INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy o f 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 o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f 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)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure 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 o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should no t have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f 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 o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For 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 M icrofilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8324704 D e S tig te r , Linda Lurie A COMPARISON OF PH.D. COMPLETERS VERSUS NON-COMPLETERS IN ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY M ichigan State University University Microfilms International Ph.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1983 by DeStigter, Linda Lurie All Rights Reserved 1983 A COMPARISON OF Ph.D. COMPLETERS VERSUS NON-COMPLETERS IN ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By ■ Linda Lurie DeStigter A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1983 Copyright by LINDA LURIE DESTIGTER 1983 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF Ph.D. COMPLETERS VERSUS NON-COMPLETERS IN ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Linda Lurie DeStigter The purpose of this study was to examine the similarities and differences of selected characteristics of doctoral students at Michigan State University who are completers and non-completers of the Ph.D. in Adult and Continuing Education. A questionnaire with thirty items was utilized in gathering data for this study. The questionnaire was r e ­ fined into its final form following a pilot study. There were 14-7 students identified who were completers and non-completers of the Ph.D. in Adult and Continuing Education at Michigan State University from 1970 to 1980. A total of 82 completed questionnaires were returned by 4.7 completers and 35 non-completers of the Ph.D. The data gathered were analyzed in relation to the research questions. The ’’Statistical Package for Social Linda Lurie DeStigter Sciences” (SPSS) was used for facilitating the statistical an al ysi s. The results of the analyses indicated that: 1. There may be a relationship between being married and completing the doctoral degree in Adult and Continuing Education at Michigan State University. 2. There seems to be a positive relationship between s t ud ent’s years of work experience in education and adult education and completing the Adult and Continuing Education doctoral program. 3. For Adult and Continuing Education non-completers the following factors seem to indicate problems in degree contin uat ion: - Financial situation - Primary support group with family and colleagues - Effective study habits K. Most of the life change events addressed in this study do not appear to differentiate between completers and non-completers. The exceptions to this are "divorce,” "death of a close family member," "pregnancy," a new family member," "addition of "son or daughter leaving home," or "outstanding personal achievement." 5. There may be a relationship with the number of times published and completing the degree. Linda Lurie DeStigter 6. There appear to be some tangible ways for academic advisors and professors to facilitate students a they progress through the Adult and Continuing Education doctoral program. 7. There appear to be more students who were younger in the later 1970's than in the early 1970's. 8. Certain points on the path to completion of the doctorate appear to be more troublesome for some students than for others. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Kurt. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For his years of unending encouragement, confidence, and guidance, I dedicate this dissertation to Kurt, my - husband. Special appreciation and heartfelt thanks go to my major professor, mentor, and friend, Dr. Howard Hickey. For without his support and supervision this dissertation would not be possible. A multitude of thanks go to my sister, Susan Palmer, for her help in gathering the initial data and disseminating this dissertation. parents, Deep appreciation and thanks go to my Sy and Iris Lurie, for believing in me and wanting me to succeed. Lastly, a special thank you guidance committee, goes to the members of my especially Dr. Mildred B. Erickson, who was a major catalyst to my applying for the doctoral pr o­ gram in Adult and Continuing Education. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .......................................... viii CHAPTER CHAPTER Is PAGE STATEMENT OF THE PRO B LE M...................1 Introduction....................................... 1 Purpose of the S t u d y.............................. 4 Design of the S t u d y .............................. 5 Population .................................. 5 Method olo gy ..................................... 5 Survey Instru ment .............................. 5 Assumptions of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . 6 Need for the Stu dy ................................ 7 Significance of the Study .................... 8 Limitations of the S t u d y ..........................9 Definition of Terms. . ..........................9 Overview of the S t u d y ...........................10 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ............... 12 Introduction.................... 12 Historical Overview -of ACE Doctoral Programs. 13 Doctoral Students in A C E .................... 18 Nature of Adult and Continuing Education. . . 21 Doctoral Student Completers and NonCompleters .................................... 30 Summary . ...................................... 41 CHAPTER III: RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES. . . . 47 Research Que s ti on s............................... 47 The Popula ti on .................................... 48 Procedure for Obtaining D a t a .................... 49 P r e - t e s t ...................................... 49 Permission to Use Human Subjects ......... 49 Questionnaire Development.................... 49 The Survey Instrument ........................ 50 M e asu re s...........................................50 Self-reported G P A ............................. 51 The Social Readjustment Rating S c a l e Life Change Check L i s t .................... 52 v PAGE CHAPTER CHAPTER III: (cont'd.). Collection of D a t a ................................... 56 Procedures for Analysis ......................... 57 ......... 57 The Survey Results . . . . . . . . Non-Res pon dents................................... 58 Analysis of D a t a ................................ 58 S u m m a r y .............................................. 58 CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . 60 A Description of Re sp on dent s....................... 60 S e x . .............................................. 61 Mariial Status ................................ 62 Nation a l i t y ....................................... 64. R a c e .............................................. 66 Characteristics of Completers and Non-Completers 67 Age. ............. 67 Age Began and Completed B A ..................... 70 Age Began and Completed M A ..................... 71 Age Began and Interrupted P h . D . . . . . . . . 72 Time Lapse Between BA to MA and MA to Ph.D.. 74Field of Study for BA and M A ................... 76 GPA for BA, MA and Doctoral P r o g r a m ............ 78 GPA in Education and Non-Education Courses . 80 Years Worked in Education and Adult Education 81 MA Thesis W r i t i n g ......................... . . 83 Job Pressure to Get D e g r e e ..................... 85 Quarters Registered at M S U ..................... 86 Perceived Control Over Degree Completion . . 87 Part-Time Student' Status .................... 89 Publications .................................. 90 Professional Organizations .................. 92 Progression Towards Doctoral Program . . . . 94 Factors Determining Degree Completion. . . . 96 Life Change Check List Effects on Degree Co mpl et io n.................................... 102 S u m m a r y ............................................. Ill CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 119 S u m m a r y ............................................. 119 Findings and Discussion ......................... 119 Research Question A ............................ 120 Research Question B. ........................ 123 Research Question C ........................... 124 Research Question D ............................ 130 CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER V: (cont'd.). Concl usi ons...................................... 132 Re commen dat ions................................. 134Suggestions for Further Research. . . . . 135 APPENDICES A. Human Subjects Approval Letter .......... B. Student Questio nna ire.......................139 C. Letter Attached to Questionnaire D. Follow-up Letter Sent to Student Sample. E. Consent F o r m ................................ 145 F. P o s t c a r d .................................... 146 G. Frequency of Responses to "Factors". H. Frequencies of Responses for Life Change Check L i s t ........................ 151 . . . . 138 143 144 . . 147 SELECTED BIBLIOGR APH Y................................. 156 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2:1 PAGE Doctorates In Adult Education, by Institution, January 1, 1962. ................ 16 Researcher and Variables Used To Predict Success of Doctoral Students in Education . . 44 Questionnaire Response of Graduate Students in ACE from 1970 to 1 9 8 0 ....................... 57 Sex of Respondents and Status in Doctoral Pu rs ui ts......................................... 6l 4:2 Frequency of Respondents by Marital Status. 62 4:3 Marital Status by C vs. NC and Sex. 4:4 Possible Differential Impact of Marital Status (Regression Equation: C vs. NC = Marital Status + Sex + Interaction) . . . . . . . . . 64 Nationality of Respondents by C vs. NC and S e x .................. 65 4:6 Race of Respondents by C vs. NC and Sex . . . 66 4:7 Age at Admission of Doctoral Student Respondents . . ............................. 68 Age Means, Medians and Ranges of Doctoral Student Respondents by Sex and Degree Status. 69 Mean Age of Respondents Beginning and Completing BA by C vs. NC and S e x ............. 70 Pearson Correlations of Age Beginning and Completing the BA to C vs. NC and Sex . . . . 70 Mean Age of Respondents Beginning and Completing the MA by C vs. NC and Sex . . . . 71 2:2 3:1 4:1 4:5 4:8 4:9 4:10 4:11 viii . . . . . . 63 TABLE 4:12 4:13 PAGE Pearson Correlations of Age Beginning and Completing the MA to C vs. NC and Sex • • 72 Mean Age of Respondents Beginning and Interrupting Ph.D. by C vs. N C a n d Sex . . . . 73 4:14 Mean Years of Time Lapse Between BA to MA. 74 4:15 Mean Years of Time Lapse Between MA and Ph.D.. 4:16 Respondents in Education and Non-Education Curricula for BA Degree. . ..................... 77 4:17 Respondents in Education and Non-Education Curricula for MA D e g r e e ............................77 4:18 Chi Square Analyses of BA and MA Curricula by Doctoral Degree Status and Sex. ............... 78 4:19 Self-Reported Mean GPA's and Ranges for Respondent BA's, MA's and P h . D . ' s ................ 79 4:20 Pearson Correlations Between BA, MA and Ph.D. GPA's and C vs. NC Status and Sex. . . . . . 75 79 4:21 Self-Reported Mean GPA's and Ranges for Education and Non-Education Courses ............... 80 4:22 Pearson Correlations Between Education and Non-Education Courses in Doctoral Program. . . 81 4:23 Mean Years Respondents .Worked in Education and Adult Edu ca ti on ................................ 82 4:24 Pearson Correlations of Years Worked in Education and Adult Education with C vs. NC and S e x .............................................. 82 4:23 Respondents Who Wrote MA Thesis by C vs. NC and S e x .................................. 84 4:26 Chi Square Analyses Between MA Thesis Writing and C vs. NC and S e x .............................. 84 4:27 Job Pressure to Get Degree with C vs. NC and S e x .............................................. 85 4:28 Chi Square Analyses Between Job Pressure to Get a Degree and C vs. NC or Sex . . . . . . . 86 TABLE 4-529 4-530 4-:31 4-:32 4-:33 4-5344-535 4-536 4-537 4-538 4-539 4-54-0 4-54-1 Mean Number of Quarters Registered at MSU by C vs. NC and S e x........................... 87 Pearson Correlations and Quarters Registered at MSU by C vs. NC and S e x .................... 87 Perceived Control Over Ph.D. Completion by C vs. NC and S e x .................................. 88 Chi Square Analyses of Perceived Control Over Ph.D. Completion by C vs. NC and S e x ........... 88 Mean Percentages of Doctoral Studies Done on a Part-Time Basis by C vs. NC and S e x ......... 89 Pearson Correlations of Part-Time Doctoral Studies by C vs. NC and S e x .................... 90 Mean Frequency of Responses of Times Published with C vs. NC and S e x ................ 91 Chi Square Analyses of Times Published by C vs. NC and S e x .................. 91 Responses of Membership in Professional Organizations Between C vs. NC and S e x ......... 93 Chi Square Analyses of Membership in Professional Organizations by C vs. NC and Sex. 94- Responses to Progression in Doctoral Studies. . 95 Means of Factors Used in Determining Ability to Finish Doctoral Studies by C vs. NC and Sex. 98 Pearson Correlations Between Factors Used in Determining Ability to Complete Doctoral Studies by C vs. NC and S e x ............................. 99 4-54-2 Open-Ended Responses to Supportive or NonSupportive Factors in Determining Ability to Finish Doctoral Studies by C vs. N C .............. 101 4 54-3 Chi Square Analyses of Whether the Life Event Occurred by C vs. NC and S e x ................ 103 x PAGE TABLE 4-I4-4- Means of Life Change Check List Ratings on Impact of Continuation or Non-Continuation by C vs. NC and S e x .................. .. . 106 Pearson Correlations of Impact of Life Change Check List Events with C vs. NC and Sex. . . . . xi 108 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Adult and Continuing graduate education has a rela­ tively long history in the United States. In 1935 Wilbur Hallenbeck and William Stacy became the first students in this country to receive doctoral degrees in adult educa­ tion (Houle and Buskey, 1966). Ten years later, only 1 K doctorates had been granted in this field throughout the entire country. During the Second World War, the number of graduate courses available in adult education actually d e ­ clined (Houle, 1964.). After the war, however, the number of doctoral degrees granted in the United States took a major leap forward until, during the five-year period between 1961 and 1966, over 2^.6 such degrees were granted (Kreitlow, 1970). By 1968, adult education was a fully developed field of graduate study. It was offered in at least 20 universities in the United States and Canada, and by the end of that year been granted 726 Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s had (Houle, 1970). 1 2 Until the rise of adult graduate education, the knowl­ edge and practice used in educating adults was borrowed from the education of youth. Then, in 1926, the American Association for Adult Edcation was founded for the devel­ opment of a body of knowledge about the education of adults (Jensen, Liveright, and Hallenbeck, 1964). Dean James Russell of Teachers College, Columbia University, was a c ­ tive in creating this American Association of Adult educa­ tion. Edward L. Thorndike, also from Columbia, adult learning and adult interests studied (Houle, 1964). These men, along with others who eventually joined them, adapted knowledge from the theories and research efforts of varied, disciplines to make up the content of adult and continuing education (ACE). Graduate programs in ACE did not spring up quickly in the United States. The term "adult education" as part of a course title appeared for the first time at Columbia University in 1922 (Houle, 1964). Scattered courses were offered by a few universities beginning in the 1 9 3 0 ’s (Jensen, Liveright, and Hallenbeck, 1 9 & 4 ) • ln 1935 Columbia University became the first institution to graduate doctoral students in adult education, and Stacy. Later, the recipients being Hallenbeck towards the end of 1935, Ohio State University and the University of Chicago became the second and third institutions, respectively 1966). (Houle and Buskey, Since that time, ACE has grown into a reasonably 3 uniform curricula offered by many universities on a doctoral level by 1970) (19 by 1970) and on an M.A. level (over 30 (Schroeder, 1970). The special concern of this study relates to doctoral students in adult and continuing education at Michigan State University (MSU) who are both completers and non-completers of the Ph.D. According to Houle (1962), the first doctoral student graduated from MSU in 1956. Since that time a significant number of degrees have been granted. In examin­ ing the former participants in doctoral programs several questions come to mind. Are there any significant charac­ teristics which could be attributed to those students who complete the Ph.D. and those who do not? What problems were encountered by the doctoral students during the process of degree completion? Of these problems discovered, were any significantly related to whether the graduate student was a completer or non-completer of the Ph.D. A recent study by Meisner, Parsons, and Ross describes some of the characteristics of graduate students in ACE (1979). The authors explain that in previous years students in the field of adult education were predominantly male and older than graduate students in other fields. ently, there is a new trend. Now, appar­ Present graduate students in ACE are younger than in past years and closer in age to other graduate students. Also, the graduate programs now serve approximately half women and half men. These authors 4 examined such characteristics as areas of past degrees, work experience, the geographic areas the students are from, jobs desired, and other such factors. Meisner, Parsons, and Ross, among others (Gleason, 1963; Johnston, 1961 and Wetherill, I960), have contributed to the growing body of literature on graduate students in Adult and Continuing Education (ACE). This study adds to that information by examining not only the similarities and differences of the characteristics of graduate students, but also the special problems that they encounter while in doctoral programs. It is suspected that some difficulties will be found in loss of personal motivation, communicating with dissertation advisors, physical health problems, and current employment status. Do more problems develop as the student progresses from course work to proposal writing to research and dissertation completion, or does the student encounter problems that .are more of a personal than acade ­ mic nature? These questions and others will be examined and discussed in this study. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine the similari­ ties and differences of selected characteristics of former doctoral students at MSU who are completers and n o n ­ completers of the Ph.D. in Adult and Continuing Education. 5 Design of the Study Population The population for this study consisted of two groups: 1. Completers of the doctorate in Adult and Contin­ uing Education at Michigan State University (MSU) from 1970 to 1980. 2. Non-completers of the doctorate in Adult and Continuing Education at MSU from 1970 to 1980. 3. Completers and non-completers in Adult and Continuing Education comprised, the entire population of the study. Methodology The Graduate Student Affairs Office at MSU provided the lists of all doctoral student enrollees and graduates in ACE from 1970 to 1980. Current addresses for the sub­ jects were obtained from the Graduate Student Affairs Of­ fice, alumni records, the Registrar's. Office at MSU, and individual .academic advisors. Each student was contacted at his or her current address and asked to fill out a questionnaire, consent form and postcard, if desiring results of the questionnaire. Survey Instrument A structured questionnaire was developed based on a selected literature review of characteristics of graduate 6 students who were completers and non-completers of the doctorate in ACE and Education in general. Assumptions of the Study The following assumptions provided the basis for this study: 1. All subjects in this study will be pursuing or have pursued the doctorate Continuing Education 2. (Ph.D. or E d . D . ) in Adult and (ACE) from Michigan State University. The graduate student population consisting of completers and non-completers of the P h . D . , will be drawn from those students who were enrolled at MSU from 1970 to 1980 . 3. There is a general guideline at MSU that the grad­ uate student completers and non-completers will have no more than eight years to complete their entire program of doctoral study. This includes no more than three years to complete the proposal and dissertation after completing comprehensive examinations cation, 197A). (Michigan State University P u b l i ­ Two studies appear to confirm the time limit chosen as a parameter and Manuel, 1966). (Report of Special Committee, 1975 One, at the University of California, shows that the normative time to degree is four to five years including two years for the dissertation period. Another study at Indiana .University has found that when students make little progress toward completing the disser­ tation within the given time limits, it is unlikely that 7 they will complete the doctorate. So, use of the three year time period after completing comprehensive examina­ tions seems to be a reasonable criterion for distinguishing between students who will complete the degree and those who could continue in their doctoral studies indefinately or fail to complete the doctorate. U. One or more of the following criteria will fit graduate students who are non -co mpleters : a) failure to complete course work requirements but enrolled for a mini­ mum of one term; b) failure to take or successfully com­ plete comprehensive examinations; the dissertation proposal; c) failure to complete d) failure to complete the dissertation; and e) .failure to successfully complete final oral examinations in defense of the dissertation. 5. The doctoral students designated as the completers will have finished their course work, nations, comprehensive exami­ the proposal, dissertation and defense of the dissertation within the specified time limits of this study. Need for the Study There are two groups who have an this study. immediate need for The first group, graduate students in Adult and Continuing Education (ACE), have a need for this information. Professors and academic advisors of graduate students in ACE also need to be aware of the findings in order to serve their students better. Doctoral students in ACE can bene ­ fit from knowing how they compare to other doctoral students. 8 There is a need to know the typical problems both com­ pleters and non-completers face. Students who learn about others like themselves can profit by the results and be aware of which avenues to pursue and which directions to avoid. Study results, will enable professors and academic advisors in ACE to be better prepared to assist, advise, and encourage doctoral candidates. other students fared; They will know how they will be more aware of pitfalls and more knowledgeable about alternative solutions. Significance of the Study The study is significant for a number of reasons. As an empirical research study it will add to the body of literature in the field of adult education; it will have special significance for professors and academic advisors of doctoral- students in ACE at MSU; the findings will be beneficial to professors and academic advisors in graduate education and in graduate schools as a whole; graduate students in ACE at MSU a-nd other dO'Ctoral granting institu­ tions will be aided as a result of knowing more about others in similar situations; the many Ph.D. or Ed.D. graduate programs in ACE in the United States will benefit from findings of the study. 9 Limitations of the Study The limitations of this study are as follows: 1. The student records of the Graduate Student A f ­ fairs Office, professors and academic advisors, alumni files and the Registrar's Office may not be accurate and up-todate. 2. The validity of this study is affected by the questionnaire return rate and by the sincerity and frank­ ness of questionnaire responses of the subjects. 3. The findings are correlational, not causal. 4. The subjects in this population include graduate students from 1970 to 1980, and may be unrepresentative of graduate students in ACE at MSU preceding and following that period of time. Definition of Terms Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) - This scale is also known as the Life Change Check List. It measures major life change events that occur to adults in relationship to the onset of stress and illness. Individual p r e ­ selected life change events are examined in this study to determine their impact on doctoral student completers and non-completers. Completers • their Ph.D. (C's) - students who have successfully obtained or Ed.D. at Michigan State University in Adult and Continuing Education between the years 1970 to 1980. 10 Non-Completers (NC’s) - students who have been enrolled for a minimum of one term in the doctoral program of Adult and Continuing Education at Michigan State University but have not obtained their degrees during the period between 1970 to 1980. Interrupted - this refers to doctoral students in Adult and Continuing Education who have "stopped out" of their degree programs for an undefined amount of time. Michigan State University (MSU) - the University from which the population of this study came. Adult and Continuing Education (AGE) - the focus of this study is limited to doctoral student completers and n o n ­ completers majoring in Adult and Continuing Education within the Department of Administration and Curriculum at Michigan State University. Overview of the Study Chapter II will include a selected review of the literature dealing with the history and nature of ACE and the characteristics of doctoral students who are completers and non-completers within the programs of ACE and Education. Chapter III describes the research methodology used to develop and analyze the study, procedures for designing the study, the development of the questionnaire, and data collec­ tion and analysis. Chapter IV presents a review of the results of the questionnaire and an analysis of these results. 11 Chapter V presents discussions, .conclusions, and recommendations based on the findings of this study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This chapter will concern itself with two general topics. The first topic will be doctoral programs in Adult and Continuing Education. Included in the discussion will be the history of ACE doctoral graduate study, general trends in graduate study and the characteristics of the doctoral student population. In addition, the nature of ACE doctoral programs will be examined. Although doctoral programs in ACE from all over the United States and abroad will be discussed, particular focus will be upon Michigan State U ni ve r s i t y ’s (MSU’s) Program of Study in Adult and Continuing Education. The second topic of the literature review will be in the broad area of doctoral student completers versus n o n ­ completers. Many studies are available on the variables that predict graduate student success. Since there are not many studies in the specific area of Adult and Continuing Education (ACE) the broader area of graduates in the depart­ ment or college of Education will be examined. 12 Selected 13 characteristics of the doctoral students in these programs will be reviewed to determine what impact they might have had on student completion or non-completion of a doctoral deg ree. Historical Overview of ACE Doctoral Programs The history of ACE graduate programs has a fairly long chronology in the United States. The very first university to use the words "adult education" in a graduate school course title was Columbia University in 1922 Several years later, (Houle, 1964). in 1930, building on the requests and interests of their faculty, Columbia also created the first formal adult education department. The department was chaired by John D. Willard, who became the first full-time faculty member in the field of adult and continuing educa­ tion. In 1935, Columbia University granted Wilbur Hallenbeck and William A. Stacy the first doctoral degrees in ACE (Houle and Buskey, 1966, and Houle, 1964-). ACE graduate programs most typically developed in universities through the gradual growth of earlier course offerings into a sequence of study (Houle, 1964). typically, Less full-fledged programs of study were established before widespread use of courses were available in adult education within the school or college 1966). (Houle and Buskey, Each university organized itself in its own way. Some schools identified adult education as a separate f i e l d ? u some as aspects of education administration, or both. curriculum Some had interdisciplinary study sponsored by a committee or several departments. Graduate programs in adult education are usually housed within the schools of education, however (Dickerman, 1964-). In addition, there are many universities that grant a doctorate in adult education but not through established graduate programs. For example, the graduate student designs his or her own program of study focusing on adult education as the major theme throughout the program. The student then attains the actual degree outside a formal program of studies in adult education. The universities in the United States that offer certified doctorates secured on this basis are Denver, George Washington, Howard, Illinois, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Pennsylvania State, Pittsburgh, Stanford, Tennessee and Texas (Houle, 1964.). The development of adult education graduate programs took shape much the same way outside of the United States. That is, gradual development of programs came about through earlier course offerings which grew into a sequence of study. Canada and Yugoslavia were two of the first countries ou t­ side of the United States with known doctoral programs in adult education (Houle and Buskey, 1966). In Canada, a number of special offerings were available at various univer­ sities from time to time. Columbia, however, 1957. The University of British offered the first full-scale program in 15 In Table 2:1 is a list of all of the universities in the United States that have offered full-fledged doctoral degrees in adult education prior to 1962 as well as the cumulative total of doctorates from each institution (Houle, 1964.). 16 Table 2:1 Doctorates in Adult Education, January 1, 1962 1 Institution by Institution, Year of First Doctorate Total Number of Doctorates 78 32 Columbia University 1935 University of Chicago 194-0 University of Pittsburgh 194-2 Ohio State University 19-45 University of California (Los Aigele s) 19-47 University of Illinois 19-48 University of Michigan 19-48 Cornell University 19/49 University of Buffalo 1953 Northwestern University 1953 University of Wisconsin 1953 Indiana University 195-4 State University of Iowa 195-4 Stanford University 1955 University of Tennessee 1955 1956 University of California (Berkeley) 1956 University of Denver Florida State University 1956 University of Kansas 1956 1956 Michigan State University 1956 University of Nebraska 1956 New York University 1956 Texas Technological College 1958 Harvard University 1958 Iowa State University 1958 University of Missouri 1958 Syracuse University University of Texas 1959 George Washington University 1959 I 960 Pennsylvania State University 1 9 21 1 15 32 3 1 66 8 2 1 1 12 2 6 1 12 1 8 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 TOTAL ^Adult E d u c a t i o n , XII (Spring, 19 6 2 )f p # 323 132 17 As Table 2:1 shows, between the years 1935 and 1961, there were 323 degrees awarded in Adult and Continuing Education. By the year 1962, 15 universities in the United States had active programs leading to advanced degrees (Houle, 1964). Houle (1970) reports that by 1968 there were 20 universities actively granting doctoral degrees in ACE, an increase of five universities in a relatively short n u m ­ ber of years. In a study completed in 1976 Davis found that from I960 to 1975, 39 adult education doctoral programs were offered within the United States. Of these, it was found that there were 92 full-time faculty and 1,4-60 students in doctoral programs. Those programs with the largest enroll­ ment did not necessarily have the greatest number of faculty members. Of the professors of adult education who had completed their doctorates, 64.$ of the full-time and 17% of the part-time faculty had their degrees specifically in the area of adult education Ford and Houle (Davis, 1976). (1980) in a recent update reported that by 1978 there were a total of 2,239 doctorates in adult and continuing education, an enormous increase over the n u m ­ ber of graduates from former years. Houle and Ford then listed the names of doctoral student graduates for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978. 163, During these years there were 175, and 183 students who attained doctoral degrees, resoec- tively. It is interesting to note'that during the last few 18 years there has been a relatively slow growth rate in ACE doctoral programs. Yet, doctoral student graduates have increased significantly since the first graduate in 1935, and especially in the past two decades (Meisner, Parsons and R o s s , 1979). At Michigan State University, the first formal grad­ uate program was established in adult education in 1955. Harold Dillon was appointed to organize and direct the program within the College of Education (Houle, 1964-). By 1956, Houle reported that Michigan State University had 12 graduates in this area. Unfortunately, there appears to be no readily available record to substantiate the total number of doctoral However, candidates to date at MSU (Hickey, 1981). there were nearly 1^.0 graduate students enrolled in doctoral studies in ACE between the years 1970 to 1980. One of the goals of this study is to look at doctoral stu­ dents in ACE at MSU to determine if the students have the same general characteristics as those in other universities across the United States. It is suspected that the general trend will be the same at MSU, although student information will only be available from 1970 to 1980 and not the preced­ ing years, which could limit generalizability. Doctoral Students in ACE There would seem to be a trend in the student popula­ tion in doctoral programs in adult and continuing education (Dickerman, 196^ and Meisner, Parsons and Ross, 1979). In 19 1965, Houle and Buskey undertook a study with doctoral stu­ dents in adult education in all the major degree granting institutions in the United States. They generated the stu­ dents' names via their major professors at these various universities. Of a total of 556 doctoral recipients, (61.3$) hold P h . D . ’s and 186 subjects were male 294 (38.7$) hold E d . D . ’s; 400 (83.3$) and 80 (16.7%) were female. mean age of doctoral recipients in 1965 was 46.7. The When asked why they chose a degree so late in life, the most f r e ­ quent response was that they did not become interested in adult education until after many years of work experience in the field (Houle and Buskey, 1966). Meisner, Parsons and Ross (1979) described the most re ­ cent doctoral recipients in adult education in a study using 291 subjects randomly selected at 12 universities across the United States. In this study the typical graduate student in adult education was female, married, White, with two brothers or sisters, and came from a childhood in a n o n ­ metropolitan area. The predominance of females in the study was slight, but definite at 51.9$. The predominance of married respondents was 71$, with 21$ single and 7$ divorced. Racial composition consisted of 84.9$ White, 3.7$ Oriental, 0.5$ Indian and 2.3$ other. 8.7$ Black, The largest range of students were between 29 and 34 years old, with the 34 to 43 age range being the second largest group. The typical graduate student came in with five years of experi­ ence in general education, including university teaching, 20 adult basic education, health care, and government agencies. cooperative extension, Meisner and others concluded saying that gr a d u a t e ■programs in ACE used to include stu­ dents who were male and older. This study showed that the new graduate students in ACE are more likely to be younger, and about as many female as male. Also, students are coming in with recent Education degrees and less years of experi­ ence . Ross (1978) in a study using the same sample po pu la ­ tion as above, examined why students enroll in doctoral p r o ­ grams in adult education. She concluded that some of the variables highly influential in the students' major in adult education were: decision to desire to become a better informed person, personal enjoyment, goal orientation toward a degree, national trends in education, and desire to work with mature students. concern to this author is Ross' employment status, Of paramount recommendation that further research on life stages be examined as a possible reason for graduate students enrolling. The present study will look at selected life stages as determined by Holmes and Rahe (1967) in the Social Readjustment Rating Scale. More will follow on this topic in Chapter III. Karelius (1982) examined the early development (ages 22-32) of women and men who enrolled in graduate school during the age thirty transition and investigated their motivation for enrollment. Although the group she examined were masters degree candidates there does appear to be 21 information relevant to the present study. Using a popul a­ tion of 37 persons, 19 women and 18 men, whe assessed the life dream, important life activities, and the relative importance of career, relationships with others, and per so n­ al development. Relating Karelius' study to graduate educa­ tion, it was found that men and women enrolled in graduate school for similar reasons often related to career develop­ ment. The majority of participants had recently been through a transition in their lives and graduate enrollment was seen as a way to consolidate those increasing career options, building self-esteem. changes by either enhancing self-discovery or More men than women perceived gra­ duate school as helpful in making changes in their lives, primarily for reasons of a better job or enhancing selfdiscovery. Nature of Adult and Continuing Education The graduate field of Adult and Continuing Education (ACE) encompasses a very broad range of areas. Hallenbeck (1964.) preferred to visualize the field as consisting of three different dimensions. The first dimension is institu­ tional, which consists of the different physical locations where one may house adult, and continuing education. here are: Included public schools, .universities and colleges, agr i­ culture extension, independent and residential centers, proprietary schools, libraries, museums, health and welfare agencies, business and industry, governmental agencies, 22 labor unions, mass media and communications, religious institutions, and voluntary associations. The second dimension to the graduate field of ACE, according to Hallenbeck, is content. This is what may be included,but not limited to,in any type of adult and contin­ uing education enterprise. Thus, a doctoral graduate stu­ dent in adult education may have come from or go to an ACE program in the following content areas: Academic education Education for aging Community Development Community education Creative arts Economic Education Fundamental and literacy education Health education Home and family life education Human relations and leadership training Intergroup education Liberal adult education Occupational education Public affairs education Recreational education Science education Finally, Hallenbeck described the third dimension of ACE as being geographical. Here the various adult and continuing education activities could occur on a national, state, and community level. A few examples of each geograph­ ical level follows: Community l e v e l : Adult educational activities in the community such as evening schools and colleges, YMCA's, churches, and business conference rooms. 23 State l e v e l ; The state may offer programs for consu­ mers of adult education in universities and agricul­ tural extension divisions, and in certain health and welfare organizations. ments of education, Others include state depart­ state libraries, and numerous state voluntary associations. National l e v e l : Adult education activities include national voluntary organizations, professional adult education associations, and federal agencies (e.g. Department of Agriculture, United States Office of E duc ation) . The late Russell Kleis, a leader and professor of adult and continuing education at MSU, outlined what he believed a doctoral student must take into consideration when planning a program of studies. Kleis maintained that: Planning an appropriate program of study in continu­ ing education requires special care. This is true because of the breadth of the field, diversity of functions to be performed, differences among indi­ viduals and communities to be served, and variety of institutions engaging in the enterprise (Kleis, Dimensions of Planning, Michigan State University, Mimeographed and Undated). In addition, Kleis urged the doctoral students in ACE at MSU to consider three questions when planning a program: 1) What is likely to be the Institutional base of support? 2) What basic functions will be needed to perform on the job? 3) What clientele will likely to be served? To further conceptualize what Kleis included in these questions, the following is a listing of each planning dimension: 24 Institutional base for work: Business and industry Cause or special interest group Church or faith based institution College or university Community school Cooperative and mutual benefit associations Correctional institutions Creative or performing arts Governmental agencies Hospitals or health centers International agency Library Mental health facility Military organization Professional society Rehabilitation institution Residential adult education center Social service agency Union organization Veterans facility Voluntary association, etc. Basic functions to perform: Administration Advocacy Career Development Communication Community Development Consulting Counseling Institutional Development Materials Development Political action Profession building Program development and evaluation Project management Proposal writing Rehabilitation Research and writing Staff development and evaluation Teaching Training Writing Clientele likely to serve: categorized into four seg­ ments of the population differentiated by: 25 A. Their shared role within the community, e.g., aged or aging, church members, citizens, con­ sumers, females, influentials, males, minori­ ties, parents, unemployed, volunteers, or workers. B. Their orientation toward education, e.g., advanced, alienated, dependent, eager, neglected, obsolete, persistent, receptive, resistant, or self-directed. C. Their place of residence or work: inner city rural suburban urban D. migrant permanent institutionalized Their dominant education purpose: avocational basic or fundamental career development civic understanding consumerism correction credential earning family life liberal physical or mental health professional updating recreation rehabilitation religious remedial role fulfillment self-development social change vocational (Kleis, Dimensions of Planning, MSU, Mimeographed and Undated). Liveright (1964.) maintained that "a sound and compre­ hensive program in adult education should include work in fields of history, psychology, social psychology, economics, political science, philosophy, Jensen, Liveright, and Hallenbeck sociology, and administration.” (1964-) expounded on this concept by explaining how adult education borrows 26 knowledge, theory, disciplines. and research technology from many other The following excerpt clearly illustrates how adult education has "borrowed from other disciplines: From individual and social psychology basic kn ow ­ ledge about the processes of learning and change in individuals, groups and communities has been selected. Philosophy has been used to gain an understanding of the ethics and rationale of the field of adult education and suggests some of its content, processes, and objectives. From sociology has come specific knowledge about human social organization as it influences and relates to adult learning, as well as insight into the essential functions of adult education in the maintenance and development of society. History has provided a perspective of man's relationship to himself and to society, along with a broader understanding of the endless human quest for know l­ edge. Anthropology has contributed experience r e ­ lating to the introduction and acceptance or r e ­ jection of change in ideas or technology. Economics has provided information about the relationship between human competence and societal well-being, as well as principles for the sound use of resources for lifelong learning (Jensen, Liveright, Hallenbeck, 196^). With the foregoing as a description of the kinds of possibilities included in graduate programs in adult education, Kleis enumerated the eight common goals identi­ fied that represent, opment in ACE (Kleis, in general terms, professional devel ­ 1977): 1. To understand the significance, development, structure and scope of continuing education, both formal and non-formal. 2. To be able to interpret continuing education needs, aspirations and potentials in individuals, organizations and communities. 3. To be able to design appropriate continuing educa ­ tion programs in a wide variety of individual, group and community and/or national developmental situat ion s. 27 J+. To be able to facilitate the operation of contin­ uing education programs that are humane, ethical, effective and efficient. 5. To be able to evaluate continuing education programs. 6. To understand social systems to be effective in pursuing human purposes in and through them. 7. To become exemplars and leaders in adult phases of lifelong learning. 8. To develop reasoned personal and professional philosophies. Veri (1968), in a dissertation designed to ascertain what adult education doctoral programs shouLd consist of, reviewed past literature as well as a random sample of 100 professional adult educators. On the basis of his findings, the following subject areas were recommended for inclusion in doctoral programs in Adult and Continuing Education I. II. III. IV. (ACE): Core Experiences - All about the various areas of adult education e.g. sociology, history, and design. Generalist Producing Experiences - Organization and administration of adult education agencies, methods and media in adult education, educational psychology, research techniques, and social p s y ­ chology. Administrative Specialist Producing Experiences including public relations, personnel administra­ tion, budget development, and community and orga n­ izational planning. Teaching Specialist Producing Experiences interpreting seminars in adult education, con­ temporary educational trends, philosophy of education, etc. 28 V. Research Specialist Producing Activities statistics methods, research, design in educa­ tion, advanced statistical methods, sociolo­ gical research, design and analysis, and so­ ciology of small groups, etc. As a general statement, Grosz (1976) found that doctorates in adult education have a great deal of common­ ality. He sampled 259 subjects between the years 1972 and 1974> all of whom were in ACE programs throughout the United States. The responses of students indicate that faculty members in adult education encouraged their students to plan their own programs to meet their self-determined objectives and that furthermore, this intensive faculty and student communication and planning have proved highly satisfactory to graduate students in meeting their needs. Doctoral candidates admitted to MSU in ACE are asked to develop their program of study to encompass seven major areas of concern. Kleis listed these areas of concern and emphasized that they should be a solid part of each graduate student's curriculum (1977): 1. Major subject area whether it be in adult and continuing education, community education, extension or non-formal education. 2. Functional and institutional area of emphasis. The specialty area that provides the setting and actual work in that setting, e.g., univer­ sity extension teaching, adult public school administration, adult basic education, and counseling. ‘ 3. General professional area. This includes the social and philosophical base of education, the processes and problems of human learning, and the management of the educational enterprise. 29 4.. Related studies area. Adult and continuing education is often instrumentally related to other fields of professional practice, usually outside the field of education. 5. Research competence area. This includes philo­ sophical and methodological preparation to do research in adult and continuing education. 6. Research and dissertation area. Propose, design, conduct, report, and defend a r e ­ search project. 7. Liberal learning area. Invest time, energy, and money in liberal learning experiences to grow as a free and responsible person, and share significant experiences with family and friends. It is important to note, however, that many of the actual programs developed for the graduate students at MSU did not strictly follow Kleis* model, although it was a foundation from which to plan. In addition, all doctoral students in ACE at MSU were required to fulfill a residency requirement to include a full six hours of course work taken for each of three sequential terms. doctoral student took Finally, each comprehensive examinations when . near completion of formal course work. The comprehensive examinations: demonstrate knowledge of theory and practice in the field of continuing education and in related fields and samples such major components of the field as theories and strategies for change, p r o ­ gram development and renewal, history, social and philosophical foundations, management functions, and contributions and contributors to the profession (Kleis, 1977). Michigan State University (MSU) offers two doctoral degrees in adult and continuing education: Ed.D. the Ph.D. and Whereas both degrees are committed to high levels of 30 scholarship and excellence, the differences between the two degrees are substantive and not qualitative. emphasizes excellence in practice, experience, it. "The Ed.D. critical examination of and derivation of disciplined conclusions from The Ph.D. ical research, emphasis is upon knowledge through theoret­ teaching, and writing (Kleis, Majors Available in Continuing Education, undated). noted, however, It should be that the differences become moot, since over 95$ of all doctoral students take the Ph.D. Doctoral Student Completers and Non-Completers This section categorizes doctoral student completers and non-completers by their respective academic majors including adult and continuing education and the broader field of education as a whole. gorization, as Dickerman The reason for this cate­ (1964) noted, is that "graduate programs in ACE are usually housed within the schools or colleges of education." Since doctoral students in ACE take many of the same courses as doctoral students in educa­ tion and since adult and continuing education is usually housed within the school or college of education, zability would appear to be valid. generali- One of the goals of this study is to be able to make valid statements about doctoral students who are completers and non-completers in A C E . ’ It is believed that by using these two major areas in combination, that generalizability will be possible. fore, a selected review of the literature will follow. There­ Larry D. Pristo (1977) appeared to be the sole author to research prediction of success in the area of adult and continuing education (ACE) doctoral programs. For the stud- y he used all applicants admitted to doctoral programs at Arizona State University in the Adult Education Department, including both Ph.D. 1966 and 1977. and Ed.D. candidates, between the years Of the total number of 129, 4-6 were female and 83 male, with 58 students classified as successful, 25 as failures and 4-6 as still active in the doctoral p r o ­ gram. Pristo sent out questionnaires to all subjects in the study and received 60 usable returns. criteria in the study, the program, program, including: 2) cumulative GPA 3) type of degree l) success or failure in (at the end of the doctoral (Ph.D. identification of job field, He used four or Ed.D.), and 4-) general e.g., there were four main fields of employment from which students described their present position. Pristo then selected 21 variables, tained through a review of the literature, ob­ to analyze in conjunction with the four criteria. The 21 variables used by Pristo were l) GRE-V (Graduate Record Examination - Verbal), tive), 3) GRE-T (Total), 4-) MAT 2) GRE-Q (Millers Analogy Test), 5) years since receipt of last bachelors degree, since receipt of last masters degree, not within degree program, (Quantita­ 6) years 7) any graduate GPA 8) GPA in masters program, 9) the holding of a masters degree, 10) type of college the masters degree was received in, 11) type of college the bachelors degree was received in, 12) total number of graduate hours upon entrance to the program, 13) a rating of the undergraduate institution conferring the degree held (the ratings assigned to graduate and undergraduate institutions were those established by the authors of Where the Colleges R a n k , 1973), 14) a rating of the graduate degree conferring institution, 15) sex of subject, at time of being accepted to program, 16) age 17) total number of colleges and/or universities attended, 18) undergraduate GPA, 19) junior and senior GPA, 20) major undergraduate GPA, and 21) number of other doctoral programs at Arizona State University that the student was either accepted or not accepted into. The only significant results that Pristo found were with two variables: time since bachelors degree and final graduate GPA when matched with the success or non-success criteria. None of the other variables showed discriminatory ability with regards to successful and non-successful stu­ dents. His two major conclusions were l) that any parti­ cular test will be ineffective in predicting some student performance because variables other, than those being measured may enter into prediction, and 2) that the requ ire ­ ments of doctoral programs with the adult education depart­ ment may not be stringent enough; people of low ability, indicated by their previous academic records, within the program. can succeed Given this, one cannot establish as 33 predictive validity of everyone if they all can complete requirements for the doctoral degree. Pristo used two cononical correlations and factor analysis to examine the relationships between predictor variables and criteria. sive. All of this analysis was inconclu­ The second factor analysis suggested eight factors responsible for most of the variance in variable sets, indicating a redundancy of measures (high correlations). A series of regression statements concerning success demo n­ strated no predictive validity when cross-validated or corrected for shrinkage. Clearly, P r i s t o ’s main weakness was in the statisti­ cal analysis he used. Again, his data analysis to determine the relationship of predictors and criteria was ineffective. The present a u t h o r ’s study will use statistical techniques that hopefully demonstrate predictive validity and ease in analysis. In addition, the present study will use many of the variables and criteria that Pristo incorporated. Bundy (1968), investigated the possibility for pr e­ dicting doctoral student success in education at the time of admission to the program. dictors were used: of B.A. tutions, and M.A. The following selected p r e ­ age, GPA in masters program, location institutions, type of B.A. and M.A. inst i­ areas of study in the B.A. and M.A. programs, type of education experience and sex. Bundy and randomly selected from students admitted to doctoral programs in the 34 School of Education at University of Southern California between the years 1953 to 1957. For each sample a multiple regression was carried out between program completers and non-completers. Bundy found that there was considerable disagreement in the literature regarding the effectiveness of methods to predict success defined as completion of the graduate degree. He concluded that l) attrition and time lapse in doctoral programs appear to be critical areas, 2) there is no significant relationship between the predic­ tors used in his study and success in doctoral programs in education and 3) the specific factors that make for success in doctoral programs have not yet been conclusively deter­ mined. Among Bundy's recommendations are that a study should be undertaken to include such objective evaluations as a score of persistence measured by B.A. and M.A. lapse. time This writer's study will incorporate Bundy's sug­ gestion. Gleason (1963) looked at completers and non-completers in education doctoral programs at a Texas university to determine certain factors associated with successful com­ pletion of the degree. Gleason administered a Q-checklist to develop a composite of 36 factors obtained through the consolidation of opinions of the population sample concern­ ing success in doctoral programs. The conclusions were that graduates considered their ability to isolate, define, and research a problem more important than did non-graduates; 35 whereas non-completers found physical health and effective study habits more important than completers. The graduates tended to receive better grades than the non-completers, and, finally, there was no significant relationship between undergraduate GPA and success in doctoral studies. Johnston (1961) also examined factors related to success in doctoral programs. She used a population of 327 subjects, all of whom were applicants to a unive rs it y’s school of education, and classified them as completers and non-completers. Methodology included comparing a group of completers to a group of non-completers to see if there were significant differences on four screening variables. The screening variables were: l) undergraduate GPA, 2) graduate GPA, 3) scores on the General Association Test, and 4.) recommendation letters in seven areas. that there was a significant difference It was found (jc £ .05) in the recommendations in favor of the completers. On all other variables there was no significant difference between the groups. Johnston then compared the groups on the basis of 20 variables and found the following significant at the .05 level: l) there was a greater proportion of female complet­ ers than male, 2) a greater proportion of completers than non-completers planned to undertake doctoral studies as full-time students, and 3) completers had more experience in education than non-completers. In addition, she found the following factors significant at the .01 level: 36 1) a greater proportion of single than married students graduated from the program, 2) a greater proportion of the completers were staff members of the school of education than the non-completers, and 3) a greater proportion of completers than non-completers had two different advisors. Using analysis of variance and chi square as statistical tools, Johnston concluded by reiterating that there are identifiable factors related to success in the school of education. In 1966, Kerr examined selected background factors of degree and non-degree doctoral students to determine if there were distinguishable factors which appeared to dif­ ferentiate between the two groups of students. He compared 155 completers and 133 non-completers majoring in five areas of education during the years I960 to 1964-. ic areas of specialization were: The five academ­ l) school administration, 2) secondary education, 3) elementary education, tional education, and 5) educational psychology. three controls for academic ability which were: 3.5 or higher, 2) MAT (Millers Analogy Test) 4) voc a­ There were l) GPA of score of 49 or above, and 3) the Ohio State University Psychological E x a m i ­ nation. Kerr concluded that it was possible to differenti­ ate between completers and non-completers in every major area of specialization -- but not necessarily with the same set of variables. The only significant areas in favor of the degree group were: ters, l) GPA in initial work beyond ma s­ 2) GPA in all work beyond masters, and 3) receipt of 37 fellowship, assistantship or scholarship. In contrasting the entire group of completers and non-completers, differ­ ences significant beyond the .001 level were found on all academic measures. Primary conclusions were twofold: l) that the GPA for masters degree work is relatively more effective in distinguishing between degree and non-degree doctoral students in education than the GPA for the last two years of undergraduate school, and 2) the establishment of minimum cut-off points on any variables would exclude some individuals who previously would have been successful in the doctoral program, unless their cut-off points were set so low as to be virtually meaningless. Colvin (1968) studied a group of 83 graduate students in education to determine the value of 2k selected variables in the prediction of graduate GPA in education and n o n ­ education courses. His findings showed that 6 of the 2k predictor variables demonstrated first-order correlation coefficients which were statistically significant: l) GRE -Qu antita tiv e, 2) Advanced Education Test, 3) undergrad­ uate composite GPA, k) graduate composite GPA, tion GPA, and 6) non-education GPA. 5) educa­ Colvin concludes that the best non-GRE predictor of graduate academic success was the undergraduate GPA in education courses taken during the last 30 undergraduate hours. In addition, Colvin recommends that the college of education continue to welcome those qualified and dedicated students whose masters degrees were in non-education fields. 38 In a study by Thom and Hiekcox sort of approach was taken. (1975), a different The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness of three types of selectors (i.e. previous academic success, MAT, and-letters of recommendation) on new graduate students admitted to an educational administration program. Thom and Hickcox enlisted three groups of subjects to evaluate success of graduate students in educational administration programs. The three groups of respondents were educational adminis­ tration faculty, N = 25; practicing principal^ including vice principals, N = 35; and full-time graduate students in educational administration, N = 25. sis indicate Results of data analy­ that there are no differences in how accurate­ ly faculty members, principals or graduate students in educational administration predict success of a group of applicants for educational administration programs. particular, In there are no differences in how accurately these three groups predict any of the three aspects of success in educational administration ministrative success). (i.e. academic, career and a d ­ Further, data analysis indicates that applicants’ transcripts, MAT scores, letters of recommendation and resume are of relatively good value in predicting academic success. Results demonstrate that letters of recommendation and resume are relatively useful in predicting career success. It was determined that there were no statistically significant differences in selection effectiveness among the three groups of respondents. Manuel (1966) studied graduate students in the school of education at a midwestern university over the years 194-8 to 1961. The purposes of the study were to obtain opinions and assessments from graduate students of their graduate preparation programs at the doctoral level and determine why graduate students did not complete their degree programs. Questionnaires were returned from 99 graduate students as well as 58 graduate faculty members. From data analysis, Manuel formulated three general conclusions. First, the respondents were generally active in their professional fields in such areas as public speaking, professional organ­ izations, and service on committees, but it was not true of their writing for publication. Second, that although one- half of the respondents said that they would complete the degree, considering the number of years that had elapsed since they were admitted, and the fact that the majority had made little progress toward completing the dissertation, it seemed unlikely any great number will complete the doc­ torate. And, last of all, the doctoral student non-complet­ ers ascribe the main reason for their failures to factors beyond their control, whereas doctoral committee chairmen tended to think the main reasons were factors over which candidates should have exercised better control. Renetzky (1966) and Wetherill but-dissertation (i960) both studied all- (ABD) status graduate students in graduate education programs. All-but-dissertation status for the 40 purposes of those studies was defined as those graduate students who, upon completing all requirements for the d o c ­ toral degree, except the dissertation, do not complete the research project and get the degree. Renetzky found: 1) that A B D ’s exhibit significantly less ability to crystallize a dissertation topic early in their graduate school careers, 2) family encouragement is significantly less with ABD's, 3) ABD's receive significantly less employer encouragement toward doctoral study, 4) A B D ’s have significantly less ability to achieve a workable, coopera­ tive relationship with other members of the university n e t ­ work (e.g., faculty, doctoral advisors, and dissertation committee members), 5) A B D ’s have a significantly higher incidence of divorce, 6) the economic prosperity of A B D ’s is significantly less than completers, and 7) there is significantly less stability regarding the image of the doctorate among ABD's. Wetherill, in contrast, found that the interaction of a variety of factors caused his subjects (62 completers and non-completers) to discontinue their doctoral studies. The most important reasons were responsibilities having to do with their positions in the field and the financial respon­ sibilities they assumed. No outstanding differences were found between students who were completers and no n-complet­ ers on such factors as influences motivating graduate work, general scholastic average, and financial support received 41 during the years of graduate work. Wetherill also noted that of those who were completers of the doctorate, a large percentage had written a masters thesis. Santos (1966) studied graduate students in the areas of farm management, rural sociology, and rural education to determine what constitutes success in graduate candidacy based on the opinion of a panel of professors. to the panel of professors, According the criteria for determining, success in graduate candidacy, with their relative weights of importance were: ability to think, critically and an a l y ­ tically, 10; knowledgeability, 3.6; ability to do research, 3.3; creativity, 3.3; ability for self-direction, gree of motivation, 2.8; d e ­ 2.4; performance in course work, 1.8, and skill in communication, 0.7. It is possible, however, that due to the areas of study that the graduate students majored in, limited generalizability could be likely. Summary The review of the literature was divided into two broad sections: ing education, l) doctoral programs in adult and continu­ and 2) doctoral student completers and n o n ­ completers in adult and continuing education and the broader field of education as a whole. As noted in the first section, doctoral programs in Adult and Continuing Education (ACE) have had a fairly long history in the United States beginning at Columbia Uni v er si ­ ty in 1935. As of 1980, there were at least a total of 2,239 doctorates in adult and continuing education. U2 Although there has been a steady increase in graduates since the inception of doctoral programs, the most profound growth has been seen in the past two decades. The student population in doctoral programs in ACE is also apparently changing. Houle and Buskey that of a total of 556 doctoral recipients, were male, (1966) found 4-00 (83.3%) and that the mean age in 1965 was 4-6.7. trast to this, Ross In con­ (1978) and Meisner, Parsons and Ross, (1979) using samples of 291 respondents, discovered that 51.9$ were female and that the largest ranges of students were between 29 and 34- years old with the 35 to 4-3 age range being the second largest group. Clearly, the trend in doctoral programs in ACE has gone from older students who are male to younger students who are female. Ross further suggests looking at adult life stages to ascertain their impact on graduate study in ACE programs. The second section of the review of the literature focused on specific studies having to do with doctoral stu­ dent completers and non-completers both in ACE and education in general. There appears to have been only one study spe­ cifically in ACE that addresses doctoral student completers and non-completers (Pristo). Unfortunately, the data ana l y ­ sis in this study using factor analysis and the canonical correlation rendered the results ineffective. However, significant results were seen in the prediction of doctoral success on two variables: and 2) final graduate GPA. l) time since bachelors degree, 43 The majority of the studies discussed in the review of the literature were on prediction of success of doctoral students in schools, departments, or colleges of education. Findings were mixed, for the most part, but offered many recommendations for further research. Variables used to determine prediction of success also varied widely in the studies. The following list includes some of the variables used to predict success, fic researcher who used them. as well as the speci­ Also included in this list will be many areas that this writer intends to address in the present study. 44Table 2:2 Researcher and Variables Used to Predict Success of Doctoral Students in Education (in order of presentation in chapter) Researcher Pristo Bundy (1977) (1968) Gleason Johnston Kerr (1963) (1961) (1966) Variables Graduate Record Examinations (GRE's), Millers Analogy Test (MAT), years since receipt of last BA and MA degree, any graduate degree not within degree p r o ­ gram, GPA in MA program, holding of a MA degree, type of college the BA and MA degree received in, total number of graduate hours upon entrance to program, rating of undergraduate and graduate conferring degree, sex, age upon accept­ ance to program, total number of col­ leges and universities attended, unde r­ graduate GPA, junior and senior GPA, GPA in undergraduate major, number of other doctoral programs accepted into. Age, GPA in MA program, location of BA and MA institutions, type of BA and MA institutions, areas of study in BA and MA programs, type of educational exper­ ience, sex. Ability to isolate, define and research problem, physical health, effective study habits, GPA. Undergraduate GPA, graduate GPA, score on Boston University General Association Test, recommendation letters, sex, fu l l ­ time versus part-time enrollment, work experience in education, marital status, staff members of school of education, number of advisors. GPA in BA and MA program, MAT, Ohio State Psychological Examination, r e ­ ceipt of fellowship, assistantship or scholarship. Table 2:2 (con’d.) Researcher Colvin Variables (1968) Thom and Hickcox (1975) Manuel (1966) Renetzky Wetherill Santos Researcher and Variables Used to Predict Success of Doctoral Students in Education (1966) (i960) (1966) GRE's, undergraduate GPA, education GPA, non-education GPA. Previous academic success, MAT, letters of recommendation, academic, career and administrative success, transcripts, resume. Public speaking, professional tions, service on committees, for publication, time elapsed degree completion, control of progression. organiza­ writing since degree Ability to crystallize dissertation topic, family and employer encouragement, ability to achieve workable, cooperative relationship with members of university network, marital status, economic prosperity, image of doctorate. Positions in the field, financial responsibility, influence motivating graduate work, general scholastic a v ­ erage, financial support, writing masters thesis. Ability to think critically and analy­ tically, knowledgeability, ability to do research, creativity, ability for self-direction, degree of motivation, performance in course work, skill in communication. It is the goal of this writer to incorporate much of the above into a usable instrument to assess doctoral 46 students in Adult and Continuing Education at Michigan State University. It is hoped that this study will add to the research studies already in use, as well as lay a solid foundation for further doctoral study in adult and continu­ ing education. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES A description of the research questions, surveyed, population the instrument used in data collecting, and pr o­ cedures followed in collecting and analyzing the data are included in this chapter. Research Questions As an essentially descriptive study, the research examined the following questions: A. What are some of the similarities and differences in selected characteristics of graduate students who are completers and non-completers of the doctorate in Adult and Continuing Education B. (ACE)? Are there any particular characteristics that are sdgnLficantly related to whether a student is a completer or non-completer .of the doctorate? C. graduate After examining some of the characteristics of students in ACE who are completers and non-complet­ ers, what recommendations can be made to future doctoral students in this situation regarding: 1. the probability of their own particular characteristics affecting degree 47 48 completion; 2. ways to overcome obstacles and promote the probability of completing the degree; and 3. characteristics that are typical of other ACE graduate students at MSU and how they progressed in their studies. D. What can academic advisors and professors of doctoral candidates do to increase the probabilities of their advisees completing their degree programs? The Population The population for the study was composed of all doctoral students who were completers and non-completers in Adult and Continuing Education University (ACE) at Michigan State (MSU) during the years 1970 to 1980. To quali­ fy as a subject in the study, it was necessary to have a record of each graduate student's name and address in order for that subject to respond to the survey instrument. A total population of 147 graduate students were identified by MSU's ACE academic advisors, MSU's Alumni and Donor Records Office, and the Office of Graduate Student Affairs ing the criteria for inclusion in the study. as me e t ­ Because the population of the study was small, the entire population was used. 49 Procedure for Obtaining Data Pre-test In order to obtain data on the similarities and differences between selected characteristics of doctoral students in ACE, a questionnaire was developed in June, 1981. The survey instrument was refined in a pre-test administered to three doctoral students (2 male and 1 f e ­ male) in ACE, at the University of California, Campus. Berkeley Responses and suggestions on the pre-test resulted in a clarification and reorganization of the content of the questionnaire. It was also determined that completion of the survey instrument would take approximately 10 to 15 min ute s. Permission to Use Human Subjects A request to conduct the research project using MSU students as subjects was approved October 5, 1981 by the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects. Questionnaire Development Most of the questions in the survey instrument were selected on the basis of a review of the literature. nant questions, concerns, Dom i­ and recommendations were generated from various researchers and were duplicated in the survey instrument. In addition, there were five demographic ques­ tions on the survey relating to sex, marital status, race, and nationality. age, 50 After meeting with the doctoral guidance committee, an additional area of inquiry was established for inclusion in the survey instrument: the impact of specific life events on the continuation or non-continuation of the doc­ toral program. To adequately address this question, se­ lected items were used from the Holmes and Rahe Social Readjustment Rating Scale, Check List also known as the Life Change (Holmes and Rahe, 1967). Although only one ques­ tion on the survey specifically addressed this area, there were 20 possible sections or responses to the question. The Survey Instrument It its final form the survey instrument contained 30 questions, some of which included multiple responses. Many of the questions provided space for respondents to make personal responses other than the responses listed to the question. The survey instrument was mailed to subjects in mid-October, 1981. Measures There were two measures used in the study that r e ­ quired further comment in relation to reliability. The measures requiring further discussion were the self-reported grade point averages Rating Scale (SRRS). (GPA’s) and the Social Readjustment 51 Self-reported GPA There were five questions used on the survey instru­ ment that asked subjects to report their GPA's during some facet of graduate and undergraduate college preparation. Past research studies on self-reported G P A 1s indicate that this is a highly reliable measure. Baird (1976), in a comprehensive review of the liter­ ature on self-reported G P A 1s reported: students' reports of their grades are about as usable as school-reported grades. This conclu­ sion seems particularly valid when one considers the conditions involved in some of the studies. That is, even when students were faced with the pressure of maintaining scholarships, applying to college and deliberate experimental attempts to get them to change their response, they con­ tinued to tell the truth (Baird, 1976). Benton (1980) in a recent study determined whether university students would accurately report their GPA's. A total of 525 university students were asked to fill out data sheets including questions on self-reported GPA's. It was found that 2.5$ of the students said they could not . remember or did not know their GPA. Of the total number of students, 62 self-reported GPA's were compared with official records. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation showed that self-reported GPA's.and official GPA's corre­ lated .94-. The results indicated no significant differences between means or variances of self-reported and official G P A ’s. Benton concluded that students can and do acc u­ rately report their GPA's to researchers. 52 In addition, research by Davidsen and Holland reliable. (1963), and Nichols (1963), also indicate self-reported G P A ’s are Davidsen yielded a correlation of .92 between student-reported and school-reported grades. However, it could be a presumable weakness that he used a population of high school students rather than college students. Nichols and Holland gathered information on a questionnaire and found that self-reported grades were accurate indicators of actual grades. The Social Readjustment Rating Scale -Life Change Check List Although Holmes and Rahe Readjustment Rating Scale (1967) developed the Social (SRRS), the historical origins of the instrument can be traced to earlier researchers. (194-8) credits Adolph Meyer, a psycho-biologist, Lief as the i n ­ ventor of the ’’life chart,” a device for organizing medical data as a dynamic biography. It provided a unique method for demonstrating his schema of the relationship of biolo ­ gical, psychological, and sociological phenomena to the p r o ­ cesses of health and disease in man. The importance of many of the life events used in this research was emphasized by Meyer: changes of habitat, of school entrance, gradua­ tions or changes or failures; the various jobs, the dates of possibly important births and deaths in the family, and other fundamentally important environmental influences (Meyer in Lief, 194-8). In more recent years, Harold G. Wolff incorporated the concepts of Pavlov, Freud, Cannon, and Skinner into the 53 Meyerian schema. of several studies As a result of synthesizing the findings (Wolff et al. 1950, Holmes et al. 1950, Wolf 1965, Wolf et al. 1955, Grace et al. 1951) it was found that there was powerful evidence that stressful life events, by evoking psychophysiologic reactions, played an important causative role in the natural history of many diseases (Holmes and Rahe, 1967). Beginning in 194-9» the SRRS was developed and modified on a population of over 5,000 patients to empirically ascer­ tain the quality and quantity of life event clusters at the time of disease onset. The life events used were those that pertain to major areas of dynamic significance in the social structure of the American way of life. Included in these life events were family constellation, marriage, occupation, economics, residence, group and peer relation­ ship, education, religion, recreation, and health. Through­ out the course of Holmes and R a h e ’s research there was one common theme to all life events ; that the occurrence of each life event usually evoked in the individual some adaptive or coping behavior. Thus, there was developed a group of life events that evoked a significant change in the ongoing life pattern of the individual (Holmes and Rahe 1967). Brandenburg (1978) and West (1978) studied whether the SRRS was a reliable instrument with Mexican-American and Afro-American subjects, respectively. West explains that when Holmes and Rahe divided their sample of men and women 54 of varying ages, religions, marital status, and ethnic origins into discrete groups, in order to obtain Pearson coefficients between the groups, it was found that all correlations were 0.90 and above with the exception of com­ parisons between White and Afro-American groups, which was 0.82. Together, West and Brandenburg devised a life events scale known as the Brandenburg-West 22 Life Events. This scale was to be used in conjunction with the SRRS to yield more reliable correlation coefficients. West, using the Afro-American population, found that the SRRS and the Brandenburg-West 22 together were not better predictive d e ­ vices of injury and illness than the SRRS alone. Branden­ burg, using the Mexican-American population, found the SRRS and the Brandenburg-West 22 .in combination proved to be highly reliable across time. The conclusions of numerous researchers studying the SRRS have resulted in mixed, but generally favorable rea c­ tions. Holmes and Holmes (1970) reported that the SRRS scores have been shown to have a significant relationship to symptoms of physical stress. They found that the number of life change events that an individual scores on the SRRS were related to signs and symptoms of everyday life. Gunderson, and Arthur Rubin, (1971) administered the SRRS to a group of navy shipmen on a 7 month cruise. The findings showed that while subjects with high scores tended to have a greater number of illnesses, the differences were not sig­ nificant when compared to subjects with low scores. 55 In a study adapting the SRRS to college students, Batlis, et al. (1972) found that a modified form of the SRRS indicated significant differences between college students who had been hospitalized in the previous six months and those who had not. Although Bieliauskas et al. (1974.) found that predicting college students’ needs for future professional help, using the SRRS, showed poor predictive validity. Bieliauskas and Strugar (1976) suggest that while the predictive validity of the SRRS may be weak, recent r e ­ sults generally suggest that the power of the SRRS to dis­ criminate aid-seeking from non-aid-seeking in college students decreases as the size of the sample being tested decreases. Finally, Gerst et al. (1978) report that one of the weaknesses of the SRRS is the stability of scores over time. In their study, two questions were addressed: l) what is the long-term stability of the SRRS self-reports over a two year period, and 2) what is the stability of such reports b e ­ tween psychiatric patients as compared to non-patients over a similar period of time. It was found that, in general, subjects who do not have psychiatric problems show good temporal stability in the ranking and magnitude estimations of the stressfulness of specific life events. It was found to be less stable with psychiatric patients, however, p e r ­ haps because they feel more distressed while taking the SRRS. 56 In general, Gerst et al. found there was considerable score stability for "normal" individuals over time. As a result of a review of the literature on the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (Life Change Check List) and in keeping with other researchers, it was felt only certain life change events were relevant to this study. There were many other life events that were possible, h o w ­ ever, and all events were not included in the questionnaire instrument used in this study. Collection of Data Subjects for this study were contacted through the United States mail in mid-October, 1981. Included in each subject's packet of materials were a cover letter explain­ ing the research project, consent form, questionnaire, self- addressed stamped envelope, and self-addressed postcard, indicating whether the respondent would like a copy of the results. A total of 14-7 doctoral students were sent the questionnaire. Copies of the approval letter from the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, the cover letter, follow-up letter, postcard, consent form, and the questionnaire are included in the Appendix of the study. A follow-up questionnaire was mailed to non-respon­ dents three weeks following the original letter. 57 Procedures for Analysis The Survey Results Of the total 14-7 questionnaires that were mailed to subjects, 90 were returned. The return rate is summarized in Table 3 si. Table 3 si Questionnaire Response of Graduate Students in ACE from 1970 to 1980. Questionnaires Distributed Questionnaires Returned 90(61$) 147 C ’s NC's Others* 35 7 48 ■^Others consisted of two individuals not in the program, and five in the Education Specialist Program. Of the subjects that responded to the study, two graduate students indicated they were not in the doctoral program in Adult and Continuing Education (ACE) and five responded that they were in or had graduated from the Education Specialist State University. (Ed. S p . ) program in ACE at Michigan The seven non-responses were not used in the data and were defined out of the sample. In addition, it was found that 4-8 students were completers (C’s) of the doctoral program in ACE and 35 were non-completers (NC’s). Therefore, there were 83 completers and non-completers used in the study. 58 Non-Respondents There were 57 subjects who did not respond to the questionnaire. Of the non-respondents it was not possible to accurately determine whether students were completers or non-completers. Analysis of Data Examination of the completed questionnaire indicated that all of the questions could be used for purposes of analysis. Data were entered in card format using a Cathode ray tube. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sci enc es. Once the information had been filed on the computer, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation, regression analyses and Chi Square were the statistical tools used in analysis of data. For the purposes of this study, established at j d ^ . 05. significance was Marginally significant results were also defined and included as .051^ £ £ . 1 0 because this study is exploratory in nature and the author does not wish to ignore even marginally significant information that might be found to be significant by other researchers. Summary Beginning with a description of the research questions to be explored in the study, Chapter III continued with a description of how the study would ensue. The objective of the study was to ascertain similarities and differences of 59 doctoral student completers and non-completers in ACE at MSU from the years 1970 to 1980. Chapter III continued with a description of the population to be studied and a summary of the procedures to be used in obtaining the data in the study. The pre-test was discussed as well as how the questionnaire was developed. The next section of Chapter III included a discussion of the reliability of the two measures used in the study. The m e a ­ sures were the self-reported G P A ’s and the Social Read just­ ment Rating Scale (Life Change Check List). The procedure for the collection of data was described and finally, Chapter III concluded with a presentation of information regarding the survey results, the non-respondents, a description of and a description of the methods used in analyzing the data. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Having described the research design and procedures in Chapter III, the following chapter includes the analysis of data generated by the survey instrument. The question­ naire responses are presented under two broad headings: 1) A description of respondents, and 2) Selected characteristics of completers versus non-completers (C’s) (NC's). Throughout Chapter IV, each subheading will include a description of respondents (by C vs. NC and sex) as well as any correlational or comparative findings. There were several former studies that examined sex differences of graduate student completers and non-completers. Since sex differences appeared to yield many significant relationships, it will be examined in this study. A Description of Respondents The total population (potential respondents) was 14-7 with the respondents in this questionnaire according to several demographic variables: status, nationality and race. 60 (N=82) described sex, marital 61 The demographic variables take into account .whether the respondent was a doctoral program completer (C) or n o n ­ completer (NC) including the respondents sex. Sex Of the total group of respondents, N = 82, approximately 60$ were male and 4-0$ female. Table 4:1 shows the frequency of male and female respondents as well as their status as C ’s and N C ’s in the doctoral program in Adult and Continuing Education Table 4:1 (ACE) at Michigan State University (MSU). Sex of Respondents and Status in Doctoral Pursuits (Column Percentages in Parentheses) Total N Completer N Non-Completer N Male 49 (59.8) 30 (63.8) 19 (54.3) Female 33 (40.2) 17 (36.2) 16 Total 82 (100) 47 (100) 35 (100) Of the total group of male students were C ’s and 38.8$ were N C ’s. students (N=33), (45.7) (N=49)* 61.2$ However, with the female 51.5$ were C ’s and 48.5$ were N C ’s. Chi Square analysis indicates there was no significant dif­ ference between males and females in their frequency of completing or non-completing the doctoral program 62 ( /*=.4.l(d.f .=1)jd=. 52). Although, proportionately, there were more males who completed the program than females. Marital Status Table J^:2 shows the frequencies for respondents in the area of marital status including the categories of sin­ gle, married or other. Table k'2 Frequency of Respondents by Marital Status Total N % of Total Single 18 22.2 Married 60 73.2 Other 3 3.7 Total 81 99.1 Table k'2 clearly shows that there are far more married doctoral students than either single or in the "other" category. Table 4.:3 presents the breakdown of C ’s vs. N C ’s and sex by marital status. 63 Table 4:3 Marital Status by C vs. NC and Sex Percentages in Parentheses) (Column C ’s NC's Males Females Single 9 (19.1) 9 (25.7) 5 (10.2) 13 (39.4) Married 38 (80.9) 22 (62.9) 44 (89.8) 16 (48.5) Other -- 3 ( 9.1) ( 8.6) Total 47 (100) 34 (97.2) 49 (100) 32 (97.0) Chi Square analysis between C ’s vs. N C ’s and marital status was marginally significant (X' = 5. 32 (d. f .= 2 )jd= .07 indicating that there might be some relationship between marital status and whether a student completes the doctoral degree in ACE. Married students tended to complete the degree more frequently than did single students. It is i n ­ teresting to note that of the three respondents who answered "other" for the marital status item, all were female and all N C ’s. Chi Square analysis with marital status and sex showed that males ' females (89.8%) were more likely to be married than were (4-8.5%). Conversely, females were more likely to be #» single than were males ( X*=l6. 79 (d. f .= 2 )jd= .0002). 64 - At this point the possibility was examined that being married might help a male student complete his degree but hinder a female student. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine whether the interaction between sex and marital status added to sex and marital status by themselves when explaining C vs. NC (see Table 4*4). The amount of explanatory power added by the interaction was not signifi­ cant Table (F (1,75)=.27,£= not significant). k'k Possible Differential Impact of Marital Status (Regression Equation: C vs. NC = Marital Status + Sex + Interaction) R 0 R 2 Change Marital Status .026 .026 Sex .027 .001 Interaction .028 .001 This analysis shows that being married does not necessarily help males more than females while being single does not necessarily help females more than males. Nationality Table k*5 shows the nationalities of students in the doctoral program in Adult and Continuing Education (ACE). Students were asked whether they were United States Citizens or of International descent. 65 Table 4-: 5 Nationality of Respondents by C vs. NC and Sex (Column Percentages in Parentheses) C ’s Total N NC's Males Females U. S. Citizen 71 (86.6) 42 (89.4) 29 (82.9) 43 (87.8) 28 (84.8) International 9 (11.0) 5 (10.6) 4 (11.4) 6 (12.2) 3 ( 9.1) Other 2 ( 2.4) Total 82 (100) U.S. 2 ( 5.7) 47 (100) 35 (100) 2 ( 6.1) 49 (100) 33 (100) Citizens made up the majority of the respondents with 86.6$ coimpared to the International students who consisted of 11$ of the total. In the U.S. Citizen category, nearly the same percentage of respondents were completers (89.4-$) as were non-completers percentages of U.S. females (82.9$). Citizens that were males (84-. 8$) were nearly the same, varied. In addition, the (87.8$) and though their N's The respondents who were of International descent were nearly evenly distributed between C ’s (10.6$) and N C ’s (11.4-$). female Although there were twice as many male (N=3) International respondents, (N =6) as their relative pe r­ centages were less contrasting with 12.2$ and 9.1$, respec­ tively. Finally, of the two respondents who answered they were "other" than a U.S. Citizen or International, both respondents were female N C ’s (non-completers). 66 Race In the area of race, nearly all respondents answered that they were either Asian, Black, White or Hispanic. Table 1:6 gives the frequencies of respondents including whether they were C ’s vs. NC's and their sex. Table 4.:6 Race of Respondents by C vs. NC and Sex (Column Percentages in Parentheses) Total C's 1 (1.9) Black White Asian N C ’s Males Females (2*1)' 3 (8.6) 3 (6.1) (3a) 8 (9.8) 5 (10.6) 3 (8.6) 1 (8.2) 1 (12.1) 66 (80.5) (87.2) 25 (71.1) 11 (83.7) 25 (75.8) (2%) (2^0) Hispanic u 0 (1*2) 0 Other 2 (2.-4) 0 2 (5.7) 0 2 (6.1) Total 81 (98.8) 4-7 (99.9) 31 (97.2) 19 (100) 32 (97.0) As Table 1:6 illustrates, 80.5$ of the respondents were White, nearly 10$ were Black, nearly 5$ were Asian and just over 1$ were Hispanic. completers In addition, Whites comprised 87.2$ of the (C’s) and 71.1$ of the non-completers (NC’s). 83.7$ of the male respondents and 75.8$ of the female respondents were White. 67 There were too few minority respondents for meaning­ ful analyses to be performed when all categories of race were included. All minorities were grouped together, there ­ fore, and compared to Whites. A greater percentage of Whites completed their degrees than did minorities vs. 4.0.0$). (62.1$ This difference, however, was not significant ( **=.ll(d.f.=1)e =.20). Also, a higher percentage of White respondents than minority respondents were males (62.1$ vs. 53.3$). difference also was not significant This ('£'=.ll(d.f .=l)£=. 74-). Characteristics of Completers and Non-Completers What follows is a summary of the results of the findings included for each of the selected characteristics used in the study. Again, the sex variable will be examined in each area. The ages of doctoral student respondents at admission to the program yielded significant,although not particular­ ly surprising,findings. Table 4-i7 summarizes the findings of the overall group of doctoral student respondents: 68 Table 4*7 Age at Admission of Doctoral Student Respondents Age Total N Total $ Cumulative $ 27-30 5 6 6 31-35 14 17 24 36-40 20 24 50 41-45 10 11 61 46-50 14 17 79 51-55 9 11 90 56-60 7 8 99 61-65 1 1 100 Total 80 95 100 As the above illustrates, 90 % of the respondents were 55 years old or below when they were admitted to Michigan State University N=44 (MSU).. The largest number of students, (52$), were spread between the ages of 36 and 50 with 20 (24$) students in the age group of 36 to 4-0. Nearly the same percentage of students were clustered between the ages of 27 and 35 (23$) as were from 51 to 65 (20%), It was interesting to note that there were an equal number of respondents who were from ages 4.1 to 4-4 (11$) as were from 51 to 55 (11$). It appears that most students in ACE were 69 between the ages of 36 and 50 (52 %) when admitted to MSU. Of the remaining respondents, 51 and 65. 23% were between the ages of Almost 80$ of the total group was 50 and below. The age of subjects was examined by Completers vs. Non-Completers (NC's) and by sex. (C’s) Table 4:8 summarizes the age means, medians, and ranges of male and female d o c ­ toral C ’s and NC's. Table 4:8 Age Means, Medians and Ranges of Doctoral Student Respondents by Sex and Degree Status Total C's N C ’s Males Females Age Means 42.6 45.5 38.7 43.4 41.3 Age Medians 41.0 45.5 37.5 42.2 38.3 27-65 31-60 27-65 27-58 29-65 Age Ranges Age was significantly correlated NC though not with sex. 2 age was r =-.14>£=.00. (Pearson) with C vs. The correlation of C vs. NC with This result indicates that older students were more likely to have completed their doctoral studies in ACE than younger students. Then, examining sex with age, yielded the correlation r =-. 01.,jd= .16. This fi nd ­ ing indicated that there were no significant differences b e ­ tween the ages of female and male respondents. 70 Age Began and Completed BA The mean ages at which doctoral student respondents began and completed their BA degrees was examined and reported by C vs. NC and by sex in Table 4-: 9- Table 4-:9 Mean Age of Respondents Beginning and Completing BA by C vs. NC and Sex. Total C ’s N C ’s BA Begin 19.1 19.3 18.7 18.9 19.3 BA Complete 23.7 23.4 24.1 23.2 24.6 Using a Pearson correlation, Males Females findings indicate that there were no significant differences between the age begin­ ning and completing the BA for either C vs. NC or sex. Following, Table 4:10 in Table 4:10, is a summary of this: Pearson Correlations of Age Beginning and Completing the BA to C vs. NC and Sex. Begin BA Complete BA C 's v s . NC ’ s r 2=-.005,£=.26 r2 =.004,£=.28 Sex r 2=-.002,£=.36 r2 =.02,£=.ll 71 In addition, it vas found that there were no signifi­ cant differences between the number of years it took to complete the BA and C vs. NC (r =.02,£=.11). In examining the number of years it took to complete the BA compared with 2 sex (r =. 01,£=.14), there also were no significant differ­ ences. Age Began and Completed MA The mean ages at which doctoral student respondents began and completed their MA. degrees is examined in Table 4 :11. Mean ages of respondents beginning and completing the MA degree were compared to the total group of respon­ dents, including those that were C ’s vs. NC's and sex. Table 4:11 Mean Age of Respondents Beginning and Completing the MA by C vs. NC and Sex. Total C's NC's Mai es MA Begin 27.2 27.3 27.1 25.8 29.3 MA Complete 29.3 29.3 29.3 28.0 31.3 Females In correlating beginning and completing the MA by C vs. NC in the ACE doctoral program, nificant. findings were not sig­ However, in correlating MA beginning and com­ pleting by sex, significant differences were found. 4:12 summarizes these correlations. Table Pearson Correlations of Age Beginning and Completing the MA to C vs. NC and Sex. Table 4:12 MA Begin MA Complete C ’s vs. N C ’s r2 = - .0004- ,£=. 44 r2 =-.00004,£=.48 Sex r 2=. 0 6 ,jd=.01 r2 =.05,£=.02 Female respondents were significantly older than their male counterparts when they began and completed their MA degrees. In addition, males and females did not differ significantly in their rates of having received an MA (r2=-.0009,£=.39). There were no significant differences in the number of years it took to get the MA and C vs. NC However, (r2=.003,£=.32). there was a marginally significant relationship between the number of years it took to get the MA and sex (r =-.03»£=.07). This finding indicates that it may take females longer to complete the MA than it takes males. Age Began and Interrupted Ph.D. When looking at the results of this selected charac­ teristic caution must be taken. tionnaire item The phrasing of the que s­ using the w o r d "interrupted" appeared to have' confused many respondents. It was not uncommon for respondents to not answer the question at all or to 73 cross-out the word on the questionnaire and replace it with another word (e.g. completed). Answers that were entered appeared to typically represent ages beginning and complet­ ing the Ph.D. Table 4*13 summarizes the mean age of respondents beginning and interrupting the Ph.D. vs. non-completers Table 4:13 by completers (Cfs) (NC’s) and sex. Mean Age of Respondents Beginning and Inter­ rupting Ph.D. by C vs. NC and Sex. Total C ’s NC's Males Ph.D. Begin 35.2 35.0 35.5 34.8 35.8 Ph.D. 4.0.0 39.8 38.6 40.3 38.6 Note: Interrupt Females For completers age reported is completion age, for non-completers age reported is age at interruption. When correlating age at beginning of the Ph.D. with C vs. NC (r^=.001 ,jd= .37) and with sex (r^=.004.,£=. 28), findings were not significant. When respondents were asked to indicate whether they planned to complete the degree, replied. 27 out of 32 non-completers Of that total, 24- (90$) responded that they did intend to complete, two indicated they did not know, and only one respondent replied she would not finish the Ph.D. 74 It was also found that students who began their Ph.D. programs a greater number of years ago were older than were students who began their Ph.D.'s in more recent years p (r = .10,jd=. 002). This indicates a significant shift from the beginning of the decade to the end. older in the early 1970's than in the Time Lapse Between BA to BA to MA and MA to Ph.D. refers to the number of years that the MA late 1970's. MA and MA to Ph.D. Time lapse between dent completed the BA New students were elapsed from the time the resp on ­ (or MA) until the time of entering (or P h . D . ) program. The following two tables contain summaries of res pon­ dents' mean years for time lapse between the BA to MA (Table 4:14) and MA to Ph.D. Table 4:14 (Table 4:15). Mean Years of Time Lapse Between BA to MA Time Lapse from BA to MA Total C's NC's 3.5 4.6 2.4 Males 2.9 Female s 4.9 75 Table 4:15 Time Lapse from MA to Ph.D. Mean Years of Time Lapse Between MA and Ph.D. Total C's NC's Males Females 5.4 5.3 5.8 6.3 4.3 Pearson analysis of time lapse from BA to MA of C's vs. N C ’s with number of years that have elapsed between the BA to MA ship: (see Table 4:14) yielded the following relation- 2 r =-.03,£=.05. This finding was significant and indicates that NC's may be more likely to have a shorter number of years that have elapsed from the BA to MA than do C's. In addition, looking at the correlation between sex and time lapse from the BA to MA, there was another marginally significant relationship: 2 r =.03,£=.06. Males were more likely to begin MA programs in a shorter number of years after receiving the BA than were females. Table 4:15 shows that the results were different for MA to Ph.D. compared with BA to MA time lapse. correlation of time lapse for MA to Ph.D. The Pearson and C's vs. NC's 2 was not significant (r =.002,£=.35). There was no rela ti on­ ship between C's vs. NC's and the number of years that elapsed after the MA completion and before beginning the 76 Ph.D. However, there was a marginally significant rela­ tionship between sex and time lapse from MA to Ph.D. p (r =-.03, £= .06). This correlation shows that males were out of school longer after MA completion than were females. In general, then, females in this study appeared to stay out of graduate.school initially after BA completion for a longer period of time than did males. Females tended to stay out of school thereafter for a shorter time period than did males. Males in contrast, took a shorter period of time to begin graduate school after BA completion but seem to have longer time lapses between MA and Ph.D. studies than do females. Field of Study for BA and MA The BA and MA areas of study consisted of the respon­ dent indicating whether his or her BA and MA degrees were in either education or non-education curricula. 1:16 Tables and 1:17 show the number of respondents in each of the categories used parentheses. with their respective percentages in Table 4.:l6 Respondents in Education or Non-Education Curricula for BA Degree (Column Percentages in Parentheses) Education Non-Education Total C's NC's Males 32 (39) 16 (30 16 (46) 19 (39) 13 (39) 31 (66) 18 (51) 30 (61) 19 (57) 19 (60) Table 4.:17 Females Respondents in Education or Non-Education Curricula for MA Degree (Colum Percentages in Parentheses) 51 Education Non-Education (66) 33 (70) 21 (60) 33 (67) 21 (64) 27 (33) U (30) 13 (37) 16 11 (33) (33) Results of Chi Square analyses show there is no signi­ ficant relationship between Education or non-Education ma ­ jors for completers (C's) vs. non-completers Following, U’18, in-Table (NC's) or sex. is a summary of the above. 78 Table 4-518 Chi Square Analyses of BA and MA Curricula by Doctoral Degree Status and Sex. C or NC Sex BA Education or Non-Education X = .9l(d.f.=l)2 =.34- 1=^.0(d .f.=l)2 =l. 0 MA Education or Non-Education 7i = .3l(d.f.=l)£ =.58 l'=.0(d.f.=1)£=1.0 GPA for B A , MA and Doctoral Program The respondents for this selected characteristic were asked to furnish self-reported GPA's for BA, MA and Ph.D. programs. As previously noted, other researchers reported that the reliabilities of such reporting werehigh. caution, however, Some would be in order when interpreting these results. The mean GPA's and ranges of GPA's are reported for BA, MA and Ph.D. coursework in the following Table 4-519. 79 Table 4:19 Self-Reported Mean GPA's and R-anges for Respondent BA's, MA's and Ph.D.'s (GPA Ranges Shown in Parentheses) BA Ph.D. MA Total 3.01 (2.01-4.00) 3.64 (3.00-4.00) 3.71 (3.00-4.00) C's 2.89 (2.01-4.00) 3.67 (3.00-4.00) 3.67 (3.00-4.00) NC's 3.20 (2.40-3.96) 3.65 (3.00-4.00) 3.77 (3.27-4.00) Males 2.86 (2.01-3.96) 3.59 (3.00-3.97) 3.69 (3.20-4.00) Females 3.25 (2.3014.00) 3.71 (3.00-4.00) 3.75 (3.00-4.00) Pearson correlations indicate that some of these r e l a ­ tionships were significant. Table 4:20 reports these fi nd ­ ings. Table 4:20 Pearson Correlations Between BA, MA and Ph.D. GPA's and C vs. NC Status and Sex. C vs. NC Sex BA r2 =.07,£=.01 r 2=.11,£=.002 MA r2 = .001,£=.39 r2 =.05,2=.02 Ph.D. r 2 =.05,£=.03 r 2= .02,2 =.10 80 These correlations show that N C ’s (non-completers) had significantly higher BA and Ph.D. GPA's than did C's (completers). Also, females had higher BA and MA GPA's than did males. GPA in Education and Non-Education Courses The self-reported GPA's for this selected character­ istic were for education and non-education courses speci­ fically at the Ph.D. level. Again, since the GPA's were self-reported, reliability and /or validity could have been a problem. The mean GPA's and ranges for education and non-education courses are reported in Table 4:21. Table 4:21 Self-Reported Mean GPA's and Ranges for Education and Non-Education Courses (GPA Ranges Shown in Parentheses) Education Courses Non-Education Courses Total 3.82 (3.25-4.00) 3.65 (3.00-4.00) C's 3.80 (3.25-4.00) 3.61 (3.00-4.00) NC's 3.85 (3.50-4.00) 3.71 (3.20-4.00) Males 3.78 (3.25-4.00) 3.65 (3.00-4.00) (3.50-4.00) 3.66 (3.30-4.00) Females 81 As Table 4*22. illustrates, there is a marginally significant relationship between C vs. NC and GPA in n o n ­ education courses. Non-completers had higher G P A ’s. In addition, females had higher GPA's than did males for education courses. This was not true for non-education courses. Table 4*22 Pearson Correlations Between GPA's in Education and Non-Education Courses in Doctoral Program. C vs. NC Sex Education Courses r 2=. 02,£=.14 r 2 = .06,£=.02 Non-Education Courses ? r =.03,£=.07 r 2=. 00003,£=.48 It is interesting to note, as Table 4:21 illustrates, that respondents reported non-education GPA's to be consis­ tently lower than education GPA's. Years Worked in Education and Adult Education The number of years respondents worked in education and adult education was examined to see if there were any relationships between these selected characteristics and Completers (C's) vs. Non-Completers 4:23 presents respondents' (NC's) and sex. Table mean years worked in these two areas including the ranges of years worked. 82 Table 4:23 Mean Years Respondents Worked in Education and Adult Education (Ranges in Parentheses) Years Worked in Education Years Worked in Adult Education Total 13.0 (0-36) 8.9 (0-31) C 1s 16.0 (0-36) 11.4 (0-31) N C ’s 8.9 (0-22) 5.7 (0-17) Males U.6 (0-32) 11.1 (0-31) Females 10.7 (0-36) 5.7 (0-18) Analyses of the above using the Pearson correlation yielded significant findings on all measures. Table 4-:24 summarizes these analyses. Table 4:24 Pearson Correlations of Years Worked in Education and Adult Education with C vs. NC and Sex. C vs. NC Sex Years Worked in Education r 9 =-.17,£=0.00 ? r =-.05, £=.05 Years Worked in Adult Education r p =-.12,£=.001 ? r =-.10,£=.002 83 There was a significant relationship between the number of years worked in education and adult education and completing the doctoral degree. It seems apparent that the more years a respondent had worked in education and adult education, the greater were the chances that he or she would have completed the doctoral program. It was also interesting to note that males worked significantly more years than females in both education and adult education. MA Thesis Writing For this selected characteristic, respondents were asked whether they were required to write a thesis for their MA program. •Table 4:25. The frequency of responses are shown in 84 Table 4:25 Respondents Who Wrote MA Thesis by C vs. NC and Sex (Column Percentages in Parentheses) Did Write MA Thesis Did Not Write MA Thesis Total 34 (41.5) 47 (57.3) C's 19 (40.4) 28 (59.6) N C 1s 15 (42.9) 19 (54.3) Males 22 (44.9) 27 (55.1) Females 12 (36.4) 20 (60.6) Chi Sqiaie analyses of the above shows that there was no significant relationship between MA thesis writing and C vs. NC. However, MA thesis writing and sex yielded a marginally significant relationship. Following in Table 4:26 the Chi Square is summarized. Table 4:26 Chi Square Analyses Between MA Thesis Writing by C vs. NC and Sex C vs. NC MA Thesis Writing 4 *=. 01 (d.f .=1 )]3=.92 Sex /. =.18(d.f.=l)£=.07 85 Writing an MA thesis does not appear to be related to C vs NC. More males, however, wrote an MA thesis than did females in the doctoral program in Adult and Continuing Education (ACE) at Michigan State University (MSU). Job Pressure to Get Degree Job pressure to get a degree was posed to respondents with the following question: From your perception was there pressure at your past positions for you to get a degree? Respondents were asked to answer either yes or no. Table 4.:27 shows the frequency of responses. Table 4:27 Job Pressure to Get Degree with C vs. NC and Sex (Column Percentages in Parentheses) Was Job Pressure Was Not Job Pressure Total 27 (32.9) 54 (65.9) C's 15 (31.9) 32 (68.1) NC's 12 (34.3) 22 (62.9) Males 21 (42.9) 28 (57.1) Females 6 (18.2) 26 (78.8) 86 Analyzing the above using a Chi Square, it can be seen that, while there was no relationship between job pressure to get a degree and C vs. NC, there was a rel ation­ ship with sex. Table 4:28 These relationships are seen in Table 4:28. Chi Square Analyses Between Job Pressure to Get a Degree and C vs. NC or Sex C vs. NC Job Pressure to Get Degree f-*'-.006 (d. f .=1 )jd= .94 Sex 71= 4.04 (d. f .=1 )jd= .05 Perceived job pressure to get a degree was not related to whether a doctoral student in ACE completes or not. ever, How­ job pressure was significantly greater for males than for females. Quarters Registered at MSU The number of quarters a doctoral student registered for course work or dissertation credits was examined to see if there was a relationship to C vs. NC or to sex. Table U-29 shows the mean number of quarters for which r e ­ spondents were registered at MSU by C vs. NC and by sex. 87 Table 4: 29 Quarters Registered at MSU Mean Number of Quarters Registered at MSU by C vs. NC and Sex. Total C's NC's Males 13.9 13.5 14.4 15.1 Females 12.3 Analysis reveals that there were no significant re la ­ tionships between the number of quarters registered for course work or dissertation credits at MSU and C vs. NC or sex. Table 4:30 summarizes this information. Table 4:30 Pearson Correlations and Quarters Registered at MSU by C vs. NC and Sex. C vs. NC Quarters Registered at MSU 0 r =.001,£=.39 Sex 9 r =-.001,£ =.l6 Perceived Control Over Degree Completion Whether doctoral students in ACE perceived they had control over their own degree completion was also examined. As Table 4:31 illustrates, respondents answered this inquiry with the following frequency of responses. 88 Table 4-:31 Perceived Control Over Ph.D. Completion by C vs. NC and Sex (Column Percentages in Parentheses) Did Have Control Did Not Have Control Total 74 (90.2) 5 ( 6.1) C's 44 (93.6) 2 ( 4.3) NC's 30 (85.7) 3 ( 8.6) Males 46 (93.9) 1 ( 2.0) Females 28 (84.8) 4 (12.1) Analyzing this data using a Chi Square, Table 4:32 yielded the following results: Table 4:32 Chi Square Analyses of Perceived Control Over Ph.D. Completion by C vs. NC and Sex C vs. NC Perceived Control Over Ph.D. Completion / =.15(d.f.=l)£ =.70 Sex ^ t = 1 . 9 3 (d.f.=1)£ = .17 89 Table 4:32 illustrates that there does not appear to be a significant relationship between whether respondents perceived they had control over their own degree comple­ tion and whether or not they actually were a C or NC. There were also no significant sex differences. Part-Time Student Status This selected characteristic of doctoral students examined what percentage of doctoral studies were done on a part-time basis. Table 4*33 Part-Time Doctoral Studies Table 4-s33 summarizes the above. Mean Percentages of Doctoral Studies Done on a Part-Time Basis by C vs. NC and Sex Total C's NC's Males 62.3 60.6 64.6 61.7 Data analysis using a Pearson correlation Females 63.1 indicates that there was no significant relationship between the percentage of part-time doctoral studies one assumes and C vs. NC or sex. Following, correlations are reported. in Table 4*34, the Pearson 90 Table 4:34 Pearson Correlations of Part-Time Doctoral Studies by C vs. NC and Sex C vs. NC Part-Time Doctoral Studies r 2=.003,£=.34 Sex r2= .0003,£=.44 Analyses indicate that whether a doctoral student pursues his or her program taking a high or low percentage of part-time studies does not seem to have a relationship to C vs. NC or to sex. Publications The number of times published was examined to see if there was a relationship between C vs. NC or sex. Re­ spondents were asked to indicate whether they had not pub­ lished at all or published one time or more. Results of the mean frequencies of responses and their respective percentages are summarized in Table 4:35. 91 Table 4:35 Mean Frequency of Responses of Times Published with C vs. NC and Sex (Column Percentages in P ar en th eses ) Did Not Publish Published One or More Times Total 30 (36.6) 51 (62.2) C 1s 11 (23.4) 36 (76.6) NC's 19 (54.3) 15 (42.9) Males 18 (36.7) 31 (63.3) Females 12 (36.4) 20 (60.6) Using Chi Square. analyses, the following table sum- marizes the frequency of times published by C vs. NC and by sex. Table 4-: 36 Chi Square Analyses of Times Published by C vs. NC and with Sex C vs. NC Times Published Sex , X*=7.58(d.f.=!)£=.006 f!=.0(d.f.=l)£=1.0 92 The number of times a respondent published was signi­ ficantly related to C vs. NC. C's were significantly more likely to publish one or more times than were NC's. How­ ever, it is possible that C's published most often after they had completed their doctoral programs. therefore, This finding, may have little utility for determining who will complete a doctoral program and who will not. Chi Square analysis of sex and times published showed there were no significant differences. Professional Organizations Membership in professional organizations was posed to respondents, with a dichotomous "yes", I belong or "no", I do not belong response option. were as follows in Table A 537. The frequency of responses 93 Table 4:37 Responses of Membership in Professional Organizations Between C vs. NC and Sex (Column Percentages in Parentheses) Yes No Total 69 (84.1) 12 (14.6) C's 41 (87.2) 6 (12.8) NC's 28 (80.0) 6 (17.1) Males 40 (81.6) 9 (18.4) Females 29 (87.9) 3 ( 9.1) Table 4-:38 illustrates, using Chi Square analyses, that the difference between the frequencies of Completers (C's) vs. Non-Completers (NC's) and sex were not signifi­ cantly related to whether doctoral students in ACE at MSU were members in professional organizations. 94 Table 4:38 Chi Square Analyses of Membership in Professional Organizations by C vs. NC and Sex C vs. NC Membership in Professional Organizations Sex , X" ~.09 (d. f .=1 )p>=.77 ^L = .63(d.f .=l);p=.43 Progression Toward Doctoral Degree For this selected characteristic, respondents were instructed to read a series of 13 responses all relating to how far they had progressed in their doctoral studies. Students checked the response that best described their current progress. Following, in Table 4:39 will be a frequency count of those responses. 95 Table 4:39 Responses to Progression in Doctoral Studies (Percentages in Parentheses) Response Category Frequency Cumulative Frequency Completed some of doctoral course work (l-30 credits) 2 (2.4) Completed most of doctoral course work (31+ credits) 8 (9.8) 10 Completed all doctoral course work but have not taken comprehensive examinations yet 3 (3.7) 13 (15.9) Did not take comprehensive exams 8 (9.8) 21 (25.7) Took comprehensive exams but did not pass 0 (0.0) 21 Passed comprehensive exams 6 (7.3) 27 (33.0) Met with committee who approved dissertation proposal 1 (1.2) 28 Met with committee who did not approve dissertation proposal 0 (0.0) 28 (34.2) Completed part of dissertation after proposal was accepted but not data gathering 0 (0.0) 28 (34.2) Completed data gathering 5 (6.1) 33 (40.3) Completed all of dissertation but not orals 2 (2.4) 35 Met with committee for fianl orals in defense of dissertation 0 (0.0) 35 (42.7) Awarded degree 47 (57.3) 2 (2.4) (12.2) (25.7) (34.2) (42.7) 82 (100) 96 Table 4.5 39 shows that there were three stages of completion checked by no one. It appeared as if none of the respondents were prolonged at the following points: 1. Took comprehensive exams but did not pass, 2. Met with committee who did not approve dissertation proposal, 3. Completed part of dissertation after proposal was accept­ ed but not data gathering. In contrast to the above, there were four response items with five checks or more. In particular, there were eight checks by both "Completed most of doctoral course work (31+ credits)" In addition, and "Did not take comprehensive exams". six respondents checked "Passed comprehensive exams" and five respondents checked "Completed my data gathering". There appeared to be more students congregated at the above stages in doctoral studies than any others. Therefore, it can be said that the factors of "Final course work completion" and "Not taking comprehensive examinations", seemed to be the two largest problem areas in doctoral p r o ­ gression. "Passing the comprehensive exams" and "Completing data gathering" were also important factors. Factors Determining Degree Completion This selected characteristic was designed to analyze if there was a relationship between specified factors and C vs. NC and sex. Respondents rated these factors indicat­ ing whether they were supportive or non-supportive in deter ­ mining their ability to finish their doctoral studies. A 97 five point scale was used ranging from strongly non-supportive to strongly supportive. Appendix G summarizes the responses of the selected factors. Also listed in App e n ­ dix G are the respective frequencies for C's, NC's, males and females. The means for the frequencies presented in Appendix G are shown in Table 4-5 4-0. 98 Table 4:40 Means of Factors Used in Determining Ability to Finish Doctoral Studies by C vs. NC and Sex (N's are shown in parentheses) Factor Name Total C's Financial Situation 3.5 (78) 3.7 (47) Rapport with Faculty and Staff 4.1 (77) Research Readiness for Dissertation Ability to Isolate, Define and Research Problem NC's Males Females 3.2 (31) 3.4 (47) 3.7 (31) 4.1 (46) 4.1 (31) 3.9 (46) 4.5 (31) 3.4 (77) 3.5 (47) 3.2 (30) 3.1 (46) 3.7 (29) 3.5 (77) 3.6 (47) 3.4 (30) 3.2 (46) 3.9 (31) Effective Study Habits 3.9 (61) 4.0 (14) 3.7 (47) 3.7 (46) 4.1 (15) Rapport with Guidance Committee and Chairman 4.3 (77) 4.3 (47) 4.3 (30) 4.1 (46) 4.5 (31) Primary Support Group with Family 4.1 (77) 4.3 (47) 3.9 (30) 4.2 (46) 4.1 (31) Primary Support Group with Friends 3.4 (77) 3.5 (46) 3.4 (31) 3.2 (47) 3.8 (30) Primary Support Group with Colleagues 3.4 (78) 3.5 (47) 3.4 (31) 3.4 (47) 3.5 (31) Physical Health 4.1 (78) 4.2 (47) 4.1 (31) 4.1 (47) 4.2 (31) Moving Away from Major Education Institution 2.5 (53) 2.5 (31) 2,6 (22) 2.5 (33) 2.7 (20) Sense of Long-Term Significance of Doctorate 4.3 (76) 4.2 (46) 4.3 (30) 4.2 (45) 4.5 (31) 99 The relationships between the above factors is sum­ marized by Pearson correlations in Table 4-s4-1 • Table 4:41 Pearson Correlations Between Factors Used in Determining Ability to Complete Doctoral Studies by C vs. NC and Sex C vs. NC Factor Name Sex Financial Situation r 2=-.03,£=.06** r 2= .02, jd= .11 Rapport with Faculty and Staff r 2=-.001,£=.38 r 2=.09,£=.004* Research Readiness for Dissertation r 2= - .0 2 ,jd= .14 r 2= .07,£=.01# Ability to Isolate, Define and Research Problem r 2=-.005,£=.27 r 2=.10,£=.003* Effective Study Habits r 2=.-.02,£=.09*# r 2=.04,£=.05* Rapport with Guidance Committee and Chairman r 2=-.003,£=.44 r2 = . 05 ,£=. 03'!f Primary Support Group with Family r 2=-.03,£==05* r2= - ,001 .£=,46 Primary Support Group with Friends r 2= - .0003,£=.44 r2= . 0 5 . r2# Primary Support Group with Colleagues r 2= - .003,£=.31 r2= .0006,£=.42 Physical Health r 2= - .004>£= •30 r2= .009,£=.21 Moving Away From Major Education Institution r 2=.001,£=.40 r 2= .007,£=.28 Sense of Long-Term Significance of Doctorate r 2=.003,£=.34 r2 =.02,£=.09** * Significance at £ £ . 0 5 Marginally Significant at . 0 5 1 - £ ^ . 1 0 100 The results show that C's rated the factor "primary support group with family" as being significantly more supportive than did NC's. higher The ratings of C's were also (marginally significant) for "financial situation" and "effective study habits". Females rated a number of factors as being signifi­ cantly more supportive than did males. clude: These factors in ­ "rapport with faculty and staff", ness for the dissertation", research problem", "research readi­ "ability to isolate, "effective study habits", define and "rapport with guidance committee and chairman" and "primary support group with friends". Finally, the last factor used for this selected characteristic was "other", an open-ended response. The responses, which were all interesting to note, are listed in Table J+:A2 and separated according to Completers vs. Non-Completers (NC's) and whether the responses were strongly non-supportive (answering 1 or 2, on a scale of 1 to 5) or strongly supportive of 1 to 5). (C's) (answering 4 or 5 on a scale 101 Table 4-54-2 Open-Ended Responses to Supportive or NonSupportive Factors in Determining Ability to Finish Doctoral. Studies by C vs. NC Completers -- strongly non-supportive factors Motivation My rapport with guidance committee Completers -- strongly supportive factors High motivation, my need to finish My rapport with guidance committee chairman My love for learning Sense of need of personal achievement My husband Strong achievement goals (2 responses) Pride Personal determination Names of specific MSU ACE faculty (4- responses) My like for educational community Interest in subject matter Having time constraints--only three years to do it Changed chairman (2 responses) To keep my job Unwillingness to leave something unfinished Non-Completers -- strongly non-supportive factors None listed Non-Completers -- Strongly supportive factors Motivation, absolute intent to finish Personal achievement Sense of mission .in terms of implications of research study Need for degree in order to serve a specific position Commitment to finishing something I had started It appears that "personal achievement" and "motiva­ tion" rated highly for individuals who were C ’s and NC's. 102 In addition, C ’s felt that "changing chairmen" and "specific faculty members" were strongly supportive in determining their ability to finish their doctoral studies. Life Change Check List Effects on Degree Completion Using excerpts from the Holmes and Rahe Check List Life Change (also known as the Social Readjustment Rating Scale), respondents were asked first whether the life event occurred to them when they were working on their Ph.D. Secondly, they were asked, pact of the life event. a scale from one if it did occur, to rate the i m ­ Respondents rated the impact on (no impact) to five (significant impact). Appendix H summarizes the responses of respondents by C vs. NC and by sex. Responses are shown only where the life event actually occurred to the respondent. Whether an event occurred could have had an impact on s t ud en ts’ continuation or non-continuation in the doctor­ al program. Completers Table 4:4-3 summarizes Chi Square analyses of (C’s) vs. Non-Completers Life Change Check List events. (NC’s) and sex by the 103 Table 4*43 Chi Square Analyses of Whether the Life Event Occurred by C vs. NC and Sex Life Event C vs. NC Sex C"- x2= . 0 3 ( d . f . = 1 )_£= . 86 7 = . 8 5 ( d . f .: = l ) 2 = . 36 Marital Separation x*= . 0 0 0 3 ( d. f . = 1 ) £ = . 9 8 Death of Close Family Member 7l= . 1 3 ( d . f . = 1 )]D= . 7 2 Marriage t - . 7 9 ( d . f . =1)2=-37 & Marital Reconciliation r = 2 . 2 8 ( d . f . = 1 )2 = . 1 3 7 = . 1 3 ( d . f .==1 )2=* 72 . 8 9 ( d . f . =1)2=.35 » r= 1 . 0 7 ( d . f . = 1 ) 2 = . 3 0 • 00 11 Divorce 1 —1 11 1 = . 0 4 ( d . f .==1 ) 2 = * 85 7- .03(d .f. . 9 1 ( d . f .:=1)2= • 34 T - . 2 3 ( d . f . := 1 ) 2 = . 63 . 0 0 3 ( d . f . =1 )2= . 9 6 1 Major Change in Health of Family . 9 6 ( d . f . =1)2=.33 .1 = . 0 0 ( d . f . : =1)2=1 . 0 Pregnancy f l= Addition of New Family Member r l= . 0 0 ( d . f . = 1 ) 2 =1.0 •4 7 / _ . 0 9 ( d . f . : = l ) 2 = • 77 Son or Daughter Leaving Home . 4 7 ( d . f . = 1) 2= . 4 9 ■/ = . 0 0 ( d . f .:=1)2=1 . 0 1 — Spouse Starting or Ending Work V X 7 = . 0 0 0 8 ( d . f . = 1 ) £ = . 9 8 ?: = 3 . 1 9 ( d . f , . = 1 ) 2 = . 0 7 Major Personal Injury or Illnei % t = . 0 0 ( d . f . =1 ) 2 =1.0 7 = . 004 ( d . f , . =1 )2= . 9 5 Outstanding Personal Achievement 7 =. 00 (d. f .=1 )_p=l.0 Major Change in Living Conditions ** 7 = 2 . 7 9 (d.f.=1)£ = .09 ? = . 8 1 (d.f.= 1)£ =.37 Change in Residence * \ =1. 38 (d. f .=1 )jd= .79 7 = .67 (d. f .=1 )jq=. 41 ^ ? =. 00 (D. f .=1 )jo=l.0 104 Table 4s43 (cont'd.). Life Event C vs. NC Being Fired From Work yr=1.68(d.f.=l)£=.20 Changing to a Different Line of Work 3 > . 1 5 ( d . f . = l ) £ =.70 Major Change in Work Responsi ­ 7"i=.98(d.f.=l)£=.32 bilities Trouble With Boss ;».10(d.f.=i)£=.76 Major Change in Work. ? T = . 1 9 ( d . f ,=l)£ =.67 Conditions Sex 7(=.3 2 (d. f . =1 )£ = . 57 r=2.86(d.f.=l)£=.09* /=.00(d.f.=l)£ =1.0 7L*=1.89(d'.f . = 1 ) £ = . 1 7 £*=2.59(d.f.=l)£ =.ll * Significance at £ £ . 0 5 Marginally Significant at . 0 5 1 - £ t i . l 0 Only three marginally significant relationships were found in Table 4 : 4 3 . Non-completers were more likely than completers to record a "major change in living conditions". Males were more likely than females to have their "spouse starting or ending work". Finally, females were more likely than males to report "changing to a different line of work". The total number of life change events reported to have occurred for each respondent was then determined. The mean number of life change events reported by N C ’s (x = 4 . 6 6 ) was greater than the mean number reported by C's (X=3.96). 105 This difference was not significant, however (r = . 0 2 , £=.13). Females reported a larger number of life change events had occurred (X=4-.82) than did males was marginally significant (X=3.88). This difference (r = . 0 3 , £ = . 0 7 ) . Given that a life change event had occurred, it was then determined whether the event had the same impact on different groups of respondents. C ’s (completers) who had the event occur were compared to NC's and males were compared to females UU5). (non-completers) (see Tables and 106 Table 4^44 Means of Life Change Ceek List Ratings on Impact of Continuation or Non-Continuation by C vs. NC and Sex ( " Indicates No Response and N's are Shown in Parentheses) Life Event Total Death of Spouse 5.0 ( 1) (0) 5.0 ( 1) (0) 5.0 ( 1) Divorce 2.8 ( A) 3.3 ( 3) 1.0 ( 1) 3.0 ( 1) 2.7 ( 3) Marital Separation 3.7 ( 6) 4.0 ( 3) 3.3 ( 3) 4.0 ( 2) 3.5 ( 4) Death of Close Family Member 2.6 (19) 3.0 (10) 2.1 ( 9) 2.2 (10) 3.0 ( 9) Marriage 3.8 (19) 4.0 ( 9) 3.7 (10) 3.9 (12) 3.7 ( 7) C ’s A.7 NC's Males Females Marital Reconciliation ( 3) (0) 4.7 ( 3) 4.0 • ( 1) 5.0 ( 2) Major Change in Health of Family 3.8 (10) 3.5 ( 4) 4/0 ( 6) 2.5 ( 4) 4.7 ( 6) Pregnancy 2.7 (15) 2.0 (11) 4.5 ( 4) 2.8 ( 9) 2.5 ( 6) Addition of New Family Member 2.9 (15) 2.2 ( 9) 3.8 ( 6) 3.0 ( 8) 2.7 ( 7) Son or Daughter Leaving Home 2.5 (11) 2.9 ( 8) 1.7 ( 3) 2.7 ( 7) 2.3 ( 4) Spouse Starting or Ending Work A.O (25) 4.0 (14) 3.9 (11) 4.1 (19) 3.7 ( 6) Major Personal Injury or Illness 3.1 (11) 2.8 ( 6) 3.4 ( 5) 2.8 ( 6) 3.4 ( 5) Outstanding Personal Achievement 3.5 (35) 3.3 (20) 3.9 (15) 3.6 (19) 3.5 (16) 107 Table 4:44 (c o n t 1d . ). Life Event Total C's Major Change in Living Conditions 3.8 (29) 3.8 (13) Change in Residence 3.3 (a) Being Fired From Work Males Females 3.8 (16) 3.8 (15) 3.8 (14) 3.2 (21) 3.4 (20) 3.3 (25) 3.3 (16) 4.0 ( 7) 3.0 ( 2) 4.4 ( 4) 4.7 ( 3) 3.5 ( 4) Changing to a Different Line of Work 4.1 (28) 4.1 (15) 4.0 (13) 3.9 (13) 4.2 (15) Major Change in Work Responsibilities 3.9 (429 4.0 (22) 3.7 (20) 3.8 (25) 3.9 (17) 3.4 ( 7) 3.2 ( 5) 4.0 ( 2) 3.5 ( 2) 3.4 ( 5) 3.7 (21) 3.8 .(ID 3.5 (10) 3.3 ( 9) 3.9 (12) Trouble with Boss Major Change in Working Conditions NC's 108 Table 4-J4-5 Pearson Correlations of Impact of Life Change Check List Events with C vs. NC and Sex Sex Life Event C vs. NC Death of Spouse N too small for analysis Divorce r 2 = - .86,£=. 04* r 2=-.018,£=.43 Marital Separation r 2=-.06,£=.32 r 2=-.03,£=.37 Death of Close Family Member r 2 =-.10,£ =.09** r 2=.08,£=.12 Marriage r 2 = - .02,£=.28 r 2= - .009 »£=.35 Marital Reconciliation N too small for analysis Major Change in Health of Family r 2=.03,£=.32 r 2= .52,£=.009** Pregnancy r 2= . 55,£=.001* r 2= - .008,£=.37 Addition of New Family Member r2 = .31,£=.02* r 2= - .01,£=.36 Son or Daughter Leaving Home r2 =-.25,£=.06** r 2=-.04.,£=.27 Spouse Starting or Ending Work r2= - .001 ,£= .4-3 r 2=-.02,£ =.27 Major Personal Injury or Illness r 2=.05,£=.26 r 2= .05,£=.26 Outstanding Personal Achievement r 2=.06,p=.08** r 2= - . 001,£=.42 Major Change in Living Conditions r2 = - . 002,£=. 4-1 r 2= - . 0000 4.,jo=. 4-9 Change in Residence r 2= . 002 ,£= .40 r 2= - . 0006 ,£=. 4-4- Being Fired From Work r2 =. 20,£=.16 r 2=-.17,£=.18 Changing to a Different Line of Work r2= - . 004.,£=. 37 r 2= .02 ,£=. 24. 109 Table U'.U5 ( c o n t ’d.). Life Event C .v s . NC Sex Major Change in Work Responsibilities 2 r =-.02,£ =.19 2 r =.OOOX,£=.A5 Trouble With Boss r 2=.09,£=.25 r 2=-.001,£=.47 Major Change in Working Conditions 2 r =-.01,£=.30 2 r =.05,£=.17 # Significance at £ - . 0 5 Marginally Significant at .0 5 1 ^ £ ** 10 Only respondents who indicated that the particular event had occurred in their lives were included in these analyses. This resulted in small N's for many of these events which made the finding of significant relationships less likely. Results of Pearson correlation analyses yielded several events from the Life Change Check List, however, that were significantly related to C vs. NC. Examination of the correlations with sex showed only one significant rela­ tionship in the life change events. The life event "divorce” , was significantly correlated to C vs. NC (r = -.86,£=. 04.). This negative relation­ ship indicated that divorce appeared to have a more signi­ ficant impact on C's (X=3.3) than on NC's (X=1.0). The NC's felt that divorce had a less significant impact on their continuation or non-continuation in the ACE doctoral program. 110 "Death of a close family member" had a marginally 2 significant relationship with C vs. NC (r =-.10,£=.09)• Of those respondents who had a "death of a close family member", C's (X=3.0) were more likely to feel that this had a significant impact on their continuation or non-continua­ tion in the program than NC's (X=2.l). The "pregnancy" life event yielded a significant r e ­ lationship with C vs. NC (r^=.55,£=.001). C's (X=2.0) felt that pregnancy had less of an impact on their continuation (or non-continuation) NC's in the ACE doctoral program than did (X=X.5). The life change event, "addition of a new family m e mbe r" , was similar to "pregnancy" in that the results yielded a significant correlation completers (r =.31,£=.02). (X=3.8), more than completers (X=2.2), Non­ felt that the "addition of a new family member" had an impact on their continuation or non-continuation in the doctoral program. There was a marginally significant relationship be­ tween "son or daughter leaving home" and C vs. NC 2 __ (r =-.25,£=.06). Apparently, C's (X=2.9) were more influ­ enced by this life event than were NC's (X=1.7). The last relationship found was with "outstanding personal achievement" and C vs. NC. marginally significant less likely than NC's This relationship was (r^=.06,£=.08). C's (X=3.3) seemec (X=3.9) to feel that an "outstanding personal achievement" had an impact on their completing or not completing the Ph.D. Ill Examination of the Life Change Check List yielded one apparent sex difference. There was a significant relation­ ship between the event "major change in health of family" 2 and sex (r =. 5 2 ,jd= .009). Females — (X=4-.7) reported the occurrence of this life event to have more of an impact than did males (X=2.5). Summary The focus of this study was on the characteristics of Completers (C’s) and Non-Completers Continuing Education (NC’s) in Adult and (ACE) at Michigan State University (MSU) from 1970 to 1980. The research questions centered on the similarities and differences of respondents in C vs. NC and sex based on a review of the literature. The demographic variables of sex, marital status, nationality and race were examined. In the area of sex the respondents were comprised of 60$ males and 40$ females. There were no significant differences between males and fe­ males in whether they were C's or NC's. In the area of marital status, dents were married. 73.2$ of the respon­ Chi Square analyses between marital status and C vs. NC showed that there was a marginally sig­ nificant (jo=.07) relationship between being married and com­ pleting the doctoral program. Chi Square analyses between ’ marital status and sex showed that males were more likely to be married and females were more likely to be single. 112 Hierarchical regression analyses showed that the interaction between marital status and sex was not significantly related to C vs. NC. 86.6 % of the respondents In the area of nationality, were United States Citizens. For the area of race, a greater percentage of White students were C's than nonWhites, however, the differences were not significant. Specific findings of selected characteristics of C's vs. NC's are summarized below. Most students in the study between the ages of 36 and 50. (52%) were clustered Pearson correlation analy ­ ses showed that in general, older students were more likely to complete the degree than younger students and that there were no significant differences between the ages of males and females. Age Began and Completed BA Using a Pearson correlation to examine C vs. NC and sex with age beginning and completing the BA, there were no significant findings. There was also no relationship b e ­ tween the number of years it took to complete the BA and C vs. NC or sex. Age Began and Completed MA There was no relationship between age beginning or completing the MA and C vs. NC. Females were significantly 113 older than their male counterparts when they began and completed the MA, however. In addition, there'were no significant differences for males and females in their rate of receiving the MA. It was significant that females may take longer to complete their MA's than males. Age Began and Interrupted Ph.D. There was no relationship between this selected char­ acteristic and C vs. NC or sex. Although, it is interesting to note that 2U (90$) of the total.32 NC's said they did intend to complete the degree. In addition, it was found that the students who began their Ph.D.'s were older in the early 1970's than in the late 1 9 7 0 's. Time Lapse Between BA to MA and MA to Ph.D. Pearson analyses yielded several significant rel a­ tionships in this area. It was shown that NC's may be more likely to have a shorter number of years that have elapsed between the BA to MA than did C's. It was also marginally significant that males were more likely to begin their MA programs in a shorter number of years after receiving the BA than were females. There was no relationship between C vs. NC and time lapse between the MA to Ph.D. However, it was marginally significant that males tended to be out of school longer after MA completion than were females. 114 Field of Study for BA and MA An examination of respondents BA and MA degrees in Education or Non-education curricula was not significantly related to C vs. NC or sex. GPA for BA, MA and Doctoral Program Analyzing the self-reported GPA in respondents BA, MA and Ph.D. programs, there was a significant relationship for the variables of C vs. NC and sex. N C ’s had signifi­ cantly higher BA and Ph.D. GPA's than did C's. Also, f e ­ males had consistently higher GPA's than did males. GPA in Education and Non-Education Courses Examining self-reported GPA's in respondents doctoral program, Education and Non-education courses, there was a marginally significant relationship between C vs. NC and GPA in non-education courses. NC's had higher GPA's. In addition, females had higher GPA's than did males for ed u­ cation courses. Years Worked in Education and Adult Education There was a significant relationship between the n u m ­ ber of years worked in Education and Adult Education and completing the doctoral degree. The more years that res pon­ dents worked in Education and Adult Education the greater were the chances that he or she would have completed the degree. Males, in addition, worked significantly more years than females in both Education and Adult Education. 115 MA Thesis Writing Examination of MA thesis writing showed no significant relationship with C vs. NC. In the area of sex, however, there was a marginally significant finding indicating that males wrote more MA theses than did females. Job Pressure to Get Degree Job pressure to get a degree was not significantly related to completing or not completing the Ph.D. However, in ACE. job pressure was significantly greater for males . than for females. Quarters Registered at MSU Examination of the number of quarters respondents were registered at MSU showed no significant relationships for either C's vs. NC's or for sex. Perceived Control Over Degree Completion There was no significant relationships for either C's vs. NC's or for sex in the area of perceived control over degree completion. Part-Time Student Status Whether a doctoral studbnt pursues his or her program taking a high or low percentage of doctoral studies parttime showed no significant relationships with C vs. NC or with sex. 116 Publications Data analyses indicated the C's were significantly more likely to publish one or more times than were NC's. Sex differences in this area were not apparent, however. Professional Organizations Examination- of respondents membership in professional organizations by C vs. NC or to sex showed there were no significant relationships. Progression Towards Doctoral Degree Examination of respondents progression towards the doctoral degree seemed to indicate that the areas of "Final course work completion" and "Not taking comprehensive exami­ nations" posed the two largest problem areas. "Passing the comprehensive exams" and "Completing data gathering" were also important. Factors Determining Degree Completion The results show that C's rated the factor "primary support group with family" as being significantly more supportive than did NC's. higher The ratings of C's were also (marginally significant) for "financial situation" and 'leffective study habits". Females rated a number of factors as being signifi­ cantly more supportive than did males. clude: These factors in­ "rapport with faculty and staff", ness for the dissertation", "research readi­ "ability to isolate, define and 117 research problem", "effective study habits/', "rapport with guidance committee and chairman" and "primary support group with f rie nd s" . Life Change Check List Effect on Degree Completion Examining the relationship between whether the life event occurred with C vs. NC and sex revealed three marginally significant relationships. The three marginally significant relationships are shown in Table 4: 43. Non-completers were more likely than completers to record a "major change in living conditions". Males were more likely than females to have their "spouse starting or ending work". Finally, females were more likely than males to report "changing to a different line of work". Of the life change events examined in the study, in­ spection of the data revealed that means were higher for N C ’s (non-completers) than for C's (completers). Females reported that a larger number of life change events examined had occurred f o r them than did males. The occurrence of a life event was examined by the degree of its-impact on a respondents continuation or no n­ continuation in the doctoral program. Following is a list of the life events that respondents felt had a significant impact on C vs. NC. 1. Divorce (more impact for C's) 2. Death of Close Family Member (more impact for C's) 118 3. Pregnancy (more impact for NC's) J+. Addition of New Family Member 5. Son or Daughter Leaving Home 6. Outstanding Personal Achievement for NC's) (more impact for NC's) (more impact for C's) (more impact The only sex difference that was significantly related to student's continuation or non-continuation was "Major change in health of family". This life event appeared to have been more of an impact for females than for males in the ACE doctoral program at MSU. An important consideration in this study's findings on the Life Change Check List scale, however, is that there are many ways of responding to the various life events other than those addressed by this study. Caution must be noted in generalizing the findings of life change events. Be­ cause this study does not use or weight the life change events exactly the same as the original scale,the findings of this study in relation to the Life Change Check List (Social Rating Readjustment Scale) could be positive, neg a­ tive or neutral. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of this study is to examine the similari­ ties and differences of selected characteristics of doctor­ al students at Michigan State University (MSU) who are completers and non-completers of the Ph.D. Continuing Education (ACE). in Adult and A summary of the study follows. It will include the findings and discussion, recommendations, conclusions, and suggestions for further research. Findings and Discussion Following are each of the four research questions posed by this study. The nature of Research Questions A and B lend themselves to reporting findings whereas Research Questions C and D lend themselves to reporting conclusions and recommendations. The only exception to this format is Research Question C3, which by nature of the question will include findings of this study. 119 120 Research Question A "What are some of the similarities and differences in selected characteristics of graduate students who are completers and non-completers of the doctorate?" There were a number of significant relationships in the study that indicated that there were particular charac­ teristics that differentiated C's from NC's. Following is a list of the significant and marginally significant relationships found. Marginally significant relationships are denoted with an asterisk at the end of the statement. - There is a positive relationship between being married and completing the doctoral program.% - Older students were more likely to have completed the degree than younger students. - NC's have a shorter number of years that have elapsed between finishing the BA and beginning the MA degree than did C's. - The more years that respondents worked in the areas of Education and Adult Education, the greater the chances that they would have completed their doctoral degrees. - C's were more likely to have published one or more times than were NC's. - NC's had significantly higher self-reported BA and Ph.D. GPA's than did C's. Because NC's are typically younger than C's it is possible that grade inflation was an important influence on these results. 121 - N C ’s self-reported G P A ’s in non-education courses were higher than for C ’s.# Perhaps N C ’s were more interested in non-education courses and devoted more energy to them. - N C ’s reported the following factors were less supportive than did C ’s. 1. Primary support group with family 2. Financial situation# 3. Effective study habits# - Life Change Check List: - The total mean number of life change events that occurred was higher for N C ’s than for C ’s (4.66 vs. 3.96). This difference did not reach statistical significance, however (£=.13). When the occurrence of each life change event was looked at separately, to be ma rginal ly only one was found significant. Non-completers were more likely than completers to record "a major change in living conditions." Life change events that occurred were examined by their degree of impact on respond ent s’ continu­ ation or non-continuation. The largest differences between C ’s and N C ’s were reported for the follow­ ing events: 1. Divorce (more impact for C ’s) 2. Death of Close Family Member impact for C ’s)# (more 122 3. Son or Daughter Leaving Home (more impact for C ’s)* 4-. Pregnancy 5. (more impact Addition of for NC's) New Family Member (more impact for N C ’s) 6. Outstanding Personal Achievement (more impact for N C ’s)* Of those life events that ficantly more impact, it can be a. were rated as having signi­ said that: ’’Divorce” - doctoral student completers felt that divorce made more of an impact than did N C ’s on their continuation and eventual com­ pletion in the doctoral program. Divorce appeared to be a positive factor for C ’s to ­ ward b. their degree completion. "Pregnancy" - doctoral -student N C ’s indicated that pregnancy made a significant impact on their non-completion (X=4=5 for N C ’s and X = 2 .0 for C's) of the program. Pregnancy seemed to be a hi n­ drance for some doctoral students when trying to complete their degrees. c. "Addition of a New Family Member" - N C ’s felt this life event, that as with pregnancy* hindered their chances of continuing in the doctoral program. Perhaps their ability to complete the degree was only delayed, however. 123 Research Question B "Are there any particular characteristics that are significantly related to whether a student is a completer or non-completer of the doctorate?" Michigan State University (MSU) Adult and Continuing Education doctoral student completers ters (C’s) and non-comple­ (NC’s) did not differ significantly on the following characteristics: - Demographic variables including sex, nationality and race - Age began and age completed BA and MA degrees - Age began Ph.D. degree - Time lapse between MA and Ph.D. degrees - Field of study for BA and MA degrees - Self-reported G P A ’s for MA degree - Self-reported G P A ’s in education courses - Whether they completed an MA thesis - Job pressure to get a degree - Number of quarters registered at MSU - Perceived control over degree completion - Percentage of time the student was enrolled with part-time status - Membership in professional organizations The doctoral student C's and N C ’s showed differing characteristics, however, in the following areas: - Marital status - Age - Time lapse between the BA and MA degrees 124 - Years worked in education and non-education - Whether or not the person has published - ’’Factors" influencing degree completion or n o n ­ completion to include: primary support group with family financial situation effective study habits - Self-reported G P A ’s in non-education courses - Self-reported BA and Ph.D. G P A ’s - Impact of Life Change Check List events Research Question C "After examining some of the characteristics of graduate students in ACE who are completers and non-completers, what recommendations can be made to future doctoral students in this situation regarding: 1. the probability of their own p a r ­ ticular characteristics affecting degree completion; 2. ways to overcome obstacles and promote the pro ba ­ bility of completing the degree; and 3. characteris­ tics that are typical of other ACE graduate students at MSU and how they progressed in their studies." Cl. Students should examine their own particular situations to determine if there are any potential problem areas. Attention should be directed to some of the impo r­ tant findings identified earlier. For example, a student may want to be cautious about entering the ACE program if he or she has little experience working in the field. Being unmarried and having a poor financial situation are also associated with lack of success. It is possible that having a spouse, particularly a working 125 spouse, can reduce the economic difficulties associated with graduate school attendance. In any case, students should take note of their financial situations when consid­ ering whether or not to apply to this program. In addition, students should examine whether they have certain other resources h e l p f u l .to successful study in the program. They (especially males) should carefully consider the effectiveness of their study habits. Does the student have the most effective study habits to make completion of the doctoral program both timely and possible. Students should examine their relationships with their families. Will their families be supportive of the student and understand and accept the outside demands placed upon him or her. Careful planning and evaluation should ensue with the graduate student's family before he or she begins the doctoral program in ACE. C2. Students can enhance the probability that they will complete their degrees in a number of ways. Gaining experience in the field, particularly through long-term, stable employment, of graduating. might be one way to improve one's chances Another would be for students to make sure they have the financial resources to complete a number of years of education. Careful examination of financial aid opportunities might be in order here. Certain students may also benefit from up-front discussions with faculty members if they are having 12 6 particular problems with the effectiveness of their study habits. Perhaps it might be necessary for some students to acknowledge their lack of preparation and arrange for the extra help or time that they need to complete their assigned work. Assessing the stability of o n e ’s marital and family situation also might be very useful for.a student. Divorce was reported to have more of an impact on C ’s than N C ’s. Marital reconciliation, on the other hand, only occurred for three non-completers who all rated it. as having quite an impact. Perhaps divorced people felt more free to pursue their own education while those who had a marital reconciliation felt they had to compromise their own ambitions for the good of their relationships. Anticipating changes in their family situations could potentially be very useful for students. Completers, for example, felt that a son or daughter leaving home had more of an impact on their degree completion than did non-comple­ ters. Perhaps completers somehow managed to successfully redirect their time and energy from children to schoolwork. Pregnancy, on the other hand, was rated by non-completers as having quite an impact while completers felt it had little impact. This is a good example of the large indivi­ dual differences that were found for many of the life change events. Some people felt few effects from events that seemed to devastate others. Individual personality differ­ ences and learned behavior styles may account for much of 127 these differences. It may also be possible, for example, that some of the people planned for their pregnancies more thoroughly or anticipated problems that might be encountered. This planning and anticipation of problems might also be important for those who move away from Michigan State University (MSU). rating of any. This factor received the lowest "support" Of note, however, is that completers and non-completers did not rate it differently. C ’s must have found not being near campus to be troublesome but they ob­ viously were able to overcome these difficulties somehow. C3. Adult and Continuing Education (ACE) graduate students at MSU from the years 1970 to 1980 who responded to this questionnaire consisted of 4.9 males females (40$). There were 60 married students (22$) who were single. United States citizens (73$) and 18 The majority of the students were (87$), International students.. compared to 9 (11$) who were Racially, White students with 8 (10$) Black, Hispanic. (60$) and 33 there were 66 (81$) 4- (5$) Asian and 1 (l$) Students reported that their mean age when beginning the Ph.D. program was 35 although it was found that students were older in. the early 1 9 7 0 ’s than in the later 1 9 7 0 ’s. In examining sex differences of ACE students by the selected characteristics used in this study, numerous differences were found. Following is a list of the signi­ ficant sex differences found with the marginally significant 128 relationships denoted by an asterisk at the end of the statement. - Males were more likely to be married and females were more likely to be single. - Females were older than males when they began and completed their MA degree. - Males were more likely to begin the MA program in a shorter number of years after receiving the BA than were females.* - Males were out of school longer after MA comple­ tion than were females.* - Females' self-reported GPA's were higher for their BA and MA degrees than were m a l e s ’ self-reported GPA's. - Females self-reported G P A ’s in education courses were higher than for males. - Males worked more years in Education and Adult Education than did females.* - A greater percentage of males wrote MA theses than did females.* - Job pressure to finish a Ph.D. was greater for males than for females. - There were several factors toward the ability to complete the degree that indicated sex differences. In all cases males felt the factors were less supportive toward degree completion or non-comple­ tion than did females: 129 1. Rapport with Faculty and Staff 2. Research Readiness for Dissertation 3. Ability to Isolate, Define and Research Problem 4. Effective Study Habits 5. Rapport with Guidance Committee and Chairman 6. Sense of Long-term Significance of Doctorate# - Life Change Check List: - Males were more likely than females to have their "Spouse Starting or Ending Work" - Females were more likely than males to report "Changing to a Different Line of Work"# - Females reported a larger number of life change events than did males# There appeared to be some patterns that emerged when examining the stages of stu dents1 progress toward their degrees. Quite a number of students never completed their coursework. Most of those that did not complete their coursework seemed at least .to have worked at it quite a while and to have finished the majority of it. Comprehensive exams seemed to be an important mil e­ stone on the path to the doctorate. Many students seemed to get prolonged at this point and end up never taking these exams. It was also fairly common to pass these exams and then not progress any further. If comprehensive exams 130 were taken they were passed. No one took the exams who did not pass. Those who passed comprehensive exams and did not quit right away almost always got at least as far as com­ pleting the data gathering for their dissertations. Once the data gathering was completed, however, a number of students progressed no further. There are a number of possible reasons why students would stop at this point. The task of analyzing and writing up the results may have appeared too time consuming to them. .Once data gathering was accomplished some students may have become aware of major flaws in their experimental design resulting in their findings being of questionable value. It is also possible that the task of analyzing the data gathered may have been a task exceeding the capabilities of some students. Most students, however, any point along the way. did not get stopped at They progressed to the last stage and completed their doctorates. Research Question D "What can academic advisors and professors of doctoral candidates do to increase the pr o b a ­ bilities of their advisees completing the d e ­ gree program." Academic advisors and professors can promote students completing the Adult and Continuing Education program in the following ways: (ACE) doctoral 131 - Encourage students to maintain and develop strong ties with their families. Having social and informational meetings between faculty and families could possibly serve to enhance familial support. - Help students consider early in their studies what topics they might want to cover in their compre­ hensive exams and for their dissertations. These are points at which students seem to be prolonged. - Inform students of financial aid opportunities within the university, public and private sectors, and assist the students in finding paid intern­ ships to help accomodate financial situations. - Encourage students (especially males) to learn and practice sound study habits. One way this can be facilitated is to direct students to the campus student learning center for special techniques they can learn. Perhaps extra time or direction could be provided by faculty members for students less academically prepared. - Select students with more work experience in educa­ tion and adult education knowing that they will have a better chance of completing the degree. - Allow extra time for degree completion (in wh a t ­ ever stage) for those students who are pregnant and have an addition of a new family member. 132 - Be supportive and encouraging to students as they progress in the doctoral program particularly in the areas of completing doctoral course work, taking comprehensive exams and collecting data for the dissertation. - Be especially aware of signals indicating male students are not properly prepared for research or are not building adequate rapport with faculty members. - Discourage students from moving away from the MSU area until they finish their degrees. If they do move, careful planning beforehand and careful maintenance of communication lines after the move would be well advised. Conclusions In relation to the specific purpose of this study as stated in Chapter 1, the following conclusions were made based on the analysis of data presented. 1. There may be a relationship between being married and completing the doctoral degree in Adult and Continuing Education University 2. (ACE) at Michigan State (MSU). There seems to be a positive relationship between students’ years of work experience in education and adult education and completing the ACE doctoral program. For ACE doctoral non-completers the following factors seemed to indicate problems in degree continuation: - Financial situation - Primary support group with family and colleagues - Effective study habits Most of the life change events addressed in this study do not appear to differentiate between oompleters (C’s) and non-completers exceptions to this were "divorce," close family member*," (NC’s). The "death of a "pregnancy," "addition of a new family member," "son or daughter leaving home'*," or "outstanding personal achievement*" (asterisks denote marginal significance). There may be a relationship with the number of times published and completing the degree. Whether or not this is before or after one has already completed the degree needs to be clearly established. There appear to be some tangible ways for academic advisors and professors to facilitate students as they progress through the ACE doctoral program. There appeared to be more students who were younger in the later 1 9 7 0 ’s than in the early 1 9 7 0 ’s . 134 8. Certain points on the path to completion of the doctorate appear to be more troublesome for some students than for others. Recommendations Many specific recommendations to doctoral students, academic advisors, and professors have already been discussed in Research Questions Cl and D. The following will focus on the study's more general recommendations: 1. There is a possibility that MSU and other higher education institutions may want to include years of work experience in education and adult educa­ tion as one of the criteria for accepting pr o­ spective doctoral students. 2. Prospective doctoral students in Adult and Contin­ uing Education (ACE) would probably profit by a written discussion or listing of characteristics of former completers and non-completers including a description of the sex differences found. Michigan State University (MSU) may want to consi­ der developing such a paper. 3. Further exploration should be made of BA G P A 's in relation to predicting Ph.D. 4. completion. The ACE graduate program at MSU may want to consid­ er developing a doctoral student "learning center". The learning center would focus on helping students overcome academic and social problems that arise as a result of being an ACE doctoral student. 135 5. The academic advisors and professors at MSU and elsewhere should keep abreast of current ACE graduate student characteristics and how these characteristics are related to the ability of students to finish their degrees. 6. The department of Adult and Continuing Education at MSU may wish to further examine the Life Change Check List ratings of current and completing doctoral students. Although this study offers some clues as to where problems could arise, further analysis is essential. Suggestions for Further Research 1. There needs to be more research on the charac­ teristics of completers and non-completers of the Ph.D. in Adult and Continuing Education. It would be particularly fruitful to determine wh e t h ­ er there are traits or .characteristics not studied here that have a relationship to complet­ ing the doctoral degree. 2. It would be interesting to investigate GPA's actual of ACE doctoral students both in comparison to self-reported G P A ’s and as a tool in predicting completion of the program. 3. There should be research studies in ACE graduate programs at other universities and colleges to increase the generalizability of this s t u d y ’s findings. 136 U. Use of the Life Change Check List in distinguish­ ing between the characteristics of completers and non-completers seems to offer some interesting and valuable information. done in this area. More studies should be In particular, it is rec o m ­ mended that large numbers of subjects be included in studies using this instrument. necessary to ensure that each event This would be (e.g. death of a spouse) occurred often enough that statisti­ cal analyses could be appropriately used. 5. Another study that would be fruitful using the Life Change Check List involves finding out why certain life events are impactful for some and not for others. It might be interesting to find out if some types of life events have impact for students with a particular characteristic and why. In addition, some of the recent literature on coping styles and locus of control might be appropriate to use in association with the Life Change Check List. 6. It should be noted that, because of the large n u m ­ ber of tests of statistical significance performed, there is a strong possibility that some of the r e ­ sults of this study were obtained by chance. Type I error Both (finding a significant relationship where there is none) and Type II error (not finding 137 6. a significant relationship where one is in fact present) could have occurred in the analyses reported here. It is therefore recommended that the results of this study be replicated in other studies before being accepted without reserva­ tion . APPENDIX A HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UN IV ERSITY COM M ITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 4S824 HUM AN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) 238 AD M IN ISTRA TION BUILDING October 6, 1981 «i r > ” 5-2186 Ms. Linda DeStigter 169** Oxford Apt. A Berkeley, California 9**709 Dear Ms. DeStigter: Subject: Proposal Entitled, "Similarities and Differences Between Selected Characteristics of Doctoral Students in Adult and Continuing Education at MSU Who are Completers and __________ Non-Completers of the Ph.D."__________ ___________________ The above referenced project was recently submitted for review to the UCRIHS. We are pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this project at its meeting on October 5, 1981__________ . Projects involving the use of human subjects must be reviewed at least annually. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to the anniversary date noted above. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. SInceroly, Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Dr. Howard Hickey If we can be of any APPENDIX B STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE Q uestionnaire jio. Date completed: Michigan State University College of Education Adult and Continuing Education October, 1981 Please check or fill In the appropriate blanks. 1. Gender: male 2. Marital Status: female single married other ______ Please explain 3. Present age___ 4. Age when you began and age when you completed bachelors degree 5. Age when you began and age when you completed masters degree ,_ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ Didn't complete masters degree_ _ _ _ 6. Age when you began and age when you interrupted your doctoral program___ , 7. If you did not complete your degree do you plan to complete? yes. ________ Please explain !_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ no 8. Nationality: 9. Race: 10. U.S. Citizen Aslan White Black Hispanic International, please state country of origin_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other ______ Please explain How far have you progressed in your doctoral studies? credits). Check all that apply. (Do not Include M.A. Completed some of doctoral course work (1-30 credits) Completed most of doctoral course work (31+ credits) Completed all doctoral course work but have not taken comprehensive examinations yet Did not take comprehensive exams Took comprehensive exams but did not pass Passed comprehensive exams Met with committee who approved dissertation proposal Met with committee who did not approve dissertation proposal Completed part of dissertation after proposal was accepted but not data gathering Completed my data gathering Completed all of dissertation but not orals Met with c o m M t t e e for final orals 1n defense of dissertation Awarded degree HO 11. How many years elapsed between the time you completed your bachelors degree and began your masters program?___ 12. How many years elapsed between the time you completed your masters degree and began your doctoral program? 13. In what field of study was your bachelors degree? Education, what was your major?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Non-Educat1on, what was your major?_ 14. In what field of study was your masters degree? Education, what was your major?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Non-Education, what was your major 1 15. Hhat was your overall grade point average (on a 4-po1nt scale) for your bachelors degree?___ 16. Hhat was your overall grade point average (on a 4-po1nt scale) for your masters degree?___ 17. Here you required to write a thesis for your masters degree program? yes no 13. From your perception was there pressure at your past positions for you to get a degree? yes no 19. Hhich of the following factors were supportive or non-supportive 1n determining your ability to finish your doctoral studies? Circle one for each category. Stronqly Non-Supportlve Strongly Supportive my financial situation 5 my rapport with faculty and staff 5 my research readiness for dissertation my ability to isolate, define and research problem my effective study habits iqy rapport with guidance committee and chairman my primary support group with family my primary support group with friends my primary support group with colleagues my physical health my moving away from major education Institution my sense of long-term signi­ ficance of doctorate other, please explain P .2 HI 20. How many years have you worked Ineducation?_ _ _ _ 21. How many years have you worked In adult education?_ _ _ 22. How many quarters were you registered at H.S.U. for course work and/or dissertation credits?___ 23. Following are selected Items from the Holmes and Rahe Life Change Check List. Rate each of the following life events as they have Impacted on your continuation or non>cont1nuat1on of your doctoral program. Circle one nunber for each category. Don't complete the right side 1f the event did not occur. Occurred Did Not Occur No Impact Significant Impact _ Death of Spouse 1 2 3 _ Divorce 1 2 3 5 5 _ Marital Separation 1 2 3 5 Death of Close Family Member 1 3 _ Marriage 1 2 3 5 5 _ Marital Reconciliation 1 2 3 5 __ 2 __ Major Change 1n Health of Family 1 2 3 5 __ Pregnancy 1 2 3 5 __ Addition of New Family Member 1 2 3 5 __ Son or Daughter Leaving Home 3 5 1 2 Spouse Starting or Ending Work 1 2 3 5 _ _ _ _ _ __ Major Personal Injury or Illness 1 2 3 5 _ _ _ _ _ __ Outstanding Personal Achievement 1 2 3 5 __ Major Change 1n Living Conditions 1 2 3 5 __ Change In Residence 1 2 3 5 Being Fired From Work 1 2 3 6 Changing to Different Line of Work 1 2 3 5 __ Major Change 1n Work Responsibilities 1 2 3 5 __ Trouble Kith Boss 1 2 3 5 __ Major Change 1n Working Conditions 1 2 3 5 _ _ _ _ _ __ 24. Hhat was your overall grade point average (on a 4-polnt scale) In y.our doctoral program?___ 25. Hhat was your overall grade point average (on a 4-po1nt scale) 1n education courses In your doctoral program?___ 26. Hhat was your overall grade point average (on a 4-po1nt scale) 1n noneducation courses taken d.orlng your doctoral program?___ 27. Did you have control over whether you could complete your doctoral studies? yes no. ______ _______________________________ Please explain 28. What percentage of your doctoral studies were on a part-time bas1s?_ 29. How many times have you published? none one, or more_ Please explain 30. Do you belong to any professional organizations? yes, please 11st_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Thank you for completing the questionnaire. APPENDIX C LETTER ATTACHED TO QUESTIONNAIRE 143 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING • M ICHIGAN • 48824 COLLEGE O F ED U CA TIO N D EPA R T M E N T OF ADM IN ISTRA TIO N AND H IG H ER ED U C A TIO N ERICKSON HALL October 19, 1981 Dear M.S.U. Student: We are interested in doing a follow-up study of doctoral candidates in Adult and Continuing Education at Michigan State University. It is hoped, through this questionnaire, to determine some of the similarities and differences between completers and non-completers of the doctoral degree. Your input is very important to this study. Please take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete the attached questionnaire and return it with a signed copy of the Consent Form in the enclosed selfaddressed envelope. If you wish to see the results of this study, please c om ­ plete and return the enclosed self-addressed postcard. We want to assure you that your name will not be identified in any way in the course of this study. The questionnaire number is present only to enable us to determine who has responded. Any information is considered strictly confidential and will be treated with respect. Your assistance and cooperation in completing this questionnaire is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely Li nda^DeStfgter Graduate/Student Professor (/ Adult and Continuing Education Attachment APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP LETTER SENT TO STUDENT SAMPLE 1 U MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE O F ED U C A TIO N EAST LANSING • M ICHIGAN • 48824 D EP A R T M E N T OF A D M IN IST R A T IO N A N D H IG H E R ED U C A TIO N ERICKSON HA LL November 18, 1981 Dear Graduate Student Colleague: About three weeks ago you should have received a research questionnaire concerning doctoral students in Adult and Continuing Education at M.S.U. As of this date, I have not received your response. Knowing the great impact a study like this could have on doctoral students in Adult and Continuing Education, including their professors and academic advisors, I am particularly anxious to have the best representation that is possible. If your response and m y reminder have crossed in the mail, I thank you for your support. If, however, you have not completed the ques­ tionnaire, please take approximately 10-15 minutes to respond to the ques­ tions, and mail it to me with the Consent Form in the enclosed, selfaddressed envelope. As an academic colleague with multiple roles of my own, I very much appreciate your taking time to assist me in completion of my research project. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Linda DeStigter Graduate Student Attachment APPENDIX E CONSENT FORM 145 Michigan State University Graduate Research Consent Form In signing the following statement, I agree to participate in the research project being conducted by Linda DeStigter, and I acknowledge: 1. That I understand the purposes of the research project which have been explained to me; 2. That I will be expected to complete a questionnaire; 3. That I understand that m y identity will remain anonymous and will remain confidential; 4. all results That I am voluntarily participating in the research project with no e x p e c ­ tation to benefit from the results; 5. That I am free to withdraw from participation at any time without quence. conse­ Si g n a t u r e :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date: Questionnaire Number: _ _ APPENDIX F POSTCARD U 6 Linda DeStigter 1694 Oxford Apt. A Berkeley, CA 94709 P. 2 I have completed the questionnaire: Name Address I would like a copy of the results ____ yes __ _ no APPENDIX G FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES TO "FACTORS" M7 Appendix G: Frequencies of Non-Supportive and Supportive Factors in Determining Ability to Finish Doctoral Studies by C vs. NC and Sex means no response was made) Name of Factor Strongly Non-Supportive 1 2 Strongly Supportive 3 A 5 Financial Situation: C's 5 2 11 13 16 NC's 6 2 7 11 5 Males 8 3 11 Females 3 1 C ’s 1 U 11 7 10 10 1 5 23 16 - A 5 7 15 1 5 6 21 13 - - A 9 18 A 7 10 1A 12 - 7 13 7 3 A 9 16 11 6 5 7 10 9 Rapport with Faculty and Staff: NC's Males Females Research Readiness for Dissertation: C's NC's Males Females 148 Appendix G (cont'd.). Stongly Non-Supportive 1 2 Name of Factor Strongly Supportiv e 3 A 5 A 11 18 10 - 6 9 12 3 A 7 15 15 5 - 3 5 15 8 - 2 3 A 5 - A 10 14 19 Males - A 15 16 11 Females - A A 7 16 .1 6 14 25 Ability to Isolate, Define and Research Problem: C' s 4 NC's Males Females Effective Study Habits: C's NC» s Rapport with Guidance Committee and Chairman: C's 1 NC's - 1 3 13 13 Males 1 2 6 18 19 3 9 19 Females U9 Apprendix G (cont'd.). Name of Factor Strongly Non-Supportive 1 2 3 C's 1 1 7 12 26 NC's 1 4 3 11 11 Males 1 2 7 15 21 Females 1 3 3 8 16 C's 2 7 14 14 9 NC's 2 5 8 10 9 Males 3 8 16 15 5 Females 1 4 6 9 10 4 21 18 4 Strongly Supportive 4 5 Primary Support Group with Family: Primary Support Group with Friends: Primary Support Group with Colleagues:. C's NC's 3 5 5 14 4 Males 1 7 16 18 5 Females 2 2 10 14 3 150 Appendix G (cont'd.). Strongly Non-Supportive 1 2 Name Factor Strongly Supportive 3 A 5 1 8 20 18 1 - 6 13 11 - 1 10 21 15 1 - A 12 1-4 Physical Health: C's NC's Males Females Moving Away from Major Education Institution: C's 7 5 15 A NC's A A 12 1 1 Males 8 A 18 3 - Females 3 5 9 2 1 1 2 6 13 2A NC's - 1 A 9 16 Males - 2 8 16 19 1 1 2 6 21 Sense of Long Term Significance of Doctorate: C's Females APPENDIX H FREQUENCIES OF RESPONSES FOR LIFE CHANGE CHECK LIST 151 Appendix H: Frequencies of Impaet Scores on the Holmes and Rahe Life Change Check List by C vs. NC and Sex indicates no response) Life Event No Impact Significant Impact 1 2 3 U 5 - - - - - NC's - - - - 1 Males - - - - - Females - - - - 1 C ’s - - 2 1 - NC's 1 - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - 2 - 1 - 1 - 2 Death of Spouse: C ’s Di v o r c e : Males Females Marital Separation: C's NC's Males Females Death of Close Family Member: t C ’s 3 1 1 3 2 NC's 3 3 2 1 - Males U 3 - 3 - Females 2 1 3 1 2 152 Appendix H (cont’d.). Life Event No Impact Significant Impact 1 2 3 A 5 - - 2 5 2 1 1 1 A 3 - 1 1 8 2 1 - 2 1 3 M a rri ag e: C's NC's Males Females Marital Reconciliation: C's - - - - - NC's - - - 1 2 - - - 1 - - - - - 2 Males Females Major Change in ]Health of F a m i l y : - 2 - - 2 NC's 1 - - 2 3 Males 1 2 - - 1 - - - 2 A C's A 5 1 - 1 NC's - - - 2 2 Males 2 3 1 1 2 Females 2 2 1 1 C's Females Pregnancy: 153 Appendix H (cont’d.). Life Event No Impact 1 2 Significant Impact 3 U 5 Addition of New Family Member: 3 3 2 - 1 - 1 1 2 2 Males 1 3 1 1 2 Females 2 1 2 1 1 C ’s NC's Son or Daughter Leaving Home: C's 1 2 2 3 - NC's 1 2 - - - Males 1 2 2 2 - Females 1 2 - 1 - Spouse Starting or Ending Work: C's 1 - 5 - 8 NC's 1 1 1 3 5 Males 1 1 U 3 10 Females 1 - 2 - 3 Major Personal Injury or Illness: C's - 3 2 - 1 NC's 1 - 2 - 2 Males 1 1 3 - 1 2 1 Females 2 15k Appendix H (cont’d.). Life Event No Impact 1 Significant Impact 2 3 k 5 Outstanding Personal Achievement: C ’s 3 1 5 9 2 NC's 1 - 2 9 3 Males 1 1 k 12 1 Females 3 - 3 6 k Major Change in !Living Conditio ns : C ’s NC's Mai es Females - - 5 5 3 1 2 3 k 6 - 2 3 6 k 1 - 5 3 5 Change in Residence: C's 2 5 6 2 6 NC's 3 3 k k 6 Males 2 6 6 k 7 Females 3 2 k 2 5 1 - - - 1 NC's - - 1 1 3 Males - - - 1 2 Being Fired from Work: C ’s Females 1 1 2 155 Appendix H (cont’d.). Life Event No Impact 1 Significant Impact 2 3 k 5 k 5 6 3 3 6 3 k 5 k k 7 Change to Different Line of Work: M Males 1 1 CO £3 0 C's Females Major Change in Work Responsibility • • C's 1 1 2 11 NC's 1 2 5 6 Males 1 2 k Females 1 1 3 6 6 1 3 - N C 's 1 - 1 Males 1 1 - 1 2 1 5 3 3 7 « 11 6 7 Trouble with Boss: C's Females 1 1 Major Change in Work Conditions: C's N C »s 3 - 3 k Males 2 2 3 2 Females 1 3 3 5 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Baird, L. L. "Using Self-reports to Predict Student Perfor­ mance: Research Monograph No. 7." College Entrance Examination Board, 1976. Batlis, N . , Webb, J. T . , Dekker, D. and Muehleisen, R. "The Relationship of Stressful Life Events and Hospitalization in a Student Sample." Paper p r e ­ sented at a meeting of the Ohio Psychological Association, Columbus, Ohio, 1972. Benton, Sidney E. "The use of Self-reported Grade Point Averages in Research Studies." The Southern Journal of Educational Res ea rc h. Vol. XIX, No. 2, Spring, 1980. pp. 14-5-150. Bieliauskas, Linas A. and Struger, Debra A. "Sample Size Characteristics and Scores on the Social Readjustment Rating Scale." Journal of Psychosomatic Re s e a r c h . Vol. 20(201-205) 1976. Bieliauskas, Linas A. and Webb, James T. "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale: Validity in a College Population." Journal of Psychosomatic R esear ch . Vol. 18(115-123) 1974. Brandenburg, Carlos Enrique. "Validation Of The Social Readjustment Rating Scale With Mexican-American And Native Americans." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, 1978. Bundy, Stuart McLeod. "Prediction Of Success In The Doctor­ al Programs Of The School Of Education Of The Unive r­ sity Of Southern California." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1968. Colvin, Gerald Franklin. "The Value Of Selected Variables In Predicting Academic Success In Graduate Education At The University Of Arkansas." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Arkansas, 1968. 156 157 Davidsen, 0. M. "Reliability of Self-reported High School Grades.” Unpublished research report. American College Testing Program. 1963. Davis, June House. "Doctoral Study In Adult Education: Selected Practices And Proposed Governance Models." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, 1976. Dickerman, Watson. "Implications of this Book for Programs of Graduate Study in Adult Education" in Adult Educa ­ tion Outlines of an Emerging Field of University S t u d y , (ed.) Gale Jensen et al. Adult Education Association of U.S.A. , 1964. Feldman, Saul D. "Impediment or Stimulant? Marital Status and Graduate Education." American Journal of Sociol­ o g y , 78(january, 1973): 982-994. Ford, Dolores and Houle, Cyril 0. "Doctorates in Adult Education, 1978." Adult Education: A Journal of Research and Theory" 30(Winter, 1980): 123-25. Gerst, Marvin S., Grant, Igor, Yager, Joel and Sweetwood, Harvey. "The Reliability of the Social Readjustment Rating Scale: Moderate and Long-term Stability." Journal of Psychosomatic R esear ch . Vol 22(519-523) 1978. Gleason, Dale Harvey. "Factors Associated With Success In The Doctor Of Education Program At North Texas State University." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, North Texas State Univeristy, 1963. Grace, W. J . , Wolf, S., and Wolff, H. G. Paul B. Hoeber, New York, 1951. The Human Colo n. Grosz, Alden Albert. "An Analysis Of Program Requirements For Doctoral Degrees In Adult Education." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Missis sipp i, 1976. Hallenbeck, Wilbur. "Role of Adult Education in Society" in Adult Education Outlines of .an Emerging Field of University S t u d y , (ed.) Gale Jensen et al. Adult Education Association of U.S.A., 1964. Hickey, Howard. Doctoral Committee Chairman. Professor of Adult and Continuing Education, Michigan State Univ er­ sity, Interview, May, 1981. 158 Holmes, T. H . , Goodell, H . , Wolf, S., and Wolff, H. G. The Nose. An Experimental Study of Reactions Within the Nose in Human Subjects During Varying Life Expe ri ­ ences , Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1950. Holmes, Thomas H . , and Holmes T. H. "Short-term Intrusions into the Life Style Routine." Journal of Psychosoma­ tic R es ea rc h. Vol. 14(121-127) 1970. Holmes, Thomas H. and Rahe, Richard H. "The Social Readjus t­ ment Rating Scale." Journal of Psychosomatic R e s e a r c h . Vol. 11(213-218) 1967. Houle, Cyril 0. "The Doctorate in Adult Education 1961." Adult E d u c a t i o n , XIl(Spring, 1962): 131-135. _________. "The Education of Adults" in Handbook of Adult E d u c a t i o n , (ed.) Robert M. Smith et al. New York: Macmillan Pub. C o . , 1970. _________. "The Emergence of Graduate Study in Adult Edu ca ­ tion," in Adult Education Outlines of an Emerging Field of University S t u d y ^ (ed.) Gale Jensen et al. Adult Education Association of U.S.A., 1964. Houle, Cyril 0. and Buskey, John H. "The Doctorate in Adult Education, 1935-1965," Adult Education XVl(Spring, 1966 ): 131 -168 . Jensen, Gale, Liveright, A. A. and Hallenbeck, Wilbur, (eds.) "Forward" in Adult Education Outlines of an Emerging Field of University S t u d y , (ed.) Gale Jensen et al. Adult Education Association of U.S.A., 1964. Johnston, Thesba Natalie. "Factors Related To Success In The Doctoral Program At Boston University." Unp ub ­ lished Ed.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1961. Karelius, Karen L. "A Study Of The Early Adult Development And Motivation For Enrollment Of Women And Men Who Enrolled In Graduate School During The Age Thirty Transition, Ages 28-32." Unpublished Ph.D. dis serta­ tion, Michigan State University, 1982. Kerr, Rolland Dean. Of Degree And Department Of University Of dissertation, "A Study Of Selected Background Factors Non-Degree Doctoral Students In The Education Of The Graduate School At The Missouri At Columbia." Unpublished Ed.D. University of Missouri, Columbia, 1966. 159 Kleis, Russell J. "Dimension for Planning." A short paper describing the Program of Studies in Continuing Ed u c a ­ tion at Michigan State University, College of E d uca­ tion. (Undated) _________ . "Majors Available in Continuing Education. gan State University. (Undated) Mic hi ­ _________ . "Planning Your Program of Advanced Study." Memorandum To: Student in Adult-Community-ExtensionNon-formal Education From: Faculty, Program of Stu d­ ies in Continuing Education, Michigan State University, 1977. Kreitlow, Burton W. "Research and Theory" and "Appendix," in Handbook of Adult E d u c a t i o n , (ed.) Robert M. Smith, et al. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970. Lief, A. (Ed.) The Commonsense Psychiatry of Dr. Adolf M e y e r , McGraw-Hill, New York, 1948. Liveright, A. A. "The Nature and Aims of Adult Education as a Field of Graduate Education" in Adult Education Outlines of an Emerging Field of University S t u d y , (ed.) Gale Jensen et al. Adult Education Association of U.S.A., 1964. Manuel, Paul Glenn. "A Follow-Up Study Of Doctoral Candi ­ date Dropouts In Education At Indiana University 19481961." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana U n i v e r ­ sity, 1966. Meisner, Robert, Parsons, J. and Ross, Norma. "Adult Ed u c a ­ tion Graduate Students: A Profile." Lifelong L e a r n ­ ing the Adult Years 2(March, 1979): 18-19. Michigan State University Publication Graduate S t u d y . 68, No. 4, 1974. Vol. Nichols, R. C. and Holland, J. L. "Prediction of the FirstYear College Performance of High Aptitude Students." Psychological Mon og raphs. 7(Whole No. 570) 1963. Pristo, Larry D. "The Prediction Of Doctoral Program Su c ­ cess For The Adult Education Department At Arizona State University." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1977. 160 Renetzky, Alvin. "All But The Dissertation: A Study Of The Factors Of Attrition In Graduate Education." Unpub­ lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1966. Report to the Special Committee to Study Ph.D. Programs in the University of California, Office of the University Provost, June, 1975. Ross, Norma Jeanne. "Variables Influencing The Decision To Enter Adult Education Graduate Programs." Un p u b ­ lished Ph.D. dissertation, Kansas State University, 1978. Rubin, R. T . , Gunderson, E. K. E. and Arthur, R. J. "Life Stress and Illness Patterns in the United States Navy." Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Vol. 15(89-91) 1971. Santos, Severino Rivera, Jr. "Factors Associated With Suc­ cessful Candidacy In Certain Fields Of Graduate Study." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1966 . Schroeder, Wayne L. "Adult Education Defined and Described," in Handbook of Adult E d u c a t i o n , (ed.) Robert M. Smith, et al. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1970. Thom, Douglas J. and Hickcox, Edward S. "The Selection of New Graduate Students for an Educational Administration Program." The Journal of Educational Administration 1 3 (May, 19757! 23-34. Veri, Clive Chester. "The Design Of A Doctoral Degree P r o ­ gram In Adult Education Based On The Expressed Needs Of Professional Practitioners." Unpublished disser­ tation, University of Nebraska, 1968. West, John Pettigrew. "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale: A Study Of Life Events And Prediction Of Illness Onset In The Afro-American." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, 1978. Wetherill, William Hirn. "A Follow-Up Study Of Doctoral Students In Education At The University Of Michigan Who Have Successfully Completed The Preliminary E x a m i ­ nations But Not Completed The Doctorate, 1946-1953." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, I960. 161 Wolf, S, The Stomach, 19651 Oxford University Press, New York, Wolf, S., Cardon, P. V., Shepard, E. M . , and Wolff, H. G. Life Stress and Essential Hypertension, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1955. Wolff, H. G., Wolf, S. and Hare, C. C. (Eds.) Life Stress and Bodily D i s e a s e , Research Publication Association. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis. Vol. 29, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1950.