2.88 Junior 37 10.14 3.02 Senior 43 9.79 2.73 Freshmen 69 11.87 3.94 Sophomore 41 11.02 3.95 Junior 37 11.19 4.78 Senior 43 9.28 3.99 Freshmen 69 10.45 3.22 Sophomore 41 9.78 3.28 Junior 37 9.22 4.10 Senior 43 8.30 2.77 Freshmen 69 11.35 3.63 Sophomore 41 10.10 3.81 Junior 37 10.76 4.19 Senior 43 9.30 4.39 Freshmen 69 7.77 2.62 Sophomore 41 7.49 3.15 Junior 37 7.46 2.39 Senior 43 7.63 3.30 91 TABLE IV-21. —W ilk' s m u ltivariate analysis o f variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by class level to the fiv e environment scales Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom Class Level 1.78072 15, 502 P .03441* ♦S ig n ific an t a t the .05 le v e l. le v e l, as an independent v a ria b le , with degrees of freedom 15, 502 was 1.78072, which was s ig n ific a n t a t (p < .03441). In order to determine the nature of the s ig n ific a n t d i f f e r ­ ences in perception, therefo re, the m u ltiva ria te analysis of v a r i­ ance was applied, in tu rn , to two of the four groups in re la tio n to the overall fiv e scales of the CUES I I . That is , m u ltiva ria te analy­ sis of variance was applied to the responses o f:: (1) freshmen and sophomores, (2) freshmen and ju n io rs , (3) freshmen and seniors, (4) sophomores and ju n io rs , (5) sophomores snd seniors, and (6) juniors and seniors. Table IV-22 shows the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance tests as applied to the responses of the six pairs of comparing class level groups of foreign undergraduate students, and indicates th at s ig n if i­ cant differences in the perceptions of the campus environment occurred on the three pairs of comparing groups--freshmen and seniors, sophomores and seniors, and juniors and seniors. However, the e v i­ dence does not indicate any s ig n ific a n t differences between freshmen and sophomores, freshmen and ju n io rs , and sophomores and ju n io rs. 92 TABLE IV -2 2 .—W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance fo r six comparing p air groups by class level of foreign undergraduate students Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom P Freshmen and Sophomore .39149 5, 182 .85424 Freshmen and Junior 1.00125 5, 182 .41849 Freshmen and Senior 4.00694 5, 182 .00179* Sophomore and Junior 1.08871 5, 182 .36817 Sophomore and Senior 3.65538 5, 182 .00355* Junior and Senior 3.11453 5, 182 .01009* ♦S ignifican t a t the .05 le v e l. When the m u ltivariate analysis of variance was applied to the responses of freshmen and senior foreign students, the value of the overall F-test with degrees of freedom 5,182 was 4.00694, which was s ig n fiic a n t a t (p £ .00179). When sophomores were compared with senior foreign students in terms of th e ir responses on the fiv e scales of the CUES I I , as can be seen in Table IV -22, the value of the overall F -te s t with degrees of freedom 5, 182 was 3.65538, which was s ig n ific a n t a t (p < .00355). The value of the overall F -te s t fo r ju n io r and senior foreign students' responses on the fiv e scales was 3.11453 with degrees of freedom 5, 182, and the value of p was 93 (p < .01009). This indicates th at there were s ig n ific a n t d if f e r ­ ences between the responses of ju n io r and senior foreign under­ graduate students in th e ir perceptions of the campus environment. With the te s t results of m u ltiva ria te analsis of variance in Table IV-22, and to id e n tify in which scale(s) the differences in perceptions occurred, the U nivariate F-tests were respectively applied to each p a ir of comparing groups which showed s ig n ific a n t differences. Table IV-23 shows the results of the u n ivariate F -te s t on the responses of freshmen and senior foreign undergraduate students to each of the fiv e scales of the CUES I I , and reveals th a t s ig n if i­ cant differences existed in four of the fiv e scales—p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, community, and awareness. I t was found th at foreign freshmen students' perceptions were higher than foreign senior stu­ dents' of p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, community, and awareness of the campus environment. Table IV-24 shows the te s t results of the u n ivariate analysis of variance on the responses of sophomore and senior foreign students to each of the fiv e scales of the CUES I I , and indicates th a t s ig ­ n ific a n t differences existed in three of the fiv e scales—p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, and community. Foreign sophomore students' perceptions of the un iversity environment were higher than those of senior foreign students on the p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, and community scale. How­ ever, evidence indicates that no s ig n ific a n t differences appeared between sophomore and senior foreign students on the scales of aware­ ness and propriety. 94 TABLE IV -2 3 .--U n iv a ria te F -te s t on responses of freshmen and senior foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 186) D.F. Source of Variance Hypothesis Mean Sq. Error Mean Sq. Practical it y 103.58494 7.97049 12.99606 .00040* Scholarship 177.77275 16.95230 10.48664 .00142* Community 122.10777 11.10405 10.99624 .00110* Awareness 110.84506 15.68356 7.06731 .00853* Propriety .52078 7.78371 .06691 F P .79618 ♦ S ig n ifican t a t the .01 le v e l. TABLE IV -2 4 .--U n iv a ria te F -te s t on responses of sophomore and senior foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 186) D.F. Source of Variance Hypothesis Mean Sq. Error Mean Sq. F P P ra c tic a lity 91.28824 7.97049 11.45328 .00087* Scholarship 160.07153 16.95230 9.44246 .00244* Community 111.33023 11.10450 10.02569 .00180* Awareness 77.12673 15.68356 4.91768 .02779 Propriety .03947 7.78371 .00507 .94331 ♦S ig n ific an t a t the .01 le v e l. 95 Table IV .25 shows the te s t results of the u n iv ariate analy­ sis of variance on the responses of ju n io r and senior foreign students to each of the fiv e scales of the CUES I I , and reveals that s ig n if i­ cant differences occurred in three of the fiv e scales a t .01 (.0 5 level of significance * fiv e scales) le v e l— the p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, and community scales. Foreign ju n io r students' percep­ tions of the campus environment were higher than those of senior foreign students' on three scales, but not on two scales—awareness and propriety. TABLE IV -2 5 . — U nivariate F -te s t on responses of ju n io r and senior foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environ­ ment scales, with (1 , 186) D.F. Source of Variance Hypothesis Mean Sq. Error Mean Sq. P F Practical it y 62.67577 7.97049 7.86348 .00558* Scholarship 158.61515 16.95230 9.35665 .00255* Community 90.57936 11.10450 8.15700 .00478* Awareness 79.72275 15.68356 5.08320 .02532 Propriety .00816 7.78371 .00105 .97420 ♦S ig n ific an t a t the .01 le v e l. Hypothesis 2 -4 ; There w ill no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected c h aracteristics of the campus environment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir major academic areas of study. 96 This hypothesis is to answer the question of whether foreign undergraduate students' perceptions of the campus environment are d iffe re n t according to th e ir academic areas of study: (1 ) Engineer­ ing/physical sciences, (2) Behavioral/social sciences, (3 ) A rts / humanities, (4) L ife /b io lo g ic a l sciences. To te s t the hypothesis, the responses of the students on the fiv e scales were compared on the basis of self-rep orted areas of study by using the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance. However, as presented in Table IV -2 6 , the evidence indicates th a t no s ig n ific a n t differences existed in the perceptions of foreign undergraduate students who studied d iffe re n t areas of academics, as measured by the fiv e scales of the CUES I I . TABLE IV -2 6 .—W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by academic areas of study categories to the fiv e environment scales Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom Academic Areas of Study 1.16091 20, 601 P .27867 ♦Tested a t the .05 le v e l. Table IV-26 shows th at the value of the overall F -te s t fo r academic areas of study with degrees of freedom 20, 601 was 1.16091, which was not s ig n ific a n t a t (p > .27687). Based on the obtained re s u lts , th e re fo re , Hypothesis 2-4 cannot be rejected. 97 Hypothesis 2 -5 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir liv in g arrangements. In th is analysis, liv in g arrangements of the students were measured in one way—with whom they liv e d —and was grouped as: (1) U.S. students, (2) Other foreign students, (3) Home country students, (4) Parents or re la tiv e s , (5) Alone, and (6) Other. It was assumed that foreign undergraduate students' perceptions of the campus environment might be d iffe re n t according to with whom they lived because students' social a c tiv itie s and involvement with the campus environment have been reported to be greatly related to with whom they liv e d . To te s t the above hypothesis, the m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance was used, and the results indicated that there were no sig­ n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the students who had d i f ­ fe re n t liv in g arrangements with regard to the campus environment. Table IV-27 shows th a t the value of the overall F -te s t fo r liv in g arrangements with degrees of freedom, 25, 670 was 1.04631, and the value of p was (p .40241). With .05 level of confidence, this indicates that there were no s ig n ific a n t differences among the stu­ dents who had d iffe re n t liv in g arrangements in the perceptions of the campus environment. Hypothesis 2-5 is unable to be rejected with the evidence a v a ila b le . Hypothesis 2 -6 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir fin an cial sponsorship. 98 TABLE IV-27.—W iIk's m u ltiva ria te analysis o f variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by liv in g arrange­ ment categories to the fiv e environment scales Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom Living Arrangements 1.04631 25, 670 n* .40241 ♦Tested a t the .05 le v e l. In th is in vestig atio n , foreign undergraduate students were divided into six sponsorship categories by th e ir primary source of support: (1) working on and o ff campus, (2) parents or re la tiv e s , (3) home country government scholarship, (4) M.S.U. scholarship, (5) scholarship from foundation or organization, and (6) other source. As noted e a r lie r in th is chapter, most of the foreign under­ graduate students enrolled a t M.S.U. were prim arily supported by th e ir parents or re la tiv e s , and secondly by th e ir home country govern ments. The number of students who supported themselves (s ix stu­ dents, 3.1 percent) and who were supported by foundations (two students, 1.1 percent) was very small. Table IV-28 shows the number of respondents and the mean and standard deviation of the responses of the students by th e ir sponsorship categories. Table IV -29 shows th at among the sponsorship categories of the foreign undergraduate students, there were s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the campus environment as measured by the fiv e 99 TABLE IV-28.--Number, mean, and standard deviation on responses of foreign undergraduate students by sponsorship cate­ gories to the fiv e environment scales Sponsorship Categories Number Mean Standard Deviation P ra c tic a lity Working P aren ts/relatives Home country gov't M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other 6 102 60 14 2 6 10.67 10.69 11.40 11.71 9.00 7.00 1.51 3.04 2.73 2.30 2.83 2.89 Scholarship Working P aren ts/relatives Home country gov't M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other 6 102 60 14 2 6 8.50 10.71 12.05 10.86 8.50 8.12 3.39 4.33 3.91 3.80 3.54 5.08 Community Working P aren ts/relatives Home country gov't M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other 6 102 60 14 2 6 11.83 9.08 9.75 11.57 9.00 2.71 3.24 3.70 2.82 2.83 2.37 Awareness Working P aren ts/relatives Home country go v't M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other 6 102 60 14 2 6 11.67 10.13 11.17 10.29 10.50 9.50 3.98 4.19 3.87 3.05 3.54 4.81 Propriety Working P aren ts/relatives Home country gov't M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other 6 102 60 14 2 6 8.33 7.12 8.18 7.35 12.50 8.67 1.21 2.71 2.67 2.79 .70 3.93 Scale 11.00 100 TABLE IV-29. —W ilk's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by sponsorship categories to the fiv e environment scales Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom Sponsorship 2.16839 25, 670 P .00089* *S ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. scales of the CUES I I . The m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance te s t indicates th at the value of the overall F -te s t fo r sponsorship cate­ gories with degrees of freedom 25, 670 was 2.16839, which was s ig ­ n ific a n t a t (p < .00089). Since the overall F -te s t fo r sponsorship categories was sig­ n ific a n t, the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance te s t was applied to two of the three groups, in tu rn , in order to determine the nature of the s ig n ific a n t differences in perception. That is , m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance was applied to the responses of the students who were sponsored by: (1) p a ren ts/relatives and home country govern­ ment, (2) p a ren ts/relatives and M.S.U. scholarship, and (3) home country government and M.S.U. scholarship. The student groups whose sponsorships were "working on and o ff campus," "foundation or organi­ zation ," and "other source" were discarded because the sample sizes of these groups were too small on which to run the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance. 101 Table IV-30 indicates th a t when the foreign undergraduate students who were supported by th e ir p a re n ts /rela tiv es were compared with the students sponsored by th e ir home country government, the value of the overall F -te s t with degrees of freedom 5 , 169 was 2.01426, and the value of p was (p _>.07904). Also, the value of the overall F -te s t fo r the students sponsored by th e ir p a re n ts /rela tiv es and by M.S.U. scholarship was 1.76887 with degrees of freedom 5, 169, which indicates no s ig n ific a n t differences a t (p >_ .12181). Table IV-30 shows th at the value of the overall F -te s t fo r the students sponsored by th e ir home country government and by M.S.U. scholarship was 1.86120 with degrees of freedom 5, 169, which indicates no sig­ n ific a n t differences between the two compared groups a t (p >_ .10366). In other words, no s ig n ific a n t differences in perceptions s t a t is t ic a lly appeared when each of the above three pairs of comparing sponsorship groups were tested. This was due to the fa c t th a t the means of the three compared groups were very close as shown in Table IV -28. If other contrasts had been chosen, the overall MAN0VA F-tests might be explained. Hypothesis 2-6 could not be rejected with the e v i­ dence provided. As reviewed in Chapter I I , much of the published lite r a tu r e agreed th at the English a b ilit y of foreign students is one of the most c r it ic a l factors a ffec tin g the student's compus l i f e academically and s o c ia lly . Based on such lite r a tu r e review, i t was questioned how foreign undergraduate students' English a b ilit y a ffe c ts th e ir percep­ tions of the campus environment in which they manage th e ir educational life . The follow ing hypothesis is to answer the above question. 102 TABLE IV -3 0 .--W iIk 's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance fo r three comparing p a ir groups by sponsorship categories of foreign undergraduate students Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom P arents/relatives vs. Home country government 2.01426 5, 169 .07904 P aren ts/relatives vs. M.S.U. scholarship 1.76887 5, 169 .12181 Home country government vs. M.S.U. Scholarship 1.86120 5, 169 .10366 P* *Tested a t the .05 le v e l. Hypothesis 2 -7 ; There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when foreign undergraduate students are compared on the basis of th e ir s e lf-ra te d a b ilit y in English. Table IV-31 shows the number of respondents and the mean and standard deviation of the responses of each group of foreign under­ graduate students who s e lf-ra te d th e ir English a b ilit y as "good," "average," and "poor" on each of the fiv e scales. Table IV-32 shows the te s t re su lt of the m u ltiva ria te analy­ sis of variance fo r the three groups of foreign undergraduate stu­ dents who were categorized by th e ir s e lf-ra te d a b ilit y in English, and indicates that there were s ig n ific a n t differences in the per­ ceptions of the un iversity environment. The value of the overall 103 TABLE IV-31.—Number, mean, and standard deviation on responses of foreign undergraduate students by se lf-ra te d English a b ilit y categories to the fiv e environment scales S e lf-ra te d A b ility In English Practical it y Number Maa„ Mean Standard Deviation 110 10.61 2.71 74 11.24 3.26 Poor 6 10.50 2.43 Good 110 10.16 4.54 74 12.05 3.50 Poor 6 12.33 2.66 Good 110 9.49 3.30 74 9.66 3.62 Poor 6 10.12 2.99 Good 110 10.59 4.14 74 10.27 3.94 Poor 6 11.67 2.25 Good 110 7.02 2.90 74 8.41 2.35 6 8.83 2.86 Good Average Scholarship Average Community Average Awareness Average Propriety Average Poor 104 TABLE IV -3 2 . --W iIk 's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by s e lf-ra te d English a b ilit y categories to the fiv e environment scales Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom S e lf-ra ted a b ilit y in Engli sh 2.56716 10, 366 P .00520* ♦S ig n ifican t a t the .05 le v e l. F -te s t fo r the categories of English a b ilit y of foreign undergradu­ ate students was 2.56716 with degrees of freedom 10, 366, which was s ig n ific a n t a t (p < .00520). Since the overall F -te s t fo r English a b ilit y categories was s ig n ific a n t, and to determine where the s ig n ific a n t differences in perceptions existed, the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance te s t was applied again to two of the categories of foreign undergraduate stu­ dents: those who rated th e ir English as "good" and those who rated th e ir English as "average." The students' group whose English a b ilit y was rated as "poor" was discarded because the sample size (6) of th is group was too small on which to run the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance. Table IV-33 shows the te s t results of m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance as applied to the responses of the two comparing English a b ilit y groups, and indicates th a t s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the u n iversity environment occurred between these two 105 TABLE IV-33.—Wi1k ' s m u ltivaria te analysis of variance on responses of "good" and "average" English a b ilit y foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environment scales Source of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom Good and Average A b ility in English 4.79889 5, 178 P .00039* ♦S ig n ifican t a t the .05 le v e l. groups. As can be seen in Table IV -33, the value of the overall F -te s t fo r "good" and "average" a b ilit y foreign students in English was 4.79889 with degrees of freedom 5, 178, which was s ig n ific a n t a t (p < .00039). With the above te s t results of the m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance, the Univeriate F -te s t was employed to id e n tify in which scale(s) of the fiv e scales the s ig n ific a n t differences occurred between the two groups o f "good" and "average" English a b ilit y stu­ dents. By testing the Univeriate F -te s t at .01 (.0 5 level of sig­ nificance r fiv e scales) le v e l, Table IV-34 indicates th a t s ig n if i­ cant differences in perception of the un iversity environment occurred on two scales--scholarship and propriety scales--between the two groups of foreign undergraduate students who had d iffe re n t English a b ilit y . The foreign undergraduate students who rated themselves as having "average" English a b ilit y perceived the u n iversity environ­ ment as being more scholarly and academic then did the foreign stu­ dents who rated themselves as having "good" English a b il it y . Likewise, 106 TABLE IV-34.--U nivariate F-test on responses o f "good" and "average" English a b ilit y foreign undergraduate students to the fiv e environment scales, with (1, 182) D.F. Source of Variance Hypothesis Mean Sq. Error Mean Sq. F P 17.79073 8.58139 2.07318 .15168 158.09645 17.19142 9.19624 .00278* Community 1.29743 11.79146 .11003 .74049 Awareness 4.54819 16.47904 .27600 .59998 Propriety 85.13331 7.22968 11.77533 P ra c tic a lity Scholarship .00074* ♦S ig n ific an t a t the .01 le v e l. "average" a b ilit y students in English perceived the un iversity e n v ir­ onment as being more proper, mannerly, and considerate than did the "good" a b ilit y students in English. On the other three of the fiv e scales of the CUES I I , according to the evidence of Table IV -3 4 , there were no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the u n iversity environment between the two groups of "good" and "average" English a b ilit y students. Hypothesis 2 -8 ; There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions o f the selected characteristics of the campus environment when foreign undergraudate students are compared on the basis of th e ir home country types. In th is in vestig atio n , foreign undergraduate students' home country types were categorized on the basis of the World Bank's c r it e r ia published in 1980: (1) low-income countries, (2) middle- income countries, (3) high-income in d u s tria lize d countries, 107 TABLE IV-35.--Number, mean, and standard deviation of responses of foreign undergraduate students by home country type categories to the fiv e environment scales Scale P ra c tic a lity Scholarship Community Awareness Propriety Num­ ber Mean Standard Deviation Low-income countries Middle-income countries High-i ncome i n d u s triali zed country Capital-surplus o il exporters Centrally-planned economics 10 107 10.40 11.47 1.17 2.85 45 9.44 3.07 26 10.85 2.69 2 12.00 2.83 Low-income countries Middle-income countries High-income in d u strialized country Capital-surplus o il exporters Centrally-planned economics 10 107 10.30 11.62 2.91 4.06 45 9.29 4.61 26 11.81 3.53 2 6.50 4.95 Low-income countries Middle-income countries High-income in d u strialized country Capital-surplus o il exporters Centrally-planned economics 10 107 6.50 9.60 4.95 3.86 45 9.69 3.43 26 9.08 3.03 2 9.00 1.41 Low-income countries Middle-income countries High-income in d u strialized country Capital-surplus o il exporters Centrally-planned economics 10 107 11.00 10.90 3.46 3.69 45 9.53 4.36 26 10.42 4.79 2 9.50 3.54 Low-income countries Middle-income countries High-income in d u s tria lize d countries Capital-surplus o il exporters Centrally-planned economics 10 107 5.90 7.79 2.23 2.84 45 7.58 3.03 26 7.73 2.09 2 6.50 .71 Type of Country 108 (4) capital-surplus o il exporters, and (5) centrally-planned econ­ omics. Table IV-35 shows the number of respondents and the mean and standard deviation of the responses of foreign undergraduate students from d iffe re n t types of countries on each of the fiv e scales of the CUES I I . The above hypothesis was f i r s t tested by the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance in order to determine i f there were s ig n if i­ cant differences on the perceptions of a ll the fiv e scales of the CUES I I among the foreign undergraduate students from d iffe re n t types of countries. Table IV-36 shows th a t the value of the over­ a ll F -te s t fo r the students' responses from d iffe re n t types of countries was 1.99720 with degrees of freedom 20, 601, which was s ig n ific a n t a t (p < .00621). TABLE IV -3 6 . --W iIk 's m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance on responses of foreign undergraduate students by home country type categories to the fiv e environment scales Sources of Variance Approx. F Degrees of Freedom Type of Country 1.99720 20, 601 P .00621* ♦S ig n ifican t a t the .05 le v e l. Since the overall F -te s t fo r the home country type of fo r ­ eign undergraduate students was s ig n ific a n t, and to determine where the s ig n ific a n t differences in perception existed, the m u ltiva ria te 109 analysis of variance was applied, in tu rn , to two of the four groups. That is , m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance was applied to the responses of foreign undergraduate students from: (1) low-income countries and middle-income countries, (2 ) low-income countries and high-income in d u s tria lize d countries, (3) low-income countries and capital-surplus o il exporters, (4) middle-income countries and high-income in d u s tria lize d countries, (5) middle-income countries and capital-surplus o il exporters, and (6) high-income in d u s tria lize d countries and capital-surplus o il exporters. In these comparisons, the group of foreign undergraduate students from centrally-planned economics was discarded because the sample size (2) was too small on which to run the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance. Table IV-37 shows the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance tests as applied to the responses of the six pairs of the comparing country type groups of foreign undergraduate students and indicates that s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the un iversity environment occurred only in three pairs of comparing groups—lowincome countries and middle-income countries, low-income countries and high-income in d u s tria lize d countries, and middle-income countries and high-income in d u s tria lize d countries. No s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the campus environment, as can be seen in Table IV -37, were found between the responses of foreign undergradu­ ate students from low-income countries and capital-surplus o il export­ ers, middle-income countries and capital-surplus o il exporters, and high-income in d u s tria lize d countries and capital-surplus o il export­ ers. 110 TABLE IV -3 7 .--W i1k*s m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance fo r six comparing p a ir groups by home country type categories of foreign undergraduate students Source of Variance Low-income country vs. Middle-income country Approx. F Degrees of Freedom P . 3.73948 5, 180 .00303* Low-income country vs. High-income country 2.63403 5, 180 .02517* Low-income country vs. Capital-surplus o il exporters 1.10913 5, 180 .35716 Middle-income country vs. High-income country 5.64312 5, 180 .00007* Middle-income country vs. Capital-surplus o il exporters .35400 5, 180 .87912 High-income company vs. Capital-surplus o il exporters .58879 5, 180 .70857 ♦S ig n ifican t a t the .05 le v e l. Ill The m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance as applied to the responses of foreign undergraduate students from low-income countries and middle-income countries indicates th at the value of the overall F -te s t with degrees of freedom 5, 180 was 3.73948, which was s ig n if i­ cant a t (p < .00303). Also, the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance as applied to the responses of foreign undergraduate students from low-income countries and high-income in d u s tria lize d countries reveals th at the value of the overall F -te s t with degrees of freedom 5, 180 was 2.63403, which was s ig n ific a n t a t (p £ .02517). The m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance as employed to the responses of foreign undergraduate students from middle-income countries and highincome in d u s tria lize d countries fu rth e r shows th at the value of the overall F -te s t with degrees of freedom 5, 180 was 5.64312, which was s ig n ific a n t a t (p £ .00007). With the te s t results of the m u ltiva ria te analysis of variance, and to id e n tify on which scale(s) the differences occurred, the U nivariate F-tests were employed to each p a ir of the comparing groups in which s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the un iversity environment appeared. When the u n ivariate F -te s t was applied to the responses of foreign undergraduate students from low-income and middle-income countries, as reported in Table IV-38 below, s ig n ific a n t differences existed only on one s c a le --p ra c tic a lity . The foreign undergraduate students from middle-income countries perceived the campus environment as being more practical than did the foreign students from low-income countries. 112 TABLE 1V-38.— Univariate F -test on responses of foreign undergraduate students from low-income and middle-income countries to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 184) D.F. Source of Variance Hypothesis Mean Sq. Practical it y 97.58960 Scholarship Error Mean Sq. F P 7.97571 12.23585 .00059* 89.66241 16.71018 5.36574 .02164 Community 1.52823 11.86836 .12876 .72013 Awareness 37.10956 16.09465 2.30571 .13062 Propriety 6.15170 7.69048 .79991 .37229 ♦S ignificant a t the .01 le v e l. When the univariate F -test was applied to the responses of foreign undergraduate students from low-income and high-income indus­ tr ia liz e d countries, Table IV-39" indicates that no s ig n ific a n t d i f ­ ferences occurred s t a tis tic a lly on each scale of the CUES I I . How­ ever, by comparing actual means reported in Table IV -35, the foreign undergraduate students from low-income countries seemed to perceive p ra c tic a lity , scholarship, and awareness scales somewhat higher than did the foreign undergraduate students from high-income in d u strialized countries. On the contrary, on the propriety scale, the foreign undergraduate students' from high-income in d u s tria lize d countries perceptions were somewhat higher than the foreign students' from low-income countries. The community scale was perceived in much the same way by both groups of foreign undergraduate students. 113 TABLE IV -3 9 .--U n iv a ria te F -test on responses of foreign undergraduate students from low-income and high-income in d u strialized countries to the fiv e environment scales, with (1 , 184) D.F. Source of Variance Hypothesis Mean Sq. Error Mean Sq. F P ra c tic a lity 32.65432 7.97571 4.09422 .04448 Scholarship 88.20000 16.71018 5.27882 .02272 Community 4.35556 11.86836 .36699 .54540 Awareness 22.05000 16.09465 1.37002 .24332 Propriety 2.52840 7.69048 .32877 .56708 P* *Tested a t the .01 le v e l. Table IV-40 shows the results of the univariate F -te s t as applied to the responses of foreign undergraduate students from middle-income and high-income in dustrialized countries on each of the fiv e scales of the CUES I I , and indicates th at there were sig­ n ific a n t differences on two scales--the p ra c tic a lity and scholarship scales. The foreign undergraduate students from middle-income countries perceived the university environment as being more p ra c ti­ cal than did the foreign students from high-income in d u strialized countries. Also, the foreign undergraduate students from middle- income countries perceived the campus environment as being more scholarly and academic than did the foreign students from high-income in d u s tria lize d countries. On the other scales, both groups of fo r ­ eign undergraduate students perceived in much the same ways. 114 TABLE IV -4 0 .—Univariate F -te s t of responses of foreign under­ graduate students from middle-income and highincome in d u s tria lize d countries to the fiv e environ­ ment scales, with (1 , 1841 D.F. Source of Variance Hypothesis Mean Sq. Error Mean Sq. P ra c tic a lity 115.29047 7.97571 14.45519 .00020* Scholarship 176.46293 16.71018 10.56021 .00137* Community .63721 11.86836 .05369 .81702 Awareness 56.50600 16.09465 3.51086 .06255 Propriety .14720 7.69048 .01914 .89011 F P ♦S ig n ific an t a t the .01 le v e l. Comparisons of Undergraduate Teach­ ing Faculty with the Subgroups of Foreign Undergraduate Students The th ird research objectives of th is study was to id e n tify s pecific subgroup(s) of foreign undergraduate students from which undergraduate teaching fa c u lty d if f e r in th e ir perceptions of the campus environment. To f u l f i l l th is ob jective, eight corresponding null hypotheses were formed on the basis of the student's age, gender, class le v e l, academic areas of study, liv in g arrangements, fin an cia l sources of support, s e lf-ra te d a b ilit y in English, and types of home country. S ta t is t ic a lly , as mentioned in Chapter I I I , th is objective was accomplished through the use of the t - t e s t fo r grand mean scores of the comparing groups. In the following section, the te s t results w ill be presnted in the order of the established hypotheses. 115 Hypothesis 3 -1 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected c h aracteristics of the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the two age groups of foreign undergraduate students (18-23 and 24-38). Table IV-41 shows the te s t results indicating th a t teaching fa c u lty members' perceptions o f the un iversity environment were sta­ t is t ic a ll y d iffe re n t from those of foreign undergraduate students’ who were age 18-23 on the p r a c tic a lity and scholarship scales, and from those of foreign undergraduate students who were age 24-38 on the community scale. In other words, in te re s tin g ly enough, younger foreign undergraduate students (age 18-23) perceived the u n iversity environment as being s ig n ific a n tly more p ra c tic a l, and scholarly than did the to ta l undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members. But, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members perceived the campus environ­ ment as being s ig n ific a n tly more frie n d ly and cohesive than did older foreign undergraduate students. For other comparisons, the evidence does not support a rejection of the null hypothesis. Hypothesis 3 -2 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected ch aracteristics of the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty with female and male foreign undergraduate students. Table IV-42 shows the te s t results of comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty , female foreign students, and male foreign students on each o f the fiv e scales of the CUES I I . As can be seen in Table IV -42, both female and male foreign undergraduate students perceived the u n iv ers ity environment as being s ig n ific a n tly more practical than did the to ta l undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members. Likewise, 116 TABLE IV-41.—T-tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by age categories Scale P ra c tic a lity Scholarship Community Awareness Propriety Group Faculty vs Age 18-23 Age 24-38 Faculty vs Age 18-23 Age 24-38 Faculty vs Age 18-23 Age 24-38 Faculty vs Age 18-23 Age 24-38 Faculty vs Age 18-23 Age 24-38 Number Mean 86 8.43 160 30 11.14 9.33 86 9.23 160 30 11.01 10.73 86 9.73 160 30 9.82 8.30 86 10.65 160 30 10.63 9.83 86 7.67 160 30 7.59 7.77 ♦ S ig n ifican t a t the 0.05 le v e l. T Value D.F. P 7.78 1.66 244 114 .000* .100 3.09 1.53 244 114 .002* .129 .20 -1 .9 9 244 114 .845 .049* - .05 - .84 244 114 .962 .405 - .19 .15 244 114 .849 .879 117 TABLE IV -4 2 .--T -te s ts on comparisons between the undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty and female and male foreign undergraduate students Scale P ra c tic a lity T Value D.F. P 10.51 4.75 149 .000* 125 11.03 7.12 209 .000* 86 9.23 65 11.51 3.10 149 .002* 125 10.69 2.38 209 .018* 86 9.73 65 9.37 -.6 7 149 .502 125 9.69 -.0 9 209 .926 86 10.65 65 10.92 .38 149 .708 125 10.28 -.6 3 209 .528 86 7.67 65 7.77 .22 149 .8 27 125 7.54 -.2 9 209 .771 Group Number Mean Faculty 86 8.43 65 vs Female Male Scholarship Faculty vs Famale Male Community Faculty vs Female Male Awareness Faculty vs Famale Male Propriety Faculty vs Female Male ♦S ig n ific an t a t the 0.05 le v e l. 118 both female and male foreign undergraduate students perceived the campus environment as being s ig n ific a n tly more scholarly and aca­ demic than did the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members. On the other scales of community, awareness, and prop riety, the evidence does not support a rejectio n of the null hypothesis. Hypothesis 3 -3 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected ch aracteristics of the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the class level categories o f foreign under­ graduate students. To te s t the above hypothesis, t-te s ts were run fo r the responses of each pair of the comparing groups on each of the fiv e scales, and the results were reported in Table IV-43. According to the ta b le , s ig n ific a n t differences existed between undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and a ll the groups of freshmen, sophomores, ju n io rs , and senior foreign students on the p ra c tic a lity scale. In other words, every group of freshmen, sophomores, ju n io rs , and senior foreign students viewed the university environment as being more procedural and practical than did teaching fa c u lty members. Table IV-43 also indicates th at undergraduate teaching fa c u lty had s ig n ific a n t differences from freshmen, sophomore, and ju n io r foreign students except senior foreign students in th e ir perceptions of the academic or in te lle c tu a l environment of the un iversity. In tere s tin g ly enough, freshmen, sophomore, and ju n io r foreign students' perceptions were higher than those of undergradu­ ate teaching fa c u lty on the scholarship scale, but senior foreign students' perceptions were very s im ilar to those of the teaching fa c u lty . 119 TABLE IV-43.—T-tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by class level Scale P ra c tic a lity Scholarship Community Awareness Propriety Group Number Mean Faculty vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior 86 8.43 69 41 37 43 11.77 11.07 10.14 9.80 Faculty vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior 86 9.23 69 41 37 43 11.87 11.02 11.19 9,28 86 9.73 69 41 37 43 10.45 9.79 9.22 8.30 86 10.66 69 41 37 43 11.35 10.10 10.76 9.30 86 7.66 69 41 37 43 7.77 7.49 7.46 7.63 Faculty vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Faculty vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Faculty vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior *S ig n ific a n t a t the 0.05 le v e l. T Value D.F. 8.30 5.60 3.44 2.99 153 125 121 127 .000* .000* .001* .003* 3.77 2.14 2.13 .06 153 125 121 127 .000* .035* .035* .955 1.36 .08 -.7 4 -2.45 153 125 121 127 .176 .939 .461 .016* 1.03 -.6 7 .12 -1 .6 0 153 125 121 127 .303 .502 .904 .111 .22 -.2 8 -.3 4 -.0 6 153 125 121 127 .830 .778 .737 .954 P 120 In viewing the u n iversity atmosphere as frie n d ly , cohesive, and group oriented, there were no s ig n ific a n t differences between undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members and each group o f freshmen, sophomore, and ju n io r foreign students. But, in the comparison of the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with senior foreign students, the former perceived the campus environment as being more frie n d ly , cohesive, and group oriented than did the la t t e r . On the other scales—awareness and p ro p riety--th e evidence does not support a rejection of null hypothesis. Hypothesis 3 -4 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics o f the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the academic areas of study categories of foreign undergraduate students. In th is in vestig atio n , foreign undergraduate students were divided into four major areas of study groups: (1) Engineering/ physical sciences, (2) Behavioral/social sciences, (3) A rts / humani­ tie s , and (4) L ife /b io lo g ic a l sciences. Table IV-44 shows the results of t-te s ts fo r the responses of the comparing groups on each of the fiv e scales of the CUES I I , and indicates th at undergraduate teaching fa c u lty perceived the campus environment as being s ig n ific a n tly less procedural and prac­ tic a l than did the foreign undergraduate students who were majoring in engineering/physical sciences, behavioral/social sciences, and life /b io lo g ic a l sciences. But no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between the teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate arts/humani­ tie s majors with regard to th e ir perceptions on the p ra c tic a lity scale. 121 TABLE IV -4 4 .--T -te s ts on comparisons between the undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by academic areas of study categories Scale P ra c tic a lity Scholarship Community Awareness Propriety Group Number Mean Faculty vs Eng./physi sci. Behav./soc. sci. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l. s c i. Other 86 8.43 91 25 16 13 45 11.35 10.48 9.06 10.31 86 9.23 91 25 16 13 45 11.45 10.76 8.75 11.54 Faculty vs Eng./phy. s c i. Behav./soc. sci. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l. s c i. Other 86 9.73 91 25 16 13 45 9.84 9.12 8.63 8.46 Faculty vs Eng./phy. s c i. Behav./soc. s c i. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l. s c i. Other 86 10.65 91 25 16 13 45 10.78 10.80 9.81 10.69 86 7.66 91 25 16 13 45 7.79 8.00 7.19 6.38 Faculty vs Eng./phy. s c i. Behav./soc. s c i. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l, s c i. Other Faculty vs Eng./phy. s c i. Behav./soc. sci. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l. sci. Other ♦S ig n ifica n t at the 0.05 le v e l. T Value D.F. 7.62 3.70 .94 2.65 175 109 100 97 .000* .000* .349 .009* 3.47 1.43 -.3 8 1.71 175 109 100 97 .001* .156 .702 .091 .21 -.7 8 -1.26 -1.33 175 109 100 97 .837 .438 .210 .188 .20 .15 -.7 0 .03 175 109 100 97 .843 .884 .484 .975 .29 .44 -.5 4 -1.34 175 109 100 97 .772 .661 .593 .184 P 122 In perceiving the scholarly or in te lle c tu a l aspects of the campus environment, as can be seen in Table IV -44, s ig n ific a n t differences existed between undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduates majoring in engineering/physical sciences. The teaching fa c u lty 's perceptions were lower than the foreign students' who were studying enginnering/physical sciences. the other comparison groups and scales, the evidences do For not support a rejectio n of the null hypothesis. Hypothesis 3 -5 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the liv in g arrangements of foreign undergraduate students. In th is in vestig atio n , foreign undergraduate students' liv in g arrangements were divided into fiv e categories on the basis of with whom they live d : (1) U.S. students, (2) Other foreign students, (3) Home country students, (4) P a ren ts/re lative s , or (5) Alone. According to the te s t results reported in Table IV -45, under­ graduate teaching fa c u lty members showed s ig n ific a n t differences from every group of foreign undergraduate students who were liv in g with U.S. students, other foreign students, home country students, p a re n ts /re la tiv e s , and alone with regard to the perceptions of the p r a c tic a lity scale of the CUES I I . On the whole, every comparing group of foreign undergraduate students perceived the campus environ­ ment as being more practical than did the teaching fa c u lty members. On the scholarship scale, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members were found to have s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t perceptions from TABLE IV-45.—T-tests on comparison between the undergraduate teach ing fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by liv in g arrangement categories (with whom they liv e ) Scale P ra c tic a lity Scholarship Community Awareness Propri ety Num­ ber Mean 86 8.43 77 11 51 16 26 9 10.88 10.82 11.24 10.31 10.69 Faculty vs U.S. Student Other Foreign Stu. Home Country Stu. Parents/Relatives Alone Other 86 9.23 77 11 51 16 26 9 10.27 Faculty vs U.S. Student Other Foreign Stu. Home Country Stu. Parents/Relatives Alone Other 86 9.73 77 11 51 16 26 9 9.36 10.73 10.57 8.75 8.85 Faculty vs U.S. Student Other Foreign Stu. Home Country Stu. Parents/Relatives Alone Other 86 10.65 77 11 51 16 26 9 10.29 10.09 11.12 11.69 9.65 Faculty vs U.S. Student Other Foreign Stu. Home Country Stu. Parents/Relatives Alone Other 86 7.66 77 11 51 16 26 9 7.17 7.36 8.27 8.63 7.03 Mean Faculty vs U.S. Student Other Foreign Stu. Home Country Stu. Parents/Relatives A1 one Other ♦S ig n ifica n t a t the 0.05 le v e l. 11.00 12.00 11.69 10.69 T Value D.F. P 6.06 3.14 6.42 2.95 4.05 161 95 135 100 no .000* .002* .000* .004* .000* 1.46 1.22 3.56 1.99 1.43 161 95 135 100 110 .147 .226 .001* .049* .155 -.7 5 .96 1.44 -1.06 -1.16 161 95 135 100 no .456 .340 .153 .294 .327 -.5 2 -.3 8 .64 .86 -.9 8 161 95 135 100 110 .603 .702 .524 .391 .327 -1.01 - .29 1.14 1.08 -.8 7 161 95 135 100 110 .315 .771 .255 .285 .387 124 the foreign undergraduate students who were liv in g with home country students, and from those who were liv in g with parents or re la tiv e s . The teaching fa c u lty members perceived the campus environment as being less scholarly and academic than did the foreign students who were liv in g with home country students and p a re n ts /re la tiv e s . However, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members did not show any s ig n ific a n t differences from the other liv in g arrangement groups on the perceptions of the in te lle c tu a l and academic aspects of the u n iv ers ity . On the other scales-community, awareness, and p ro p riety no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members and a ll the liv in g arrangement groups of foreign undergraduate students. Thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected with the evidence a v a ila b le . Hypothesis 3 -6 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the sponsorship categories of foreign undergraduate students. In th is analysis, the sponsorships fo r the students were described as being provided by: (2) (1 ) working on and o ff campus, p a re n ts /re la tiv e s , (3) home country government, (4) M.S.U. scholarship, (5) foundations, or (6) other. But, the foreign under­ graduate student groups supported by working, foundations, and other sources were discarded and not compared with the teaching fa c u lty group because the groups' sample sizes were too small. Table IV-46 indicates th at undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members' perceptions on the procedural and practical aspects of the 125 TABLE IV -46.--T-tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by sponsorship categories Scale P ra c tic a lity Scholarship Community Awareness Propriety Group Faculty vs Working P aren ts/relatives Home country govt. M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other Faculty vs Working P aren ts/relatives Home country govt. M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other Faculty vs Working P aren ts/relatives Home country govt. M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other Faculty vs Working P aren ts/relatives Home country govt. M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other Faculty vs Working P aren ts/relatives Home country govt. M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other Num­ ber Mean 86 8.45 6 102 60 14 2 6 86 6 102 60 14 2 6 86 6 102 60 14 2 6 86 6 102 60 14 2 6 86 6 102 60 14 2 6 ♦S ig n ifica n t a t the 0.05 le v e l. T Value D.F. 5.71 7.15 5.01 186 144 98 .000* .000* .000* 2.26 3.85 1.25 186 144 98 .025* .000* .216 9.07 -1.36 .03 9.75 11.57 1.97 186 144 98 .176 .976 .051 -.8 2 .71 -.2 9 186 144 98 .413 .476 .773 7.12 -1 .2 4 8.18 1.01 7.36 -.3 3 186 144 98 .216 .315 .745 10.69 11.40 11.71 P 9.23 10.71 12.05 10.86 9.73 10.65 10.13 11.17 10.29 7.66 126 campus d iffe re d s ig n ific a n tly from those of the foreign students sponsored by p a re n ts /re la tiv e s , home c o u n t r y government, and M.S.U. scholarship. That is , the teaching fa c u lty members viewed the campus climate as being less practical than did the three comparing foreign students' groups. On the academic and scholarly aspects of the u n iv e rs ity , Table IV-46 shows th a t undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members per­ ceived s ig n ific a n tly less than the foreign student groups sponsored by parents or re la tiv e s , and th e ir home country government. However, the evidence indicates that no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between the groups of teaching fa c u lty and M.S.U. scholarship sponsored foreign students. Also, Table IV-46 shows th at there were no s ig n ific a n t d i f ­ ferences between the comparing groups on the scales of community, awareness, and propriety of the CUES I I . Hypothesis 3 -6 , thus, can not be rejected on these scales. Hypothesis 3 -7 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the English a b ilit y categories of foreign undergradute students. Table IV-47 shows the results of the comparisons between undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students who rated themselves as having "good" and "average" English a b ilit y . The foreign students who evaluated themselves as having "poor" English a b ilit y were discarded and not compared to the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty because the sample size (6 ) was too small. 127 TABLE IV -47.--T-tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by English a b ilit y categories Scale Practical it y T Value D.F. 10.61 5.99 194 .000* 11.24 6.44 158 .000* Group Number Mean Faculty 86 8.43 110 74 P vs Good Average Poor Scholarship Faculty 6 86 9.23 110 10.16 1.41 194 .159 74 12.05 4.29 158 .000* vs Good Average Poor Community Faculty 6 86 9.73 no 9.49 -.5 1 194 .611 74 9.66 -.1 3 158 .898 vs Good Average Poor Awareness Faculty 6 86 10.65 110 10.59 -.1 0 194 .923 74 10.27 -.5 6 158 .576 vs Good Average Poor Propriety Faculty 6 86 7.66 110 7.02 -1.45 194 .149 74 8.41 1.61 158 .109 vs Good Average Poor ★ 6 S ig n ifica n t a t the .05 le ve l. 128 The results shown in Table IV-47 indicate th at when the under­ graduate teaching fa c u lty was compared with both groups of Englisha b ilit y foreign students, the fa c u lty members perceived the campus as being s ig n ific a n tly less p ractical than did both groups of fo r ­ eign undergraduate students. Also, the fa c u lty members viewed the campus environment as s ig n ific a n tly less academic and scholarly than the "average" English a b ilit y foreign students' group. But, no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between the fa c u lty members and "good" English a b ilit y foreign students on the scholarship scale of the CUES I I . On the three scales--community, awareness, and p ro p rie ty --o f the CUES I I , the hypothesis cannot be rejected with the evidence a v aila b le . Hypothesis 3 -8 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the country type categories of foreign undergraduate students. As mentioned in Chapter I , foreign undergraduate students' home countries were divided into fiv e categories on the basis of the World Bank's c la s s ific a tio n : (1) Low-income countries, (2) Middle- income countries, (3) High-income in d u s tria lize d countries, (4) C ap italsurplus o il exporters, and (5) Centrally-planned economics. Table IV-48 shows the te s t results of the comparisons between undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and undergraduate foreign students from low-income countries, middle-income countries, highincome in d u s tria lize d countries, and capital-surplus o il exporters. However, the foreign students from centrally-planned economics were 129 TABLE IV -48.--T-tests on comparisons between the undergraduate teach­ ing fa c u lty and foreign undergraduate students by home country type categories T Value D.F. 10.40 2.69 94 .008* 107 11.47 8.03 191 .000* High-income indus­ t r ia liz e d country 45 9.44 2.15 129 .034* Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 10.85 4.55 110 .000* Group Scale P ra c ti­ cal it y Faculty Middle-income countries Centrally-planned economies 86 8.43 10 P 2 86 9.23 10 10.30 .71 94 .479 107 11.62 3.81 191 .000* High-income indus­ tr ia liz e d country 45 9.29 .07 129 .947 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 11.81 2.61 110 .010* Faculty vs Low-income countries Middle-income countries Centrally-planned economies Commu­ n ity Mean vs Low-income countries Scholar­ ship Num­ ber 2 86 9.73 10 9.60 -.1 2 94 .906 107 9.66 -.1 4 191 .889 High-income indus­ tr ia liz e d countries 45 9.69 -.0 7 129 .943 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 9.08 -.91 110 .367 Faculty vs Low-income countries Middle-income countries Centrally-planned economies 2 130 TABLE IV -4 8 .—Continued Scale Aware­ ness Group Faculty Mean T Value D.F. P 86 10.65 10 11.00 .23 94 .816 107 10.90 .41 191 .679 High-income indus­ tr ia liz e d country 45 9.53 -1 .3 5 129 .179 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 10.42 -.2 2 110 .826 vs Low-income countries Middle-income countries Centrally-planned economies Pro­ p rie ty Num­ ber 2 86 7.66 10 5.90 -1 .6 3 94 .106 107 7.79 .28 191 .783 High-income indus­ t r ia liz e d country 45 7.58 -.1 4 129 .886 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 7.73 .10 110 .922 Faculty vs Low-income countries Middle-income country Centrally-planned econmies 2 ♦S ig n ific an t a t the 0.05 le v e l. 131 discarded and not compared with the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members because the sample size (2) was extremely small. In perceiving the practical aspects of the campus environ­ ment, as can be seen in Table IV -48, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members showed s ig n ific a n t differences from a ll the comparing groups of foreign undergraduate students as categorized by th e ir home country types. In general, undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members viewed the campus environment as being less practical than did the comparing groups of foreign undergraduate students. Table IV-48 also indicates that undergraduate teaching facu lty members had s ig n ific a n t differences from the foreign undergraduate students from middle-income and capital-surplus o il exporting coun­ tire s in th e ir perceptions of the academic or in te lle c tu a l aspects of the campus environment. But, no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between the fa c u lty members and low-income country students and highincome country students. On the community, awareness, and propriety scales, as dis­ closed in Table IV -48, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Comparisons of Student Personnel S ta ff with the Subgroups of For­ eign Undergraduate Students The fourth objective of the study was to compare the student personnel s ta ff with each subgroup of foreign undergraduate students as categorized by th e ir demographic variables with regard to th e ir perceptions of the campus environment. Eight corresponding null hypotheses were stated on the basis of foreign undergraduate students' 132 personal demographic variables — age, gender, class le v e l, academic areas of study, liv in g arrangements, fin an cia l sources of support, s e lf-ra te d a b ilit y in English, and types of home country. The te s t results fo r the established hypothesis are presented in the fo llo w ­ ing p a rt. Hypothesis 4 -1 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected ch aracteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the age groups of foreign undergraduate students: 18-23 and 24-38. On the practical aspects of the un iversity clim ate, as revealed in Table IV -49, student personnel workers' perceptions were less than foreign undergraduate students who were between the ages of 18 and 23, but no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between stu­ dent personnel workers and foreign students who were between the ages of 24 and 38. Also, the same phenomenon were found between the student personnel workers and foreign undergraduate students who were between the ages of ages of 18 and 23, and those who were between the 24 and 38 on the perceptions of the scholarly and academic atmosphere of the u n iv ers ity . Table IV-49 also indicates that student personnel s ta ff members perceived the campus environment as being s ig n ific a n tly more frie n d ly and cohesive than did older foreign undergraduate stu­ dents, but in a much s im ilar way to younger foreign undergraduate students. However, no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between the groups when compared on the awareness and propriety scales of the CUES I I . rejected. On these scales, thus, the null hypothesis cannot be 133 TABLE IV-49.—T-tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign graduate students by age categor­ ies Scale P ra c tic a lity T Value D.F. P 11.14 5.62 245 .000* 30 9.33 .31 115 .759 87 9.38 Age 18-23 160 11.01 2.81 245 .005* Age 24-38 30 10.73 1.35 115 .180 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 10.20 Age 18-23 160 9.81 -.8 4 245 .403 Age 24-38 30 8.30 -2.53 115 .013* Student Personnel S ta ff 87 10.21 Age 18-23 160 10.63 .78 245 .434 Age 24-38 30 9.83 -.4 0 115 .690 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 7.63 Age 18-23 160 7.59 -.1 2 245 .907 Age 24-38 30 7.77 .21 115 .834 Num­ ber Mean 87 9.16 Age 18-23 160 Age 24-38 Student Personnel S ta ff Group Student Personnel S ta ff vs Scholarship vs Community vs Awareness vs Propriety vs ♦S ig n ifica n t at the 0.05 le v e l. 134 Hypothesis 4-2: There w ill be s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with female and male foreign undergraduate students. As can be seen in Table IV -5 0 , student personnel s ta ff mem­ bers perceived the campus environment as being s ig n ific a n tly less procedural and practical than did both female and male foreign under graduate students. Also, the same trends of differences occurred on the perceptions of the academic or in te lle c tu a l aspects of the un iversity atmosphere between the student personnel s ta ff and feamle and male foreign undergraduate students. However, Table IV-50 shows no s ig n ific a n t differences between the student personnel s ta ff and both female and male foreign undergraduate students on the community, awareness, and propriety scales. Thus, the evidence does not support a re jectio n of the null hypothesis. Hypothesis 4 -3 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the class level categories o f foreign undergraduate students. Table IV-51 shows the results of t-te s ts on the responses of the comparing groups to each of the fiv e scales, and indicates th at s ig n ific a n t differences occurred on the perceptions of the practical aspects of the university environment between the student personnel s ta ff members and freshmen and sophomore foreign students, but not between the student personnel s ta ff members and ju nio r and senior foreign students. 135 TABLE IV -5 0 .— T-tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and female and male foreign undergraduate students Scale P ra c tic a lity Group Student Personnel S ta ff Num­ ber Mean 87 9.16 65 T Value D.F. P 10.51 3.02 150 .003* 125 11.03 5.06 210 .000* 87 9.38 65 11.51 2.85 150 .005* 125 10.69 2.12 210 .035* 87 10.20 65 9.40 -1.48 150 .141 125 9.69 -1 .0 4 210 .298 87 10.21 65 10.92 1.03 150 .305 125 10.28 .13 210 .898 87 7.63 65 7.77 .30 150 .766 125 7.54 -.2 3 210 .818 vs Female Male Scholarship Student Personnel S ta ff vs Female Male Community Student Personnel S ta ff vs Female Male Awareness Student Personnel S ta ff vs Female Male Propriety Student Personnel S ta ff vs Female Male ♦S ig n ifica n t a t the 0.05 le v e l. 136 TABLE IV -51.--T-tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by class level Scale P ra ctica l­ it y Scholar­ ship Community Awareness Propriety Group Student Personnel S ta ff vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Student Personnel S ta ff vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Student Personnel S ta ff vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Student Personnel S ta ff vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Student Personnel S ta ff vs Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Number Mean 87 9.16 69 41 37 43 11.77 11.07 10.14 9.80 87 9.38 69 41 37 43 11.87 11.02 11.20 9.28 87 10.20 69 41 37 43 10.45 9.78 9.22 8.30 87 10.21 69 41 37 43 11.35 10.10 10.76 9.30 87 7.63 69 41 37 43 7.77 7.49 7.46 7.63 ♦S ig n ifica n t a t the 0.05 le v e l. T Value D.F. 6.34 3.94 1.91 1.35 154 126 122 128 .000* .000* .058 .181 3.49 1.92 1.93 -.1 2 154 126 122 128 .001* .057 .056 .905 .47 -.6 4 -1.35 -3 .1 0 154 126 122 128 .641 .524 .178 .002* 1.77 -.1 4 .66 -1.12 154 126 122 128 .080 .889 .512 .263 .29 -.2 5 -.3 1 -.0 1 154 126 122 128 .770 .806 .761 .994 P 137 Table IV-51 also reveals th a t student personnel s ta ff mem­ bers' perceptions of the scholarly and academic aspects of the u n iversity d iffe re d s ig n ific a n tly from those of freshmen foreign stu­ dents. But, the results show th at no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between the student personnel s ta ff and each group of sopho­ more, ju n io , and senior foreign students in re la tio n to th e ir per­ ceptions of the scholarly and academic environment of the u n iv ers ity . On the community scale, as can be seen in Table IV -51, the student personnel s t a ff perceived i t as s ig n ific a n tly more frie n d ly and cohesive than did senior foreign students. But, i t was also in d i­ cated that no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between the student personnel s ta ff and freshmen, sophomore, and ju n io r foreign students in th e ir perceptions of the frie n d ly and cohesive aspects of the u n iversity environment. On the two other scales—awareness and p ro p rie ty --o f the CUES I I , there were no s ig n ific a n t differences between the compared groups as reported in Table IV-51 above. The null hypothesis is not rejected with the evidence a v a ila b le . Hypothesis 4 -4 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the academic areas of study categories of foreign undergraduate students. In Table IV-52 comparisons were made between student per­ sonnel workers and each group of foreign undergraduate students who majored in engineering/physical sciences, behavioral/social sciences, arts/hum anities, and life /b io lo g ic a l sciences. 138 TABLE IV -52.--T -tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by academic areas of study categories Scale Prac­ tic a lity Scholar­ ship Community Awareness Pro­ p rie ty Group Num­ ber Mean 87 9.16 91 25 16 13 45 11.35 10.48 9.06 10.31 87 9.38 91 25 16 13 45 11.45 10.76 8.75 11.54 Student Personnel S ta ff vs Eng./physi. sci. Behav./soc. s c i. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l. s c i. Other 87 10.20 91 25 16 13 45 9.83 9.12 8.63 8.46 Student Personnel S ta ff vs Eng./physi. s c i. Behav./soc. sci. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l. s c i. Other 87 10.21 91 25 16 13 45 10.78 10.80 9.81 10.69 Student Personnel S ta ff vs Eng./physi. s c i. Behav./soc. s c i. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l. s c i. Other 87 7.63 91 25 16 13 45 7.79 8.00 7.19 6.38 Student Personnel S ta ff vs Eng./physi. sci Behav./soc. sci. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l. s c i. Other Student Personnel S ta ff vs Eng./physi. s c i. Behav./soc. s c i. Arts/humanities L if e /b io l. s c i. Other ♦S ig n ifica n t a t the 0.05 le v e l. T Value D.F. P 5.62 2.30 -.1 4 1.55 176 110 101 98 .000* .023* .888 .124 3.19 1.26 -.4 9 1.56 176 110 101 98 .002* .210 .627 .123 -.7 1 -1.31 -1.70 -1.71 176 110 101 98 .482 .192 .093 .090 .92 .61 -.3 5 .39 176 110 101 98 .361 .542 .727 .698 .38 .51 -.5 4 -1 .4 0 176 110 101 98 .707 .612 .592 .164 139 The results reported in Table IV-52 show th at s ig n ific a n t differences existed between student personnel workers and engineering/ physical sciences and behavioral/social sciences majoring foreign undergraduate students in re la tio n to th e ir perceptions of the prac­ tic a l and procedural environment of the u n iv ers ity . But, no s ig n if i­ cant differences occurred between the student personnel workers and foreign undergraduate students who majored in arts/hum anities and life /b io lo g ic a l sciences in th e ir perceptions of the p r a c tic a lity scale. In perceiving the scholarly and academic aspects of the u niversity environment, as can be seen in Table IV -5 2 , the student personnel s ta ff showed s ig n ific a n t differences from only foreign undergraduate students majoring in engineering/physical sciences. Engineering/physical sciences foreign undergraduate students per­ ceived the campus as being more in te lle c tu a l and scholarly than did the student personnel s t a ff . On the other scales—community, awareness, and p rop riety— of the CUES I I , the student personnel s ta ff views were very s im ilar to each of the comparing groups of foreign undergraduate students, which indicate no rejectio n of the null hypothesis. Hypothesis 4 -5 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the liv in g arrangement categories of foreign under­ graduate students. Table IV-53 shows the results of comparing student personnel s ta ff with the fiv e liv in g arrangements groups of foreign undergraduate 140 TABLE IV -53.--T -tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and undergraduate students by liv in g arrange­ ment categories (with whom they liv e ) Scale Prac­ tic a l it y Scholar­ ship Commu­ nity Awa reness Propri ety Group Num­ ber Mean Student Personnel S ta ff vs U.S. student Other foreign student Home country student P arents/relatives Alone Other 87 9.16 77 11 51 16 26 9 10.88 10.82 11.24 10.31 10.69 Student Personnel S ta ff vs U.S. student Other foreign student Home country student P aren ts/relatives Alone Other 87 9.38 Student Personnel S ta ff vs U.S. student Other foreign student Home country student P aren ts/relatives Alone Other 87 10.20 77 11 51 16 26 9 9.36 10.73 10.57 8.75 8.85 Student Personnel S ta ff vs U.S. student Other foreign student Home country student P arents/relatives Alone Other 87 10.21 77 11 51 16 26 9 10.29 10.09 11.12 11.69 9.65 Student Personnel S ta ff vs U.S. student Other foreign student Home country student P aren ts/relatives Alone Other 87 7.63 77 11 51 16 26 9 7.12 7.36 8.24 8.63 7.04 ♦S ig n ifica n t at the 0.05 le v e l. 77 11 51 16 26 9 10.27 11.00 12.00 11.69 10.69 T Value D.F. P 4.18 2.09 4.63 1.73 2.65 163 96 136 101 111 .000* .039* .000* .086 .009* 1.23 1.09 3.31 1.82 1.26 162 96 136 101 111 .219 .280 .001* .071 .212 -1.63 .49 .62 -1.48 -1.69 162 96 136 101 101 .105 .628 .537 .141 .093 .12 -.0 8 1.31 1.30 -.5 7 162 96 136 101 111 .908 .933 .192 .196 .567 -.9 9 -.2 8 1.27 1.19 -.8 8 162 96 136 101 111 .323 .778 .205 .238 .381 141 students on each of the fiv e scales. The results indicate th at sig­ n ific a n t differences existed between most of the compared groups, except fo r the comparison between student personnel s ta ff and fo r ­ eign undergraduate students who live d with parents or re la tiv e s . In general, most subgroups of foreign undergraduate students, except one subgroup of students who live d with parents or re la tiv e s , per­ ceived the campus as being more practical than did the student per­ sonnel s ta ff. In perceptions of the in te lle c tu a l or academic aspects of the campus environment, as can oe seen in Table IV -53, s ig n ific a n t differences appeared only between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students who live d with home country students. No s ig n ific a n t differences occurred in the other compared groups on the scholarship scale. The evidence reported in Table IV-53 also shows that no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between the compared groups in re la tio n to th e ir perceptions on the community, awareness, and propriety scales of the CUES I I . On these scales, thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Hypothesis 4 -6 : There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the sponsorship categories of foreign undergraduate students. In th is in vestig atio n , the sponsorship fo r the foreign stu­ dents were described as : (1) working on and o ff campus, (2) parents/ re la tiv e s , (3) home country government, (4) M.S.U. scholarship, 142 (5) foundations, (6) other. But, the groups of foreign students who were supported by working, foundations, and other sources were discarded and not compared with the student personnel s ta ff because the sample size of these groups was too small. The results reported in Table IV-54 indicate th a t the stu­ dent personnel s ta ff perceived the campus as being s ig n ific a n tly less practical than did the foreign undergraduate students who were supported by p a re n ts /re la tiv e s , home country government, and M.S.U. scholarship. Also, student personnel s ta ff viewed the campus as being s ig n ific a n tly less academic and scholarly than did the foreign students supported by parents or re la tiv e s and home country govern­ ment. However, no s ig n ific a n t differences existed in the perceptions of the academic and scholarly environment of the campus between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students supported by M.S.U. scholarship. According to Table IV-54, however, no s ig n ific a n t differences appeared on the three scales--community, awareness, and p ro p rie ty -of the CUES I I when comparing the student personnel s ta ff with the foreign undergraduate students who have d iffe re n t sponsorships. On these scales, the evidence does not support a re je ctio n of the null hypothesis. Hypothesis 4 -7 ; There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected characteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the English a b ilit y categories of foreign undergradu­ ate students. Table IV-55 shows the results of comparing the student per­ sonnel s ta ff with the two English a b ilit y groups of foreign 143 TABLE IV-54.--T-tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by sponsor­ ship categories Scale Prac­ t ic a li t y Scholar­ ship Commu­ n ity Aware­ ness Pro­ priety Group Student Personnel S ta ff vs Working Parents/relatives Home country government M.S.U. scholarhip Foundation Other Student Personnel S ta ff vs Working P arents/relatives Home country government M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other Student Personnel S ta ff vs Working P arents/relatives Home country government M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other Student Personnel S ta ff vs Working Parents/relatives Home country government M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other Student Personnel S ta ff vs Working Parents/relatives Home country government M.S.U. scholarship Foundation Other Num­ ber Mean 87 9.16 6 102 60 14 2 6 87 6 102 60 14 2 6 87 6 102 60 14 2 6 87 6 102 60 14 2 6 87 6 102 60 14 2 6 ♦S ignificant a t the 0.05 le ve l. 10.69 11.40 11.71 T Value D.F. P 3.81 5.26 3.72 187 145 99 .000* .000* .000* 2.01 3.58 1.10 187 145 99 .046* .000* .273 -2.26 - .74 1.40 187 145 99 .898 .459 .164 -.1 3 1.39 .07 187 145 99 .898 .167 .947 -1.22 1.13 -.3 1 187 145 99 .222 .262 .754 9.38 10.71 12.05 10.86 10.20 9.08 9.75 11.57 10.21 10.13 11.12 10.29 7.63 7.12 8.13 7.36 144 TABLE IV-55.--T-tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by English a b ility categories Scale Group P ra c tic a lity Student Personnel S ta ff T Value D.F. 10.61 3.92 195 .000* 11.25 4.69 159 .000* Num­ ber Mean 87 9.16 110 74 P vs Good Average Poor Scholarship 6 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 9.38 110 10.16 1.18 195 .240 74 12.05 3.99 159 .000* vs Good Average Poor Community 6 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 10.20 110 9.50 -1.45 195 .149 74 9.67 - .95 159 .344 vs Good Average Poor Awareness 6 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 10.21 110 10.59 .64 195 .525 74 10.27 .10 159 .923 vs Good Average Poor Propriety 6 Student Personnel S ta ff 87 7.63 110 7.02 -1.44 195 .152 74 8.40 1.77 159 .078 vs Good Average Poor * S ign ifica n t a t the 0.05 level 6 145 undergraduate students on each o f the fiv e scales o f the CUES I I . The two English a b ilit y groups of the students are the "good" English a b ilit y group and the "average" English a b ilit y group. The group of foreign undergraduate students who evaluated themselves as having "poor" English a b ilit y was discarded and not compared with the stu­ dent personnel s ta ff because the sample size was extremely small. Comparing the student personnel s ta ff with the "good" and the "average" English a b ilit y group of foreign students respectively* the student personnel s ta ff perceived the campus as being s ig n if i­ cantly less practical than did both the groups of foreign undergradu­ ate students. Also, comparing the student personnel s ta ff with both the English a b ilit y groups of foreign students, the student personnel s ta ff viewed the campus environment as being s ig n ific a n tly less academic and scholarly than did the "average" English a b ilit y students. But, no s ig n ific a n t differences existed between the student personnel s ta ff and the "good" English a b ilit y student group on the scholarship scale. The results shown in Table IV-55 indicate th a t no s ig n if i­ cant differences existed on the three scales--community, awareness, and propriety— of the CUES I I between the student personnel s ta ff and both the English a b ilit y groups of foreign students. On these scales, thus, the evidence does not support a re jectio n of the null hypothesis. Hypothesis 4 -8 ; There w ill be no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the selected ch aracteristics of the campus environment when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the country type categories of foreign undergraduate students. 146 Foreign undergraduate students' home countries were divided into fiv e categories on the basis of the World Bank's c la s s ific a tio n : (1) Low-income countries, (2) Middle-income countries, (3) Highincome in d u s tria lize d countries, (4) Capital-surplus o il exporters, (5) Centrally-planned economics. In th is analysis, however, the group of students from centrally-planned economics was discarded because the sample size (2) was extremely small. Table IV-56 shows the te s t results of the comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and the country type groups of foreign undergraduate students. In pceceiving the practical aspects of the campus, the student personnel s ta ff showed s ig n ific a n t differences from the foreign students who were from middle-income countries and who were from capital-surplus o il exporters. But, as can be seen in Table IV -56, no s ig n ific a n t differences appeared on the p ra c ti­ c a lity scale when comparing the student personnel s ta ff with the students from low-income countries and high-income countries. On the academic and scholarly aspects of the u n iv e rs ity , as reported in Table IV -56, student personnel s ta ff perceptions d iffe re d s ig n ific a n tly from those of middle-income country students and capital-surplus o il exporters, but did not d if fe r s ig n ific a n tly from those of low-income countries students and high-income in d u s tria lize d countries students. Also, Table IV-56 indicates th a t no s ig n ific a n t differences existed on the community, awareness, and propriety scales of the CUES I I when comparing student personnel s ta ff with the country type groups of foreign undergraduate students. null hypothesis cannot be rejected. On these scales, the 147 TABLE IV -56.--T-tests on comparisons between the student personnel s ta ff and foreign undergraduate students by home country type categories Scale P ra c ti­ c a lity T Value D.F. 10.40 1.61 95 .111 107 11.47 6.01 192 .000* In d u s tria lize d countries 45 9.44 .59 130 .559 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 10.85 3.06 111 .003* Group Student Personnel S ta ff Mean 87 9.16 10 P vs Low-income countries Middle-income countries Centrally-Planned economies 2 87 9.38 10 10.30 .60 95 .553 107 11.62 3.53 192 .001* In d u s tria lize d countries 45 9.29 -.1 0 130 .917 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 11.81 2.40 111 .018* Scholar­ Student Personnel S ta ff ship vs Low-income countries Middle-income counties Centrally-planned economies Commu­ n ity Num­ ber 2 87 10.20 10 9.60 -.5 1 95 .614 107 9.67 -1.05 192 .294 In d u s tria lize d countries 45 9.69 1.04 130 .396 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 9.08 -1.48 111 .143 Student Personnel S ta ff vs Low-income countries Middle-income countries Centrally-planned economies 2 148 TABLE IV -56.-C o n tin u ed Scale Aware­ ness Group Num­ ber Mean 87 10.21 10 11.00 .56 95 ,574 107 10.90 1.21 192 .229 Student Personnel S ta ff D.F. P vs Low-income countries Middle-income countries In d u s tria lize d countries 45 9.53 -.8 5 130 .396 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 10.42 .22 111 .827 Centrally-planned economies Pro­ p riety T Value 2 87 7.63 10 5.90 -1.73 95 .087 107 7.79 .36 192 .720 In d u s tria lize d countries 45 7.58 -.1 0 130 .923 Capital-surplus o il exporters 26 7.73 .15 111 .878 Student Personnel S ta ff vs Low-income countries Middle-income countries Centrally-planned economies ♦S ig n ifican t a t the 0.05 le v e l. 2 149 To summarize the findings of th is study, the most s ig n if i­ cant differences in perceptions o f the u n iversity environment between the compared groups were on the p r a c tic a lity and scholarship scales, while the least differences were on the community, awareness, and propriety scales. Although there were some subgroups exhibiting no differences in perceptions, most of the foreign undergraduate students tended to view the campus as being more practical than did the fac­ u lty and student personnel s t a ff . Likewise, a m ajority of the stu­ dents tended to perceive the u n iv ers ity environment as being more academic and scholarly than did the fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff. While there were two subgroups exhibiting s ig n ific a n t d i f ­ ferences in perceptions on the community scale, most of the foreign undergraduate students were in close agreement with the fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff in th e ir perceptions of community, awareness, and propriety dimensions of the u n iversity clim ate. F in a lly , i t was found th a t the campus environment was per­ ceived somewhat d iffe r e n tly between the students' subgroups as iden­ t if i e d on the basis of the variables of class le v e l, country type, English a b i l i t y , and age. The foreign undergraduate students' perceptions of the campus clim ate seemed to be prim arily affected by the above four variab les. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter includes a summary of the purpose of the study, method u t iliz e d , and collected findings. Conclusions are stated on the basis of the results obtained in th is study. F in a lly , recommenda­ tions fo r application and fu rth e r research are suggested. Summary of Purpose and Method Purpose This a n a ly tic a l-d e s c rip tiv e study was designed to examine whether foreign undergraduate students (and th e ir various subgroups) d if f e r from th e ir teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s ta ff in th e ir perceptions of the Michigan State U niversity campus environ­ ment, and to determine whether foreign undergraduate students' per­ ceptions d if f e r between the id e n tifie d subgroups on the basis of th e ir personal variab les. Four comparative frameworks of ob jectives, in which twentyfiv e hypotheses were included, were provided to f u l f i l l the purposes of the study: 1. Comparisons of the to ta l group of foreign undergraduate students with the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s t a ff . 150 151 2. Comparisons of the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students. 3. Comparisons of the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty with the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students. 4. Comparisons of the student personnel s ta ff with the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students. Design The environmental perceptions of the three groups were measured with the fiv e basic scales of the second edition of the College and U niversity Environment Scales (CUES I I ) . These scales were p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, community, awareness, and prop riety. In a d d itio n , the perceptions of foreign undergraduate students were analyzed on the basis of th e ir personal demographic variables of age, sex, class le v e l, academic areas of study, liv in g arrangement (with whom they l i v e ) , fin an cia l sponsorship, s e lf-ra te d English a b i l i t y , and home country type. Samp!i ng A to ta l of 272 foreign undergraduate students enrolled a t M.S.U. in the Spring Term of 1982 were in vited to p a rtic ip a te in th is study. The teaching fa c u lty sample was selected from among f u l l ­ time fa c u lty members whose teaching re s p o n s ib ilitie s included teach­ ing undergraduate students and who had been employed a t the school and colleges in which foreign undergraduate students were enrolled a t the time of th is study. F u ll-tim e fa c u lty members were defined 152 as those whose ranks were assistant professor, associate professor, or professor. The fa c u lty members teaching undergraduate students were defined as those who were assigned to teach the academic courses of the 399 level and below. Thus, fu ll-tim e undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members were determined to be those who were id e n tifie d as fu ll-tim e fa c u lty members and undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members using the fa c u lty roster in the Michigan State U niversity Publication: 1981-82 Academic Programs and the course schedule books ( F a ll, 1981; Winter, 1982; and Spring, 1982). Of the 1,337 fu ll-tim e undergraduate teaching fa c u lty members id e n tifie d , 10 percent, or 134 fa c u lty mem­ bers, were proportionately selected a t random from each college. A ll fu ll-tim e professional members of the student personnel s ta ff , with the exception of the Vice and Assistant Vice President fo r Student A ffa irs and Services, and the s ta ff members working in the Department of Public Safety, were asked to p a rtic ip a te in the study. This group included 126 subjects in a l l . Data Collection Data fo r th is study were collected during the Spring Term of 1982. Of the 272 foreign undergraduate students sampled, 190, or 69.9 percent, returned a completed and usable questionnaire. Of the 134 undergraduate teaching fa c u lty sampled, e ig h ty -s ix , or 64.2 percent, responded. Of the 126 members of the student personnel s ta ff sampled, eighty-seven, or 69.0 percent, responded. 153 Analysis Scoring fo r the collected data was done by counting the number of items each respondent answered in the keyed d ire c tio n . Then, the m u ltiva ria te and un ivariate analysis of variance tests were u tiliz e d to determine the differences in the perceptions of the three groups on the fiv e environment scales. The same procedure was also used with the comparisons between the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students. In comparisons of the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students with the to ta l groups of teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s t a f f , the t - t e s t was employed on the basis of the group means. Each of the comparisons were tested a t 0.05 s ig n if i­ cance le v e l. Summary of Findings The major findings of th is study are summarized in the order of the four stated frameworks of comparisons. Comparisons of the Total Group of Foreign Undergraduate Students with Undergraduate Teaching Faculty and Student Personnel S t a f f -------------------1. There were s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of some dimensions of the campus environment between the to ta l groups of foreign undergraduate students and the fa c u lty , and student per­ sonnel s ta ff: a. Perceptions of the students were higher than those of the fa c u lty on the p ra c tic a lity scale. 154 b. Perceptions of the students were higher than those of the student personnel s ta ff on the p ra c tic a lity and scholarship scales. 2. No s ig n ific a n t differences existed on the community, awareness, and propriety scales between the to ta l group of foreign undergraduate students and the fa c u lty , and student personnel s t a ff . Comparisons of the Subgroups of Foreign Undergraduate Students 1. There were s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of some aspects of the campus environment between the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students, based on th e ir personal variables: a. Perceptions of the 18-23 age group were higher than those of the 24-38 age group on the prac­ t i c a l i t y scale. b. Perceptions of freshmen, sophomores, and juniors were a ll higher than those of seniors on the p r a c tic a lity , scholarship, and community scales, but on the awareness scale only freshmen per­ ceived higher than did seniors. c. Perceptions of "average" English a b ilit y stu­ dents were higher than those of "good" a b ilit y students on the scholarship and propriety scales. d. Perceptions of middle-income country students were higher than those of low-income and highincome in d u s tria lize d country students on the 155 p r a c tic a lity scale, but on the perceptions of the scholarship scale middle-income country students were higher than high-income in d u s tria lize d country stu­ dents only. 2. There were no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the campus environment between and/or among the subgroups of the students: a. Female and male groups b. Freshman, sophomores, and juniors in class le v e l. c. Five groups c la s s ifie d by "with whom they li v e " - U.S. students, other foreign students, home country students, p a re n ts /re la tiv e s , and alone. d. Four groups c la s s ifie d by academic areas of study--engineering/physical sciences, behavioral/ social sciences, arts/hum anities, and l i f e / biological sciences. f. There groups c la s s ifie d by fin an cia l sponsorship-parents, home country government, and M.S.U. scholarship. g. Capital-surplus o il exporters students, and low-income, middle-income, and high-income in d u s tria lize d country students, as c la s s ifie d according to country type. 156 Comparisons o f Undergraduate Teach­ ing Faculty with the Subgroups of Foreign Undergraduate Students 1. There were s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of some aspects of the u n iversity environment between the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students and th e ir teaching fa c u lty . Compared with the to ta l fa c u lty 's perceptions: a. Perceptions of the 18-23 age group students were higher on the p ra c tic a lity and scholarship scales. But, the 24-38 age group students' perceptions were lower on the community scale. b. Female and male students' perceptions were higher on the p r a c tic a lity and scholarship scales. c. Perceptions of freshmen, sophomores, ju n io rs , and seniors, c la s s ifie d by class le v e l, were higher on the p ra c tic a lity scale, and freshmen, sophomores, and ju n io rs ' perceptions were also higher on the scholarship scale. On the commu­ n ity scale, however, seniors' perceptions were lower. d. Perceptions of engineering/physical science, behavioral/social science, and life /b io lo g ic a l science majors, as c la s s ifie d by academic areas of study, were higher on the p ra c tic a lity scale, but on the scholarship scale the perceptions of engineering/physical science majors were higher. 157 e. Perceptions of the students who live d with U.S. students, other foreign students, home coun­ try students, p a re n ts /re la tiv e s , and alone, categorized by th e ir liv in g arrangements, were a ll higher on the p ra c tic a lity scale, but on the scholarship scale the perceptions of those who live d with home country students and parents/ re la tiv e s were higher. f. Perceptions of the students who were supported by parents, home country government, and M.S.U. scholarship were higher on the p ra c tic a lity scale, but on the scholarship scale the perceptions of the students who were supported by parents and home country government were higher. g. Perceptions of the "good" and "average" a b ilit y students in English were a ll higher on the prac­ t i c a l i t y scale, but on the scholarship scale the perceptions of "average" a b ilit y students were higher. h. Perceptions of low-income, middle-income, highincome in d u s tria lize d countries, and c a p ita lsurplus o il exporters' students were a ll higher on the p ra c tic a lity scale, but on the scholarship scale the perceptions of middle-income countries and capital-surplus o il exporters' students were higher. 153 2. There were no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of any of the campus environment, as measured by the fiv e scales, between the teaching fa c u lty and arts/hum anities majors, c la s s ifie d according to academic areas of study. Comparisons of Student Personnel S ta ff with the Subgroups of For­ eign Undergraduate Students 1. There were s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of some aspects of the un iversity environment between the subgroups of foreign undergraduate students and student personnel s t a ff . Com­ pared with the perceptions of the to ta l student personnel s ta ff: a. The 18-23 age group students' perceptions were higher on the p r a c tic a lity and scholarship scales. On the community scale, however, the 24-34 age group students' perceptions were lower. b. Female and male students' perceptions were higher on the p ra c tic a lity and scholarship scales. c. Freshmen and sophomores' perceptions were higher on the p ra c tic a lity scale, and freshmen's percep­ tions were higher on the scholarship scale. On the community scale, the student personnel s ta ff's perceptions were higher than those of sen io rs'. d. Perceptions of engineering/physical sciences and behavioral/social sciences majors were higher on the p ra c tic a lity scale, but on the scholarship 159 scale, only engineering/physical science majors' perceptions were higher. e. Perceptions of the students who liv e d with U.S. students, home country students, other country students, and alone, except the students who live d with p a re n ts /re la tiv e s , were higher on the p ra c tic a lity scale, but on the scholarship scale, only the students' perceptions who liv e d with home country students were higher. f. Perceptions of the students who were supported by parents, home country government, and M.S.U. scholarship were higher on the p ra c tic a lity scale, but on the scholarship scale, only the perceptions of the students supported by parents and home country government were higher. g. Perceptions of the "good" and "average" a b ilit y students in English were a ll higher on the p r a c tic a lity scale, but on the scholarship scale only the perceptions of "average" a b ilit y stu­ dents were higher. h. Perceptions of middle-income countries' and capital-surplus o il exporters' students were higher on the p ra c tic a lity and scholarship scales. 2. There were no s ig n ific a n t differences in the perceptions of the campus environment, as measured by the fiv e environment scales, between: 160 a. The student personnel s ta ff and ju n io rs , c la s s i­ fie d by class le v e l. b. The student personnel s ta ff and each of a r ts / humanities majors and life /b io lo g ic a l sciences majors, as c la s s ifie d according to academic areas of study. c. The student personnel s ta ff and the students who liv e d with p a re n ts /rela tiv es . d. The student personnel s ta ff and each of the student groups from low-income countries and high-income in d u s tria lize d countries, as c la s s ifie d according to country type. Conclusions The findings of the study led to the following conclusions: 1. Between the foreign undergraduate students and th e ir teaching fa c u lty , the most s ig n ific a n t differences of perceptions of the campus environment are on p r a c tic a lity and scholarship dimenseions, while the le a s t s ig n ific a n t differences are on community, awareness, and propriety dimensions. a. Foreign undergraduate students tend to view the campus as being more p r a c tic a l, procedural, and bureaucratic than do th e ir teaching fa c u lty . b. A m ajority of foreign undergraduate students tend to regard the campus as being more academic and scholarly than do th e ir teaching fa c u lty . 161 Especially, such differences in perceptions are notable from the younger age students, lower class students, engineering/physical science majors, average E n g lis h -a b ility students, the students supported by parents and home country government, the students who liv e with parents/ re la tiv e s and home country students, and the students from middle-income countries and capital-surplus o il exporters. c. While there are two subgroups exhibiting s ig n ific a n t differences, a m ajority of foreign undergraduate students tend to share much the s im ila r views with th e ir teaching fa c u lty on community dimension of the campus, which suggests an environment th at is fr ie n d ly , cohesive, group-oriented, and supportive. d. When dealing with the awareness dimension, which describes the personal, po etic, and p o litic a l environment, and the propriety dimension, which suggests a p o lite and considerate environment, foreign undergraduate students and th e ir teach­ ing fa c u lty are in much agreement in th e ir view of these aspects of the campus clim ate. 2. Between the foreign undergraduate students and student personnel s t a f f , the most s ig n ific a n t differences of perceptions of the campus environment are on p r a c tic a lity and scholarship 162 dimensions, while the le a s t differences are on community, awareness, and propriety dimensions. a. Foreign undergraduate students tend to view the campus as being more p ra c tic a l, procedural, and bureaucratic than do the student personnel s t a ff . b. Foreign undergraduate students tend to regard the campus as being more academic and scholarly than do the student personnel s t a ff . E specially, such differences in perceptions are notable from the younger students, freshmen, engineering/ physical science majors, the students with aver­ age English a b i l i t y , the students supported by parents on th e ir home country governments, the students who liv e with home country students, and the students from middle-income countries and capital-surplus o il exporters. c. While there are two subgroups exhibiting s ig n if i­ cant differences, a m ajority of foreign under­ graduate students tend to share a much s im ila r view to the student personnel s ta ff on community dimension of the campus environment. d. When dealing with awareness and propriety dimensions of the campus environment, foreign undergraduate students are in close agreement with the student personnel s t a ff . 163 3. Of the eight variables fo r foreign undergraduate stu­ dents, the prime variables a ffec tin g the students' d iffe re n t percep­ tions of the campus environment are: a. Class level b. Student's home country type c. English a b ilit y d. Age Recommendations This study has several lim ita tio n s . The f i r s t is th at the sample size (especially fo r the undergraduate teaching fa c u lty ) is small fo r generalization of the findings of th is study. The second major lim ita tio n is th a t i t is re s tric te d to only fiv e dimensions of the complex u n iversity environment. With th is in mind, however, the findings and the conclusions of th is study imply some recommendations to be applied. The results of the study also point to a need fo r an extension of research in certain related areas. In th is section, therefo re, the following recommendations are offered . Recommendations fo r Application 1. I t is recommended th at the findings of the study be made availab le to appropriate adm inistrative o f f ic ia ls fo r th e ir review. B asically, th is kind of study contains value in information gathered fo r in s titu tio n a l s e lf-e v a lu a tio n . Do foreign undergraduate students' perceptions of the u n iversity coincide with the u n iv ers ity 's stated 164 aims and objectives in admitting them? Do the various policies and programs provided by the u n iversity fo r foreign undergraduate stu­ dents meet th e ir educational needs in terms of th e ir preceptions of the campus environment? These data need to be f u lly discussed on the part of adm inistrative o ffic ia ls who make policies and decisions fo r foreign undergraduate students, because th e ir e ffo rts are directed toward assisting in the implementation of university-w ide objectives, p o lic ie s , and programs which could maximize the benefits of foreign undergraduate students, as well as the in s titu tio n . 2. The findings of th is study indicate that the most s ig n if i­ cant differences in perceptions of the campus environment are on p r a c tic a lity and scholarship aspects, while the least differences are on community, awareness, and propriety aspects of the u n iv ers ity . Although any of the fiv e environmental dimensions is important fo r the foreign undergraduate students' educational development and growth, lim ited resources should be directed toward areas with the widest differences in perceptions when developing programs and ser­ vices fo r the students, because more students would be helped i f programs and services fo r the students designed with more emphases on p r a c tic a lity and scholarship dimensions rather than with community, awareness, and propriety dimensions. For example, the content of o rien tatio n programs and services could be structured with more weight on p ra c tic a lity and scholarship aspects in terms of the intended objectives of the u n iversity in admitting foreign under­ graduate students. 165 3. The findings of th is study also reveal that p a rtic u la r subgroups of foreign undergraduate students perceive the campus environment d iffe re n tly from th e ir teaching fa c u lty and student personnel s t a ff . These findings could then be used by the university s ta ff a t M.S.U. to design programs and services d iffe r e n tly fo r d iffe re n t types of foreign undergraduate students. Based on these re s u lts , fo r example, emphasis might be given to involving the stu­ dents from middle-income countries and capital-surplus o il exporters in programs and services designed to deal with scholarship dimen­ sions of the university c lim a te , ; . . , ' 4. The data of th is study could have the potential benefits fo r foreign undergraduate students, as well as the u n iversity s ta ff in understanding and communicating one another. I t is also hoped that the data of th is study could be u tiliz e d fo r the education of student personnel workers who are going to work fo r and with f o r ­ eign undergraduate students. Recommendations fo r fu rth e r Study Based on information obtained in the course of th is study, the following subjects are recommended fo r fu rth e r study: 1. According to the findings of th is study, the most s ig n if i­ cant differences of the perceptions of the campus environment occur on p ra c tic a lity and scholarship dimensions, while the le a s t d i f f e r ­ ences occur on community, awareness, and propriety dimensions. A study to determine the causes of these differences needs to be under­ taken. 166 2. A study is needed to compare the perceptions of graduate foreign students, fa c u lty , and student personnel s ta ff in re la tio n to the u n iversity environment. I t is assumed th a t foreign graduate students' perceptions of the campus environment are d iffe re n t from those of foreign undergraduate students. 3. In order to determine whether foreign undergraduate (or graduate) students' perceptions of the campus environment d if f e r from in s titu tio n to in s titu tio n , a study is needed to compare the perceptions of foreign undergraduate (or graduate) students enrolled a t d iffe re n t in s titu tio n s . 4. I t would be useful to compare the environmental percep­ tions of campus between the foreign undergraduate (or graduate) students and American students. APPENDICES APPENDIX A INITIAL COVER LETTER OF THE RESEARCHER 168 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY e a s t l a n s i n g • M ic h ig a n • 48824 MSU InternirtionjlYtJ^ 19S1-1982 OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND PROGRAM* April 20, 1982 Dear My name is Hyung Kim and I am a graduate student of College of Education, MSU. Being approved by the doctoral committee and supported by the Foreign Student Office, I am presently working on my dissertation. The thesis is intended to find out whether undergraduate foreign students and university staff including faculty members at MSU perceive the selected aspects of campus characteristics in a similar way or dissimilar way in the hope that the results may provide them with some useful information for communicat­ ing more effectively. I am now writing this letter to invite you to partici­ pate in the research by completing the enclosed questionnaire. It is estimated that around 1 5 minutes are needed to complete this questionnaire. All the data collected will be treated with the strictest confidentiality and individual names are not required. The data will be only coded for statistical analysis and the number on the questionnaire is also for coding only May I now take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your kind cooperation and will look forward to receiving the questionnaire back from you. soon. Your help is essential and will be most appreciated. If you would like to know the results of this study, please leave your name and address when you return the questionnaire to me. Sincerely Enclosure 1 Questionnaire M S L 'n an A ffirm a tiv e A ction E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity /n s titu iio n 169 APPENDIX B MEMO TO THE INVITED FOREIGN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS FROM FOREIGN STUDENT ADVISOR 170 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST L A N S IN G • M IC H IG A N • 4 8*24 MSU O F F IC E O F T H E D E A N O F IN T E R N A T IO N A L S T U D IE S A N D PROGRAMS A p r il 22, 1982 Dear Student: I hope you w i l l fin d tim e in your busy schedule to respond to Hyung Kim’ s survey. We hope h is r e s u lts w i l l g iv e us more in fo rm a tio n th a t w i l l in the fu tu re improve communication between M.S.U f a c u lt y , s t a f f and undergraduate students from o th e r c o u n trie s . Your name and address o nly appear on t h is envelope and we co n tin u e to m a in tain t h is in fo rm a tio n as p riv ile g e d m a te r ia l. S in c e re ly , Augusi G. Benson, D ire c to r O ffic e f o r Foreign Students and Scholars '•AfiSE M ille r Foreign Student Counselor Enclosure \ f W 'M o n M t i r m u i n f A c tio n 171 tn m n in x i International Year 1981-1982 APPENDIX C MEMO TO THE INVITED UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING FACULTY FROM FOREIGN STUDENT ADVISOR 172 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING « MICHIGAN • 48824 MSU OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND PROGRAMS A p r i l 29, 1982 Dear F a c u lty : I hope you w i l l fin d tim e l a your busy schedule to respond to Hyung Kim 's su rv ey . We hope h is r e s u lts w i l l g iv e us more In fo rm a tio n th a t can be used In s p e c ia l programming o r as In fo rm a tio n th a t w i l l Improve our aware­ ness o f communication problems between M .S .U . f a c u lt y , s t a f f and undergraduate stu d en ts from o th e r c o u n trie s . S in c e r e ly , __ August c . Benson, D ir e c to r Of f i c e - f o r F o reig n Students and Scholars F o reli A. M i l l e r tu dent Counselor MAM/scm M S U i t am A ffirm a n t# A e tio a /E ^ u a l O p p o rtu n ity Im tiHyliom 173 Intrfflilional Year 1981-1982 APPENDIX D MEMO TO THE INVITED STUDENT PERSONNEL STAFF FROM ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS AND SERVICES 174 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • A bS.M DIVISION OF STUDENT AFFAIRS AND SERVICES STUDENT tIFE STUDENT SERVICES BUILDING May 6. 1982 TO: Selected Student A ffa irs and Services S ta ff Members FROM: James D. Studer, Assistant Vice President fo r Student A ffa irs and Services SUBJECT: Help with Dissertation Attached 1s a request from Hyung Kim asking that you complete a questionnaire about certain campus characteristics and the environment. Mr. Kim is seeking information about our campus environment and what e ffec t i t has on under­ graduate foreign students. I urge you to take 15 minutes o f your time to complete the instrument. When his study is finished, Mr. Kim w ill be sharing the results with us. We hope that the results w ill be useful to us in our work with foreign students. Thank you fo r your cooperation. JDS/lw Enc. A / S f i t an A / h r tn a tii- * A f t m n f t y u j / 175 in U ilu t in n APPENDIX E FOLLOW-UP LETTER OF THE RESEARCHER 176 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • COLLEGE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Of ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ERICKSON HALL May , 1982 Dear On April 20, 1982 I sent you a questionnaire, College and Univer­ sity Environment Scale, along with my covering letter and Foreign Student Office Director's covering letter, and a stamped, selfaddressed envelope. I had hoped that most of these questionnaires would be returned to me before May 8, 1982. I am happy that a number of the questionnaires have already been returned to me. However, all the questionnaires have not been returned. If you have forgotten to mail in yours, this is just a reminder to do so, since your response is crucial for the successful completion of the study. It is critically important that these questionnaires be returned Bhortly. This would facilitate my completing the dissertation and also allow me to return my country, Korea at the earliest possible date. I realise that you are very busy at this time. However, may I impose upon your good graces and request you to spare a distressed brother in academia by taking a few minutes of your valuable time right now to complete and return the questionnaire to me. I really do appreciate your cooperation and participation in this study. If you have already sent the questionnaire in the mail, please kindly ignore this letter and questionnaire, accept my apology. Very Sincerely. 1110 E, University Village East Lansing, Mi. 48823 Enclosure 1 Questionnaire 177 APPENDIX F PERSONAL DATA FORM FOR FOREIGN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS 178 PERSONAL DATA FORM FOR UNDERGRADUATE FOREIGN STUDENTS Please answer the following items necessary fo r the s ta tis tic a l processing. 1. What is your age? years. 2. What is your sex? C ircle one. 1.Female 2. Male 3. What is your present academic status?C ircle one. 1. 4. 5. Junior 4. Senior 1. 3. 5. 2. Behavioral/social sciences 4. L ife /b io lo g ic a l sconces Engineering/physical sciences Arts/humanities Other Whom do you liv e with? C ircle one. U.S. student(s) Home country student(s) Alone 2. Other foreign student(s) 4. Parents/spouse (children) 6. Others Please indicate your primary financial source now. 5. Working on and o ff campus Home country government or organization U.S. or international organization/foundation Good 2. C irc le one. 2. Parents and re la tiv e s 4. MSU scholarship 6. Others How would you describe your a b ilit y in English? 1. 8. Sophomore3. C ircle one. 1. 3. 7. 2. Please id e n tify your area of study. 1. 2. 5. 6. Freshman Average Please c ir c le one. 3. Poor Please id e n tify your home country. Due to the lim ited space, the l i s t includes only those countries with large numbers of students a t M.S.U. C ircle one number. 1. 2. 3. 4. Malaysia Japan India Sri Lanka 5. 6. 7. 8. Turkey Iran Saudi Arabia Nigeria 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Tunisia Venezuela Equador Colombia Mexico 14. 15. 16. 17. Canada England Finland Other Please specify 179 APPENDIX G QUESTIONNAIRE 180 COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES (From College and U niversity Environment Scales. 2nd e d itio n . Copyright ©1978 by C. Robert Pace. A ll righ ts reserved. Reproduced by permission of Educational Testing Service, the publisher.) DIRECTIONS: You are asked to react whether you think each of the numbered statements is generally True (more nearly true than fa ls e ) or False (more nearly fa ls e than tru e) as applied to the MSU campus. Please C irc le T or £ on the l e f t of each statement. This questionnaire is more lik e an opinion p o ll. Therefore, please do not skip any items, even though you may not think about yourself in exactly the way the question is stated. 1. Students almost always w ait to be called on before speak­ ing in class. 2. The big college events draw a lo t of student enthusiasm and support. 3. There is a recognized group of student leaders on th is campus. 4. Frequent tests are given in most courses. 5. Students take a great deal of pride in th e ir personal appearance. 6. Education here tends to make students more practical and r e a lis t ic . 7. The professors regularly check up on th e students to make sure th a t assignments are being carried out properly and on time. 8. I t ’s important s o c ia lly here to be in the rig h t club or group. 9. Student pep r a lli e s , parades, dances, c a rn ivals, or demonstrations occur very ra re ly . -181 182 F 10. Anyone who knows the rig h t people in the fa c u lty or admin is tra tio n can get a b e tte r break here. F 11. The professors r e a lly push the students' capacities to the lim it . F 12. Most of the professors are dedicated scholars in th e ir f ie ld s . F 13. Most courses require intensive study and preparation out of class. F 14. Students set high standards of achievement fo r themselves F 15. Class discussions are ty p ic a lly vigorous and intense. F 16. A lecture by an outstanding s c ie n tis t would be poorly attended. F 17. Careful reasoning and c le a r logic are valued most highly in grading student papers, reports, or discussions. F 18. I t is f a i r l y easy to pass most courses without working very hard. F 19. The school is outstanding fo r the emphasis and support i t gives to pure scholarship and basic research. F 20. Standards set by the professors are not p a rtic u la rly hard to achieve. F 21. I t is easy to take c lear notes in most courses. F 22. The school helps everyone get acquainted. F 23. Students often run errands or do other personal services fo r the fa c u lty . F 24. The histo ry and tra d itio n s of the college are strongly emphasized. F 25. The professors go out of th e ir way to help you. F 26. There is a great deal of borrowing and sharing among the students. F 27. When students run a project or put on a show everybody knows about i t . 183 F 28. Many upperclassmen play an active ro le in helping new students adjust to campus l i f e . F 29. Students exert considerable pressure on one another to liv e up to the expected codes of conduct. F 30. Graduation is a pretty m a tte r-o f-fa c t, unemotional event. F 31. Channels fo r expressing students' complaints are re a lly accessible. F 32. Students are encouraged to take an active part in social reforms or p o litic a l programs. F 33. Students are a c tiv e ly concerned about national and in te r ­ national a ffa ir s . F 34. There are a good many colorful and controversial figures on the fa c u lty . F 35. There is considerable in te re s t systems, and the r e la t iv it y of in the analysis o f value societies and ethics. F 36. Public debates are held frequently. F 37. A controversial speaker always s tir s discussion. up a lo t of student F 38. There are many f a c ili t i e s and opportunities fo r individual creative a c tiv ity . F 39. There is a lo t of in te re s t here in poetry, music, painting, sculpture, a rch ite ctu re , etc. F 40. Concerts and a r t exhibits always draw big crowds of stu­ dents. F 41. Students ask permission before deviating from common policies or practices. F 42. Most student rooms are p re tty messy. F 43. People here are always trying to win F 44. Drinking and la te parties are generally to le ra te d , despite regulations. F 45. Students occasionally p lo t some sort of escapade or rebell ion. F 46. Many students drive sports cars. an argument. 184 F 47. Students frequently do things on the spur of the moment. F 48. Student publications never lampoon d ig n ifie d people or in s titu tio n s . F 49. The person who is always trying to "help out" is lik e ly to be regarded as a nuisance. F 50. Students are conscientious about taking good care of school property. F 51. The important people a t th is school expect others to show proper respect fo r them. F 52, Student elections generate a lo t of intense campaigning and strong fe e lin g . F 53. Everyone has a lo t of fun a t th is school. F 54. In many classes students have an assigned seat. F 55. Student organizations are closely supervised to guard against mistakes. F 56. Many students try to pattern themselves a fte r people they admire. F 57. New fads and phrases are continually springing up among the students. F 58. Students must have a w ritten excuse fd r absence from class. F 59. The college offers many re a lly practical courses such as typing, report w ritin g , e tc . F 60. Student rooms are more lik e ly to be decorated with pennants and pin-ups than with paintings, carvings, mobiles, etc, F 61. Most of the professors are very thorough teachers and re a lly probe into the fundamentals of th e ir subjects. F 62. Most courses are real in te lle c tu a l challenges. F 63. Students put a lo t of energy into everything they do in class and out. F 64. Course offerings and fa c u lty in the natural sciences are outstanding. F 65. Courses, examinations, and readings are frequently revised. 185 F 66. P ersonality, p u ll, and b lu ff get students through many courses. F 67. There is very l i t t l e studying here over the weekends. F 68. There is a lo t of in tere s t in the philosophy and methods of science. F 69. People around here seem to th riv e on d if fic u lt y - - t h e tougher things g e t, the harder they work. F 70. Students are very serious and purposeful about th e ir work F 71. This school has a reputation fo r being very fr ie n d ly . F 72. A ll undergraduates must liv e in un iversity approved housing. F 73. Instructors c le a rly explain the goals and purposes of th e ir courses. F 74. Students have many opportunities to develop s k ill in organizing and directing the work of others. F 75. Most of the fa c u lty are not intersted in students' personal problems. F 76. Students quickly learn what is done and not done on th is campus. F 77. I t ' s easy to get a group together fo r card games, singing going to the movies, etc. F 78. Students commonly share th e ir problems. F 79. Faculty members ra re ly or never c a ll students by th e ir f i r s t names. F 80. There is a lo t of group s p ir it . F 81. Students are encouraged tc c r it ic iz e adm inistrative p o licies and teaching practices. F 82. The expression of strong personal b e lie f or conviction is p re tty rare around here. F 83. Many students here develop a strong sense of responsi­ b i l i t y about th e ir ro le in contemporary social and p o litic a l l i f e . 186 F 84. There are a number of prominent fa c u lty members who play a s ig n ific a n t role in national or local p o litic s . F There would be a capacity audience fo r a lecture by an outstanding philosopher or theologian. 85. F 86. Course offerings and fa c u lty in social sciences are outstanding. F 87. Many famous people are brought to the campus fo r lectu res, concerts, student discussions, etc. F 88. The school o ffers many opportunities fo r students to understand and c r it ic iz e important works of a r t , music, and drama. F 89. Special museums or collections are important possessions of the college. F 90. Modern a r t and music get l i t t l e a tten tio n here. F 91. Students are expected to report any violations of rules and regulations. F 92. Student parties are colorful and liv e ly . F 93. There always seem to be a lo t of l i t t l e quarrels going on. F 94. Students ra rely get drunk and disorderly. F 95. Most students show a good deal of caution and s elf-co n tro l in th e ir behavior. F 96. Bermuda shorts, pin-up pictures, e t c ., are common on this campus. F 97. Students pay l i t t l e atten tio n to rules and regulations. F 98. Dormitory ra id s , water fig h ts , and other student pranks would be unthinkable. F 99. Many students seem to expect other people to adapt to them rather than trying to adapt themselves to others. F 100. Rough games and contact sports are an important part of intramural a th le tic s . THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION. APPENDIX H MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH ITEM OF THE FIVE SCALES BY FOREIGN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS, UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING FACULTY, AND STUDENT PERSONNEL STAFF 187 TABLE H-1.--Mean scores and standard deviations fo r each item of the fiv e scales by foreign undergraduate students (N = 190), selected undergraduate teaching fa c u lty (N = 8 6 ), and student personnel s ta ff (N = 87) Item Scale P ra cti­ cal it y io. *r° rei'9n Students Teaching Faculty Personnel S ta ff X S.D. X S.D. X S.D. 1 .484 .501 .605 .492 .483 .503 2 .732 .444 .581 .496 .621 .488 3 .353 .479 .244 .432 .379 .488 4 .816 .389 .361 .483 .345 .478 5 .574 .496 .395 .492 .598 .493 6 .711 .455 .733 .445 .644 .482 7 .411 .493 .349 .479 .149 .359 8 .490 .501 .198 .401 .299 .460 9 .526 .501 .442 .500 .368 .485 10 .526 .501 .361 .483 .678 .470 51 .605 .490 .709 .457 .851 .359 52 .300 .460 .093 .292 .046 .211 53 .595 .492 .419 .496 .517 .503 54 .200 .401 .116 .323 .149 .359 55 .384 .488 .093 .299 .195 .399 56 .690 .464 .744 .439 .839 .370 57 .753 .433 .826 .382 .920 .274 58 .179 .384 .023 .152 .046 .211 59 .758 .430 .454 .501 .414 .495 60 .769 .423 .686 .467 .621 .488 188 189 Table H-l.--Continued Scale Scholar­ ship Item No. Foreign Students X S.D. Teaching Faculty X S.D. Personnel S ta ff X S.D. 11 .400 .491 .174 .382 .172 .380 12 .700 .460 .756 .432 .667 .474 13 .747 .436 .454 .501 .529 .502 14 .595 .492 .267 .445 .448 .500 15 .226 .420 .209 .409 .149 .359 16 .695 .462 .593 .494 .529 .502 17 .690 .464 .791 .409 .609 .491 18 .637 .482 .395 .492 .460 .501 19 .474 .501 .326 .471 .425 .497 20 .426 .496 .384 .489 .322 .470 61 .626 .485 .686 .467 .575 .497 62 .626 .485 .337 .476 .414 .495 63 .495 .501 .209 .409 .379 .488 64 .500 .501 .651 .479 .678 .470 65 .626 .486 .640 .483 .517 .503 66 .542 .500 .803 .401 .552 .500 67 .421 .495 .593 .494 .724 .450 68 .432 .497 .221 .417 .310 .465 69 .568 .497 .244 .432 .333 .474 70 .542 .500 .500 .503 .586 .495 190 Table H-l.--Continued Scale Community Item No. Foreign Students Teaching Faculty Personnel S ta ff S.D. X S.D. .663 .476 .770 .423 .494 .267 .445 .368 .485 .215 .413 .023 .152 .058 .234 24 .311 .464 .186 .391 .299 .460 25 .453 .499 .651 .479 .414 .495 26 .532 .500 .593 .494 .552 .500 27 .216 .413 .116 .322 .149 .359 28 .311 .464 .209 .409 .391 .491 29 .395 .490 .395 .492 .310 .465 30 .605 .490 .465 .502 .517 .503 71 .647 .479 .861 .349 .839 .370 72 .268 .445 .058 T235 .126 .334 73 .742 .439 .756 .432 .701 .460 74 .511 .501 .349 .479 .494 .503 75 .400 .491 .547 .501 .506 .503 76 .700 .460 .698 .462 .782 .416 77 .642 .481 .849 .360 .897 .306 78 .490 .501 .733 .445 .759 .430 79 .679 .468 .837 .371 .805 .399 80 .600 .491 .477 .502 .460 .501 X S.D. 21 .447 .499 22 .416 23 X 191 Table H-l.--Continued Foreign Students Scale Awareness Item No. X S.D. Teaching Faculty X S.D. Personnel S ta ff X S.D. 31 .547 .499 .814 .391 .724 .450 32 .405 .492 .419 .496 .437 .499 33 .347 .477 .349 .479 .322 .470 34 .637 .482 .593 .494 .529 .502 35 .474 .501 .395 .492 .310 .465 36 .368 .484 .244 .432 .172 .380 37 .526 .501 .372 .486 .414 .495 38 .721 .450 .826 .382 .851 .359 39 .495 .501 .314 .467 .425 .497 40 .526 .501 .279 .451 .345 .478 81 .563 .497 .593 .494 .494 .503 82 .611 .489 .721 .451 .816 .390 83 .516 .501 .419 .496 .333 .474 84 .447 .499 .674 .471 .506 .503 85 .537 .500 .349 .479 .264 .444 86 .474 .501 .395 .492 .517 .503 87 .621 .486 .733 .445 .782 .416 88 .442 .498 .616 .489 .460 .501 89 .711 .455 .837 .371 .759 .430 90 .532 .500 .709 .457 .747 .437 192 Table H-l.--Continued Scale Propriety Item No. Foreign Students Teaching Faculty Personnel S ta ff X S.D. 41 .337 .474 .244 .432 .103 .306 42 .432 .497 .395 .492 .655 .478 43 .380 .486 .686 .467 .633 .485 44 .216 .413 .093 .292 .161 .370 45 .442 .498 .419 .496 .460 .501 46 .700 .460 .756 .432 .782 .416 47 .269 .444 .140 .349 .046 .211 48 .321 .468 .070 .256 .069 .255 49 .611 .439 .616 .489 .713 .455 50 .411 .493 .302 .462 .377 .485 91 .537 .500 .221 .417 .483 .503 92 .279 .450 .198 .401 .195 .399 93 .474 .501 .709 .457 .448 .500 94 .158 .366 .314 .467 .138 .347 95 .521 .501 .698 .462 .644 .482 96 .211 .409 .279 .451 .264 .444 97 .453 .499 .721 .451 .782 .416 98 .279 .450 .058 .235 .023 .151 99 .279 .450 .384 .489 .345 .478 100 .311 .464 .361 .483 .322 .470 X S.D. X S.D. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Arjona, A. Q. "An Experimental Study of the Adjustment of the Adjustment Problems of a Group of Froeign Graduate Students a t Indiana U n iversity." Ph.D. d iss e rtatio n , Indiana Univer­ s it y , 1956. Baird, Leonard L. "Theoretical Approaches to the College Environment." Journal of College Student Personnel 19 (July 1978): 309-313. ________ . "Importance of Surveying Student and Faculty Views." In Understanding Student and Faculty L if e . Edited by Leonard Baird, Rodney T. H artnett and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980. ________ , and H artn e tt, Rodney T. and Associates. Student and Faculty L if e . San Francisco: Publishers, 1980. Understanding Jossey-Bass Becker, Tamar. "Patterns of A ttitu d in a l Changes among Foreign Students." The American Journal of Sociology 73 (January 1968): 431-442. Biol and, Paul A. Student Group Advising in Higher Education. Washing­ ton, D.C.: The American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1967. Boyan, Douglas R ., and J u lia n , A lfred C. Open Doors: Report on International Educational Exchange. In s titu te of International Education, 1981. 1979/1980, New York: Chongolee, Burunchai. "Academic, S itu a tio n a l, Organismic, and A ttitu d in a l Factors A ffecting the Academic Achievement of Foreign Graduate Students a t Iowa State U n iversity." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Iowa State U n iv e rsity, 1978. C ieslak, Edward C. The Foreign Students in American Colleges: A Survey and Evaluation of Adm inistrative Problems and Prac­ tic e s . D e tro it: Wayne State U niversity Press, 1955. Clubine, Eugine. "The Foreign Students D iffe re n tia l Knowledge and Use of S ta ff Members in Response to Problem S itu ations." Masters Thesis, Iowa State U niversity, 1966. 194 195 Coelho, G. V. Changing Images of America: A Study of Indian Stu­ dent's Perceptions. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958. C o llin s , Paul L. "Self-Perceived Problems of International Students Attending Howard U niversity." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Howard U niversity, 1976. Culha, Meral U. "Needs and S atisfactions of Foreign Students a t the University of Minnesota." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , University of Minnesota, 1974. Delworth, Ursula, and Hanson, Gary R. and Associates. Student Services: A Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. Deutsch, Steven E. International Education and Exchange: A Socio­ logical Analysis. Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve U niversity Press, 1970. Dorpowski, Horst Von. "The Problems of O rie n ta l, Latin American, and Arab Students in U.S. Colleges and U niversities as Per­ ceived by These Foreign Students and by Foreign Student Advisors." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Pennsylvania State U niversity, 1977. Dressel, Paul L. Handbook of Academic Evaluation. Jossey-Bass, 1976. San Francisco: Dressel, Paul L ., and Associates. In s titu tio n a l Research in the University: A Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. Dubois, Cora. Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: American Counsel on Education, 1956. Eddy, Edward D. The College Influence on Student Character. ington, D.C.: American College on Education, 1959. Wash­ Eddy, John. "Factors and Guidelines in Foreign Student Guidance." Journal of College Student Personnel 13 (May 1972): 252-254. Ellakany, Farouk A. A. "Prediction of Academic Achievement of Foreign Students a t Iowa State U n iv e rsity, 1969-70." Ph.D. disser­ ta tio n , Iowa State U n iversity, 1970. Feldman, Kenneth A ., and Newcomb, Theodore M. The Impact of College on Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973. F itzg e ra ld , Laurine E. "Faculty Perceptions of Student Personnel Functions." In College Student Personnel: Readings and B ibliographies. Edited in Laurine E. F itzg e ra ld , Walter F. Johnson, and W illa N orris. Boston: Houghton M ifflin Company, 1970. 196 F lo rs ta t, Reisha. "Adjustment Problems of International Students." Sociology and Social Research 36 (September-October, 1951): 25-30. Ford, Charles C. "A Case Study of the Adaptational Patterns of Asian Graduate Stduentsin Education a t Michigan State U n iversity." Ph.D. d iss e rtatio n , Michigan State U n iv e rsity, 1969. Gezi, Khalil I . The Acculturation of Middle Eastern Arab Students in Selected American Colleges and U n iv e rs itie s . New York: American Friends of the Middle East, 1959. Gull horn, J. T ., and Gull horn, Jeanne E. "An Extension of the U Curve Hypothesis." Journal of Social Issues 19 (July 1963): 33-47. H air, Joseph F ., J r. M u ltiv a ria te Data Analysis with Readings. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Petroleum Publishing Company, 1979. Hamilton, James T. "A Comparison of Domestic and International Students' Perceptions of the University Environment." Journal of College Student Personnel 20 (September 1979): 443-446. Han, Pyung Eui. "A Study of Goals and Problmes of Graduate Students from the Far East a t the U niversity of Southern C a lifo rn ia ." E.D. d iss e rtatio n , University of Southern C a lifo rn ia , 1975. Harfoush, Samira M. "A Study of Adjustment Problems and A ttitudes of United Arab Emirates Undergraduate Students in the United States During the Fall of 1977." D issertation Abstracts International 39, 2085-A, 1978. Hays, William L. S ta tis tic s fo r the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: H o lt, Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1973. Heath, Louis. "Foreign Student A ttitudes a t International House, Berkeley." International Educational and Cultural Exchanqe 5 (Winter 1970): 66-67. Heskett, S ., and Walsh, W. " D iffe re n tia l Perceptions of College Environment." Journal of College Student Personnel 10 (1969). Holland,.Kenneth. "S ta tis tic s and Comments on Exchange with the United States." International Social Science B u lle tin 8 (1956): 628-637. Hountras, Panos T. "Factors Associated with the Academic Achieve­ ment of Foreign Students a t the University of Michigan from 1947 to 1949." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , University of Michigan, 1955. 197 Hull IV ., W. Frank. Foreign Students in the United States of America: Coping Behavior within the Educational Environment. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1978. : Hyman, Herbert H. "The Psychology of Status." In Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. Edited by Hyman and Singer. New York: Tne Free Press, 1968. ________ , and Singer, Eleanor, eds. Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. New York: The Press, 1968. Johnson, Dixon C. "Problems of Foreign Students." International Educational and Cultural Exchange 7 (F a ll 1971): 61-68. Kajornsin, Samnao. "A Study of Foreign Graduate Students: Their Awareness o f, U tiliz a tio n o f, and A ttitu d e toward Selected Student Personnel Services and Other Services Available to Them a t Michigan State U n iversity." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U niversity, 1979. K elley, Harold H. "Two Functions o f Reference Groups." In Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. Edited by Hyman and Singer. New York: The Free Press, 1968. K lein, M arjorie H ., and others. "The Foreign Students Adaptation Program: Social Experience of Asian Students in the U.S." International Educational and Cultural Exchange 5 (Winter 1971): 82-83. Lather, Frances L. "Foreign Student Perceptions of Four C ritic a l Components Related to Educational Experiences a t Western Michigan State U niversity." Ed.D. d is s e rta tio n , Western Michigan State U niversity, 1978. Lee, Motoko Y ., and others. Needs fo r Foreign Students from Developing Nations a t U.S. College and U n iv e rsitie s . Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, 1981. Lysgaard, S. "Adjustment in a Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees V is itin g the United S tates." International Social Science B u lletin 7 (1955): 45-51. Maslong, Crispin C. " F ilip in o and Indian Student' Images: of Themselves, of Each Other, and of the United S tates." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , U niversity of Minnesota, 1967. McCrone, A lis t a ir W. "In Quest of the Id e a l." The Foreign UnderGraduate Students: In s titu tio n a l P r io ritie s fo r Action. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1975. 198 McPeek, Beth L. "The U niversity as Perceived by it s Subcultures: An Experimental Study." The Journal of National Association of Women's Deans and Counselors 30 (Spring 1967): 129-132. Mead, G. H. Mind, S e lf, and Society. Press, 1934. Chicago: U niversity of Chicago Merton, Robert K ., and Rossi, A lice K. "Contribution to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior." In Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. Edited in Hyman and Singer. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Metraux, Guy S. Exchange of Person: The Evolution of Cross-Cultural Education. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1952. Michigan State U n iversity. Michigan State U niversity Publication: 1981-82 Academic Programs. East Lansing: U niversity Publica­ tion O ffic e , May 1981. ________ . "Fall 1981, Schedule of Courses Issue." University B u lle tin , Vol. 8 , No. 4, 1981. Michigan State ________ . "Winter 1982, Schedule of Courses Issue." Michigan State U niversity B u lle tin , Vol. 9, No. 1, 1982. ________ . "Spring 1982, Schedule of Courses Issue." University B u lle tin , Vol. 9, No. 2, 1982. Michigan State Moore, Forrest G. "The C ollegiate Environment: The Experience and Reactions of Foreign Students, Government-Sponsored and S elf Sponsored." Prelim inary D ra ft fo r Bureau of Social Science Research Meeting, October 13-17, 1965. M orris, Richard T. The Two-Way Morror: National Status in Foreign Students' Adjustment. Minneapolis: U niversity of Minnesota Press, 1960. Nenyod, Boomee. "An Analysis of Problems Perceived by Foreign Students Enrolled in State Colleges and U niversities in the State of Texas." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , East Texas State U niversity, 1975. Newcomb, Theordore M. "A ttitude Development as a Function of Reference Groups: The Bennington Study." In Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. Edited in Hyman and Singer. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Pace, C. Robert. College and U niversity Environment Scales: Second E dition , Technical Manual. Princeton, N .J .: Educational Testing Service, 1969. 199 Penn, J. Roger, and Durham, Marvin L. "Dimensions of Cross-Cultural In tera c tio n ." Journal of College Student Personnel 19 (May 1978): 264-267. P orter, John W. "The Development of an Inventory to Determine the Problems of Foreign Students." Ph.D. d iss e rtatio n , Michigan State U niversity, 1962. P r u itt, France J. "The Adaptation of Foreign Students on Ameican Campuses." Journal of NAWDAC 41 (Summer 1978): 144-145. Putman, Ivan, J r. "The Academic Performance of Foreign Students." The Annals of the American Academy of P o litic a l and Social Science 335 (May 1961): 47-49. ________ . "International Students." In Handbook of College and Uni ve rsi t.y Admi ni s tr a ti on. Edited by Asa S. Knowles. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Quinn, Walter A. "A Study of Selected Sojourn Preferences and P rio ritie s of Stanford University Foreign Students." Ph.D. d iss e rtatio n , Stanford U niversity, 1975. Redfied, R. The Folk Culture o f Yucatan. Chicago Press, 1941. Chicago: University of R ita , Madrazo-Peterson, and Rodriguez, Mario. "Minority Students Perceptions of a University Environment." Journal of College Student Personnel 19 (May 1978): 259-63. Sanford, N e v itt, eds. The American College. and Sons, In c ., 1962. New York: Schmitt, Raymond L. The Reference Other O rientation. Southern Il lin o is University Press, 1972. John Wiley Carbondale: Selby, H. A ., and Woods, Clyde M. "Foreign Stduents a t a HighPressure U niversity." Sociology of Education 39 (Spring 1966): 138-154. S e llt iz , C ., and others. A ttitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United States^ Minneapolis: U niversity of Minnesota Press, 1963. Sharma, Sarla. "A Stusy to Id e n tify and Analyze Adjustment Problems Experienced by Foreign Non-European Graduate Stduents Enrolled in Selected Universities in the State of North Carolina." E.D. d iss e rtatio n , University of North C arolina, 1971. 200 S h e rif, Muzafer. "The Concept of Reference Groups in Human Relations." In Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. Edited by Herman and Singer. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Shibutani, Tamotsu. "Reference Groups as Perspectives." In Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. Edited by Hyman and Singer. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Singh, Harmohinder Paul. "A Study of Socioeconomic Problems and Non-return of Selected Foreign Graduate Stduents a t the University o f Tennessee." D issertation Abstracts In te r n a tio n a l,3 7 , 4835A, 1977. Siriboonama, Umporn. "An Analysis o f Student S atisfaction as Iowa State U n iv e rsity." D issertation Abstract In te rn a tio n a l, 39, 5983A, 1979. Spaulding, Seth, and Flack, Michael. The World's Students in the United States: A Review and Evaluation of Research on Foreign Students. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976. Stern, George G. "Characteristics of the In te lle c tu a l Climate in College Environment." Harvard Educational Review 33 (Winter 1963): 5-41. ________ . People in Context: Measuring Person-Environment Congru­ ence in Education and Industry. New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1970. T elleen , Judy G. Johnson. "A Predictive Model of the Cumulative Academic Achievement o f Graduate Students from In d ia ." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , U niversity of Michigan, 1970. The World Bank. World Developmental Report. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, August 1980. Thomas, J. Diener, and Kerr, Lormie. " In s titu tio n a l R esponsibilities to Foreign Students." New D irection fo r Community College No. 26. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass In c ., Publishers, 1979» 49-56. Thompson, Ronald B. "Academic Records of Froeign Students." College and U niversity 27 (October 1951): 29-33. Tuso, Hamdesa. "The Academic Experience of African Gruduate Students a t Michigan State U n iv e rsity." Ph.D. d iss e rtatio n , Michigan State U niversity, 1981. Useem, John, and Useem, Ruth H. "Generating Fresh Research Perspec­ tiv e s and Study Design fo r Transnational Exchanges among the Highly Educated." Paper prepared fo r German-American Conference, Bonn, November 1980. 201 Walsh, W. Bruce. Theories of Person-Environment In teractio n : Implications fo r the College Student. Iowa C ity , Iowa: The American College Testing Program, 1973. Walton, Barbara J. Foreign Students Exchange in Perspectives; Research on Foreign Students in the United S tates. Washington, D.C.: Department of State P ublication, 1967. ________ . "Research on Foreign Graduate Students." International Educational and Cultural Exchange 6 (Winter 1971): 19-20. Wilson, Douglas W. "Social Relations of International Students Attending Oklahoma State U n iv e rsity." Ph.D. d iss e rtatio n , Oklahoma State U n iversity, 1975.