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 o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . 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 o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer 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. UniversHv Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8324759 P ierso n , Tim J a m e s A COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES TOWARD SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES OF SENIORS IN THE COLLEGE OF NATURAL SCIENCE AND LYMAN BRIGGS COLLEGE AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Ph.D. M ichigan State University University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1983 by Pierson, Tim James All Rights Reserved 1983 PLEASE NOTE: In all c a s e s this material h as been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy. Problems enco u n tered with this d o cu m en t have b een identified here with a check m ark V 1. G lossy photographs or p a g e s ______ 2. Colored illustrations, p ap er or print 3. Photographs with dark b ac k g ro u n d ______ 4. Illustrations a re poor c o p y _______ 5. P ag es with black marks, not original copy_______ 6. Print show s through a s th e re is text on both sid e s of p ag e______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g es 8. Print exceed s margin requirements 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______ . 10. Com puter printout p ag es with indistinct print______ 11. P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or author. 12. P a g e (s)____________seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows. 13. Two pages n u m b e re d ____________ . Text follows. 14. 15. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s _______ O ther___________________________________________________ ____________________ University Microfilms International A COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES TOWARD SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES OF SENIORS IN THE COLLEGE OF NATURAL SCIENCE AND LYMAN BRIGGS COLLEGE AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Tim James Pierson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1983 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES TOWARD SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES OF SENIORS IN THE COLLEGE OF NATURAL SCIENCE AND LYMAN BRIGGS COLLEGE A T MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Tim James Pierson Purpose of the Study The purpose attitudes seniors toward in College, addition, of the fall senior 1. experiences held by 1981, at Michigan State University. of compared his findings the results of attitudinal 1971 at Michigan In with study of State University. this study is designed to: Compare 1982 to compare and contrast and social investigator class Specifically, was College of Natural Science and Lyman Briggs similar investigations; the study education term the this of and the contrast Lyman the Briggs attitudes surveyed and Natural in Science seniors. 2. Determine the difference, surveyed in 1981 with Natural Science and if any, in the attitudes those reported in the 1971 Lyman Michigan State University. Briggs seniors at Population and Sample The seniors Lyman sample selected for this study was drawn in the College of Natural Briggs College enrolled from 678 Science and 84 seniors in full-time fall term 1981 at MSU. Methodology The survey developed for this investigation was mailed to fifty percent of the Natural Science seniors and each of seniors in Lyman Briggs. A 65 percent return was received from Lyman Briggs and 32 percent from Natural Science. The Multivariate Analysis of Variance statistical model percentages were comparison of chosen to computed the 1981 test and (MANOVA) was the for significance presented responses with in those tables collected and for in 1971 for a similar investigation. Major Findings MANOVA suggesting results a indicated significant the F-test difference in was significant, Lyman Briggs and Natural Science seniors. 1. LBC seniors were significantly more satisfied with their college or department. 2. LBC seniors held significantly attitudes toward the University. more favorable 3. LBC students were significantly more involved in community and campus activities. 4. LBC students were significantly more satisfied with the faculty in their college. These results achieved experience its at support N o s o w ’s 1971 objective a Residential College. major "to conclusion that MSU has provide university" a in small Lyman college Briggs ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is my sincere belief that this undertaking would not have been possible without encouragement the program. The quality Dr. Louis C. and of Stamakos, dissertation extended author to was Foster guidance, received throughout support and Chairperson superb. Dr. Max Dr. Lawrence the A Raines, for their support his guidance doctoral extended of my doctoral special thanks Dr. Larry support and and by program is also Lezotte, and willingness to work with the dissertation committee. for The author his timely, would also like to recognize Khalil Elaian personable, and very capable assistance during the latter stages of the investigation. Other friends encouragement, Swezey, and colleagues proof reading, Richard Frost, who provided and a listening ear were Erin James Wall, Mindy Petter, and Cheryl Todd. A faculty, special and commitment to thanks staff a in is also Lyman personable extended Briggs and to College quality the students, whose special education provided the stimulus for this study. To my parents and family, a warm and sincere thanks for their help and love throughout the y e a r s . Lastly, special been understanding, thanks loving, to my and ii son Traver Lee, who has a source of continual joy. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. Page THE P R O B L E M .................................... 1 Introduction .................................... Importance of the S t u d y .................. Purpose of the S t u d y .................... H y p o t h e s e s ........... Definition of T e r m s ....................... Scope and Limitation of the Study . . . . 1 6 8 9 10 11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14 ................ Student Satisfaction ........................... Impact of College on Students . . . . . . Student Involvement ...................... Student/Faculty Relationships ........... Institutional S i z e ...................... R e s i d e n c y .................................. Summary of Student Satisfaction ......... Factors Leading to the Development of the Residential College ......................... The Living-Learning Concept ............. Residential Colleges--An Outgrowth of Living-Learning ............................. Historical Perspective .................. Development of the Residential Colleges . Definition of the Residential Colleges . Rationale for Residential Programs ... Today's Residential College ............. A Description of Lyman Briggs College . . . . Student Leadership ...................... The F a c u l t y ................................ Core C u r r i c u l u m ........................... Review of Related Study ...................... Attitudes toward University, College, and D e p a r t m e n t ......................... Comparing One's Experience in a College or Major Department with What One Believes Takes Place Elsewhere . . . . Summary of the 1971 S t u d y ................ Chapter Summary ........................... iii 14 15 16 16 17 20 21 22 25 28 28 28 29 30 31 33 36 38 40 44 47 50 51 52 Page Chapter III. IV. M E T H O D O L O G Y ................................ Introduction ............................. Population and Sample . . . . . . . Design and Collection of Data ... Data Preparation .................. Research Approval .................. Instrumentation .................... Methods of Analysis Employed . . . . Computer Program .................... S u m m a r y ....................... 61 54 54 54 55 56 57 57 59 61 ANALYSIS OF D A T A ................................ 63 Introduction .................................... MANOVA Results .................................. Satisfaction with College or Major Department . ......................... General Attitudes toward Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y ............................. Attitudes toward Michigan State University Professors .................. Involvement in Community Activities . . . Satisfaction with Outcomes of Educational Experience ................ Satisfaction with Faculty in College or D e p a r t m e n t ............................. Attitudes toward Individual Attention . . Involvement in Campus Cocurricular A c t i v i t i e s ............................. Attitude toward Planning ................ Satisfaction with Academic Advisement . . Summary of MANOVA R e s u l t s .............. Comparison of the 1982 Responses with the Responses Gathered in 1 9 7 1 .................. Satisfaction with College or Major Department ........................... General Attitudes toward Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y ............................. Satisfaction with Educational Outcomes . Satisfaction with College or Major Department in Contrast to Other Colleges or Major Departments ......... Involvement in Campus Cocurricular A c t i v i t i e s ............................. S u m m a r y .................................... 63 63 iv 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 79 80 84 87 89 92 95 Page Chapter V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............................. 98 Introduction .................................... 98 Purpose of the S t u d y .................... 99 Population and Sample .................... 100 M e t h o d o l o g y ................................ 101 F i n d i n g s .................................. 103 MANOVA Results .................................. 103 Satisfaction with College or Major D e p a r t m e n t ............................. 104 General Attitudes toward Michigan State University ........................... 104 General Attitudes toward Michigan State 104 University Professors . . . . ..... Involvement in Community Activities . . . 104 Satisfaction with Outcomes of Educational E x p e r i e n c e s .......................... 104 Satisfaction with Faculty in Their College or Department . . . . . . . . . 105 Attitudes toward Individualized Attention or A s s i s t a n c e ......................... . 105 Involvement in Campus Cocurricular A c t i v i t i e s .......................... 105 Attitudes toward Planning ................ 106 Satisfaction with Academic Advisement . . 106 Comparison of the 1982 Findings with the Findings Reported in 1 9 7 1 .............. 106 D i s c u s s i o n ............................ 109 Student/Faculty Relations ................ 110 R e s i d e n c y .............................. 110 I n v o l v e m e n t ............................ Ill Academic Advisement ....................... 112 C o n c l u s i o n s ................................. 113 Implication for Further Research . . . . 114 B I B L I O G R A P H Y ................................................ 117 APPENDIX A. B. C. D. CORRESPONDENCE FOR RESEARCH APPROVAL AND LETTER TO 1982 LYMAN BRIGGS AND NATURAL SCIENCE SENIORS ................................ DESCRIPTION OF TEN SCALES DEVELOPED FROM THE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E .......................... 130 134 TABLE COMPARISONS OF THE 1982 and 1971 FINDING. RESULTS ARE REPORTED IN PERCENTAGE OF POSITIVE RESPONSES .............. 144 THE INSTRUMENT "SENIOR EXPRESSION" 198 ........... LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Summary of respondents for the 1971 i n v e s t i g a t i o n ........................... 45 "I feel that my college or major department treats me as though I am of some importance as an individual," by c o l l e g e .................. 47 "I feel that my college or major department is responsive to needs of students," by college ......................................... and sex 48 "To what extent has your college or department afforded classroom opportunities to identify and interact with its faculty?" by college and s e x ............................. 48 "To what extent has your college or department provided -tfce^-epportuni ty for you to get individual attention, when needed, from faculty?" by college and sex . . . 48 "To what extent did your college or major department afford you the opportunity to have informal contacts with faculty outside the classroom?" by college and s e x ........... 49 "To what extent has your college or department provided the opportunity for you to get individual attention when needed, from supportive staff, such as tutors, R.A.'s, secretaries, etc.?" by college and s e x ........................................... 49 "To what extent did your college and the residence hall provide an adequate program of cocurricular activities?" by college and sex ................................ 49 "I feel that my college or major department has given me the opportunity to participate in academic decision-making," by college and ............................................. sex 50 vi 3.1 Possible and Actual Number of Respondents 4.1 Presentation of the results of the M u l t i ­ variate Analysis of Variance of difference across all ten s c a l e s ........................... 65 Multivariate Analysis of Variance results for Scale I: Satisfaction with college or major d e p a r t m e n t ................................ 67 MANOVA results for Scale 2: General •attitudes toward Michigan State University 67 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 ... . . 56 MANOVA results for Scale 3: Attitudes ....................... toward M.S.U. professors 69 MANOVA results for Scale 4: Involvement in community activities ......................... 70 MANOVA results for Scale 5: Satisfaction with outcomes of educational experience . . . . 71 MANOVA results for Scale 6: Satisfaction with faculty in college or d e p a r t m e n t ......... 72 MANOVA results for Scale 7: Attitudes toward individualized assistance .............. 73 MANOVA results for Scale 8: Involvement in campus cocurricular activities ............. 74 MANOVA results for Scale 9: Attitudes toward planning ................................ 75 MANOVA results for Scale 10: Satisfaction with academic advisement ....................... 76 Percentage of positive responses and percentage of change for the 1971 and 1982 s t u d i e s .................................... 81 General attitudes toward MSU: A comparison of positive responses and percentages of change between the 1971 and 1982 studies ... 86 Satisfaction with Educational Outcomes: A comparison of positive responses and percentage of change between the 1971 and 1982 s t u d i e s ................................ 88 Satisfaction with My College or Major Department in Contrast to Other College or Major Departments: A comparison of positive responses and percentages of change between the 1971 and 1982 studies vii ... 91 4.16 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Involvement in Campus Cocurricular Activities: A comparison of positive responses and percentages of change for Lyman Briggs between the 1971 and 1982 studies ........... 93 "I feel that my college or major department has given me a sense of identity with an academic community" ............................. 144 "I feel that my college or major department has provided an opportunity for being part of a meaningful social group" .................. 144 "I feel that my college or major department has given me the opportunity to participate in academic decision-making" .................... 145 "I feel that my college or major department is responsive to the needs of students" . . . . 145 "I feel that my college or major department treats me as though I am of some importance as an individual" . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 146 "I feel that my college or major department has provided an intellectually stimulating environment" ...................................... 146 14. "I feel that my college or major department has helped me to develop life goals, values and standards" .................................... 147 15. "I feel that my college or major department has helped me become more sensitive to ethical issues" .................................. 147 16. "I feel that my college or major department has provided the opportunity for me to get individual attention, when needed, from faculty” ..............................................148 17. "I feel that my college or major department has afforded me an adequate choice of electives apart from the specialized requirements for my m a j o r .......................... 148 18. "I feel that my college or major department has afforded me a program of studies relevant to the problems of s o c i e t y " ........................ 149 19. "I feel that I have received a good education at M S U " .............................................. 149 viii 20. 21. 22. "I feel prepared for a job related to my field of s t u d y " .................... 150 "I feel that my experience at MSU has been socially rewarding" ......................... 150 "I am sorry that I came to MS U rather than to another s c h o o l " ............. 151 23. "In retrospect, I wish I had selected a different major" ................................ 151 24. "I feel prepared for graduate or professional education" ......................... 25. Do you feel that your education makes you competitive in the present job market? 152 . . . 152 26. "Generally speaking, I found my MSU professors were interested in teaching"...........153 27. "Generally speaking, I found my MSU professors made relevant assignments" . . . . . 153 28. "Generally speaking, I found my MSU professors were thorough in their e v a l u a t i o n " ........................................ 154 29. "Generally speaking, I found my MSU professors were fair in their g r a d i n g " ...........154 30. "Generally speaking, I found my MSU professors inspired me to learn" ................ 155 31. "Generally speaking, I found my MSU professors were available for help when I needed i t " ........................................ 155 32. "Generally speaking, I found my MSU professors were sensitive to needs of individual students" ............................. 33. "Generally speaking, I found m y MSU professors used effective teaching methods 156 . . . 156 34. "Generally speaking, I found my MSU professors outside my major, had a broad perspective which served many m a j o r s " .............................................157 35. Helped organize and conduct an opinion or information poll (e.g., Gallup, or Ropertype) at school or in the c o m m u n i t y ............. 157 ix 36. Built or improved upon a piece of scientific equipment or laboratory apparatus on my own (not as part of a course r e q u i r e m e n t ) ...........158 37. Was a primary organizer of a student or community service group ......................... 158 38. Elected to one or 159 39. Served on a student-faculty committee or g r o u p ............................................... 159 40. Elected president of a "special interest" student c l u b ........................................ 160 41. Worked as a volunteer aide in a hospital, clinic, or h o m e ....................................160 42. Worked as a volunteer on a school or civic ............. improvement project more student offices .......... 161 43. Attended meetings of one or more local civic groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V " . . . 161 44. Had contact with a local official about some community problem ................................. 162 46. Acquiring 162 47. Developing the ability to think critically and to understand the uses and limitations of knowledge ...................................... 163 48. Understanding different world views, cultures and ways of life ................................. 163 49. Social development--gaining skill in relating to other p e o p l e ....................................164 50. Personal development--understanding myself, my abilities and limitations, and my place in s o c i e t y ............................................. 164 51. To what extent did your experience in a residence hall positively contribute to your total education at MSU? .................... 165 52. To what extent did your college or major department afford you the opportunity to have informal contacts with faculty outside the c l a s s r o o m ? ...................................... 165 53. To what extent was the individual academic advising in your college or major depart­ ment helpful to you? ............................. 166 x a broad cultural background .......... 54. 55. 56. To what extent were faculty members of your college or department receptive to differing views? ................................ 166 To what extent have fellow students provided a positive influence on your educational achievements? .................................... 167 Regarding your participation in a social fraternity or sorority, during your MSU career, you-.................................... 167 57. Students should be permitted to sit as voting members on the MSU Board o f ............... 168 58. Classes discussing more contemporary ............................................. 168 issues 59. Student representation on administrative committees (academic council, departments, etc . ) ............................................... 169 60. Student involvement in evaluating faculty m e m b e r s ............................................. 169 61. Reduction in the number of required courses and increase in number of electives p e r m i t t e d ...........................................170 62. Provision in class to pursue individual i n t e r e s t s ...........................................170 63. Students developing areas of concentration apart from one department (e.g. ecology, environmental or interdisciplinary programs) 64. . .171 Using individualized programmed learning, such as audio-tutorial methods or programmed tests ................................ 171 65. Assigning grades on pass-no grade, or creditno credit b a s i s ....................................172 66. Using television as an instructional medium 67. Field work outside of the class room being used as a complement to the regular class ............................................. 173 68. Provision being made for life-long or adult e d u c a t i o n .......................................... 173 69. Relaxing university regulations governing student behavior ................................ xi . . 172 174 70. Student involvement in how classes are to be conducted ...................................... 174 71. Many classes, outside of specialized areas, considering general widespread issues (pollution, ecology, consumerism, etc.) . . . . 175 72. Providing opportunities to do independent study for credit ................................. 175 74. Do you feel that you now have an adequate religious faith or personal philosophy which serves as a guide for your personal c o n d u c t ? ............................................. 176 75. I believe that in contrast to departments on closer contact 76. 77. 78. my college or major department other colleges or major campus provided me with with faculty .................... 176 I believe that my college or major department in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus provided me with more individualized attention .................. 177 I believe that my college or major department in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus provided me with more specialized training ....................... 177 I believe that my college or major department in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus provided me with broader training .................................. 178 79. I believe that my college or major department in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus provided me with less c o m p e t i t i o n ....................................178 80. I believe that my college or major department in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus provided me with more personal freedom ........................... 179 I believe that my college or major department in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus provided me with more tolerant faculty ........................... 179 81. 82. Much student-to-student interaction in class 83. The professor should determine what work is to be done in the c o u r s e ...................... 180 xii . . 180 84. The students should determine what work is to be done in the c o u r s e .................. 181 85. The course should be presented on an individual or audio-tutorial basis ............. 181 86. The professor should have time for students outside of class ....................... 182 87. I'd like to be known well enough to be called by my first name in c l a s s .............. 182 88. Individualized help should be provided for students having academic difficulty ........... 183 89. Special honors programs should be available for students of exceptionally high ability . . . 183 90. Activities sponsored by a religious organization .................................... 184 91. Student g o v e r n m e n t ................ 184 92. Department or college academic governance 93. Literary, oratorical, or dramatic activities 94. Intramural athletics 95. Musical, dance or other fine arts activities 96. Workshops, lectures or organized discussions not related to class assignments . . . . . . . . 187 Special interest clubs (photography, sailing, etc.) .................................... 187 Volunteer programs (tutoring, aid to the blind, MSU Volunteers-Service•Learning) . . . . 188 How well informed do you presently consider yourself to be in regard to national and international affairs? ........................... 188 97. 98. 99. . . . 185 . . 185 .............................. 186 . . 186 100. Were the placement examinations (Mathematics, Arithmetic, Reading) helpful in placing you into proper entrance levels in these areas? . . .189 101. Have your major reasons for attending MSU been realized up to this t i m e ? .................. 189 102. I would rather decide things when they come up than try to plan a h e a d ......................... 190 xiii 103. Competition encourages excellence ................. 190 104. There's not much use for me to plan ahead because there's usually something that upsets my p l a n s ........................................... 191 105. I nearly always feel pretty sure of myself and maintain my composure when people disagree ........................................... 191 with me 106. For the well-prepared student, there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair t e s t ......... 192 107. Exam questions often tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless ................................ 192 108. Becoming a success is a matter of diligent work; luck has little or nothing to do with it ... .193 109. Leadership positions tend to be held by capable people who deserve being chosen . . . . . ... .193 110. When I make careful plans I am almost certain that I can make them w o r k ......................... 194 111. Women should have complete equality with men in social, political and economic matters . . . .194 115. The help and guidance you received as a junior and/or s e n i o r .............................. 195 116. The help and guidance you received as a freshman and/or s o p h o m o r e ......................... 195 117. The help and guidance you received from college academic affairs office ................ 196 118. My adviser's attitude toward my personal p r o b l e m s ........................................... 196 119. My adviser's knowledge of MSU r e s o u r c e s .......... 197 120. My adviser's help in selecting c o u r s e s .......... 197 xiv CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM INTRODUCTION The residential innovations in college American Higher deal of prominence during post World years brought War about II States Office student across of in 1968-69, decade the of late and indicate from more unlike many the a such great sixties. fifties and The sixties to colleges Surveys by the United that the total college 3,610,007 than gained expansion the country. leaped not Education, growth Education population 7,571,636 the of tremendous and universities concept, doubling in 1961-62 the to enrollment during the first eight years of the decade (Gaff, 1970). The average higher 1968 number learning and students students increased the number increased (Grant, 1969). and of student of from enrolled from 1,828 institutions four to in an in institution 1960 to enrolling twenty-five 3,049 over in a of in 30,000 decade Accompanying this growth were faculty, staff concerns regarding increased classroom size, limited faculty/student interaction and a loss of the "sense of community." had become lectures, a Student very graduate life on many of the larger campuses impersonal assistants experience teaching with television lower classes and the increased use of standardized tests. 1 division Various models this kinds were being rapid usually (1971) administrative employed expansion. problem of how its of to saw the Large live negative in response and to institutions with bigness consequences residential, the concerns were facing of the and how to counteract (Astin, inner instructional or 1977). cluster Dressel college as holding at least the possibility of reshaping undergraduate education by environment and methodologies this redefining by horizontal their devoted as they that to higher saw at any matter. local They least within in further forms facilitate, that or different and different (1969) also held adequate of an little, It was providing that absolute given of institution to its size. size the organization significant forms university. itself, level suggest "new for is appropriate horizontal a content the education matters given autonomy new a need "size,” its internal organization is, offering Feldman and Newcomb organizations belief by introducing (1979). viewpoint, goals, That does condition invite, educational or not of at innovation" (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969). deal The issue of institutional of attention in student satisfaction. between size satisfaction Newcomb, and All individual (Astin, 1969). studies In 1977; size has been given a great assessing suggest college a negative participation, Chickering, responding impact relationship involvement 1969; and Feldman to this challenge and and for large 3 institutions, Astin (1969) saw ability to simulate smallness intent would the of the small of an environment, attention college, while and at the institution's suggested was where support the in through cluster colleges. The reorganization being create kind it same students would typically time one enjoy receive offered the that in a resources and opportunities available at a large university. Michigan State exemplifying earlier 1967, ing the and the its University kind of provides growth response to this the University's President, the need status programs. events for and The and change, needs of that the expansion In a committee University's to describes the described the John A. Hannah, report lead excellent model growth. appointed Committee's discussion and an fall of recogniz­ to examine undergraduate some development of of the the residential college model at Michigan State. ft Michigan State University was among the first of the large public universities to develop plans for the establishment of semi-autonomous residential colleges. In its 1959 report, the Committee on the Future of the University suggested that serious consideration be given to the possibility of a small liberal arts college in the midst of the larger University and several proposals for a college of this kind were drafted. However, it was not until November of 1964 that the Provost appointed a special ad hoc study committee to examine in detail the feasibility of a new and semi-autonomous college. The report of that committee was presented in February of 1965 to the EPC which, in due course, formally accepted the positive recommendations it contained. In the report of the ad hoc committee, three major goals for the proposed semi-autonomous college were identified. They called for: 4 a. a more successful integration of stu­ dents into the social and intellectual life of a recognizable university unit; b. the merging of currently unmet curricu­ lar needs; c. the opportunity for curricular experi­ mentation now limited by the demands of on-going institutional arrangements within the University. Thus, curricular innovation and experimentation were to be encouraged within the context of a controlled environment which would reinforce the student's effort to develop meaningful relation­ ships with other students, the faculty and u l t i ­ mately, the University itself (Michigan State University, 1967). Three residential colleges--Justin Morrill, Briggs and James Madison--were established, specific objectives anchored presented in this report. tigator will focus on upon the each developing three major Throughout this study, College II; Lyman goals the inves­ Lyman Briggs C o l l e g e . Lyman Briggs College, which accepted its first class in the fall broad of 1967, liberal mathematics. particular was created for students education The kind College of in the was biological established environment for student at Michigan State University. ments of the College provide interested a the in a sciences to and provide a science-oriented The aims and commit­ conceptual framework from which the College was established. Aims and Objectives of Lyman Briggs College Lyman Briggs College is committed to provide its students with an education in the sciences ch a r ­ acterized by excellence and balanced by the inclu­ sion of a usually large segment of the components 5 of a liberal education. The College plans to take full advantage of the potential student benefits inherent in a small residential college. It will be cognizant of the individual differences in the need of students and faculty members. It will provide for these in a way that is only possible in a community with which each member can identify and that each member can influence. In this respect it will be a collegiate community whose sole reason for being is the intellectual, ethical and social development of all its citizens. This community will offer students all the advantages of living and studying in a residential college with its increased opportunities for identifica­ tion and interaction with the faculty, development of co-curricular activities related to educational goals and reinforced by frequent and informal communication with those of similar interests. It will simultaneously offer the wide resources of a major university for the selection of a variety of courses and a wide choice of cultural, social and athletic activities. Lyman Briggs College will undertake a series of experimental innovations planned to increase the students' interests in serious intellectual in­ quiry into the sciences and mathematics, with an understanding of some of the logic and history of their development, the philosophy that pervades them, and the impact on the society that supports and is affected by them. Because Lyman Briggs College is designed to provide a liberal-science based undergraduate education, a core program required of all students will provide: The 1. A sound foundation in the biological physical sciences and mathematics. 2. A unique general education program arranged to focus attention on the relations between science and society and science and man. 3. Fields of concentrated study which seek to develop high levels of scholarship and the qualifications for useful citizenship, b u s i ­ ness, industry or government service (Analysis of Lyman Briggs College, Michigan State University, 1973). planning committee which designed Lyman and Briggs College saw it as an 11innovative and experimental" program. Inherent with this comprehensive Sound charge assessment assessment is of produces the the need for program's continual effectiveness. information necessary decisions regarding goal attainment, and for making direction for improve­ ment and ultimately, whether or not to continue the program. "When formal, planned evaluation individuals--administrators, involved their faculty is and not present, students, whether in the program or viewing from the sidelines--make own. And reasonably those object who if resist the others are unfavorable" formal evaluation impressionistic cannot evaluation of (Dressel, 1976). Importance of the Study The focus importance when examined decreed by sity in the essential the its by were spared Briggs. fiscal programs examination, among the first programs deal of is brought to 1980-81 the University's all-university great study relationship forced of to in During was all this the into sharper fiscal crisis Board of Trustees of Michigan State U n i v e r ­ 1981. University examine of discussion with some exigencies to the carefully which Subsequent residential scheduled year, to determine mission. the and academic were to this colleges were for elimination. After a close modifications scrutiny, the recommended colleges for Lyman The college status of Lyman Briggs was changed to a school within the College of Natural Science. The program and administrative changes as a result of this action have not all been determined at the time of this writing. the However, the opportunity, attitudes will perhaps regarding residential be significance the their scheduled, to but their changes examine in the lies in student established in the program will present The importance of the these findings could hold for determining the effectiveness particular be previously being this to as study of is to programs students with a different experience. suggested study The 1982 Lyman Briggs seniors complete future last, this experience college program. able of found residential in the college contribution program and in planning its future. Michigan tions, will during the warned that with State University, continue 1 9 8 0 ’s bad cost. decade policy Adequate information to be in like many faced with of difficult retrenchment. decisions come program making other decisions Astin (1979) from a preoccupation assessment these institu­ can provide useful difficult decisions ’’educational" rather than financial decisions. The object timing is to of this examine study a is "mature also important program." since Trow its (1969) suggests that the time to assess an innovation is when it is no longer an no longer can enthusiasm of innovation; call an forth when it has become routinized and special experiment. The energies, Lyman resources Briggs program and is well beyond the "newness" stage as little evaluation of this 8 kind has taken place since 1971 and 1975. The Office of Evaluation Services conducted a study of seniors at Michigan State in 1971 ferences in and the their findings revealed significant d i f ­ residential toward personal adjustment, college stud e n t s ’ attitudes intellectual growth and college experience when compared with their University counterparts (Nosow, surveyed 1975). those seniors Briggs College. comparison The in students the first The present data with the graduating of a study this class 1971 study and useful examining study from were Lyman study will provide interesting on the program's present impact. ness in information The need and appropriate­ student satisfaction with their college experience is put in today's context by Astin (1977) as he asserts: "Current discussions of accountability of the 'outputs' of higher education frequently overlook student satisfaction. This area covers the student's subjective experience during the college years and perceptions of the value of the edu c a ­ tional experience. Given the considerable invest­ ment of time and energy that most students make in attending college, the student's perception of value should be given substantial weight. Indeed, it is difficult to argue that student satisfaction can be legitimately subordinated to any other educational outcome." Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast attitudes towards educational and social experiences held by seniors in College, addition, the fall the College of Natural Science term 1981, and Lyman Briggs at Michigan State University. investigator compares his findings In with similar investigations; the results of attitudinal studies of the senior classes of 1971 at Michigan State University. More specifically, 1. this study is designed to: Determine present attitudes of the 1982 seniors in the colleges of Natural 2. Compare 1982 and contrast between Science and Lyman Briggs. the those attitudes Lyman surveyed Briggs and in Natural Science seniors. 3. Determine the difference, surveyed in 1982 Natural Science if any, in the attitudes with those reported in the 1971 and Lyman Briggs seniors at Michigan State University. Hypotheses The following hypotheses have been developed and stated in the null fashion: 1. No significant difference exists in the attitudes surveyed between the 1982 Lyman Briggs and Natural Science seniors. 2. No significant seniors in difference Lyman Briggs exists and between Natural 1982 Science in their attitudes toward their: A. Satisfaction with college or major depart­ ment . B. General attitude toward M.S.U. C. Attitudes toward professors. Michigan State University 10 D. Involvement in community activities. E. Satisfaction with outcomes of their educa­ tional experience. F. Satisfaction with faculty in their college or depart m e n t . G. Attitudes toward individual attention. H. Involvement in campus co-curricular activi­ ties. The I. Attitude toward planning. J. Satisfaction with academic advisement. Multivariate analysis of variance was the statistical method employed to test for significance at the .05 level of confidence. Definitions Two critical terms used throughout the study are defined. Lyman Briggs College Senior--as refers to enrolled those in Lyman students Briggs at used Michigan College, fall in State this study University term 1981 and have completed a minimum of 120 quarter credit hours. College of Natural Science Senior--for this study students who Science, fall refers have to those enrolled Michigan in the the purposes State College of University of Natural term 1981 and have completed a minimum of 120 quarter credit hours. 11 Scope and Limitations of the Study This and study social Lyman examine experiences Briggs sity. will held and Natural Certain inappropriate attitudes by seniors in educational the colleges of Science at Michigan State Univ e r ­ limitations should expectations and be identified generalizations preting the results of this study. 1. toward Lyman Briggs College was to avoid when inter­ • threatened with elimina­ tion because of a declared financial crisis at the University during the 1980-81 academic year. students, save Many faculty and staff rallied in support to the residential college program. This was an extremely difficult time for the entire University community, yet in many respects as a catalyst students for unifying the of program elimination. The units final the crisis served faculty, staff and threatened recommendation with by the Board of Trustees for the Lyman Briggs program was a change in its a school To what semi-autonomous college status to within extent the College these events of Natural may have Science. influenced student attitudes is an unknown variable. Efforts to assess this influence are addressed by a series of questions in the survey. 2. The Lyman Briggs investigation Because the College is college the sample C o l l e g e ’s status of the used in this last class. Lyman Briggs 12 program has College of Natural exist that been the changed to a Science, attitudes school the possibility analyzed representative of future Briggs' 3. within will the does not be classes. The findings of this study are applicable to Lyman Briggs College limited, other the if only any, value residential Michigan and in college State will the therefore have investigation student campus populations or in of on other universities . Overview of the Thesis Presented in this chapter importance of the study, hypotheses were the introduction, purpose of the study, definitions, and the scope and limitations of the study. Each area will be developed further in subsequent chapters. Chapter II College, a on findings the contains selected a description of review of the literature, of the 1971 study of Lyman Briggs and a report Michigan State University senior classes. Chapter tion of the collection, III contains population, the methodology including instrumentation, hypotheses tested and a descrip­ design the and data statistical methods employed. Chapter IV is a presentation analysis of the data and findings. is a comparison of the results and Included in this chapter of the 1981 responses with those collected 13 in 1971 for a similar investigation. The study, final chapter, presentation of Chapter V, major contains a review of the findings, recommendations for further study. conclusions, and CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Chapter II contains three sections. First, a presentation of selected literature on student satisfaction and a discussion the residential Lyman Briggs third, a College on college College review and factors of programs; at a Natural leading to second, Michigan study State which Science the development a description of University; compared seniors of at Lyman and Briggs Michigan State University in 1971. Student Satisfaction Student satisfaction with the undergraduate experience is best identified with studies on the impact of the college experience addresses upon the undergraduate question of why students. student the attention of educational research. of accountability frequently Astin, overlook "student of the student experience perceptions of during value of "Current discussions of includes the the (1977) satisfaction merits higher satisfaction." satisfaction subjective the 'outputs' Astin education According the college educational to student's years and experience." Astin further adds that "given the time and energy that most students take in attending college, 14 the perception of value 15 should be given considerable weight." Kuh (1981) identified student satisfaction as a measure of institutional quality. Kuh is (1981) to be suggests estimated, afforded assess that "if the the the those involved opportunity quality 'quality1 of an experience to thereof, in the describe and process must be their comment on experience, the meaning of those experiences." The brought Prior student with to research Menne, it this on unrest concern period, there student Much for was of a have college experience. one reported by Kenneth A. examined four of pertinent the to conditions this leading most of college research student frequently and experience investigation to student the impact of Feldman and Theodore N. Newcomb The Impact of College on S t u d e n t s , been about and notable of these studies was (1969), effects Starr, of from research on the campus en v i ­ Most decades absence (Bert, learned sixties satisfaction. virtual attrition, and, as mentioned earlier, the the student satisfaction of what we satisfaction has resulted ronment, discontent a great college 1972). and is findings on their in they on students. finding satisfaction provided where small, appear the Most that the to have residential, four-year colleges. Astin students (1977) who were reported on studied by Research Project (CIRP). presents findings of the the findings of over 200,000 the Cooperative Institutional His first book, Four Critical Y e a r s , ten years of this research. 16 Astin attempted to measure collegiate experience students. examine Astin's four satisfaction: relationship, factors (3) relationship to the actual outcomes major (1) the findings found to serve as between the experienced by a structure contribute to to student student involvement, (2) student-faculty institutional and size, (4) residency. Student Involvement Student involvement, factors contributing defined as: involvement student and research, has and and the growth in most significant and development, extracurricular cultural and is activities, social activities. had a positive effect on almost every development variable, personal of student participation independent This to one especially in self-confidence intellectual self-esteem (Astin, 1977; Feldman and Newcomb, 1968). The increase in self-confidence supports C h i c k e r i n g ’s (1969) findings that students seeks to establish identity during the four collegiate years. Student-Faculty Relationship The the with literature consistently student-faculty their college reveals relationship experience. on Astin the student (1977) importance satisfaction asserted that "student-faculty interaction has a stronger relationship student other satisfaction involvement with variable the or institutional characteristic." college indeed experience any of other than student to any or 17 In George D. Kuh's (1981) report on Indices of Quality of the Undergraduate E x p e r i e n c e , he cant the informal He also asserts students and recognizes as signifi­ interaction between students and faculty. that faculty the degree and kind of effort both invest in their respective roles is a manifestation of institutional quality. Feldman and Newcomb (1969) also found that faculty are particularly important in influencing occupational decisions and educational aspira t i o n s . Their research revealed that in over a dozen studies in which students were asked to name the important planning and sources of decisions, influence faculty on along their with vocational parents were asserted that ranked as extremely important. In Astin's "students who satisfied tration greater increase all the aspects their faculty their and Finding between satisfaction with even ways faculty their are more institutional friendship, environment, contact he with of student institution. personal comments, frequently including intellectual of summary interact with experience, courses, (1977) variety the to and college of adminis­ encourage students may experience. Institutional Size Astin tions tend found to that dilute large, the coeducational impacts of public student institu­ involvement. Students enrolled in these institutions have more difficulty 18 getting involved stated "it salient objectives grown is larger clarity small size much they not a or, to inversely put with were less it more redundancy with clear institutional 1000. For while for clarity or that it is a necessary one." large are than (1969) if they have their condition suggested that students colleges established in Chickering frequently small; suggests together "when that sufficient the evidence huddled stated, are most enrollments (1964) activities. coincidence now, is Taylor when no while purpose, in various "people tend to disappear Taylor further superfluous they don't develop elegantly, development varies . members." . . redundancy occurs when increases in the number of inhabitants of a setting leads to decreasing opportunities for participation, thus decreasing satisfaction for each individual." Barker and perspective of Gump an (1964) discussed individual's "how behavior force for the development of congruence. totality with of a student's behavior whom he/she goes it is difficult Pace less friendly group This, or too, has are particular That is, when the to many others meals, etc. . . . found that the larger the school, students cohesive loyality carries is visible parties, wholistic to talk one kind of life and live another." (1964) likely to class, the that with to a describe feeling encompasses the of the group welfare college suggested an increasing importance as the college becomes larger. atmosphere as the as and a whole. for sub units 19 Eddy (1959) homogenious tradition, strongly stated "that and/or rested standards (of by the total when upon the some students) small, strong influenced In the students was particular were community. diversified institutions, campus the larger most more sought out a smaller group which served both as a focal point for their interests and a behavioral determinant. Sanford (1967) countered the issue of size by stating, "what troubles us however, size as such, but lack on size alone, educational the but style on of developmental of coherence. leadership, influence Coherence depends not internal the college. "mutual and for, it should be a student must feel he knows of or could know nearly everyone else." shown, structure, If education is to have that we hope carried out in a community; is not familiarity is As Newcomb (1962) has also necessary for the transfer of faculty values to student culture (from Sanford, 1967)." Feldman students does maximum and Newcomb not effect. organizational require What (1968) the small is needed structure that argue is "that intimate not impact campus smallness reduces for but bureaucracy on an and impersonality." Astin (1977) that "large with bigness summarized institutions consequences." and how face these the to counteract viewpoints problem its of by how usually stating to live negative 20 Residency Living in commuting, (1) residence was Students increase found are halls to more in campus, influence likely in G.P.A. , and involved on a as number to persist, opposed of (2) to variables: Men show an (3) Students are most likely to get activities (Astin, 1977). These findings support Brown's (1972) postulate that the living unit is one of and the most significant contributions to student growth d evelopment. Student relative to satisfaction a particular with any campus one type of housing (Packwood, 1977). is Clark (1968) touched on the complexities of the matter by stating, "If we did not know it before, we know it now--good scholars and good Everything writers students can depends on how have make recognized a bad educational system. together." Various they are put the need to bridge or link the academic and social experience of campus life. A 1968 Residence halls evaluation of Michigan State University found that this housing program was failing to provide the necessary bridges: This 1. a bridge between the academic aspects student's experience and the day-to-day aspects of student life. 2. the potential bridge between the teaching and advising function, as both affect student satisfaction with their college experience. gap throughout that Michigan State identified the literature which Dressel is very (1971) of a living prevalent refers to as 21 "fragmented Plough heterogeneity" of the undergraduate experience. (1979) supported self-studies themselves this conducted to the by issue concern stating "indeed, academic institutions of meaningful academic program and student life." many address linkages between the Plough further asserted that the "significant others" in fashioning such connections are the faculty. Summary Student was given little 1960's. given a satisfaction with the undergraduate experience Since that great manifestation attention until deal of time, more the student unrest student attention institutional satisfaction and is quality in the has identified (Kuh, 1981). been as a This review examined student satisfaction through studies dealing with "impact" Astin's, of (1977); the college experience Feldman and Newcomb's, on students. (1968) longitudinal studies served as a foundation for the inquiry. The aspects of an undergraduate's college experience found to contribute to satisfaction were: (1) student involvement in campus life, i.e., special academic programs, athletics and social, cultural, and recreational relationships--found to be in contributing to to have opportunity to become with the a (2) student-faculty the most often identified factor student size--found activities activities, satisfaction, significant involved small and private (3) institutional impact on student achieve in various residential colleges 22 having the most impact (Astin, 1977), (4) residency--the on-campus residence experience has shown to have significant impact upon student persistence, G . P . A . , and involvement in campus activities. Factors Leading to the Development of the Residential College As discussed expansion of higher in Chapter I, the rapid growth education in the late 1950's and and '60' s heightened the concerns of educators regarding the impact of the college experience on student development. and expansion brought number of institutions. many colleges class with size, faculty, Committee development for on of in the an students residence halls, atmosphere. critized higher education total resulted opportunities campus changes to a large The rapid increase in enrollment in overcrowded depersonalized the undesirable and universities fewer Foundation's many This growth In Student increase to in interact and a seemingly 1968 the in Higher Hazen Education for not being more concerned with the student. The Foundation's report included these recommendations: 1. Higher Education should influence personality responsibility for it. be aware of its power to development and take 2. Big universities should be decentralized to avoid a mechanistic approach. 3. Faculty should shift commitments back to facilitating learning experiences, giving students personal meaning, commitment to the emotional development of their students. 23 Similar concerns (1971), Brown Colleges Fail restore the were (1972), (1967), students college's shared to by Astin he Sanford (1977). expressed In Dressel Sanford's Where a critical need to help their rightful place activities." (1967), Sanford "at the center of saw the primary aim of education to create a total educational environment for the development of the individual. During goals, this time objectives, such as Crookston of and re-examination impact (1962) of the primary higher education, writers and Brown of (1972) stressed the need to reassert higher education's commitment to the development of the whole person. Point of View The rudiments of the Student Personnel (1949) could be found throughout the literature: 1. View 2. Concept of education is broadened to include the development of a well-rounded person--physically, socially, culturally, emotionally, and spiritually. 3. The student is thought of as participant in his own development. 4. His full and balanced maturity is viewed as a major goal of education (American Council on Education, 1949). The Carnegie Purposes and encompasses the U . S .--Approaching the main purposes the student Commission Performance the of Year in of 2000. higher as 1973 Higher a whole responsible reported on Education According education a person. in The in the to the report, the U.S. were: 24 1. The provision of opportunities for intellectual, aesthetic, ethical, and skill development of students 2. Advancement large 3. Enlargement of educational justice 4. Transmission and advancement of learning 5. The critical evaluation of society of human capability in society at The report reaffirmed the importance of the development of the whole person and went on to recommend that institutions needed to devote more attention to the quality of the environment affecting the developmental growth of the students. Higher "It is frequently said that the proper concern of Education notice that separated is the from unintelligent the intellect the in with rest that of it intellect is the favors only. somehow is legitimate he that if one cannot at the takes same not or only educational aim, it is actually perverse in its implications, assumes this disembodied personality, no But in that it it upon himself to be a student, time be a human being" (Sanford, 1970). A number curriculum that person. The asserted by student of writers would need Wrenn personnel to expressed address 1955 work to as of an expanded the development of the whole integrate in views he the learning described process the nature was of include not only those processes and functions which emphasized the development of the whole person but also those that help build a curriculum, improve 25 methods of designed construction, to have an and impact develop on the leadership affective programs life of the student as well as the cognative. "The objectives are not in separable. affective and intellectual the cognative Educated cognative and affective domain behavior elements always . . . involve both value free changes is an unachievable by man and probably undesirable in any case" (Dressel, 1971). The Living-Learning Concept In the 1950's Riker and Greenleaf began to speak of the potential Their of dormitories concept "total stressed person" experiences and to become the the centers importance importance that occur outside the for of of learning. educating those the learning formal classroom" (Miser 1977). Adams (1968) states that the purpose of living-learning residence halls is "to take fullest advantage of the student peer group influence to establish an environment of cultural influence that is conducive Centra (1968) impersonal, (1968) found less the of and Williams to the aims of the university." living-learning hotel-like and Reilly centers environments. (1972) were less Pemberton found living-learning centers made significant contributions to one of the primary goals of education preservation, enumerated transmission, and in 1961 enrichment by of Mueller: the the culture. 26 Several studies living-learning have compared residence conventional halls. halls Rocky student with (1969) their perceptions of perceptions of reported that students in living-learning halls were more satisfied with their majors and faculty Pemberton than (1968) were students found in students conventional in halls. living-learning units were significantly more satisfied with faculty when compared with non living-learning students. In a study of coeducational Michigan State University, of the with students the other had felt they instructors from instructors, more their other liked learning in of (1964) had more the about them residence hall they to with classes hall students the residence would new other of freshmen students residents hall, recommend than felt they than with percent coeducational said contacts the same percentage hall at reported 59 percent living-learning Eighty-five a halls out-of-class discussions residence classes. living percent and out-of-class concerning in Olson living-learning the and 95 living- (Williamson and Biggs, 1975). The on the success mechanism residence hall also take intellectual the that for linked together, discussion interaction within living-learning unit was dependent to the classes. classes opportunities settings of the might residence students living in the If students living together there of take hall. are class place Miser some exciting activities, in a number and of (1977)'asserted 27 that this natural some approach social common effective is one interaction educational that in a takes residence experiences. living-learning centers advantage hall Riker having by of adding (1977) three the saw essential ele m e n t s : 1. Programs, developed as a framework action and reaction in learning; 2. Staff, selected and organized to sustain the programs and guide the day-to-day activities of the housing unit; and 3. Physical Facilities, designed to meet the require­ ments of student programs and staff. Most important are the for student people--stud e n t s , faculty, and housing staff--whose interchange of ideas sparks minds into new creative action (Riker, 1977). was likewise project for Personnel project stessed the in future Association, cited program based the on the key the of development higher 1975). to a The interchange of ideas More to which the education successful extent of T.H.E. (American specifically, student there the development is both formal and informal collaboration between students, student affairs staff, and faculty. Dressel (1971) saw the residential, inner or cluster college as holding at least the possibility of a complete defining goals, reshaping of undergraduate programs by offering a different environment, introducing new content and methodologies. by and by 28 Residential Colleges--An Outgrowth of Living-Learning Historical Perspective Many large experimented with organizations college American in concept past is one during residential college Lord residential Oxford Colleges Feber approximated the back seven (1967) the United in that the "the residential gained significant concept wrote that University States 1920's University horizontal centuries at and The The located Atlanta noted the at 'community in Great the first College, Claremont (Gaff, of the residential the Center of 1970). scholars' was in some private colleges and universities, but funds, difficult was developed and (1962) limited dates In that developed of decades. period. Redcliffe-Maud 1249. was two have forms form this college in college different the popularity Britain. universities a widely dispersed transportation made student population, cluster and and residential colleges initially impractical." Development of the Residential Colleges As previously tremendous discussed, increase in universities. This expansion residential of federal and state experience the early enrollments growth was of accompanied facilities subsidies. 1 9 6 0 's witnessed a colleges by spurred The contention and a dramatic by generous that a student of living in a residence is a vital part of the 29 learning process was advanced 1961; Riker, 1965; (Mueller, Miser's by a number Adams, 1968; of authorities and others). In (1969) discussion of classes in residence halls, he suggested that "in order to create a successful educational environment a residence hall, to link the classes would in student being enhance activities advantage taught the and of there." the residence The "link" opportunities the natural for he involvement to the hypothesized discussions interaction, social halls of thus of class taking students Such links or programs have variously been residential colleges. These changeably for confusion. in intellectual living together. called living there must be a mechanism terms the This colleges, and cluster others residential are colleges, often and used sub inter­ programs and do create some is particularly true because of the unique approach each university has to these innovative and experi­ mental programs. Definition of the Residential College For some clarity on the term "residential college," the following definitions serve to identify common elements: 1. Sanford (1960) "When we say residential college, I take this to mean that the teaching and curriculum are put into the college where students live." 2. McHenry (from Stickler, 1964) "We define the residential college as an educational unit of a university that combines, to a substantial extent the functions of an academic unit of administra­ tion with co-curricular aspects of undergraduate 30 student life--living, and o t h e r s ." dining, social, athletic, 3. Harden (1969) "The term 'residential college' will be used to describe a new collegiate program within an already existing university. The p r o ­ gram will typically be under the direction of a Dean, enroll a relatively small number of students (500-1200), concern itself with the liberal arts or related academic majors, and will be located within a given residence hall or residence hall complex. The faculty will typically be on joint appointment with their parent department." 4. (Lamar Johnson's summary comments at the "Colloquium on Experimental Colleges," 1964) "Very simply, this is an educational institution which is trying to be a college. Rationale for Residential Programs David and Newell "while they called (1981) provide a framework in saying, themselves everything to innovative to interdisciplinary, from experimental they shared a common set of educational goals: 1. To help students learn how to learn. 2. To help students see the interrelatedness different areas of knowledge. 3. To develop the whole person, teaching affective as well as cognitive skills, and providing a living-learning community where students were encouraged to apply lessons from the classroom to their personal lives and to the interaction with others. 4. To make students more aware and more critical of values, both their own and those of the larger society." Perhaps best based Brown when he on the education: said, (1972) "many following in his statements, residential assumptions summed colleges about of it up have students been and 31 (1) The psychosocial development of college students interacts with their cognitive development and thus their personal development cannot be separated from their personal development; (2) The press of different collegiate environments has a different impact on college students, and residence halls can develop special atmospheres which can influence their attitudes about learning; (3) Peer group influence has as much impact on student attitudes as does faculty or curriculum" (Brown, 1972). The institutional environment integrated learning experience been identified institution as (Astin, the 1977; most conducive to the that Brown suggests here has small private liberal Feldman and Newcomb, arts 1969). Thus, the development of the residential and experimental colleges is the result of efforts to create an educational environment that meshes the learning experience. Today's Residential College The introduction of Davis and Newell's (1981) article, "Those Experimental Colleges of the 1 9 6 0 's: Where Are They Now That We Need Them?" may provide the clearest picture of today's residential college: "It is ironic that the experimental colleges and programs of the 1 9 6 0 's are largely invisible today, when we need more designed to provide." than ever what they are The literature is virtually scarce of the present status of the residential college programs. current The state of the economy and declining enrollments have brought about a financial strain at many state institutions where the residential colleges are most prevalent. 32 In 1981 financial of Michigan crisis its three the survival of many places crisis. for that experienced a number of programs. residential Warren Martin colleges (1982) a Two narrowly comments on the of the innovative programs of the sixties " . . . seventies University eliminated remaining survived in saying, and State the have those colleges created in the sixties or purpose of become innovations, identified or with even the those sixties’ innovations, have of late found the going very hard." Martin further commented incorporate inclusive that the innovations colleges have institutions which were able to and have become been better able to broader, more sustain them­ selves . When looking to the future, Davis and Newell (1981) expressed confidence in the experimental colleges in saying: "When we consider the extraordinary challenges that lie ahead for our society and for the world--problems of energy, food, population, graduates of attributes to century. live nineteenth, popularity." and experimental necessary twenty-first people war to In peace--we colleges survive fact, when conclude have and we in the twenty-first century, experimental colleges will that the precisely the thrive begin in the educating instead of the regain their 33 A Description of Lyman Briggs College In Chapter Briggs I, College the goals, were aims and objectives of Lyman presented and briefly discussed. A closer examination of the dynamics of the college community and curricular options is necessary in order to understand the nature and uniqueness of this residential college. More specifically, the following aspects of Briggs College will be discussed: The 1. The residence hall setting 2. The LBC community 3. The faculty 4. The LBC curriculum discussion description of illuminate the of the these areas will not Lyman Briggs program, distinctive features of only focus but more this on a so, will residential college program at Michigan State University. The choice to enter Lyman Briggs College is open to any student accepted to the University, as there is no special admissions requirement or admissions procedure separate from that of the University. All University freshmen and transfer students (0-40 credits accumulated) are requried to reside in a University select Lyman Briggs residence hall. Those students who College are placed in Holmes Hall; one of the coeducational living-learning centers on the Michigan State University campus. Holmes Hall has a normal capacity 34 of 1,254 students and approximately forty During winter term 1,313 of which 559 Lyman Briggs segregated Lyman percent 1981, of Holmes Lyman designated to its Hall (42.5 percent) College. or Briggs students student had comprise population. a house count of were students enrolled in Briggs students are not any particular floor in Holmes Hall, as incoming students are randomly assigned. After choose the initial their availability generally own roommate of open applicable residence halls assignment, and students room depending space in the hall. to all free on students residing differences for Lyman Briggs students are: in to the This procedure at Michigan State University. assigned to Holmes Hall, are is the However, the (1) they are all and (2) the majority of friends and acquaintances of Briggs freshmen are students with whom they share residence as well as classes. It is not unusual for Briggs students to have at least three classes together in a given term. Briggs the students personal, other. State social share and an academic recreative bonding along with affiliation with each This kind of relationship is not typical at Michigan University where more than 40,000 students are enrolled. In 1971, the college underwent a year-long evaluation and self-appraisal; one of the consultants who evaluated the college characterized the Briggs community by stating: 35 There is ample evidence that the college has been strikingly successful in establishing a sense of community that cuts across the usual distinctions made between the 'academic' and the 'social' sides of college life. There is a strong sense of shared life, not only between students, faculty and administrators, but within each sub group; for example students are actively involved in each other's intellectual and social life (consultant Hodgkinson's report, Michigan State University, 1973). In summarizing Lyman his Briggs report on College, the community Hodgkinson that uses exists the in phrase "collaborative millieu" to capture the spirit that underlies the interactive and humanizing character of the residential and educational community. This much "sense alive students their of today choose community" and evident and in shared the purpose fact is very that Briggs to remain in the residence hall longer than university counterparts. Thirty percent of the seniors enrolled in Lyman Briggs College during winter term 1981 chose percent of to live the residence hall in Holmes university Hall, seniors whereas chose only to thirteen reside in a (figures obtained from the Registrar's office and Department of Residence Halls). There are a number of key factors that influence Briggs upperclassmen to longer than these factors residential continue their are: residing fellow university (1) community, accessibility of academic in a (2) strong the the residence students. identity hall Three with availability of the and and support personnel and (3) the 36 residency requirement of students who are employed as Briggs Aides and Undergraduate Teaching Assistants. Student Leadership There are several opportunities within Lyman community Briggs Briggs needs Aide as College. Briggs program from Ten Aides. the for student students A leadership serve description LBC Student Handbook of the the (1980) describes their responsibilities: Briggs Aides The Briggs Aides program offers a special dimension to students in Lyman Briggs College. The Briggs Aides' primary function is to assist Briggs students in their course work. They are available to answer questions about specific course content and to aid in planning academic programs. To insure maximum availability, Briggs Aides are assigned to different floors in Holmes Hall and also maintain regular office hours at a central location. The Briggs Aides perform other functions for Lyman Briggs College as they act as resource persons for the College. These functions vary from serving on a committee for the Dean to giving tours of the College to prospective students. Briggs Aides are chosen from the student body of the College. To qualify as a Briggs Aide, a student must have a minimum 3.00 grade point average, 40 hours of completed course work, communication skills, and overall maturity. Approximately employed each year forty as upperclass Undergraduate Briggs students Teaching are Assistants. The Undergraduate Teaching Assistants, under the supervision of a senior faculty member, recitation sections in teach many of the laboratory and Lyman Briggs College. Most TAs are 37 assigned a desk in an office and have regular office hours when they are available for assistance to students. Holmes Hall, as all residence halls employs resident assistants programs and coordinate (RAs) floor at Michigan State, to facilitate educational activities. The RAs perform a wide variety of functions and serve as role models for the underclassmen. graduate Teaching upperclassmen students. with the Assistants, have a holding successful, actively therefore tend Briggs these significant Individuals academically and Together to set the Aides three impact Under­ groups upon these the in for the this of younger positions involved tone and are College particular student community. Students also have opportunities to get involved in academic governance within the College. The Student Advisor Council standing afford views (SAC) and students and exert a its channel their standing committees Teacher Library Evaluation, and committee (5) the structure opportunity to full group through influence include: (3) interact; which on to College committees express their matters. (1) Educational Policies, College Co-curricular offers of Community Affairs Committee. students, faculty exchanging ideas college policy and curriculum. Council, The (2) (A) The and staff the and views on 38 The Faculty Lyman full-time in Briggs College faculty. various The has a small number (12-14) of faculty offers a variety of courses disciplines, supervises independent study, conducts individual research and advises students concerning academic and faculty divide departments members with provide diverse LBC the negotiations of the between Lyman Briggs and various with a rich The source and In stability at home with the between that relationship remainder other of part-time faculty of coupled talent competencies words, a small the in the College is core of full-time the benefits of a large pool of faculty talent member's Factors The University. large relationship faculty exists the University The time disciplines. and the matters. specialization to obtain faculty from their within traditional able vocational between home influence Lyman Briggs, has with the (2) and department a these The (3) of The careful rapport are: the particular the 1979). part-time departments relationship and the product relationship between The is and departments. this exists and Briggs department faculty that (LBC Student Handbook, that varies. (1) The department faculty member political and/or financial climate of the University at the time of negotia­ tions. are Joint appointments and visiting much easier to work out times of retrenchment. in good faculty appointments times rather than in 39 All of the full-time faculty maintain their offices in Holmes Hall, which enhances their accessibility to students. Students are able interpersonal to confer contact within with and faculty outside members through of the classroom. The consultant's report (1973) stated: The faculty are visible and accessible; the faculty have close and continuing relations not only with the students who have been in their classes, but with students whom they have met while working on College committees and attending College functions. In fact, the faculty develop frequent contacts with students whom they have met through other students or faculty (Michigan State University 1973). The very student/faculty distinguishing relationship aspect of the in Lyman residential Briggs is a community. This relationship is fostered from the beginning of freshman year, as the discussion faculty at a "Meet are introduced and available for Your College" program during Welcome Week, before classes actually begin. Student attendance for this set program beginning, be made is that to see large in Lyman that priority among to assistance seek Likewise, individuals who and concerns staff. staff need to the tone from the Briggs College every attempt will whenever and may seems student faculty faculty and they keep special and needs are a high Students are encouraged feel there is a need. each other informed about attention or to share a concern that may require some kind of follow-up. Lyman Briggs College shares a unique relationship with the student affairs staff, as the Director and the Associate Director of Holmes Hall are also on the staff of Lyman 40 Briggs College. tive In addition to being the chief administra­ officers in the residence hall, the Director and Associate Director are part of the general academic advise­ ment team in Briggs. include: Advising Co-curricular the Briggs students college Michigan college formal State shares on-going Student integrative This Council the and Briggs the Aides, and providing opportunities Lyman in the and personal aspects of their is a unique feature of Lyman no other residence hall staff share any relationship University with channel newsletter residential as Advisory supervising College with social, College, of avenue weekly experience. Briggs kind the Committee, editing academic, Some of their other responsibilities the for with an campus. student academic The affairs information unit on relationship staff provides exchange and the the an reliable for the integration of faculty and staff efforts and r esources. Core Curriculum Specific requirements for the core curriculum are met in various w a y s , depending upon the scores of the placement examinations administered during the Academic Orientation Program, and applicable advanced placement and College Level Examination Program credits. The core curriculum designates the LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY REQUIRED RATHER THAN A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF CREDIT HOURS. Substitutions in the curriculum may be made with the approval of the advisor and with the authorization of the Assistant Dean's O f f i c e . Students who have advanced placement must consult their advisers for program adjustments. 41 Suggested LBC course equivalents have been discussed with the appropriate departments and normally will be accepted. However, when students transfer from one program to another, the responsibility for evaluating previous work lies with the unit accepting the students into the program. Credit may not be earned in equivalent courses. The College's Core Program is listed below: Course Area Quarter Credits Mathematics Computer Science Chemistry Physics Biology Science Studies Social Science Humanities Third Culture Rhetoric Senior Seminar (Lyman Briggs College Student Handbook, Michigan State complete 180 quarter Briggs College Lyman University graduation by tration either in Science, General or correspond academic with and 32 Physical a of allows adviser a in teacher undergraduate who major requirements a field Biology, of of colleges for Environmental Science Fields in concen­ Studies, certification), other Medical Concentration within the of Concentration provides flexibility in terms of elective student, Lyman in Science, a Field the maximum their Science, in each Students credits Science. major Election hours. Earth Computer that complete (only with to University. courses may Mathematics, Technology students credit selecting Science requires 10-20 3 8-12 12 10 12 12 12 8 6 93-107 1979) under Briggs, to the guidance build an of an academic program to meet the specific needs or interests that are not met by any other major. 42 Lyman Briggs Coordinate ments the students Major for or of of Computer Science Medical Technology also Interdepartmental completion departments may College in the major of complete The are Natural College through to Major. a Coordinate Major the major choose require­ offered in Science, a of Engineering the School a of or a Medical Technology. Coordinate majors are possible in the following fields: Biological Science Interdepartmental, Earth Science Interdepartmental, General Science Interdepartmental (restricted to teaching candidates only), Botany and Plant Pathology, Chemical Physics, Chemistry, Entomology, Geology and Probability, Zoology, Computer Science, and Medical Technology. The selection of a coordinate major, if any, is normally made by the student during the freshman or sophomore year (Lyman Briggs College Student Handbook, 1979). Required credits credits for a Coordinate Maj o r m ay vary from 41-55 depending on department. The variance credit in the requirements illustration distribution below of the particular demonstrates between the the Field of Concentration and the Coordinate Major. Coordinate Major (B.S.) Field of Concentration Briggs Core Program Coordinate Major Electives Briggs Core Program 93-107* Field of Concentration 32 Electives 41-55 * Specific various Program, requirements ways, examination 93-107* 41-55 18-46 depending administered Applicable (B.S.) for the Core Curriculum are met in upon the during Advanced Examination Program Credits. scores the of the Academic Placement and placement Orientation College Level 43 Again the key difference the degree of flexibility, the student selection. in the and Lyman college program accommodate interests freshman and range factor offers a or for select with Briggs transfer out of the college do in is that the and the options a great course variety one-third of the case with students' are students academic actually Many of these students so to meet better students served are, by the specific of the general education in change engineering. or they Lyman able Briggs to take program find that they requirements advantage while and are Such Other another department or college. however, benefits majoring interests of the requirements of their chosen Fields of Concentration. is is interested College will graduate with a Lyman Briggs major. who students of Approximately who options choice college number students needs. students two major residential residential can more significant Briggs the the Field of Concentration giving adviser The in These of the meeting their provided with guidance and support in locating a department or major which best fits their needs. Those students throughout their who remain with undergraduate Lyman program Briggs College (approximately thirty-five percent) have varying degrees of exposure to the Briggs Core require their Curriculum. entry level particular students with Some chemistry department. a Coordinate of the Coordinate Majors may or physics Such is Major to be the in taken with case for Chemistry LBC and 44 Astrophysics. are asked As to students enter Lyman Briggs College, indicate an area of preference. program in Briggs will vary accordingly. level of exposure of each Lyman Thus, they their In Chapter IV, the Briggs College student to the Briggs Core Program was analyzed and assigned to either a high, medium or low exposure to the LBC Core Curriculum. Related Studies In 1971, State the Office of Evaluation Services at Michigan University Clarence Nelson comparative social under and study and University. other In this direction Arvo of experiences students the Juola attitudes of graduating toward Nosow, conducted educational residential seniors investigation, Sigmund (1972), the graduating of at a and college Michigan State a random sample of 2,200 undergraduate students was selected which consisted of 1,900 non-residential subpopulation) distributed State and among University seniors after questionnaire. rate college of 300 the students residential residential campus. the (fifty college colleges Responses initial percent were mailings and of students one evenly on the Michigan received from follow-up 927 of a This return represents a 42.6 percent return non-residential college students percent return rate of the residential these respondents, Lyman Briggs and there 105 from were the thirty-seven college seniors. fifty-six College and respondents of Natural Of from Science. 45 Table 2.1 illustrates the possible and actual number of respondents from the population. Table 2.1 Summary of Respondents for the 1971 Investigation Possible Respondents Non Residential College Residential College Actual Respondents Percent 1,900 810 42.6 300 111 37.0 105 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 56 93 60.0 The instrument used in the investigation was developed by a research team and assisted by administrative personnel from each residential college. For the purposes of this study, each residential college was matched with the university colleges having the most similar curricular content as that residential college. The comparison of Lyman Briggs and the College of Natural Science is the focus of this discussion. The analysis utilized the Chi-Square statistic for statistical difference in the responses. this study were presented in the significance. major areas: .01, to test The results of .02, and .05 level of Findings were reported in the following five 46 1. Personal adjustment and well-being. 2. Intellectual growth and stimulation. 3. Attitudes toward department. college, and 4. Comparing o n e ’s experience in a college or department with what one believes takes elsewhere on campus. major place 5. Work, career, and future. In eighty their the first area, percent college of the had Science seniors Personal Adjustment and W e l l - B e i n g , Lyman given academic community, a Forty-eight felt college become more of the Natural expressed students sense the Nosow to ethical residential with 56.3 an stronger area indicated However, of social felt felt intellectually an there academic respondents helped them while 17.8 percent more sensitive to identification with other from related colleges (sixty-six of the percent their not of the students college stimulating a while college stimulating significant in the had provided environment non-residential intellectually was (Nosow, 1974). Intellectual Growth and Stimu l a t i o n , seventy-five colleges percent had issues, seniors than did students reported an "Residential college students in this study a much the that identity with Briggs department percent as opposed to thirty percent)" In of indicated of identity with an percent of Science ethical issues. seniors fifty-four percent of the Natural or major sensitive a sense community. their Briggs them while felt university, them only seniors environment. difference reported 47 between the feelings expressed by Lyman Briggs seniors and seniors in the College of Natural Science on their attitudes concerning intellectual growth and stimulation. Attitudes toward University, College and Department More than residential the needs college three-fourths colleges of was students, only 45 differences were Science attitudes and in staff, to following their whereas percent reported of satisfaction opportunities The felt all the taken was figure (Nosow, for attention academic from the the the to related Significant Briggs and Natural cocurricular in in responsive 1975). Lyman individual with students college between participate tables of from activities decision Office faculty of and making. Evaluation Services Report, Michigan State University (1972) illustrate these differences. Table 2.2 "I feel that though I am college. my college or major of some importance department treats me as an individual," Agree Undecided College % % Disagree Lyman Briggs 90 6 8 Natural Science 40 23 37 % as by 48 Table 2.3 "I feel that my college or major department responsive to needs of students," by college. College Agree % Undecided % is Disagree % Lyman Briggs 76 14 8 Natural Science 49 28 23 Table 2 .4 "To what extent has ; your college or department afforded classroom opportunities to identify and interact with its faculty?" by college. College Very Much or Substantially % Moderately % Slightly or Not At All % Lyman Briggs 81 14 8 Natural Science 27 31 41 Table 2.5 "To what extent has your college or department opportunity for you to get individual provided the attention, when needed, from faculty?" by college. Slightly or Not At All % Very Much or Substantially % Moderately % Lyman Briggs 82 14 8 Natural Science 51 31 17 College 49 Table 2.6 "To what extent did your college or major department afford you the opportunity to have informal contacts with faculty outside the classroom?" by college. Very Much or Substantially % Moderately % Lyman Briggs 71 20 9 Natural Science 25 28 47 College Slightly or Not At All % Table 2.7 "To what extent has your college or department provided the opportunity for you to get individual attention when needed, from supportive staff, such as tutors, R.A.'s, secretaries, etc.?” by college. College Very Much or Substantially % Moderately % Slightly or Not At All % Lyman Briggs 76 9 16 Natural Science 25 28 47 Table 2.8 "To what extent did residence hall provide an adequate activities?" by college. College Very Much or Substantially your college and the program of cocurricular Moderately Slightly or Not At All % % % Lyman Briggs 58 29 13 Natural Science 39 34 27 50 Table 2.9 "I feel that my college or major department has given me the opportunity to participate in academic decision-making," by college. Very Much or Substantially College Slightly or Not At All Moderately % % % Lyman Briggs 86 8 10 Natural Science 58 13 29 NOTE: All percentages are rounded to nearest whole number. Comparing one's experiences in a college or major department with what one believes Results Report Briggs reported (1972) expressed takes place elsewhere on campus very seniors in the Office indicates positive felt residential feelings their percent of felt their with faculty while only seniors reported college the expressed when the had this Lyman college toward professors tolerant than other department's Sixty-six of Evaluation Services students their were college. probably more faculty at the University. Briggs provided them seniors with "definitely" closer contact five percent of the Natural Science attitude. seniors contact with the faculty. were Similar asked differences about the were amount of 51 When asked contrast to provided them seniors was if their other colleges a broader as a group expressed by college or or major major education, department, departments, in had the residential college showed strong differences. This feeling the majority of the Lyman Briggs seniors. Briggs students also expressed a greater feeling of personal freedom than did the seniors in the College of Natural S c ience. In the Briggs last seniors vocationally greater However, and little the career oriented, that this and Work, Career and, F u t u r e , curriculum the difference seniors in reported, felt satisfaction residential examined area was The been generally Natural seniors. between college residential more expressing Science expressed their matched study. had other counterparts college students expressed greater uncertainty about their career. The study indicated expressed one-third of all seniors surveyed, feelings of insecurity in their post college plans. Summary of the 1971 Study This study presented a comparison of attitudes toward educational and social experiences of Michigan State Univer­ sity residential seniors. Nosow college students in those areas college students with other M.S.U. (1975) reported respond more associated that generally college residential favorably than other students with personal adjustment and 52 well-being, Eighty and percent intellectual of the growth Lyman Briggs and stimulation. seniors indicated their college had given them a sense of identity with an academic community, seniors while fifty-four percent indicated community. Natural a sense of of the Natural Science identity with an academic Significant difference between Lyman Briggs and Science seniors were reported in satisfaction with formal and informal contact with faculty. Overall, students social Nosow expressed needs of (1975) reported greater students residential satisfaction of college personal and in comparison with nonresidential college students. Summary The purpose attitudes seniors toward of this study education in the Colleges and his findings to compare social and contrast experiences held by of Natural Science and Lyman Briggs at Michigan State University. compares is In addition, with a similar the investigator investigation, the results of attitudinal studies of the senior classes of 1971 and 1975 at Michigan State University. This chapter contains a review of selected literature on student satisfaction with their undergraduate experience. The review student life, revealed several satisfaction: i.e., special (1) key factors student academic that contribute to involvement programs, in athletics, campus social, 53 cultural, and relationships recreational are the activities, most often (2) student-faculty identified factor in contributing to student satisfaction, (3) institutional size has student's opportunity various activities, significant involved and impact on achieve in to become and (4) residency--the on-campus residence hall experience has shown a significant impact on the undergraduate experience. Also reviewed in this chapter were the factors leading to the development description similar of study Chapter III Lyman of the of residential Briggs Lyman and a Briggs/Natural Science discussion and design of the study. College, college is directed toward programs, review of in 1971. a In the methods CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION The major contrast purpose attitudes towards ences held by seniors Lyman Briggs University. population data and study chapter term to and 1981, contains the method organization instrument developed, was educational fall sample, preparation, this compare social and experi­ in the College of Natural Science and College, This of at a of and Michigan description collecting State of the construction of the data, the the statistical method employed and a restatement of the hypothesis. Population and Sample The population selected for this study consisted of the full-time seniors enrolled at Michigan State University, fall term of 1981, and who identified either Lyman Briggs or a department in major. October 8, Office revealed Science with the College 1981 678 449 men of figures seniors and Natural Science as their from the M.S.U. Registrar's in the 229 women. College Lyman of Natural Briggs College seniors totaled 84 with 48 men and 36 women. The investigator drew a computerized random sample of seniors in the College of Natural Science enrolled full-time 54 55 for fall term population Based on 1981. indicated this Previous a return information, samples rate of drawn from this approximately 33%. a 50% sample was drawn from the seniors in the College of Natural Science, which provided an adequate cell size for comparison. This sample was obtained from the Registrar's Office by requesting address labels for every other Science. senior enrolled in the College of Natural Because of the relatively small size of the Lyman Briggs senior class, the entire population of Briggs seniors was surveyed. Design and Collection of Data The survey developed for this investigation, "Senior Expression," was mailed to 50% or 339 seniors in the College of Natural Science College November 8, on and 100% or 1981 84 seniors through in Lyman Briggs campus mail to those students on campus and by U.S. mail to off-campus students. The by instrument (for was accompanied identification, blue answer a mark sheets sense were data used sheet for LBC and pink for the College of N.S.), a cover letter written on the instrument Science from and the the 1981, the Dean Director investigator, self-addressed letter* from envelope. was sent to 32.4% of the the of a of Lyman No. 2 After the College Briggs, surveyed * A sample letter appears in Appendix A and days, non-respondents. students a cover pencil, ten of a a Natural letter stamped follow-up By December 11, in the College of 56 Natural in Science had Lyman Briggs possible and responded, had while 65.4% of the students responded. actual number of Table 3.1 illustrates respondents whose the answer sheets were usable. Table 3.1 Possible and Actual Number of Respondents Possible Respondents Type 1 Natural Science Percent 339 110 32.4 84 55 65.4 423 165 39.0 Type 2 Lyman Briggs Totals Usable Respondents Data Preparation Answer sheets were taken to the Michigan State Univer­ sity's Scoring Office and each of the 165 student responses were punched computer. into two data processing cards for use The first card contained the respondents' in the student number and responses to questionnaire items 1-62. The second card and contained the responses identification of to the questionnaire the respondents: items 63-132 Type 1 College of Natural Science, Type 2 Lyman Briggs College. 57 Research Approval This investigation was approved under the provisions of the National University serves Research Committee as the on Act (Public Research Institutional Law 93-348). Involving Human The Subjects, Review Board at Michigan State University. On October 19, 1981, this research project was approved under the exemption conducted in which established states: or "Type commonly involving normal educational practices, on the effectiveness of or (1) accepted research settings, such as (2) research the comparison among institutional techniqu e s , curricular or classroom management method." (See Appendix A for research developed for this approval request.) Instrumentation The survey Expression," drew items Michigan State University. the Office of "Senior Senior Evaluation (1971), and the Senior Viewpoint (1975), from Michigan State University, by investigation, the Both instruments were developed Evaluation University. The instrument was and analyzed by reviewed Services adapted for a team of at Michigan this State investigation faculty, staff and students for biases and face validity. The instrument, questions. ful, 77 of "Senior Expression," consisted of 132 In order to make the received data more m e a n i n g ­ the 132 items were clustered into ten scales. 58 The development of the scales was initiated to make the data collected more manageable and analysis more meaningful. The scales were questionnaire formulated established by that in the were identifying related proposal. to the After make-up of test the the 77 items The following were run scales. needed to The to be the questions items under (varimax rotation) and statistically results analyze indicated relocated reliability from research clustering research questions, a factor analysis reliability items to coefficients only two a different were the of scale. computed for each scale. 1. Satisfaction with college or major department. Eleven items with a reliability of .89. 2. General attitudes sity. 3. Seven Attitudes toward items toward Michigan with M.S.U. a State reliability professors. Univer­ of .51. Nine items Eight items with a reliability of .83. 4. Involvement in community activities. with a reliability of 5. Satisfaction ence. 6. outcome Satisfaction Attitude with faculty educational experi­ toward Involvement in college or major Nine items with a reliability of .85. individual with a reliability of 8. of Five items with a reliability of .70. department. 7. with .70. in campus attention. Six items .48. co-curricular Eleven items with a reliability of activities. .77. 59 9. Attitudes toward reliability of 10. Satisfaction planning. remaining independently the 1971 results 55 with academic and items on were computed with a questionnaire with where advisement. Six items .80. the compared investigation items .39. with a reliability of The Four the data to percentages were responses was treated reported available. and presented in These in the tables in Chapter IV. Methods of Analysis Employed For the purpose of analysis, to examine the data collected. variance was the two methods were employed The multivariate analysis of statistical model chosen to test for significance and percentages were computed and presented in tables for comparison of the 1981 responses with those collected in 1971 for a similar investigation. The multivariate analysis of variance was selected to test the null hypothesis: 1. No significant difference exists in the attitudes surveyed between the 1982 Lyman Briggs and Natural Science seniors. 2. No significant difference exists between 1982 seniors in Lyman Briggs and Natural Science in the attitudes toward their: A. Satisfaction with college or major department. B. General attitudes toward M.S.U. C. Attitudes toward Michigan State University professors. D. Involvement in community activities. E. Satisfaction with outcomes of their educational experience. F. Satisfaction with faculty in their college or department. G. Attitudes toward individual attention. H. Involvement in campus co-curricular a ctivit i e s . I. Attitude toward planning. J. Satisfaction with academic advisement. The .05 level of confidence was the criteria chosen for testing significance particular level of for the multivariate confidence was selected analysis. based on The the following criteria: 1. Previous gation 2. 3. As variance investigation had selected The .05 level of for educational similar the .05 confidence research, to this investi­ level of confidence. is Borg generally and Gall chosen (1979). Investigator's preference. stated was earlier, selected the to collected from the scales. multivariate compare the analysis results of of data 61 The multivariate analysis procedures may be applied to sets or of measures factor The that have been identified through cluster analysis multivariate because whole it approach allows rather to have common components, the than was selected researcher each to individual for examine item. Finn (1974). this study the data as a The MANOVA model also reduces the statistical error rate, Finn (1974). Computer Program The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 8.0 was the computer program employed. All data was run at the Michigan State University Computer Center. Summary The population full-time term 1981, College this who group random had were and 84 sample one Science was either in drawn study Lyman as their major. seniors seniors this in Lyman from consisted of State University during fall identified 678 hundred for at Michigan of Natural Science while seniors selected the Natural or the Included among College Briggs. the Briggs A of Natural fifty percent Science percent of the Lyman Briggs seniors seniors were surveyed. The instrument developed for this investigation inquired about attitudes toward their educational and social experience while at Michigan State was collected on 165 respondents. University. Usable data The multivariate analysis 62 of variance model was employed to analyze the data. The following chapter will present the findings interpretation of the results of this investigation. and CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The of The the purpose this chapter information hypotheses restated and presented. was of as formulated the to for results to this of the Analysis test the hypotheses. the investigator described for The Multivariate employed selected collected is to report analysis analyze dependent variable, in Chapter III. investigation are statistical analysis of Variance (MANOVA) The MANOVA model was because data the analysis which (1) it has more allows the than one allowing the investigator to examine the data as a whole rather than examining each variable, and (2) the model .05 helps level of control for the overall Type I error. confidence was established as the The critical level for testing the hypotheses. In the responses second are Percentages comparison. were section compared computed of with and the those are chapter, the collected presented in in 1981 1971. tables for A summary of these findings is included. MANOVA Results As project indicated, was the collected data on two 63 gathered in this specific groups of research seniors 64 enrolled were fall enrolled term in at Michigan Lyman Briggs State University--those who College and those who were enrolled in the College of Natural Science. The instrument used in the study, consisted of 132 questions. were clustered received more into Seventy-seven of the 132 items ten scales manageable "Senior Expression,” and section reports the results in order to meaningful. make The the data following of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance test of the ten scales. Hypothesis I No surveyed significant difference between the 1982 results of exists in Lyman Briggs the attitudes and Natural Science seniors. The of 10, the overall 150. The the MANOVA analysis indicate F-Test is 13.69, with degrees of F-Test is significant .05 at the the value freedom of level of confi dence. The overall confidence, F-Test indicating is significant at the a significant .05 level of difference in the attitudes surveyed between the 1982 Lyman Briggs and Natural Science accepted. seniors. Therefore, the null hypothesis I is not 65 Table 4.1 Presentation of the results of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance of difference across all ten scales. Hypothesis D.F. Approximate F OVERALL 10.00 13.69 Significance of F Error D.F. .00001 * 150.00 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. The significance confidence allowed individual at the overall level F Type F at the .05 level of further testing of the univariates (each scale). .005 of the overall Each of one of the univariates was confidence I error at .05. in order to tested maintain The univariates are an stated in hypothesis II, A through J. Hypothesis II No seniors significant in Lyman difference Briggs and exists between the 1982 Natural Science in their attitude toward: A. Satisfaction B. General attitudes toward M.S.U. C. Attitudes professors. with toward college or Michigan major department. State University D. Involvement in community activities. E. Satisfaction with outcomes of their educational with faculty in their college experience. F. Satisfaction or department. G. Attitudes toward individual attention. H. Involvement I. Attitude toward planning. J. in campus cocurricular activities. Satisfaction with academic advisement Satisfaction with College or Major Department A. The Multivariate whether Lyman a difference Briggs satisfaction Eleven pertaining included 46.82 and with items complete Analysis exists their on used or major a computation of degrees deviation of 7.363. direction and magnitude the value of The of seniors have responded more freedom mean the department. Appendix scale). of The the and which data B for analysis F-Test a at standard indicates difference favorably of toward provided hypothesis (see each attitudes seniors questionnaire of to determine the Science college the description 150 was between Natural to this with Test shows the LBC to their college or department when compared to Natural Science seniors. Table 4.2 presents hypothesis II A. the outcome of the results for 67 Table Scale 4.2 Multivariate Analysis of Variance results for I: Satisfaction with college or major department. Type Mean N 1. N.S. Standard Deviation 106 29.905 7.363 55 21.418 7.656 F Value 46.82* 2. L.B.C. * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. General Attitudes toward Michigan State University B. Hypothesis II B, Scale 2, was constructed to determine differences in general attitudes of Natural Science and Lyman Briggs Seven The items seniors contributed Multivariate F Value toward Michigan State University. of 4.75 to Analysis with 150 the make-up of this of Variance degrees of scale. revealed freedom which significant at the .005 level of confidence. an is Table 4.3 shows the results of the data analysis of hypothesis II B. Table 4.3 MANOVA results for Scale toward Michigan State University. Type 1. N.S. 2: General Standard Deviation N Mean 106 18.5 3.88 17.127 3.52 Attitudes F Value 4.79* 2. L.B.C. 55 * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. 68 The data presented indicates there is not a significant difference State in the general University held attitudes by seniors toward in Michigan Lyman College and the College of Natural Science. Briggs Therefore, the null is accepted. The mean indicates the direction and difference magnitude Briggs of seniors the did respond more revealing that Lyman favorably than those seniors in Natural Science. Attitudes toward Michigan State University Professors C. Hypothesis II differences University naire The C, in professors. MANOVA Test of 3, attitudes contributed degrees Scale to revealed freedom items Michigan from development an which concerned toward Nine the was is F Value not the of of the question­ this scale. significant at 150 the the null is The mean indicates very little difference in attitudes seniors State .425 with established level of confidence. Therefore, accepted. with of the toward professors. Table Natural Science and Lyman Briggs their 4.4 Michigan presents analysis for hypothesis II C. State the University results of the 69 Table 4.4 MANOVA M.S.U. professors. Type results Scale Mean N 1. N.S. for 3: Attitudes Standard Deviation 106 22.301 4.818 55 23.854 5.590 toward F Value .42* 2. L.B.C. * Not significant at the .005 level of confidence. Involvement in Community Activities D. Hypothesis II D, Scale 4, was the difference in the seniors* activities. Eight contributed variate of F a 29.18 significant confidence. accepted. with Therefore, The mean, 150 were activities Test difference questionnaire The M u l t i ­ of freedom, at the which .005 level of the null hypothesis II D is not which indicates suggests significantly more when examine indicated the value degrees magnitude of the difference, seniors the of this scale. of Variance to involvement in community from the make-up Analysis was reveals to items constructed compared to results of the MANOVA tests. the Lyman Briggs involved Natural responding to the questionnaire. the direction and in community Science seniors Table 4.5 illustrates 70 Table 4.5 MANOVA results community activities. Type N 1. N.S. for Scale Mean 106 4: Involvement Standard Deviation 9.047 2.351 11.472 3.276 in F Value 29.18* 2. L.B.C. 55 * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. Satisfaction with Outcomes of their Educational Experience E. Hypothesis II E, difference in the of their uted Scale 5, was designed to examine s e n i o r s ’ satisfaction with educational to the make-up experience. of the Five scale outcomes items (please the contrib­ refer to Appendix B for complete description of Scale 5). The MANOVA tests revealed an F Value of 4.33 with 150 degrees of not significant a Natural freedom. results difference mean therefore, suggests there is with outcomes experiences. Briggs students toward desired indicate Lyman there Briggs is and toward their educa­ the null is accepted. satisfaction progress in Science s e n i o r s 1 attitudes tion outcomes; The These some of difference their in their educational indicated ’’considerable" outcome, while the Natural 71 Science .4.6 seniors indicated illustrates the "moderate" results of the progress. MANOVA Table tests for hypothesis II E. 4.6 MANOVA results for Scale 5: of educational experience. Type N 1. N.S. Satisfaction with outcomes Standard Deviation Mean 106 11.462 3.222 55 10.381 2.92 F Value 4.33* 2. L.B.C. * Not significant at the .005 level of confidence. Satisfaction with Faculty in their College or Department F. Hypothesis the II F, difference Scale 6, was in the constructed to determine degree of satisfaction with the faculty within their college or department. from the questionnaire this scale contributed to Nine items the make-up of (see Appendix B for complete description of Scale 6). The results of the MANOVA Test reveal 66.77 with 150 degrees of freedom. an F Value of These values indi­ cate a significant difference between the Lyman Briggs and the Natural Science faculty within Therefore, the their null seniors' satisfaction with the college or hypothesis II major F department. is not accepted. 72 Table 4.7 illustrates the results for the MANOVA Test for Scale 6. Table 4.7 MANOVA results for Scale faculty in college or department Type Mean N 1. N.S. 6: Satisfaction Standard Deviation 106 26.216 5.396 55 18.945 5.271 with F Value 66.79* 2. L.B.C. .005 level of confidence. * Significant at the The mean indicates difference, the magnitude and direction of the indicating Lyman Briggs seniors were "very much to substantially" satisfied, while Natural Science seniors were "substantially to moderately" satisfied. Attitudes toward Individual Attention G. Hypothesis toward scale Scale 7, was concerned with attitudes individualized contained Appendix results with II G, items from The of the MANOVA Test reveal significant The description of Scale 7). complete of attention. (see for degrees or the questionnaire B 150 that no six assistance freedom. the F Value at 1.58 These difference was Briggs and Natural Science seniors' values indicate found in the Lyman attitudes regarding 73 individualized assistance. Table 4.8 illustrates the MANOVA findings for hypothesis II G. Table 4.8 MANOVA results individualized assistance. Type Scale Mean N 1. N.S. for 7: Attitudes Standard Deviation 106 9.216 1.723 55 9.672 2.867 toward F Value 1.58* 2. L.B.C. * Not significant at the .005 level of confidence. The mean indicates very little difference toward individualized assistance. in attitudes The null hypothesis II G is therefore accepted. Involvement in Campus Cocurricular Activities H. Hypothesis II H, Scale 8, was constructed to determine the difference in the Lyman Briggs and Natural Science seniors' involvement in campus cocurricular activities. Eleven items make-up of on this the questionnaire scale (see contributed Appendix B for to the complete description of Scale 8). The results of the MANOVA Test 57.74 with 150 degrees of freedom. reveal an F Value These results of indicate there is a significant difference in the involvement of Lyman Briggs and Natural Science seniors in campus cocurricular activities. hypothesis, accepted. suggesting Table 4.9 no Therefore, difference illustrates the the null exists, is not results of the MANOVA Test for significance of hypothesis II H. Table 4.9 MANOVA results for campus cocurricular activities. Type N 1. N.S. Mean Scale 8: Involvement Standard Deviation 106 15.235 3,016 55 19.781 4.524 in F Value 57.74* 2. L.B.C. * Significant at the The mean .005 level of confidence. reveals Lyman Briggs seniors indicated they were significantly more involved in campus cocurricular activities than the Natural Science seniors. Attitude toward Planning I. Hypothesis II I, Scale 9, was concerned with determining if a difference existed in their attitudes toward planning. Four construction of the scale description of Scale 9). items contributed to the (see Appendix B for complete 75 The results of with 150 5.33 indicate no the MANOVA Tests degrees significant of results of the These exists and Natural MANOVA an F Value freedom. difference attitudes of Lyman Briggs The reveal Tests values between MANOVA Type results Scale Mean N 1. N.S. for are 9: illustrated Attitudes Standard Deviation 106 10.500 1.908 55 11.200 1.648 the Science seniors. Table 4.10 at the established level of confidence, Table 4.10 planning. of in .005. toward F Value 5.33* 2. L.B.C. * No significant Although not difference at significant, difference in attitudes difference is not .005 level of the mean indicates toward planning. significant, confidence. Because the hypothesis some the II I is accepted in the null form. Satisfaction with Academic Advisement J. Hypothesis II J, Scale 10, was satisfaction with academic the questionnaire concerned with student advisement. contributed to Six items the make-up of from this scale (see Appendix B for complete description of Scale 10 ). 76 The results of the MANOVA Tests 21.15 with 150 degrees of indicate an F Value of freedom. These values suggest That there is a significant difference in Lyman Briggs and Natural Science academic advisement. J is not seniors' Therefore, accepted. Table satisfaction with the null hypothesis II 4.11 illustrates these results of the MANOVA Tests of significance. Table 4.11 MANOVA results academic advisement. Type Mean N 1. N.S. for Scale 10: Satisfaction with Standard Deviation 106 16.358 3.724 55 13.436 4.008 F Value 21.15* 2. L.B.C. * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. The mean suggests Lyman Briggs seniors were signifi­ cantly more satisfied with academic advisement than the seniors in Natural Science. Summary of the MANOVA Results Prior to discussing investigation with appropriate to the comparison of this the responses gathered in 1971, it seems summarize the results of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance employed to test for significance. results of the MANOVA were as follows: The The overall level of was confidence, difference 1982 F-test in Lyman the indicating attitudes Briggs Significant significant and differences a surveyed Natural at at the significant between Science the .05 .005 the seniors. level of confidence were in five of the ten scales: A. In the first scale, Lyman Briggs students were found to be significantly more satisfied with their college or major department when compared to Natural Science seniors. B. When asked toward about Michigan seniors their State responded general attitudes University, more Briggs favorably when compared to Natural Science seniors; however, the difference was not significant. C. In the third scale, "General Attitudes toward M.S.U. Professors," no significant difference was f o u n d . D. The fourth scale indicated that Lyman Briggs seniors were significantly more involved in community activities when compared to Natural Science seniors. E. The of fifth scale, Educational "Satisfaction with Outcomes Experiences," revealed that Lyman Briggs seniors were more satisfied with the outcomes of their educational experiences when compared however, to Natural Science the difference was not seniors; significant. Scale six, their "Satisfaction College findings were or with Faculty Department," revealed that indicated Lyman Briggs significantly more in satisfied seniors with the faculty in their college or major department when compared to Natural The seventh scale was Science seniors. concerned with attitudes toward individualized assistance or attention. revealed The No in eighth Briggs the two scale seniors involved when significant in revealed were campus compared groups to difference on this that was scale. the Lyman significantly more cocurricular Natural activites Science seniors. The ninth scale was concerned with attitudes toward planning. No significant difference was revealed in this scale. The last scale satisfaction with they received. Lyman Briggs satisfied concerned the This academic with their advisement scale revealed that the seniors were significantly more with had received. was the academic advisement they 79 Comparison of the 1982 Responses with the Response Gathered in 1971 The of the 1971 following section is a presentation and comparison 1981 study responses with the responses reviewed investigation, where and the 1982 Items also reviewed difference is that reveal in II. Responses Chapter II, in the Lyman Briggs greater are discussed. chosen in Chapter reported from the than ten percent of are the presented responses in either 1975 in 1971 direction. a difference of greater than ten percent A difference of greater than ten percent was because of the relatively small size of the population. Comparisons between the 1982 and 1971 studies are made and discussed in the following cluster areas: (1) Satisfaction (2) General with college attitudes of toward major department. Mighigan State University. (3) Satisfaction with educational outcomes. (4) Satisfaction with contrast (5) was available present to other Involvement Comparisons the in were from college the percentages colleges campus made or major only 1971 of department or major departments. cocurricular on activities. items where study. positive Tables in information in Appendix responses for C all available information on the studies reviewed in Chapter II. 80 1. Satisfaction with College or Major Department The heading, following items "Satisfaction KEY: composed with the College or 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Undecided 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree cluster Major under the Department." I feel that my college or major department: 8. has given me a sense of identity with an academic community. 9. has provided an opportunity for being part of a meaningful social group. 10. has given me the opportunity to participate in academic decision-making. 11. is responsive to the needs of students. 12. treats me as though I am of some importance as an individual. 13. has provided an intellectually stimulating environment. 14. has helped me to develop life goals, values and s tandards. 15. has helped me become more sensitive to ethical issues. 16. has provided individual the opportunity attention, when for needed, me from to get faculty. 81 17. has afforded apart from me the an adequate specialized choice of requirements electives from my a program of studies relevant to major. 18. has afforded me the problems of society. Table 4.12 Percentage of positive responses of change for the 1971 and 1982 studies. Item Year % of Change College or Major Department Provided 1982 NS % LBC 1971 NS % LBC 8. Identity with a c a ­ demic community 9. Meaningful social group 10. Academic decision­ making 11. Responsive to need of students 12. Important as an individual 13. Intellectual Environment 14. Help in life goal 15. Sensitive to ethical issues 16. Individual atten­ tion from faculty 17. Adequate electives 52 83 50 29 66 35 18. Relevent to society and percentage NS LBC 74 + 2 + 9 21 63 + 8 + 3 75 57 82 -22 - 7 54 83 49 77 + 5 + 6 47 92 35 88 +12 + 4 78 87 67 71 +11 +16 38 64 20 37 +18 +27 45 85 16 49 +29 +36 81 94 53 80 +28 +14 72 76 60 59 +12 +17 45 83 22 26 +23 +57 NS = Natural Science LBC = Lyman Briggs College The 1982 Lyman Briggs seniors responded more favorably to ten of the eleven items in this cluster when compared to their responses in 1971. The Natural Science seniors' 82 response was very similar, on the same item,, i.e., decision-making. Table change Briggs the for Lyman cluster area of as both groups' scores decreased participation 4.12 illustrates and Natural "Satisfaction in academic the percentage Science with since College of 1971 or in Major D e p a r t m e n t ." The the greatest 1982 Lyman relevancy of Eighty-three strongly percentage increase Briggs seniors was their studies to percent agreed of of that the on item college 18 society's Lyman Briggs their (fifty-seven) for concerning problems. seniors agreed or provided them program of studies relevant to society's problems. with a The 1975 study's results on this question indicate that satisfaction has increased for seniors both groups. 1982 LBC more sensitive to ethical Eighty-five percent of the felt their college had helped them become issues. This finding represented a thirty-six percent increase over 1971 figures. When comparing the results of the 1971 and 1975 studies on item 15, become an more increase "My college or major sensitive to for groups. both ethical department issues," has helped me the Eighty-five figures percent of show the 1982 Lyman Briggs seniors felt their college had helped them become more sensitive to ethical issues compared with forty-five percent for Natural Science. was The most in the favorable area of response from both individual attention groups from in 1982 faculty. Ninety-four percent of the 1981 Lyman Briggs seniors agreed 83 or strongly agreed opportunity needed, a to that get their individual fourteen percent The 1982 Natural Science college provided attention from them faculty the when increase over the 1971 results. seniors responses to this question also increased over 1971, with eighty-one percent responding favorably. Both the 1982 Lyman Briggs and Natural Science seniors had large increases on item 14, "My college or major depart­ ment has helped me to develop standards." Lyman Briggs percent 1971, and Natural over by eighteen percent. life responses goals, increased values and twenty-seven Science responses increased These increases were also shown in the 1975 responses for both groups. Eighty-seven felt they had environment. increase Science been This over reported in percent provided finding 1971 1975. indicated of and the an 1982 Lyman Briggs seniors intellectually represents is very a similar stimulating sixteen to the The responses of the seniors an eleven percent increase percent results in Natural in 1982, as seventy-eight percent felt their college or major department provided an intellectually stimulating environment. This cluster revealed increases for both groups in 1982 except given for me item the decision-making." 10, "My college opportunity to or major participate department in has academic Lyman Briggs decreased by seven percent, and Natural Science decreased by twenty-two percent on this item. 84 2. General Attitudes toward Michigan State University There were seven items that contributed to this cluster area, This "General Attitudes toward Michigan State University." is the manner in which they appeared on the question­ naire . 19. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Undecided 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree I feel that I have received a good education at MSU. 20. I feel prepared for a job related to my field of study. 21. I feel that my experience at M SU has been socially rewarding. 22. I am sorry that I came to MS U rather than to another s c h o o l . 23. In retrospect, I wish I had selected a different major. 24. I feel prepared education. for graduate or professional 85 25. Do you feel that your education makes you competitive in the present job market? Two 1. Definitely yes 2. Probably yes 3. Perhaps 4. No, items, I do not "Preparation for graduate or professional school," and "MSU has been a socially rewarding experience," showed a positive increase of greater than ten percent since 1971 for the 1982 Lyman For the remaining items: education my at MSU, (2) field of study, than to different another major, (3) (1) seniors (see table 4.13). I feel I have received a good I feel prepared for a job related to I am sorry that I came to MSU rather school, and Briggs (5) (4) Do I you wish feel I had selected that your a education makes you competititve in the present job market?--there was less than a ten ten-year period. percent change for Lyman Briggs over the 86 Table 4.13 General Attitudes toward MSU: A comparison of positive responses and percentages of change between the 1971 and 1982 studies. Item College or Major Department Provided Year 1982 1971 NS % LBC NS I LBC 19. Received a good education 20. Prepared for a job 21. Socially reward­ ing experience 22. Sorry I came to MSU 23. Wish I selected different major 24. Prepared for graduate school 82 83 80 52 55 55 % of Change NS LBC 75 + 2 + 8 69 63 -17 - 8 85 80 73 -25 +12 76 74 78 65 - 2 + 9 16 23 28 20 -12 + 3 48 81 69 63 -21 +18 NS = Natural Science LBC = Lyman Briggs College The or increase in item 24, professional percent decrease "I feel prepared for graduate school," was Briggs for 1982 Lyman in change for the the greatest seniors, 1982 Natural at eighteen compared Science with a seniors. When comparing 1982 responses with those reported in 1975 on item 24, school," Science of the "I feel Lyman prepared Briggs decreased 1982 LBC for increased thirty-two seniors graduate three percent. or professional percent, and Natural Eighty-five percent felt they had a socially rewarding experience, an increase of twelve percent since 1971 and ten percent Science since 1975. seniors experience at MSU. Fifty-five felt they This had percent a represented of 1982 socially more than Natural rewarding a twenty 87 percent decrease when compared with figures reported in 1975 and 1971. 3. Satisfaction with Education Outcomes Five items "Satisfaction contributed with to Education the make-up of Outcomes." cluster 3, These items appeared on the questionnaire in this manner. KEY: 1. Dramatic progress--one of my most conspicuous outcomes 2. Considerable progress 3. Moderate progress 4. Some Progress 5. No Progress 46. Acquiring a broad cultural background. 47. Developing the ability to think critically and to understand the uses 48. Understanding and limitations of knowledge. different world views, cultures and ways of life. 49. Social development--gaining skill in relating to myself, my place in other people. 50. Personal abilities development--understanding and limitations, and my society. Since satisfaction more than 1971, with ten the Lyman their percent Briggs seniors' response to educational progress increased by in each of the five items that 88 contributed to this cluster. Natural Science satisfaction increased eleven percent on 47, ability to think critically since 1971. for changes on each item for this seniors’ developing the Refer to Table 4.14 cluster, "Satisfaction with Educational Outcomes." Table 4.14 Satisfaction with comparison of positive responses between the 1971 and 1982 studies. Education Outcomes: A and percentage of change Item Educational Progress Year 1982 1971 NS C, LBC NS i LBC 46. Broad cultural education 47. Develop ability to think critically 48. Understanding of world views 49. Social development 43 66 46 81 81 51 50. Personal develop­ ment % of Change NS LBC 40 - 3 +26 70 69 +11 +12 68 51 43 0 +25 68 72 62 59 + 6 +13 75 81 66 65 + 9 +16 NS = Natural Science LBC = Lyman Briggs College The Lyman greatest Briggs receiving a twenty-six response decline since to of 1975. increase seniors broad percent since Both satisfaction reflected cultural acquiring three was in in background, 1971. Natural for their an the 1982 response increase Science to of seniors' a broad cultural education reveals a percent Natural since 1971 and fourteen percent Science and Lyman Briggs seniors 89 felt they had developed themselves--Lyman Briggs a better increasing understanding sixteen Natural Science, nine percent since 1971. percent of and Similar increases on this item were revealed in the 1975 study for both Lyman Briggs and Natural Science. When asked eighty-one seniors eleven since about percent felt they percent 1971. of ability Lyman Briggs to think and both Lyman Briggs increase was and revealed critically, Natural had developed this skill, for This their Science an increase of Natural in the Science 1975 study for Natural Science while Lyman Briggs increased ten percent since 1975. Seventy-two had made of percent progress twelve in percent six responded favorably The 1975 percent figures the 1982 LBC seniors their social development, over increased of the 1971 since to reveal their a 1971, study. as an increase Natural Science sixty-eight percent attainment similar felt they of increase social over skills. 1971 for both groups. 4. Satisfaction with College or Major Department in Contrast to Other Colleges or Ma.jor Departments The following seven items contributed to the making-up of this cluster, ment "Satisfaction with College or Major Dep a r t ­ in Contrast with Other Colleges or Major Departments." 90 1. Definitely 2. Probably 3. Uncertain 4. Not at all I believe to other that my college or major department, colleges in contrast or major departments on campus, provided me with: 75. closer contact with faculty. 76. more individualized attention. 77. more specialized training. 78. broader training. 79. less competition. 80. more personal freedom. 81. more tolerant faculty. The 1982 Lyman Briggs seniors increased by greater than ten with percent in faculty, received (2) broader investigation illustrates three was the of these received responses for this cluster. of for the closer training, Results available comparison (1) specialized training. not items: from cluster. 1971 with contact and (3) the 1975 Table 4.15 the 1982 91 Table 4.15 Satisfaction with My College or Major Department in Contrast to Other College or Major Departments: A comparison of positive responses and percentages of change between the 1971 and 1982 studies. Item My College or Major Department in Contrast to Others Year 1982 1971 NS % LBC NS % LBC 75. Closer contact with faculty 76. Individualized attention 77. Specialized training 78. Broader training 16 77 5 8 64 16 % of Change NS LBC 59 +11 +18 3 61 + 5 + 3 36 26 10 -10 +26 9 40 7 29 + 2 +11 80. Personal freedom 14 25 9 18 + 5 + 7 81. Tolerant faculty 26 5 6 20 - 1 + 6 NS = Natural Science LBC = Lyman Briggs College The Briggs item with seniors the greatest increase was on receiving for the 1982 Lyman specialized training. Thirty-six percent of the LBC seniors felt their college had provided them more specialized training, twenty-six percent over the 1971 study. a ten percent decrease from 1971, as increase of Natural Science had sixteen they had received more specialized training. percent of the 1982 Lyman Briggs an percent felt Seventy-seven seniors felt their college had afforded them closer contact with faculty compared with sixteen percent of the Natural Science seniors. This finding represented an increase of eighteen percent for Lyman Briggs and an eleven percent increase for Natural Science over 1971 responses. 92 When asked if they had received broader training, forty percent of the 1982 LBC seniors responded favorably compared with nine percent of the Natural Science seniors. This finding represented an increase of eleven percent for Lyman Briggs and compared a two percent with upward trend Briggs had the 1971 results. in positive increases increase for Natural This responses on all five Science when cluster for both revealed an g r o u p s ; Lyman items and Natural Science on four items. 5. Involvement in Campus Cocurricular Activities Nine items contributed to the make-up of this cluster, "Involvement in Campus Cocurricular following the manner in is which Activities." they appeared The on the quest ionnarie. KEY: 1. Did not participate at all 2. Participated, but not frequently 3. Participated often or regularly 90. Activities sponsored by a religious organization. 91. Student government. 92. Department or college academic governance. 93. Literary, oratorical or dramatic activities. 94. Intramural athletics. 95. Musical, 96. Workshops, dance or lectures other or fine organized related to class assignment. arts activities. discussions not 93 97. Special interest clubs (photography, sailing, e t c .). 98. Volunteer programs (tutoring, aid to the blind, MSU Volunteers-Service L e a r n i n g ) . Results from the 1971 study were not available for this cluster, changes thus in Information the finding Lyman was Briggs available included in the discussion. of Lyman Briggs student and discussion over from the the will last 1975 pertain ten study to years. and is Table 4.16 presents percentages involvement in cocurricular activities. Table 4.16 Involvement in Campus Cocurricular Activities: A comparison of positive responses and percentages of change for Lyman Briggs between the 1971 and 1982 studies. Item Participation in Cocurricular Activities 90. Religious organi­ zation 91. Student govern­ ment 92. Academic govern­ ance 93. Literary, dramatic 94. Intramural athletics 95. Musical, dance, fine arts 96. Workshops and lectures 97. Special interest clubs 98. Volunteer programs Year 1982 LBC % 1971 LBC % % and Direction of Change 13 8 + 5 30 16 +14 21 14 + 7 13 4 + 9 40 24 +16 36 8 +28 38 18 +20 28 10 +18 36 18 +18 NS = Natural Science LBC = Lyman Briggs College 94 Responses Briggs LBC to this cluster revealed that the 1982 Lyman seniors seniors Examination participated in of all nine these greater than ten student government, more areas frequently included organized (5) percent. (2) The six intramural discussions special addition, increase interest it of is the 1971 this cluster. items revealed six had an increase of are not clubs noted involvement that in follows: (1) (3) musical, (4) workshops, lectures related and as athletics, dance or other fine arts activities, or in than to class assignments, (6) volunteer programs. the each 1982 data activity In revealed over the an 1975 re s u l t s . A thirty-six percent represented greatest shops, class a response twenty-eight increase lectures, assignment percent in this or organized was cluster. found percentage of participation, to in fine arts increase of activities 1971; the Participation in w o r k ­ discussions reflect not the related second to highest an increase of thirty-eight and twenty percent, respectively. Eighteen percent more of the 1982 LBC seniors partici­ pated in special interest clubs and volunteer programs than the 1971 LBC seniors. indicated was This the Forty percent of the 1982 LBC seniors they participated most popular represented an in activity increase intramural for the athletics 1982 LBC (which seniors). of sixteen percent over their involvement in intramural athletics in 1971. 95 Summary For the purpose of comparison, the 1971 and 1982 results were presented in percentages of positive responses to items from the questionnaire in five cluster areas. These clusters were identified as: (1) Satisfaction (2) General attitudes toward MSU. (3) Satisfaction with educational outcomes. (4) Satisfaction with college contrast colleges (5) with to other Involvement in college campus or major or major department. department in or major departments. cocurricular activities. Items that revealed a ten percent or greater difference in either direction for Lyman Briggs were discussed for each cluster. the Results of the 1975 investigation were included in discussions of the items with differences greater than ten percent. In the cluster, "Satisfaction with College or Major Department," six of the eleven items revealed differences of greater than ten percent items included: me (1) an the stimulating Natural (6) Science LBC seniors. These environment, (2) help (3) more sensitivity to ethical issues, individual attention with faculty, electives, 1982 My college or major department has provided intellectually with life goals, for a program seniors (4) (5) an adequate choice of relevant expressed to an society's increase satisfaction on all of these items as well. problems. in their 96 In cluster number 2, "General Attitudes toward MSU," Lyman Briggs seniors' greatest percentage of increase was in social development sional school. and preparation for graduate or prof e s ­ Findings regarding these items revealed the greatest amount of decrease in satisfaction for the Natural Science seniors. In 1971, favorably the seniors to each Educational in Natural Science responded more item in Outcomes." the The cluster, 1982 "Progress results reveal substantial decrease in satisfaction for Natural their progress substantial toward increase educational (greater outcomes than toward a Science in compared ten percent) for with Lyman Briggs on each item. The the greatest development degree of a of broad change for cultural LBC seniors background, was in personal development and understanding different world views. When contrasting their college or major department with other colleges satisfaction, degree of or major again, change was departments, increased in on closer all Lyman Briggs items. contact The greatest with faculty being provided with more specialized training. both represent increases seniors' and These items in the differences between the two groups since 1971. Information involvement in was only cocurricular available for activities. showed increases greater than ten percent Lyman The Briggs LBC on seniors in six areas, the 97 largest lectures, increases special student government. being in interest the fine groups, a r t s , workshops volunteer programs and and CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This chapter interpretation contains of the a summary findings, of the study, conclusions, an and recommendation for further research. Introduction The decades of the fifties and sixties were witness to tremendous growth and expansion to colleges and universities across the country. Surveys by the United States Office of Education indicate that the total college student population leaped more from than 3,610,007 doubling in 1961-62 the to enrollment 7,571,636 during the in 1968-69, first eight years of the decade (Gaff, 1970). Accompanying this growth were faculty, staff, and student concerns regarding increased classroom size, limited faculty-student community." become a lectures, interaction and a loss of the "sense of Student life on many of the large campuses had very impersonal graduate experience assistants teaching with lower television division classes, and the increased use of standardized tests. 98 99 Various models Large with were kinds being of employed institutions bigness consequences administrative were and how in facing to and response to these the problem counteract its instructional of concerns. how usually to live negative (Astin, 1978). In many respects, Michigan State University exemplified the kind of growth and expansion described. Among the institution's response to counteract some of the ill effects of this growth was the creation of living-learning centers within several residence halls and the development of three semi-autonomous has focused residential on Lyman colleges. Briggs This College, investigation one of the two remaining residential colleges. Purpose of the Study The purpose attitudes seniors this the fall addition, the term 1981, of senior University. at investigator investigations; 1. to compare and contrast College of Natural Science and Lyman Briggs similar the study was toward educational and social experiences held by in College, of classes More the of Michgian State University. compared findings results 1971 specifically, and this his of attitudinal 1975 with studies at Michigan study In State is designed to: Determine present attitudes of the 1982 seniors in the colleges of Natural Science and Lyman Briggs. 100 2. Compare 1982 and contrast the between those of attitudes Lyman Briggs surveyed and in Natural Science seniors. 3. Determine the difference, surveyed in Natural Science if any, in the attitudes 1982 with those reported and Lyman Briggs in the 1971 seniors at Michigan State University. Population and Sample The population selected for this study consisted of the full-time seniors enrolled at Michigan State University, fall term of 1981, and who identified either Lyman Briggs or a department in the major. October 8, Office revealed Science with College 1981 678 449 men of figures seniors and Natural from in the the 229 women. Science MSU College Lyman as their Registrar's of Natural Briggs College seniors totaled 84 with 48 men and 36 women. The investigator drew a computerized random sample of seniors in the College of Natural Science enrolled full-time for fall term population Based on 1981. indicated this Previous a return information, samples rate of drawn from this approximately 33%. a 50% sample was drawn from the seniors in the College of Natural Science, which provided an adequate cell size for comparison. This sample was obtained from the Registrar's Office by requesting address labels for every other senior enrolled in the College of Natural 101 Science. Because of the relatively small size of the Lyman Briggs senior class, the entire population of Briggs seniors was surveyed. Methodology The survey developed for this investigation, "Senior Expression," was mailed to 50yo or 339 seniors in the college of Natural Science and College during fall A return rate of 100% or 84 seniors term 1981 at Michigan State University. 32.4% of the students College of Natural Science was received, seniors in Lyman in Lyman Briggs Briggs returned surveyed in the while 65.4% of the their responses to the consisted of 132 survey. The instrument, questions. In meaningful, scales. and 77 The compared "Senior order of the remaining with to make 132 55 Expression," items the were data received clustered more into ten items were treated independently responses reported in the 1971 investigation where data was available. For the purpose of analysis, to examine the data collected. Variance (MANOVA) was the two methods were employed The Multivariate Analysis of statistical model chosen to test for significance and percentages were computed and presented in tables for comparison of the 1981 responses collected in 1971 for a similar investigation. with those 102 The Multivariance Analysis of Variance was selected to test the null hypotheses: 1. No significant difference exists in the attitudes surveyed between the 1982 Lyman Briggs and Natural Science seniors. 2. No significant seniors in difference Lyman Briggs exists and between Natural 1982 Science in their attitudes toward: A. Satisfaction d epartm e n t . B. General attitudes Unive r s i t y . C. Attitudes toward professors. D. Involvement in community activities. E. Satisfaction with outcomes educational exper i e n c e s . F. Satisfaction with faculty in their college or d epartm e n t . G. Attitudes toward individual attention. H. The Involvement a ctivit i e s . with in college toward Michigan or major Michigan State campus State University of their cocurricular I. Attitudes toward planning. J. Satisfaction with academic advisement. .05 level of confidence was the criteria chosen for testing significance for the Multivariate Analysis. of the univariates Each one (each individual scale) was tested at the .005 level of confidence in order to maintain a Type I error at .05. 103 Findings This investigation educational colleges State and of social Natural University. compared with conducted analyze in the and addition, results 1971. data experiences Science In the compared held Lyman the reported Two basic collected. attitudes by seniors Briggs 1982 from toward a hypotheses at in the Michigan findings were similar study were Stated in the null used to form these are: 1. No significant difference exists in the attitudes surveyed between the 1982 Lyman Briggs and College of Natural Science seniors. 2. No significant difference exists between the attitudes surveyed in 1982 and those reported in 1971 of the Lyman Briggs and College of Natural Science seniors. MANOVA Results The results indicated there of was the a Multivariate Analysis significant of Variance difference in the attitudes surveyed between the 1982 Lyman Briggs and Natural Science accepted. seniors. More Therefore, the specifically, null these hypothesis was differences indicated in the testing of the ten scales developed. not were Five of these ten scales revealed a significant difference at the .005 level of confidence. 104 Satisfaction with College or Ma.jor Department In the first scale, Lyman Briggs students were found to. be significantly more department when satisfied with their college or major compared with the Natural Science seniors. General Attitudes toward Michigan State University When asked to respond to their general attitudes toward the university, Briggs were the more Science; however, residential favorable college when seniors compared in with Lyman Natural the difference was not significant. General Attitudes toward MSU Professors This scale revealed no significant difference between the two g r o u p s . Involvement in Community Activities Results seniors of were the MANOVA significantly indicated more that involved Lyman in Briggs community activites when compared with Natural Science seniors. Satisfaction of Outcomes of Educational Experiences The results residential college of the seniors MANOVA were indicated more satisfied that with the the outcomes of their educational experiences when compared with the university however, seniors in the College of the difference was not significant. Natural Science; 105 Satisfaction with Faculty in their College or Department The results of the MANOVA again indicated a significant difference college in attitudes. seniors in favorable than attitudes toward The Lyman Natural response Briggs Science faculty in was by the significantly seniors their residential more regarding college or their department. Attitudes toward Individualized Attention or Assistance No test. the significant Lyman Briggs College of difference was revealed by the MANOVA seniors and those seniors responding in Natural Science responded similarly toward their desire for individualized attention. Involvement in Campus Cocurricular Activities The MANOVA test results on this scale revealed a significant difference. Lyman B r i g g s .seniors were found to be involved significantly activites when more compared with in campus cocurricular their university counterparts in the College of Natural Science. Attitude toward Planning No tests. seniors significant The in difference residential Natural college Science attitudes toward planning. was revealed seniors responded by the MANOVA and the university similarly in their 106 Satisfaction with Academic Advisement The in the This MANOVA two scale group's had more received indicated a significant satisfaction with revealed significantly they results that the satisfied when academic Lyman with compared Briggs the with difference advisement. seniors academic the were advisement seniors in the College of Natural Science. Comparison of the 1982 Findings with the Findings Reported in 1971 For the purpose of students, the results responses. of comparing the 1982 and 1971 groups the findings were clustered into five areas and were presented in percentages The results of these comparisons of positive are listed and discussed: (1) Satisfaction (2) General attitudes University. (3) Satisfaction with educational outcomes. (4) Satisfaction with college or major department in contrast to other colleges or major departments. (5) Involvement with in college campus or toward major department. Michigan cocurricular State activities. Items that revealed a ten percent or greater difference in either direction for Lyman Briggs were discussed for each cluster. the Results of the 1975 investigation were included in discussion ten percent. of the items with a difference greater than 107 In the cluster, "Satisfaction Department," the seniors favorably ten of items the to reveal 1982 (57%) seniors. the 1982 both eleven a difference LBC for the in with groups items. of greater The Lyman College Briggs Major responded Six than greatest or of the more eleven ten percent percentage seniors was for increase on item 18 concerning relevancy of their studies to society's problems. Ninety-two important compared percent as an with Eighty-five of the 1982 LBC in their individual 47 percent percent of of the the seniors felt they were or department college Natural residential Science seniors seniors. felt their college was sensitive to ethical issues compared with 45% of their university showed an counterparts. increase in In general, satisfaction, college seniors maintaining with the both groups residential the similar substantial edge in favorable responses as found in 1971. In Briggs cluster seniors' development 2, "General greatest percentage and preparation school. The Natural revealed a decrease of these areas. Attitudes of toward MSU," increase was Lyman social for a graduate or professional Science seniors, on the other hand, in their level of satisfaction in both In general, the residential college seniors revealed an increase in their satisfaction toward M SU while their university counterparts' satisfaction decreased substantially on five out of the six items in this cluster. In the Outcomes," third LBC cluster, seniors' "Progress responses were toward Educational substantially more 108 favorable (greater than ten percent) on all cluster, while the Natural Science seniors' a greater greatest college than ten increase seniors percent in increase satisfaction (26%) was reflected one a substantial Science seniors change expressed The the 1982 residential in their since 1971. a greater the item. response receiving a broad cultural background. Overall, reveals in responses showed on for items to this cluster The 1971 Natural degree of satisfaction when compared with LBC seniors, whereas the 1982 LBC seniors expressed a substantial increase in satisfaction when compared with their 1971 response. In cluster Department in Departments," all items. contact 4, Contrast again, The with specialized "Satisfaction to Other LBC seniors' greatest faculty training. College or Colleges Major or Major satisfaction increased on degree and with of change being Overall, was provided student in closer with response more to this cluster represented a substantial difference between the two groups in In 1971 the Activites," Natural fifth largest difference cluster, were increase with shown (28%) dance, and fine arts. the on increased "Participation was seniors. has not However, 1971 six of depicted in available the showed increases on all nine compared increases that information Science responses when and 1982 1982. Cocurricular for the 1971 LBC seniors' items in the cluster responses. the in nine Substantial items with the by participation in music, 109 Discussion The suggest of findings that presented there satisfaction compared with in this investigation was a difference of the their 1982 Briggs seniors counterparts students: (1) an opportunity to interact on a regular basis faculty professors, and staff, (2) (3) was created Natural This their college in when Science. with residential in the expressed level Lyman university clearly personalized increased activities, campus sense for (5) involvement an experience, of a c c o u n t s , the opportunity and identity 1982 in from opportunities for (6) with Lyman a myriad to academic Briggs (4) increased of integrate an environment an cocurricular their where one community. On seniors expressed degree of satisfaction with their college experience. findings are very consistent with student satisfaction (Feldman offer attention involvement in the governance of the college, opportunities to total has a these a high These the current literature on and Newcomb, 1968; Brown, 1972; Astin, 1977). Student/Faculty Relations Student/faculty relationships have been identified as a critical and, element hence, that academic contributes success to (Astin, student 1978; Feldman and Newcomb, 1968; and many others). satisfaction Brown, 1972; An interesting finding revealed in this investigation was shown in Scale 3, 110 which revealed no significant difference in the residential college seniors1 attitudes and toward However, in their Michigan Scale 6, university State count e r p a r t s ' University "Satisfaction with professors. Faculty in your College or Department," the residential college seniors were found to be significantly more satisfied. The relationship between the student and professor in Lyman Briggs College is one that typically has had three or four years to develop and mature. On the other hand, university students typically begin to interact with their major professors once they have declared their major after their sophomore year. Residency At percent the time of this of the LBC seniors Holmes Hall where all the college seniors investigation, are surveyed more than seventeen surveyed were still residing in faculty and administrative offices of housed. Fifty-seven indicated percent of the LBC they had lived in MSU residence halls three years or more compared with twenty-eight percent of the Natural Science seniors. Twenty-three percent of the Natural lived Science University of the LBC seniors residence seniors. never hall These compared results in with a Michigan State only eight percent support Astin's (1978) finding that students residing on campus were more likely to express satisfaction with their undergraduate experience. Ill Involvement Astin campus (1977) were more activities. The were found to be and campus of workshops Student seniors musicals, indicated in become college spread they participated in campus their were community university by the and 1982 varied involved in percent participated in percent participated in arts; programs; in several percent fine volunteer with in on in this study involved over thirty-six resided involved indicated thirty-eight and who students compared forty lectures; dance, participated students involvement was athletics; and to when activities: intramural that significantly more activites Briggs kinds likely residential counterparts. Lyman suggested thirty-six and percent fifty-one student or percent academic governance. With this residential and each level college other's of contributed educational asserted that this powerful force affecting kind others. Adams (1967) special ingredient certain to be enhanced, membership of the involvement, of how a great students deal experience. influence students is see to in their Brown an the own (1971) immensely themselves and saw the peer group influence as "that in the environment for learning, most if there is an overlap between the formal college unit and the living unit." 112 Academic Advisement In Axelrod's (1973) report on Lyman Briggs College, he found that academic advisement had a much more central role in the residential setting. study with This as the their seniors. and college variable LBC supports was students reinforced in college the 1982 significantly more satisfied advisement instances, in a conventional again seniors were academic In many than than the academic at Natural advisement critical Science encourages times in their undergraduate experience. Often the student's advisor in the residential expressed academic college is academic advisor influence the a professor who is in the student's interest. The student thus and student's development relationship has and the between potential college to experience at an early age. Individualized Attention An interesting attitude was revealed "Attitude toward Individualized Attention." no The significant difference residential expressed desire college for in Scale In this the two groups was seniors a in were not personalized scale, expressed. unique college 7, in their experience. Feldman and Newcomb (1968) may have best summarized the results of campus-wide provided in these findings impacts small, appear by stating, to residential, have "The most four-year conditions for frequently been colleges. The 113 conditions faculty probably and continuing include student body interaction, relative together not homogeneity with of both opportunity exclusively formal, for among students and between students and faculty.” Michigan State University Financial Crisis Winter State term 1981 University financial crisis. president to considered Board declared of the Trustees University at to Michigan be programs elimination. or services Lyman that subsequent Briggs months many students, residential faculty, rallied in support of the residential program. on the questionnaire and involvement Lyman Briggs a could be college was one of the programs under consideration. the in A special committee was appointed by the recommend for the in During and staff Three items inquired about the student's knowledge the seniors crisis. Greater responded supported a program scheduled that than they 90% of both had actively for elimination compared with 31% of the Natural Science seniors. There was no attempt to measure this impact or influence on the respondent's choices for this investigation. However, this factor should be reported. the researcher determined 114 Conclusions 1. The residential Lyman Briggs their college seniors experience of had expressed positive attitudes undergraduate experience. seniors a the 1982 impact toward on their The residential college expressed greater satisfaction toward the university, their college, professors within their college, had and about received the when academic compared advisement to their they university counterparts in Natural Science. 2. The residential Lyman college Briggs opportunities college seniors afforded to interact or department, their experience of satisfaction relationships. with Astin more faculty in their positively affecting those (1977) 1982 them with thus, the faculty/student stated that student/ faculty interaction has a stronger relationship to student satisfaction than any other with the variable or, college experience indeed, any other student or institutional characteristic. 3. The residential Lyman Briggs college seniors experience of positively the affected 1982 their attitudes toward their college or department. The residential LBC seniors the to college feel college. treated them a The as experience strong LBC though allowed sense seniors of the identity with felt their college they were important as an individual while providing part of a meaningful the residential expressed by stimulating, social group. college LBC opportunities relevant to a Academically, experience, seniors, to be was as strongly intellectually society's problems, and sensitive to ethical issues. The residential college experience of the 1982 LBC seniors afforded participate The in them campus residential and college in community service, student more government community seniors residential involved academic governance, and in activities in positions piece of involvement one to of the student Newcomb, The expressed also equipment. nature and has more and more Student been factors development college seniors found to be contributing (Feldman they seniors had experience positively satisfaction advisement guidance were and 1968; Astin, 1977). Briggs college in Natural Science. responsibility significant growth residential Lyman of compared with in building or improving upon a this most when seniors laboratory of activities. active college actively involved to were more their university counterparts The opportunities with received. expressed of the affected the The 1982 their academic residential satisfaction about the they had received and in their advisor's 116 sensitivity toward their personal as well as academic concerns. 6. The results of this 1975 findings seniors their had investigation support Nosow's that: a 1) stronger college or residential sense department, of 2) college identity the with residential college students expressed a much stronger social identification with to their fellow students when compared university residential college counterparts, seniors felt 3) that the their college or major department provided them with an intellectually stimulating environment, and 4) the residential college opportunities for This study 1975 conclusion students informal presents substantial contact with evidence that had to Michigan faculty. support State Nosow's University achieved its objective "to provide a small college experience at a major university," as expressed in the attitude survey in this study. Implications for Further Research In this specific questions experience questions study, in were suggestions for Lyman the investigator sought to answer some regarding Briggs presented further in the residential College. this research Answers document. were various stages of this investigation: The college to those following formulated during 117 I. To gain another experience, source perspective alumni of are on thought information the to be the richest about college (Boulding, 1975; and Freedman, 1962). advocated alumni studies. important outcomes cannot documented the be impacts or years later. some graduates would suggested that of at Thus, such believes college will not that experience because manifest longitudinal beneficial. studies quality Bowen (1977) commencement changes be He the college should until studies Pace be of of (1974) concerned with the impact of the undergraduate experience on their: 1) issues, attitudes 2) attitudes toward social toward and political benefits of their educational experience, and 3) present involvement in community service. II. Given the kind of impact faculty have been found to have on student satisfaction, faculty views and their assessment experience of would the provide complementary information. attitudes perceptions and residential college different Exploring toward the but faculty's interaction and quality of relationship they experience in the residential setting information. Does experience allow would the faculty provide valuable residential teaching sufficient time research and other professional activities? for 118 Assessing setting their professional and its effects satisfaction in this on student satisfaction should provide very useful information. III. In this study, attitudes of students were elicited concerning their satisfaction aspects their undergraduate of selected experience. environmental assessment would another perspective provide of with Lyman Briggs of An College some of the differences that exist between the university and residential college University. experience Rudolf H. at Michigan M o o s ’s of Educational Environments, book 1979, State Evaluation provides a comprehensive discussion and framework to approach an environmental assessment. . the influence authors in agree which of that environment may vary, but all the setting students attitudes and performance, social function moods, and Moos concludes " . . their ecological can their self affect their behavior concept and and general sense of well-being." IV. An interview study of residential college students would be provide obtained After from in-depth surveys administering gation, with more several the stimulated the students investigator by the information or other survey wanted to for than can instruments. this to express questionnaire. investi­ make their contact views Follow-up interviews would allow the investigator and students the ability relationships critical and during experience. gain A study of focus experiences the This insights to on method also nature significant that student's unanticipated by this in should be most undergraduate opens the were the door to investigator. replicated but focused upon James Madison Residential College and the College University. of Social Science at Michigan State Studying these colleges would provide a broader insight to the impact of the residential college With experience the recent at Michigan changes in State the University. Lyman Briggs program to a department in the College of Natural Science, provide decisions a study useful of James data for affecting the Madison College would comparison residential and future programs. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Donald V., "Learning-Living Centers--An Evaluation of the Michigan State Experience," Seminar Series I, NASPA 49th Annual Conference, April 1967. Adams, Donald V., "Intellectual and Academic Facilitation in Student Residences." In H. R. Marguard (ed.) "Current Issues in Student Housing," Report of Commission III, Student Residence Programs, ACPA, 1968, pp. 23-35": Adams, Donald V., "Residential Learning Opportunities." In D. A. DeCoster and P. Mable (eds.), Student Development and Education in College Residence H a l l s . Washington, D.C. : American College Personnel Association, 1974. American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work (E. G. Williamson, Chrmn.), The Student Personnel Point of View (r e v . e d .), American Council on Educational Studies, Series 6, No. 13. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1949. American College Personnel Association, Tomorrow's Higher Education Project (T. K. Miller, Chrmn.), "A Student Development Model for Student Affairs in Tomorrow's Higher Education." Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , 1975, pp. 16, 334-341. Astin, Alexander W . , The Educational and Vocational Development of College S t u d e n t s , Astin and Robert J. P a n o s . Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1969. Astin, A. W . , "Measuring the Outcomes of Higher Education." In H. Bower (ed.) New Directions for Institutional Research: Evaluating Institutions for Accountability, No. Ti San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey - B a s s , I n c . 1974? Astin, Alexander W . , Four Critical Y e a r s . J o s s e y-Bass, I n c ., 1977. 120 San Francisco: 121 Axelrod, J . , B. J. Hodgkins and C. R. Pace, "Analysis of Lyman Briggs College." Published by Provost's Lyman Briggs College Study Committee, Michigan State University, 1973. Baird, Leonard L . , "The Effects of College Residence Groups on Students' Self-concepts, Goals, and A c h i e vements ." Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , June 1969, pp. 1015-1021. Barker, Roger Garlock and Paul V. Gump, in collaboration with Louise Shedd Barker and others, Big S c h o o l , Small School; High School Size and Student B e havioF! Stanford, California: Stanford University, 1964. Berdie, Ralph F . , "College Expectations, Experiences, and Perceptions." The Journal of College Student Personnel, November 1966, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 376 3557 - ” Betz, Ellen L . , Ann M. Starr and John W. Menne, "College Student Satisfaction in Ten Public and Private Colleges and Universities," Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , September 1972, pp. 456-461. Blanton, Wincie L. and Robert F. Peck, and Jane Greer, "'Operation Knowledge': A Ne w Approach to Academic Excellence," Journal of the National Association oF~Women Deans and C ounselors, Spring 1964, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 133-136. Borg, Walter R. and Meredith Damien Gall, Educational Research, An Intoduction. Ne w York: Longman lEc ."'"15777 Brown, Robert D . , "Student Development in an Experimental College, or I May Have Seen a Unicorn," Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , May 1972, Vol. 13, N o . 3, pp. 196-201. Brown, Robert D. Student Development In Tomorrow's .Higher Education: A Return to the A c a d e m y , American College Personnel Association, Monograph Series No. 16. Washington, D.C.: American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1972, p. 31. Butler, William R . , "Student Involvement in the DecisionMaking Process," The Journal of College Student P ersonnel, November 1966, pp. 331-3357 "Byerrum Ad Hoc Committee Guidelines for College II," Michigan State University, December 1965 (mimeographed). Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Continuity and Discontinuity; Higher Education and the S c h o o l s , a report and recommendations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Centra, John A . , "Student Perceptions of Residence Hall Environments: Living-Learning v s . Conventional Units," Journal of College Student Personnel., July 1968, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 266-272. Chickering, Arthur W . , Education and Identity. Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969. San Chickering, Arthur W. and Associates, The Modern American Co l l e g e . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1981. Clark, Burton R . , Paul Heist, T. R. McConnell, Martin A. Trow, and George Yonge, Students and Colleges: Interaction and C h a n g e . Berkeley, California: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, 1972. Clark, Burton R. and Martin Trow, "The Organizational Context." In Theodore M. Newcomb and Everett K. Wilson, College Peer G r o u p s . Chicago: Aldine Publishing CoT, 1966, pp. 17-70. Clark, B. R . , "The New University," American Behavioral Scie n t i s t , May-June 1968, pp. 1-4. Committee on the Student in Higher Education (J. K. Kauffman, Chrmn.), "The Student in Higher Education." New Haven, Connecticut: Hazen Foundation, 1968. Crookston, Burns B., "The Intentional Democratic Community in College Residence Halls," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52:6, February 1974, pp. 382-389. Davis, Allen J. and William H. Newell, "Those Experimental Colleges of the 1960's: Where Are They, Now that We Need Them?" The Chronicle of Higher E d u c a t i o n , November 18, 1981. DeCoster, David A . , "Housing Assignments for High Ability Students," The Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , January 1966, pp. 19-22. 123 DeCoster, David A. and Phyllis Mable, (eds.), Student Development and Education in College Residence H a l l s . Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1974. Delworth, Ursula, Gary R. Hanson and Associates, Student Services: A Handbook for the P r o f e s s i o n . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1980. Dressel, Paul L . , Evaluation in Higher E d u c a t i o n . Houghton Mifflin Company! 1961, p. 42. Boston: Dressel, Paul L . , College and University C u r r i c u l u m . Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1968. Dressel, Paul L . , "Residential College in a University," Improving College and University T e a c h i n g , 18:3, summer 1970, ppT 230-235. Dressel, Paul L. (ed), The New Colleges: Toward an A p p r a i s a l . Iowa: The American College~Testing P r o g r a m , 1971. Dressel, Paul L . , Handbook of Academic E v a l u a t i o n : Assessing"Institutional Effect i v e n e s s ,"Student Progress" and Professional Performance for Decision Making in Higher E d u c a t i o n . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976. Dressel, Paul L . , Improving Degree Programs: A Guide to Curriculum Development, Administration, and R e v i e w ] first edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. Eddy, Edward Danforth, The College Influence on Student Character; An~Exploratory Study in Selected Colleges and Universities made for the Committee for the Study of Character Development in Education by Edward D. Eddy, J r . , assisted by Mary Louise Parkhurst and James S. Yakovakis. Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1959. "The Educational Program of the Residence Hall," The Residence Hall for S t u d e n t s , National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, A Department of the National Education Association, 1957, pp. 8-17. Feasley, Charles E., Program E v a l u a t i o n , Report Two 1980, AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education. Washington, D . C . : American Association for Higher Education. 124 Feldman, Kenneth A. and Theodore M. Newcomb, The Impact of College on S t u d e n t s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I nc.,1969. Ferber, Daniel A., "Academic Influences in Student Housing," Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , 4:1, October, 1962, pp . 2-10. Ferrari, Michael, Report of the Residence Hall Programs Office Cue Report Implementation Committee (Memorandum), Michigan State University, May 6, 1968. Finn, Jeremy D . , A General Model for Multivariate A n a l y s i s . New Yorkl Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974. Freedman, Mervin B., "Studies of College Alumni." In The American College, edited by Nevitt Sanford. New York: Wiley, 1962. Freedman, Mervin B., The College E x p e r i e n c e . Jossey-Bass^ I n c ., 1967. San Francisco: Gaff, Jerry G. and Associates, The Cluster C o l l e g e . Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970. San Grant, W. V . , "Number and Size of Institutions of Higher Education," American Education, August-September 1969. Grant, W. H, "Humanizing the Residence Hall Environment." In D. A. DeCoster and P. Mable (eds.), Student Development and Education in College Residence H a l l s . Washington, D . C . : American College Personnel Association, 1974. Harden, Donald Fred, "Selected Affective & Cognitive Characteristics of Students in the Lyman Briggs College and the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michgian State University, 1969. Harelevoad, Fred F. and Jean H. Cornell, (eds.), Assessment of Colleges and U n i v e r s i t i e s . Iowa: The American College Testing P r o g r a m , l 4 7 l . Hays, William L . , Statistics for the Social S c i e n c e s , second edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Improving Undergraduate E d u c a t i o n , the Report of the Committee on Undergraduate Education. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1976. 125 Jacob, Philip E . , Changing Values in College: An Exploratory Study of the Impact of College T e a c h i n g . New York: Harper and Row, 1957. Johnson, Lamar, "Summary Comments at the Colloquium on Experimental Colleges, 1964." In Hugh H. Stickler, Experimental C o l l e g e s , Florida State University Library of Congress, 1964. The Journal of College and Univ e r s ity Student Housing, Winter 1979, Vol. 9, No. 2. The Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , by American College Personnel Association. Vol. 4, No. 1, October, 1962, pp. 4-10. Juola, Arvo E . , "Seniors View their MSU Experience," Learning and Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, June 1976. Kirk, Roger E. (ed), Statistical Issues: A Reader for the Behavioral S c i e n c e s . California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1972. Kuh, George D . , Indices of Quality in the Undergraduate E x p e r i e n c e , Report Four 1981. Washington, D . C .: American Association for Higher Education. Lawrence, Judith K. and Kenneth C. Green, A Question of Quality: The Higher Education Ratings Game, Report Five 19807 AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report. Washington, D . C . : American Association for Higher Education. Lehmann, Irvin J. and Paul L. Dressel, Critical T h i n k i n g , Attitudes and Values in Higher E d u c a t i o n , Final Report, Cooperative Research Project No. 1646. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1963, p. 30. Levine, Arthur, When Dreams and Heros D i e d . Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1980. San Francisco: Leyden, Ralph C. "The Stephens College House Plan: A New Approach Toward Living and Learning on the C a m p u s ," Journal of The National Association of Women Deans and C o u n s e l o r s , Vol. 25, No. January 1962, p p . 74-80. "Lyman Briggs College Student Handbook," seventh edition, Michigan State University, summer 1979. 126 Martin, Warren Bryan. "The Legacy of the Sixties, Innovation: Bloodied but Unbowed," C h a n g e , Vol. 14, No. 2, March 1982, pp. 35-38. McHenry, D. E . , "Small College Program for a Large U n i v e r ­ sity," College and University B u s i n e s s , July 1964, pp. 31-34. Mclnnis, Noel and Don Albrecht, (eds.), What Makes Education Environmental? Washington, D.C. and Kentucky: copublished by Environmental Educators, Inc., and Data Courier, Inc., 1975. Miller, T. K. and J. S. Prince, The Future of Student Affairs: A Guide to Student Development for T o m o r r o w ’s Higher E d u c a t i o n . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1976. Miser, Keith M. "Specialized Programs: Developing an Educational Environment." In John H. Schuh (ed.) Monograph Nine, Programming and Activities in College and University Residence H a l l s , Association of College and U n i v e r s i t y H o u s i n g Officers, 1977. Moos, Rudolf H . , Evaluating Educational E n vironments. San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , I n c ., 1979. Mueller, Kate (Hevner), Student Personnel Work in Higher E d u c a t i o n , C. Gilbert Wrenn (ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Murphy, Raymond 0., "Developing Educational Meaning for Residence Halls." NASPA J o u r n a l , Vol. 7, No. 2, October 1969, pp. 61-64. "NASPA Proceedings," The Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of Student A f f a i r s , 49th Annual C o n f e r e n c e . V o l . 5, No. 2, 1967, pp. 116-129, 134-139. News Bureau, Department of Information Services, Michigan State University, East Lansing, February 16, 1962. Nosow, Sigmund, Clarence H. Nelson, and Arvo Juola, A Comparative Study of the Attitudes Toward Educational and Social Experiences and Other Graduating Seniors at Michgian State U n i v e r s i t y . East Lansing, Michigan: Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, 1972. Nosow, Sigmond, "An Attitudinal Comparison of Residential College Seniors with Other Seniors," Journal of College Student Perso n n e l , 16:1, January 1975, ___ yj-2%. 127 Nudd, J. Roger and Dudley A. Stier, "Do You Really Want Classes Taught in your Residence Halls?" NASPA, Vol. 7, No. 2, October 1969, pp. 101-103. Olson, LeRoy A., "Students' Reactions to Living-Learning Residence Halls," Journal of College Student P ersonnel, 1964, pp^ 6, 29-31. Olson, LeRoy A., Responses of Women in Several MS U Residence Halls to Student Inventory I t e m s . East Lansing: Michigan State University Office of Evaluation Services, 1964. Olson, LeRoy A . , Methods and Results of Research on LivingLearning Residence H a l l s . East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1966. Olson, LeRoy A., "Residential Colleges in a Large University: An Alternative Model: The Residential College," a paper read at the annual meeting of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1969. Packwood, William T . , Ph.D. (ed.), College Student Personnel Se r v i c e s . Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1977. Pascarella, Ernest T. "Student's Perception of the College Environment: How Well Are They Understood by Administrators?" Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 15, N o . 5, September 1974, pp. 370-375. Pascarella, Ernest T . , and Patrick T. Terenzini, "Residence Arrangement, Student/Faculty Relationship, and Freshman-Year Educational Outcomes," Journal of College Student Personnel, March 1981, pp. 147-156. •i' Pemberton, C. F . , "An Evaluation of the 1967-68 LivingLearning Experiment at the University of Delaware," University Impact Study. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware, November 1968. Plough, Thomas R. "Identifying and Evaluating Major Elements in the Quality of Student Life," Monograph T h r e e , Current Issues In Higher Education. Washington, D . C . : American Association for Higher Education, 1979. Redcliffe-Maud, Lord, "Oxford and the Collegiate University Idea," "The Conference on the Cluster College Concept," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XXXVIII, October 1967, p. 377. 128 "The Residence Hall Study," The Provost's Ad Hoc Committee on the Residence Halls. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969 A Review and Assessment of General Education and the University C o l l e g e , a report to the Provost of Michigan State University from the University College Coordinating Committee. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1967. Riker, Harold C. College Housing as Learning C e n t e r s , American College Personnel Association Monograph Series No. 3. Washington, D . C . : The American College Personnel Association, 1965, pp. 1-18. Rockey, M. C . , "Living and Learning at Central Washington State College," paper presented at NDEA institute for college student personnel worker, Michigan State University, 1969. Rohman, D. Gordon, Smallness Within Bigness at MSU: Justin S. Morrill C o l l e g e , The Indiana Conference, December 3, 1965. Rudolph, Frederick, The American College and University, A H i s t o r y . New York: Vintage Books, a Division of Random House, 1962. Sanford, Nevitt, Where Colleges F a i l . Jossey-Bass, 1967. San Francisco: Sanford, Nevitt, Issues in Personality T h e o r y , first edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. Sanford, Nevitt and Joseph Axelrod, (eds.), College and C har a c t e r . San Francisco: Montaigne Inc., 1979. Smail, M. M. Penny and Alan J. DeYoung, and Rudolf H. Moos, "The University Residence Environment Scale: A Method for Describing University Student Living G r o u p s ," Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , Vol. 15, N o . 5, S e p t e m b e r 1974, pp. 357-365. Stickler, W. Hugh (ed.), Experimental C o l l e g e . Florida State University, 1964. Tallahassee: Taylor, E. K. and A. C. Wolfe, "Political Behavior." In S. B. Withey (ed.) A Degree and What Else? Correlates and Consequences of a College Educ a t i o n , Carnegie Commission on Higher Education Report. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. 129 Trow, M . , "Undergraduate Teaching at Large State Universities," Educational R e c o r d , summer 1966, pp. 303-319. Vermilye, Dyckman W. (ed.), The Expanded Campus: Current Issues in Higher Education. London: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1972. Wrenn, Charles Gilbert, Student Personnel Work in College with Emphasis on Counseling and Group E x p e r i e n c e . New York: Ronald Press CoT, l95l. Williams, Don E. and R. Reilley, "The Impact of Residence Halls on Students," Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 13, No. 5, September 1972, pp. 402-4F0 . Williams, Vernon and Harry Canon, and James Harding, "Learning in Residence Halls Revisited," The Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , September 1968, pp. 330-331. Williamson, E. G. (Chr m n .), Committee on Student Personnel Work, "The Student Personnel Point of View," rev. ed. American Council on Educational Studies, Series VI, No. 13. Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1949. Williamson, E. G. and Donald A. Biggs, "Residence Halls as Learning Environments," Student Personnel Work: A Program of Developmental R e l a t i o n s h i p s . New York: John Wiley and Son, Inc., 1975, pp. 12, 327-358. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE FOR RESEARCH APPROVAL AND LETTER TO 1982 LYMAN BRIGGS AND NATURAL SCIENCE SENIORS Octobe r 18,1981 To: Dr. Henery E. Bredeck, Chairman of the UCRIHS From: Tim J. Pierson, Doctoral Candidate-Education Re: Exemption Request The study which I have proposed is a fdllowr-up study in the College of Natural Science and Lyman Briggs School. Earlier investigations were done in 1971 and 1975 of these two populations by the Office of Evaluation Services at Michigan State when the Office did a sample survey of all MSU seniors. After reviewing the criteria for an exemption status pro j e c ^ it ap­ peared that this study may comply with the established criteria for an exemption. Specifically, "Exemption is claimed as type (1) Research conducted in established or commonly accepted settings.involving normal educational practices, such as (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instuctional techniques, curricular or classroom management methods." Enclosed along with this request please find: (1) a copy of the application and proposal to my dissertation.committee, (2) a copy of the information regularly requested for a URIHS review. Should any additional information or clarification be required please feel free to contact me. (353-6480 E-33 Holmes Hall) M IC HI GA N STAT E U N I V E R S I T Y UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48SZ4 HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCR1HS) 23s ADMINISTRATION b u i l d i n g ,512,353-2.86 October 19, 1981 Hr. Tim J. Pierson Lyman Briggs E-33 Holmes Ha-11 \ Dear Mr. Pierson: Your request of October 18 for exemption from UCRIHS review of your proposed project entitled, '-'A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Educational and Social Experiences Held by Seniors in the Colleges of Natural Science and Lyman Briggs at Michigan State University" has been received. I concur with your evaluation that the project is a category 3 exemption and approval is herewith granted for conduct of the project. Thank you for bringing the study to my attention. future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms If I can be of Hovemben 9. 1981 Vean S 2.YU.0fi, Matunal Science ofi Lyman Bfiigg*'. I would tike, to take, a fiew minute* ofi you/t time to infioftm’ you ofi the Aunvey th a t you have ju * t neceived. The Aunvey deal* with youfi a ttitu d e* on. view­ point* towand youn educational, and * o cta l expenience while in attendance kene a t Michigan S ta te Univen*ity. The Aunvey attempt* to fiind tho*e a*pect* ofi youn undefignaduate expenience you fiound panticulanly *ati*fiying on. di&*ati*fiying. Mone * p ecifiica lly the Question* w ill a**e** youn view* ofi the kind ofi in* inaction you have necieved, i . e . ha* th e fiaculty in genenal been efifiective ajrd ne*pon*ive to youn need*? Othen queAtioii* w i ll deal with oApect* ofi youn. Coliege and othen. kind* ofi cocunniculan a c tiv itie * you wene involved in . CI'hat w ill the infionmtion be u*ed fion? Good queAtion! I t w i l l *enve a couple ofi benefiit*. 1) A* th e College ofi Uatunal Science and Lyman Bnigg* jo in ficn.ce* we have in pu t finom you neganding youn. view and a ttitu d e* towand youn college expenience. 2} Knowing youn view* can a**i*t Lyman Bnigg* and Natunal Science in *enving youn need* bettdn. 3) H i* a pnoject th a t I have taken on a* my di**entation and you can a**i*t me in fiulfiiliing th e nequinement* ofi my gnaduate wonk. Finally, I would lik e to encounage you to a**i*t u* in tlri* pn oject. The Aunvey take* appnoximately 25 minute*, th e infionmation c o llec ted i* A tn ic tly confidential, and give* you an oppontunity to expne** youn fieeling about youn expenience hene a t M.S.U. Thank* fion youn tim e. I know we can count on youn coopenation. Sincenely, Tim J. Pienson Voclonal Candidate M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y LYMAN BRIGGS COLLEGE • HOLMES HALL EAST LANSING * MICHIGAN • 48824 N ovem ben 1 9 , 19S1 Dean Lyman BnlggA Senlon, A Meek ago you should have. fiee.eA.vzd a queAtlonnatne fiegaficUng youfi educ.aAA.onaZ and aocAmI expenlenceA MhZle a student heJie a t t-ilchlgan S tate UnlveAAlty. A6 o i y e t eve have not ftecoAved youn. anAwen Aheet. Because oi th e fieZatAvely Amall ciaAA Alze In Lyman BnlggA, I t At extnemely Impontant th a t eack one you netunn youn. Input. I am asking th a t you. netunn I t be&o/ie you lea ve ion. ThankAgiving bneak. J i y o u h a v e m i s p l a c e d youn. c o p y a n d n e e d a n o th e n p le a A e c a l l 353- 6 4 8 0 on. A to p b y Et35 HolmeA H a l t a n d Me w i l l A e e t h a t y o u g e t a n o th e n . c o p y . youn I i you h ave a ln e a d y tArne a n d c o n c e n n . A e n t youn. n eA p o n A e In, ive A x n c e n e ly a p p n e d a t e Ton J . PZeAAon VInecton oi Student AHalnA Lyman BnlggA School M S U ii J n A f f i r m Jfi tV A c t i o n fF q u tx l ( A p f- o r tu n ity I n s t i t u t i o n APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF TEN SCALES DEVELOPED FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE 134 Scale 1. Satisfaction with College or Major Department Questions 8-18 are concerned with experience you have had in your college or major department. the college that will Natural Science.) grant your (By this is meant degree, Lyman Briggs or For questions 8-18 select a response from the following key. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Undecided 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree I feel that my college or major department-8. has given me a sense of identity with an academic community. 9. has provided an opportunity for being part of a meaningful social group. 10. has given me the opportunity to participate in academic decision-making. 11. is responsive to the needs of students. 12. treats me as though I am of some importance as an individual. 13. has provided an intellectually stimulating environment. 14. has helped me to develop life goals, values and s tandards. 15. has helped me become more 16. has provided the sensitive opportunity attention, when needed, to ethical issues. for me to get individual from faculty. 17. has afforded me an adequate choice of electives apart from the specialized requirements for my major. 18. has afforded me a program of studies relevant to the problems of society. Scale 2. General Attitudes toward Michigan State University For questions 19-25 select a response from the following key. KEY: I feel 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Undecided 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree that I have received a good education at MSU. 20. I feel prepared for a job related to my field of study. 21. I feel has that my experience at MSU been socially rewarding. 22. I am sorry that I came to MS U rather than to another school. 23. In retrospect, I wish I had selected a different major. 24. I feel prepared for graduate or professional education. 136 25. Do you feel that your education makes you competitive in the present job market? 1. Definitely yes 2. Probably yes 3. Perhaps 4. No, I do not Scale 3. For Attitudes toward MSU Professors items 26-35 please select a response from the following key. KEY: 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Uncertain 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree Generally speaking, I found my M SU professors-26. were interested in teaching. 27. made relevant assignments. 28. were thorough in their evaluation. 29. were fair in their grading. 30. inspired me to learn. 31. were available for hlep when I needed it. 32. were sensititve to needs of individual 33. used effective teaching methods. 34. outside my major, many majors. students. had a broad perspective which served 137 Scale 4. Involvement in Community Activities Items 35-46 accomplishments list you may each of these and experience have had of while in "out-of-class college. Read indicate the extent of your experience in each area by using the following key. KEY: 1. None--have not had the experience. 2. Had the experience one time or for a year or less. 3. Had the experience two times or more or for more than a year. 35. Helped poll organize (e.g., and Gallup conduct an opinion or information or Roger-type) at school or in the community. 36. Built or improved upon a piece of scientific equipment or laboratory apparatus on my own (not as part of a or community course requiremen t ) . 37. Was a primary organizer of a student service group. 38. Elected to one or more student offices. 41. Worked as a volunteer aide in a hospital, clinic, or home. 42. Worked as a volunteer on a school or civic improvement project. 43. Attended 44. Had contact with a local official about some community problem. meetings of one or more local civic groups. 138 Scale 5. Satisfaction with Outcomes of Educational Experience Questions education. have made years 46-57 Indicate toward at MSU. list the each of possible amount these of outcomes of progress you outcomes a college feel during your you four For questions 47-51 please select a response from the following key. KEY: 1. Dramatic progress--one of my most conspicuous outcomes 2. Considerable progress 3. Moderate progress 4. Some progress 5. No progress 46. Acquiring a broad cultural background. 47. Developing the ability to think critically and to understand the uses and limitations of knowledge. 48. Understanding different world views, cultures and ways in relating to other of life. 49. Social development--gaining skill people. 50. Personal abilities development--understanding and limitations, and my myself, place in my society. 139 Scale 6. Satisfation with Faculty in College or Department For questions 51-55 please select a response from the following key. KEY: 52. Did 1. your Very much 2. Substantially 3. Moderately 4. Slightly 5. Not at all, or not applicable college opportunity to or major have department afford informal contacts you with the faculty outside the classroom? 54. Were faculty members of your college or department receptive to differing views? For items 75-81 please select aresponse from the following key: KEY: I believe to other 1. Definitely 2. Probably 3. Uncertain 4. Not at all that my college or major department, colleges in contrast or major departments on campus, me with: 75. closer contact with faculty. 76. more individualized attention. 77. more specialized training. provided 140 78. broader training. 79. less competition. 80. more personal freedom. 81. more tolerant faculty. Scale 7. Attitudes toward Individualized Attention Items 82-89. Ho w important do you feel each of the following instructional activities should be? K E Y :1. Very important 2. Of some importance 3. Not important 82. Much student-to-student interaction in class. 85. The course should be presented on an individual or audio-tutorial basis. 86. The professor should have time for students outside of class. 87. I'd like to be known well enough to be called by my first name in class. 88. Individualized help should be provided for students having academic difficulty. 89. Special honors programs should be students of exceptionally high ability. available for 141 Scale 8. KEY: Involvement in Campus Cocurricular Activities 1. Did not participate at all 2. Participated, but not frequently 3. Participated often or regularly 90. Activities sponsored by a religious organization. 91. Student government. 92. Department or college academic governance. 93. Literary, oratorical, or dramatic activities. 94. Intramural athletics. 95. Musical, dance or other fine arts activities. 96. Workshops, lectures or organized discussions not related to class assignments. 97. Special interest 98. Volunteer programs clubs (photography, (tutoring, aid to sailing, the etc.) blind, MSU Volunteers-Service Learning). JU A KEY: 1. 2. ju A jl A jl n A jl A None--have not had the experience. Had the experience one time or for a year or less. 3. Had the experience two times or more or for more than a year. 39. Served on a student-faculty committee or group. 40. Elected president of a '’special interest" student club. 142 Scale 9. For Attitudes toward Planning items 102-111 indicate how you feel about the statement in each item. KEY: 102. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree I would rather decide things when they come up than try to plan ahead. 104. There's not much use for me to plan ahead because there's usually something that upsets my plans. 106. For the well-prepared student, there is rarely if ever a thing as an unfair test. 110. When I make careful plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. Scale 110. Items Satisfaction with Academic Advisement 115-120. Consider the assistance you received from your ACADEMIC ADVISOR. KEY: 1. Very helpful 2. Helpful 3. Not much help 4. Not relevant--no experience 116. The help and guidance you received as a freshman and/or sophomore. 143 117. The help and guidance you received from college academic affairs office. 118. My advisor's attitude toward my personal problems. 119. My advisor's knowledge of M S U resources. 120. My advisor's help in selecting courses. For questions 51-55 please select a response from the following key. KEY: 53. 1. Very much 2. Substantially 3. Moderately 4. Slightly 5. Not at all, or not applicable Was the individual academic advising in your college or major department helpful to you? APPENDIX C TABLE COMPARISONS OF THE 1982 A ND 1971 FINDING. RESULTS ARE REPORTED IN PERCENTAGE OF POSITIVE RESPONSES. 144 Table 8. I feel that my college or major department has given me a sense of identity with an academic community. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 52 83 22 8 26 10 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 66 78 10 3 24 20 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 50 74 16 10 34 16 Table 9. I feel that my college or major department has provided an opportunity for being part of a meaningful social group. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 29 66 27 15 44 19 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 33 51 22 34 36 14 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 21 63 16 18 63 20 145 Table 10. I feel that my college or major department has given me the opportunity to participate in academic decision-making. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 35 75 22 17 44 8 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 43 60 22 11 36 29 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 57 82 13 6 30 12 Table 11. I feel that my college to the needs of students or major department Strongly Agree/ Agree Year is responsive • Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 54 83 26 13 20 4 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 48 68 29 17 22 14 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 49 77 31 10 21 8 146 Table 12. I feel that my college or major department treats me as though I am of some importance as an individual. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 47 92 26 0 30 8 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 52 80 15 3 32 17 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 35 88 26 4 39 8 Table 13. I feel that my college or major department has provided an intellectually stimulating environment. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 78 87 13 8 9 6 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 67 86 12 14 11 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 67 71 14 18 19 12 - 147 Table 14. I feel that my college or major department me to develop life goals, values and standards. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College has helped Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 38 64 19 21 43 15 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 52 58 22 17 27 25 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 20 37 24 24 56 39 Table 15. I feel that my college or major department become more sensitive to ethical issues. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year has Undecided College helped me Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 45 85 23 6 33 9 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 23 52 22 19 45 28 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 16 49 22 28 62 24 148 Table 16. I feel that my college or major department has provided the opportunity for me to get individual attention, when needed, from faculty. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College % % Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 5 2 15 4 81 94 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 77 92 20 “ 3 - 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 53 80 29 14 18 6 Table 17. I feel that my college or major department has afforded me an adequate choice of electives apart from the specialized requirements for my major. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 72 76 14 9 15 15 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 70 80 21 16 10 3 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 60 57 20 16 20 27 149 Table 18. I feel that my college or major department has afforded me a program of studies relevant to the problems of society. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 45 83 35 13 20 4 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 38 66 36 19 26 14 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 22 26 + 27 35 + 51 35 Table 19. I feel that I have received a good education at MSU. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College % % Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 82 83 8 8 18 9 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 97 92 8 3 5 6 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 80 75 16 16 4 10 150 Table 20. I feel prepared for a job related to Strongly Agree/ Agree Year my field Undecided College of study Disagree, Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 52 55 26 32 23 11 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 64 52 12 14 24 34 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 69 63 18 16 13 22 Table 21. I feel that rewarding. my experience at Strongly Agree/ Agree Year MSU has been Undecided College socially Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 75 85 15 9 10 6 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 78 75 11 17 11 9 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 80 73 14 16 6 12 151 Table 22. I am sorry that I came to MSU rather than to another school Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree, Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 14 13 10 13 76 74 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 7 3 10 14 83 84 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 5 12 17 24 78 65 a different Table 23. In retrospect, I wish I had selected Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 16 23 1 9 7 5 ? amUran ?CienCe DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 28 20 Lyman Briggs 13 14 14 26 major. Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % 71 63 58 55 152 Table 24. I feel prepared for graduate or professional Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College education. Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 66 81 17 11 26 8 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 80 78 11 14 8 9 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 69 63 18 16 13 22 Table 25. Do you feel that your the present job market? education makes Strongly Agree/ Agree Year you competitive Undecided College % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 62 77 24 15 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE in Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % 14 8 153 Table 26. Generally speaking, in teaching. I found m y M SU professors were interested Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 73 76 12 15 15 10 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 76 81 5 14 10 6 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 27. Generally speaking, assignments. I found my MSU professors made relevant Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 80 79 15 13 6 8 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 66 78 33 22 - 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE - 154 Table 28. Generally speaking, I found my M S U professors were thorough in their evaluation. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 66 47 34 32 22 21 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 53 31 31 43 17 26 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 29. Generally speaking, in their grading. I found my M SU Strongly Agree/ Agree Year professors Undecided College were fair Disagree/ Strongly Disagree %0 % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 76 66 17 23 8 11 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 71 67 17 25 12 8 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 155 Table 30. Generally to learn. speaking, I found my M S U professors Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College inspired me Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 40 53 27 26 33 21 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 56 42 22 25 21 33 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 31. Generally speaking, I found my MSU professors were available for help when I needed it. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 78 66 15 19 8 5 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 80 78 14 19 6 3 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 156 Table 32. Generally speaking, I found my MSU sensitive to needs of individual students. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year professors Undecided College were Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 46 59 20 17 33 25 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 53 31 24 36 23 33 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 33. Generally speaking, I found effective teaching methods. my Strongly Agree/ Agree Year MSU professors Undecided College used Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 59 49 19 32 21 19 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 61 64 20 22 18 14 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 157 Table 34. Generally speaking, major, had a broad I found my MSU professors, outside my perspective which served many majors. Strongly Agree/ Agree Year Undecided College Disagree/ Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 45 40 35 39 19 21 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 50 55 31 25 19 20 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 35. I helped organize and conduct an opinion or information poll (e.g., Gallup or Roger-type) at school or in the community. Year College None % One Time % Two or % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 92 83 6 11 3 6 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 89 89 8 8 3 3 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Times 158 Table 36. I built or improved upon a piece of scientific equipment or laboratory apparatus on my own (not as part of a course requirement). Year College None % One Time % Two or % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 85 74 6 8 8 19 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 79 72 14 14 7 14 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Times Table 37. I was a primary organizer of a student or community service group. Year College None % One Time % Two or % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 80 51 13 15 7 34 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 72 75 15 14 13 11 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Times 159 Table 38. I was elected to one or more student offices. Year College None % One Time % Two Times or More % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 83 49 11 19 6 32 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 73 75 14 8 14 17 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 39. I served on a student-faculty committee or group. Year College None % One Time % Two Times or More % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs' 92 62 6 19 3 19 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 86 75 9 14 5 11 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 160 Table 40. I was elected president of a special interest student club. Year College None One Time Two Times or More % % 19 82 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 97 77 1 19 2 4 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 89 92 8 6 3 3 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE % Table 41. I worked as a volunteer aide in a hospital, Year College None % One Time % clinic, or home Two or % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 66 45 21 21 13 34 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 72 75 13 11 15 14 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Times 161 Table 42. I worked, project. Year as a volunteer College on None a school or civic One Time improvement Two Times or More % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 80 47 10 26 10 26 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 74 72 14 22 13 6 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 43. I attended meetings of one or more local civic g r o u p s . Year College None % One Time % Two Time; or More % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 74 66 13 17 13 17 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 74 81 13 11 13 8 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 162 Table 44. I had contact problem. Year with a local None % College official about One Time % some community Two Times or More % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 85 68 11 21 5 11 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 74 83 18 11 8 6 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 46. I acquired a broad cultural background. Year College Dramatic Progress/ Moderate Progress/ No Considerable Progress Some Progress Progress % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 43 66 47 34 - 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 57 52 43 44 1 3 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 46 39 28 35 27 26 163 Table 47. I developed the ability to think critically and to understand the uses and limitations of knowledge. Year College Dramatic Progress/ Moderate Progress/ No Considerable Progress Some Progress Progress % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 81 81 19 19 . 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 80 71 19 19 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 70 69 22 22 - - 19 10 Table 48. I developed an understanding cultures and ways of life. Year College for different world views, Dramatic Progress/ Moderate Progress/ No Considerable Progress Some Progress Progress % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 51 68 45 42 5 - 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 58 69 42 28 3 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 51 43 33 43 15 14 164 Table 49. Social development--gaining people. Year College skill in relating to other Dramatic Progress/ Moderate Progress/ No Considerable Progress Some Progress Progress % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 68 72 28 26 5 2 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 73 69 27 28 • 3 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 62 59 24 28 14 14 Table 50. Personal development--understanding myself, and limitations, and my place in society. Year College my abilities Dramatic Progress/ Moderate Progress/ No Considerable Progress Some Progress Progress % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 75 81 23 19 2 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 75 84 23 14 2 1 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 66 65 17 22 17 14 - 165 Table 51. To what extent did your experience in a residence positively contribute to your total education at HSU? Year College Very Much/ Substantially % Moderately/ Slightly % hall Not At All, or Not Applicable % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 28 36 40 42 32 23 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 45 58 40 39 14 6 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 50 51 27 20 23 29 Table 52. To what extent did your college or major department afford you the opportunity to have informal contacts with faculty outside the classroom? Year College Very Much/ Substantially % Moderately/ Slightly % Not At All, or Not Applicable % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 24 76 55 21 21 4 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 30 78 36 20 24 3 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 26 67 27 26 48 8 166 Table 53. To what extent was the individual academic advising in college or major department helpful to you? Year College Very Much/ Substantially Moderately/ Slightly your Not At All, or Not Applicable % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 32 62 46 28 22 9 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 25 43 54 49 20 9 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 34 43 19 28 47 29 Table 54. To what extend were faculty members of department receptive to differing views? Year College Very Much/ Substantially Moderately/ Slightly your college or Not At All, or Not Applicable % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 24 56 60 39 16 6 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 26 42 56 56 18 3 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 34 69 49 29 17 2 167 Table 55. To what extent have fellow students provided influence on your educational achievements? Year College Very Much/ Substantially Moderately/ Slightly a positive Not At A l l , or Not Applicable % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 53 64 43 36 5 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 59 55 36 33 4 11 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 57 63 23 22 20 16 - Table 56. Regarding your participation in a social sorority, during your MSU career, you-- Year College Never Joined/ Never Joined Considered % Pledged/ Pledged Initiated % 6 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 89 87 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 2 fraternity or Pledged, Cont Membership % 6 11 168 Table 57. Students should be permitted to sit as voting members on the M S U Board of Trustees. Year College Yes % No % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 64 62 15 26 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE No Opinion % 22 11 Table 58. Classes discussing more contemporary issues. Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 81 92 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE No Basis % 3 7 2 6 169 Table 59. Student representation on administrative (academic council, departments, etc.) Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 85 87 committees No Basis % % 2 - 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 13 13 Table 60. Student involvement in evaluating faculty members. Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 88 86 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 2 Nc Basis % 2 2 170 Table 61. . Reduction in the number of required courses and increase in number of electives permitted. Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 82 85 15 9 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE No Basis % 3 6 Table 62. Provision in class to pursue individual interests. Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 4 4 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 89 93 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE No Basis % 7 4 171 Table 63. Students developing areas of concentration apart from one department (e.g., ecology, environmental or inter­ disciplinary programs). Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % No Basis % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 88 91 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE % 3 9 9 Table 64. Using individualized programmed learning, tutorial methods or programmed tests. Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable such as No Basis % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 50 43 35 45 15 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 11 audio­ 172 Table 65. Assigning grades on pass-no grade, or credit-no credit basis. Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 59 57 28 28 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE No Basis % 13 15 Table 66. Using television as an instructional medium. Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 33 28 58 70 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE No Basis % 9 2 173 Table 67. Field work outside of the classroom complement to the regular class. Year College being Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 83 93 2 - 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE used No Basis % 6 8 Table 68. Provision being made for life-long or adult education. Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 73 79 3 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE No Basis % 25 21 as a 174 Table 69. Relaxing Year university regulations governing student behavior. College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 78 77 15 19 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE No Basis % 7 4 Table 70. Student Year involvement College in how classes are Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 80 94 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 9 4 to be conducted, No Basis % 6 2 175 Table 71. Many classes, outside of specialized areas, considering general widespread issues (pollution, ecology, consumerism, e t c .). Year College Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 86 85 5 4 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE No Basis % 9 11 Table 72. Providing opportunities Year College to do independent study for credit, Desirable/ Good Undesirable % % No Basis % 3 5 2 8 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 93 91 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 176 Table 74. Do you feel that you now have an adequate religious faith or personal philosophy which serves as a guide for your personal conduct? Year College Yes No % % Undecided % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 89 87 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 7 4 4 9 Table 75. I believe that my college or major department, in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus, provided me with closer contact with faculty. Year College Definitely % Probably Uncertain % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 16 77 20 17 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 5 59 22 29 % Not At All % 40 4 24 2 46 8 27 4 177 Table 76. I believe that my college or major department, in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus, provided me with more individualized attention. Year College Definitely % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 8 64 Probably Uncertain % 24 25 Not At All % % 42 8 25 4 DATA NOT AVAILABLE 3 61 14 29 53 8 30 2 Table 77. I believe that my college or major department, in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus, provided me with more specialized training. Year College Definitely % Probably Uncertain % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 16 36 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DA T A NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 26 10 37 36 37 27 Not At All % % 28 25 18 4 27 33 11 29 (2. omits) 178 Table 78. I believe that my college or major department, in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus, provided me with broader training. Year College Definitely Probably Uncertain Not At All % % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 9 40 33 25 38 25 20 6 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 7 29 40 22 26 3 28 47 Table 79. I believe that my college or major department, in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus, provided me with less competition. Year College Definitely % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs Probably Uncertain % 7 9 2 12 % Not At All % 27 DATA NOT AVAILABLE 0 20 14 65 179 Table 80. I believe that my college or major department, in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus, provided me with more personal freedom. Year College Definitely % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 14 25 Probably Uncertain % 24 40 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 9 18 28 39 Not At All % % 40 28 23 8 41 37 23 4 (2% omits) Table 81. I believe that my college or major department, in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus, provided me with more tolerant faculty. Year College Definitely % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 19 7 5 L y m a ^ B r i g g s 1106 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 5 26 Probably Uncertain % 32 41 % Not At All % 42 26 22 8 52 25 21 2 DATA N0T AVAILABLE 6 20 21 53 180 Table 82. Much student-to-student interaction in class. Year Very Important % College 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs Of Some Importance % 33 42 59 55 Not Important % 7 4 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs Table 83. The professor the course. Year should College 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs determine Very Important % 67 43 what work is Of Some Importance % 31 57 to be done Not Important % 2 in 181 Table 84. The students should determine what work is to be done in the course. Year Very Important % College 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs Of Some Importance % 4 2 Not Important % 35 23 62 75 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs Table 85. The course should tutorial basis. Year be College 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs presented Very Important % 13 4 on an individual Of Some Importance % 36 42 or audio Not Important % 52 54 182 Table 86. The professor class. Year should have time Very Important % College 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 94 93 for students Of Some Importance % 6 8 outside of Not Important % - 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs Table 87. I'd like to be name in class. Year known well College Very Important % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs enough to be called by my first 58 55 Of Some Importance % 27 43 Not Important % 15 2 183 Table 88. Individualized help should be academic difficulty. Year College 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs Very Important % 83 77 provided for students having Of Some Importance % 17 23 Not Important % _ - 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs .^ Table 89. Special honors programs should be available exceptionally high ability. Year College 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs Very Important % 71 70 Of Some Importance % 26 26 for students of Not Important % 4 4 184 Table 90. Activities sponsored by a religious organization. Year College Did Not Participate % Participated But Not Frequently % Participated Often or Regularly % Natural Science Lyman Briggs 66 66 25 21 10 13 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 65 75 26 14 8 11 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 91. Participated in student government. Year College Did Not Participate % Participated But Not Frequently % Participated Often or Regularly % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 79 47 15 23 6 30 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 78 78 15 14 7 8 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DAT A NOT AVAILABLE 51 31 16 185 Table 92. Department or college academic governance. Year College Did Not Participate % Participated But Not Frequently % Participated Often or Regularly % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 91 59 7 21 2 21 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 85 75 8 14 7 11 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 22 63 14 Table 93. Literary, oratorical, or dramtic activities. Year College Did Not Participate % Participated But Not Frequently % Participated Often or Regularly % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 82 64 16 23 3 13 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 86 83 12 11 2 6 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 86 10 4 186 Table 94. Intramural athletics Year College Did Not Participate Participated But Not Frequently Participated Often or Regularly % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 31 21 37 40 24 40 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 37 28 33 39 30 33 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 37 39 25 Table 95. Musical, dance or other fine arts activities. Year College Did Not Participate % Participated But Not Frequently % Participated Often, or Regularly % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 62 32 19 32 19 36 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 60 53 25 22 15 25 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 59 33 8 187 Table 96. Workshops, lectures or organized discussions not related to class assignments. Year College Did Not Participate % Participated But Not Frequently % Participated Often or Regularly % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 36 11 52 51 12 38 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 35 25 50 58 14 17 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 18 63 18 Table 97. Special interest clubs Year College (photography, sailing, etc.). Did Not Participate Participated But Not Frequently Participated Often or Regularly % % % Natural Science Lyman Briggs 58 40 22 32 20 28 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 60 64 26 28 14 8 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 51 35 10 188 Table 98. Volunteer programs (tutoring, Volunteers-Service L e a r n i n g ) . Year College Did Not Participate % aid to the Participated But Not Frequently % 16 19 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 67 45 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 63 18 blind, MSU Participated Often or Regularly % 16 36 18 Table 99. How well informed do you presently consider yourself to be in regard to national and international affairs? Year College Very Well Informed Not Very Well Fairly Well Informed/ Uninformed % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 30 23 46 49 24 28 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 189 Table 100. Were the placement examinations (Mathematics, Arithmetic, Reading) helpful in placing you into proper entrance levels in these areas? Year College Not Applicable Yes No % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 51 55 25 88 24 8 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 101. Have your major to this time? Year reasons College for attending MSU been realized up Definitely Yes/Mostly Yes Probably % Uncertain % % No % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 75 84 8 4 4 2 13 9 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 74 63 6 11 1 17 13 8 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 190 Table 102. I would rather decide plan ahead. Year things when they come up than try to Strongly Agree/ Agree % College Disagree % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 25 11 51 70 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Strongly Disagree % 25 19 Table 103. Competition encourages excellence. Year College Strongly Agree/Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 57 59 31 32 12 8 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 191 Table 104. There's not much use for me to plan ahead because there's usually something that upsets my plans. Year Strongly Agree/ Agree College Disagree Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 17 13 58 70 26 16 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE . Table 105. I nearly always feel pretty sure of myself and maintain my composure when people disagree with me. Year College Strongly Agree/Agree Disagree % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 91 85 11 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 8 Strongly Disagree % 1 4 192 Table 106. For the well-prepared student, a thing as an unfair test. Year there Strongly Agree/ Agree College is rarely if ever such Disagree Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 31 12 38 42 31 46 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 107. Exam questions often tend to be so work that studying is really useless. Year College Strongly Agree/Agree unrelated Disagree to course Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 7 14 55 67 38 19 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 193 Table 108. Becoming a success is a matter of has little or nothing to do with it. Year Strongly Agree/ Agree College diligent Disagree % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 66 49 27 47 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE work; luck Strongly Disagree % 7 4 Table 109. Leadership positions tend deserve being chosen. Year College to be held by capable people who Strongly Agree/Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 46 42 38 40 16 19 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 194 Table 110. When I make careful make them work. Year plans I am almost Strongly Agree/ Agree College certain % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 94 88 7 11 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE I can Strongly Disagree Disagree % that % - Table 111. Women should have complete equality political and economic matters. Year College Strongly Agree/Agree % with Disagree % 6 2 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 93 98 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE m en in social, Strongly Disagree % 195 Table 115. The help senior. Year and guidance you received Very Helpful/ Helpful % College as a Not Much Help % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 49 75 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE junior and/or Not RelevantNo Experience % 40 23 11 2 Table 116. The help and s ophomore. Year guidanc e College you received Very Helpful/ Helpful % as a freshman Not Much Help % 46 36 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 27 59 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE and/or Not RelevantNo Experience % 26 4 196 Table 117. The help and guidance affairs office. Year College you received Very Helpful/ Helpful from college Not Much Help academic Not RelevantNo Experience % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 16 31 27 31 56 39 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 118. My advisor's attitude toward my personal problems. Year College Very Helpful/ Helpful Not Much Help Not RelevantNo Experience % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 39 56 30 14 31 31 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 197 Table 119. My advisor's knowledge of M S U resources. Year College Very Helpful/ Helpful Not Much Help Not RelevantNo Experience % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 59 79 29 17 12 4 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE Table 120. My advisor's help in selecting courses. Year College Very Helpful/ Helpful Not Much Help Not RelevantNo Experience % % % 1982 Natural Science Lyman Briggs 55 73 35 25 10 1975 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 1971 Natural Science Lyman Briggs DATA NOT AVAILABLE 2 *s APPENDIX D THE INSTRUMENT "SENIOR EXPRESSION" SENIOR EXPRESSION November 9, 1981 Dear Lyman BriggA and Natural Science Senior, As we continue, to work a t Improving our programs and Aervices to you, I t in essen tia l to know your vim s and assessment of th e educational, experience you have had oa a Atudent In out college. The queAtionnaUie we axe aAking you to complete and return baAlcally aAkA for thU> kind of Information. We encourage your cooperation and assistance In thU> effort. The Aurvey takeA approximately 25 mlnuteA to complete, the Information collected U> A tr lc tly con fidential and glveA you an opportunity to expreAA your vlewA about your experience here a t Hichlgan S ta te University. We strongly encourage your support Sincerely, t i. ► — Vr. Rickard U. Byerrum Dean, College of Natural Science vr. cnarx.es s . scaroorougn D irector, Lyman Briggs School DIRECTIONS 1. You have been provided with a return address stamp envelope, an answer sheet, and a scoring pencil (yours to keep). 2. Please take the answer sheet and print in the appropriate blocks your name (last name first) and your student number. Please use the pencil provided. 3. Next code your name and student number by marking the appropriate spaces corresponding to the letters of your name and numbers in your student number. 4. Your responses will never be identified by individual, only by group. 5. Please begin with question #1 on the five choice answer sheet. 6. When complete, please single fold the answer sheet and enclose in the pre-addressed stamped envelope and place in the mail (U.S. or campus). KEY: Please Indicate response on answer sheet. 1. Please indicate: 1. Male 2. Female 2. Are you in Honors College? 1. Yes 2. No 1. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree 2. 3. 4. 5. I feel that my college or major department— 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Where are you now living? 1. Off-Campus Housing 2. Fraternity or Sorority House 3. Holmes Hall 4. Other MSU Residence Hall 5. Other How many terms have you lived in a MSU resident Hall (including this term)? 1. 9 or more 2. 6-8 terms 3. 3-5 terms 4. Less than three 5. Did not live in an MSU Residence Hall What is your marital status? 1. Single 2 . Married 3. Divorced 4. Widowed When do you plan to graduate? 1. Fall '8 1 2. Winter '8 2 3. Spring '82 4. Summer '82 5. Don't know 8. has given me a sense of identity with art academic community. 9. has provided an opportunity for being part of a meaningful social group. 10. has given me the opportunity to partici­ pate in academic decision-making. 11. is responsive to the needs of students. 12. treats me as though I am of some impor­ tance as an individual. 13. has provided an intellectually stimula­ ting environment. 14. has helped me to develop life goals, values and standards. 15. has helped me become more sensitive to ethical issues. 16. has provided the opportunity for me to get individual attention, when needed, from faculty. 17. has afforded me an adequate choice of electives apart from the specialized requirements for my major. 18. has afforded me a program of studies relevant to the problems of society. If you find yourself getting into academic difficulty, where do you go first for help? (mark only one) GENERAL ATTITUDES ABOUT MSU 1. Instructor For questions 19-25 select a response 2. Academic Advisor 3. Residence Hall Staff Member from the following key. 4. Classmate KEY: 1. Strongly agree 5. Friend 2. Agree 3. Undecided Questions 8 -1 8 are concerned with 4. Disagree experience you have had in your college 5. Strongly disagree or major department. (By this is meant the college that will grant your degree, 19. I feel that I have received a good Lyman Briggs or Natural Science). For questions 8-18 select a response from education at MSU. the following key. 20. I feel prepared for a job to my field of study. related 21. I feel that my experience at MSU has been socially rewarding. 22. I am sorry that I came to MSU rather than to another school. 23. In retrospect, I wish I had selected a different major. 24. I feel prepared for graduate or professional education. Items 35-46 list experiences of "out-of­ class" accomplishments you may have had while in college. Read each of these and indicate the extent of your experience in each area by using the following key. K E Y :1. 35. Helped organize and conduct an opinion or information poll (e.g., Gallup, or Roper-type) at school or in the communit} 36. Built or improved upon a piece of scien­ tific equipment or laboratory apparatus on my own (not as part of a course re­ quirement) 37. Was a primary organizer of a student or community service group. 38. Elected to one or more student offices. 39. Served on a student-facuity committee or group. 40. Elected president of a "special in­ terest" student club. 41. Worked as a volunteer aide in a hospital, clinic, or home. 42. Worked as a volunteer on a school or civic improvement project. 43. Attended meetings of one or more local civic groups. 44. Had contact with a local official about some community problem. * * * * * * 25. Do you feel that your education makes you competitive in the pre­ sent job market? 1. 2. 3. 4. Definitely yes Probably yes Perhaps No, I do not For items 26-35 please select a response from the following key. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Strongly agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly disagree Generally speaking, I found my MSU pro­ fessors— 26. were interested in teaching. 27. made relevant assignments. 28. were thorough in their evaluation. 29. were fair in their grading. 30. inspired me to learn. 31. were available for help when I needed i t . 32. were sensitive to needs of individual students. 33. used effective teaching methods. 34. outside my major, had a broad perspec­ tive which served many majors. None-have not had the ex­ perience. 2 . Had the experience one time or for a year of less. 3 . Had the experience two times or more or for more than a year. * * * * * * 45. What recommendations would you make for the General Education Program at MSU? 1. It is pretty good as it is now. 2. It should have wider range of general education courses to choose from. 3. It should enable students to concentrate more in an area of their own interest. 4. Students should be able to develop their own program with regard to meeting the general education requirements. Questions 46-57 list possible outcomes of a college education. Indicate the amount of progress you feel you have made toward each of these outcomes during your four years at MSU. For questions 47-51 please select a response from the following key. 54. were faculty members of your college or department receptive to differing views? 55. have fellow students provided a positive influence on your educational achieve­ ments? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KEY: 1, Dramatic progress— one of my most conspicuous out­ comes Considerable progress Moderate progress Some progress No progress 2. 3. 4. 5. 46. Acquiring a broad cultural back­ ground. 47. Developing the ability to think cri­ tically and to understand the uses & limitations of knowledge. 48. Understanding different world views, cultures and ways of life. 49. Social development— gaining skill in relating to other people. 50. 56. Regarding your participation in a social fraternity or sorority, during your MSU career, you— 1. never joined, and never seriously considered joining, a fraternity or sorority. 2. never joined, but did consider join­ ing, a fraternity or sorority. 3. pledged a fraternity or sorority, but never formally became a member (never were initiated). 4. pledged and were initiated, but later dropped out of the group. 5. pledged, were initiated, and...have continued your membership to the present time. 57. Personal development— unders tanding myself, my abilities and limitations, and my place in society. Students should be permitted to sit as voting members on the MSU Board of Trustees. 1. Yes 2. No 3. No opinion * * * * * * * * * * * For questions 51-55 please select a re­ sponse from the following key. KEY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very much Substantially Moderately Slightly Not at all, or not appli­ cable To what extent— 51. 52. 53. did your experience in a residence hall positively contribute to your total education at MSU? did your college or major department afford you the opportunity to have informal contacts with faculty out­ side the classroom? was the individual academic advising in your college or major department helpful to you? Items '58-72. A number of changes have occurred in higher education in the past ten years. How do you feel about the desirability of these changes? KEY: 1. Desirable-and more should be done 2 . Good-as it is now 3. Undesirable-have already gone too far 4. No basis for giving a view 58. Classes discussing more contemporary issues 59. Student representation on administrative committees (academic council, departments, etc.) 60. Student involvement in evaluating faculty members 61. Reduction in the number of required courses and increase in number of electives permitted. 62. Provision in class to pursue in­ dividual interests 63. Students developing areas of con­ centration apart from one depart­ ment (e.g. ecology, environmental or interdisciplinary programs) 64. Using individualized programmed learning, such as audio-tutorial methods or programmed tests 65. Assigning grades on pass-no grade, or credit-no credit basis 74. Do you feel that, you now have an ade­ quate religious faith or personal philosophy which serves as a guide for your personal conduct? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Undecided, don't know Items 75-81 please select a response from the following key: 1. Definitely 2. Probably 3. Uncertain 4. Not at all I believe that my college or major depart­ ment in contrast to other colleges or major departments on campus provided me with: 66. Using television as an instruc­ tional medium 67. Field work outside of the class room being used as a complement to the regular class 75. closer contact with faculty 76. more individualized attention 68. Provision being made for life-long or adult education 77. more specialized training 78. broader training 69. Relaxing university regulations govern­ ing student behavior 79. less competition 80. More personal freedom 81. more tolerant faculty 70. Student involvement in how classes are to be conducted 71. Many classes, outside of specialized areas, considering general widespread issues (pollution, ecology, consumer­ ism, etc.) 72. Items 82-89. How important do you feel each of the following instructional activities should be? Providing opportunities to do indepen­ dent study for credit KEY: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 73. If after graduation you seek .but can­ not find a job related to your spe­ cialized area, what will you do? Choose one. 1. Take another available job while I keep searching 2. Get training in another area where jobs are available 3. Go on to further study or grad­ uate work in my basic area 4. Take graduate work in another area of concentration 5. Don't know what I will do 1. 2. 3. Very important Of some importance Not important 82. Much student-to-student interaction in class 83. The professor should determine what work is to be done in the course. 84. The students should determine what work is to be done in the course. 85. The course should be presented on an individual or audio-tutorial^basis. 86. The professor should have time for students outside of class. 87. I'd like to be known well enough to be called by my first name in class. 88. Individualized help should be pro­ vided for students having academic difficulty. 89. 1. Very well informed 2. Fairly well informed 3..Not very well informed 4. Uninformed 100. Were the placement examinations (Mathe­ matics, Arithmetic, Reading) helpful in placing you into proper entrance levels in these areas? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not applicable 101. Have your major reasons for attending MSU been realized up to this time? 1. Definitely yes 2. Mostly yes 3. Probably 4. Uncertain 5. No Special honors programs should be available for students of excep­ tionally high ability. Questions 90-101 concern your partici­ pation in certain co-curricular activities during your MSU experience. For each ques­ tion indicated whether you— KEY: 1. 2. 3. Did not participate at all Participated, but not fre­ quently Particpated often or regul­ arly For items 102-111 i m 1 .ite how you feel about the statement in each item. KEY: .1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 102. I would rather decide things when they come up than try to plan ahead. 103. Competition encourages excellence 104. There's not much use for me to plan ahead because there's usually some­ thing that upsets my plans. 105. I nearly always feel pretty sure of myself and maintain my composure when people disagree with me. 106. For the well-prepared student, there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test. Workshops, lectures or organized dis­ cussions not related to class assign­ ments . 107. Exam questions often tend to be so unrelated to course work that study­ ing is really useless. 97. Special interest clubs (photography, sailing, etc.) 108. Becoming a success is a matter of diligent work; luck has little or nothing to do with it. 98. Volunteer programs (tutoring, aid to the blind, MSU Volunteers-Service Learning) 109. Leadership positions tend to be held by capable people who deserve being chosen. 110. When I make careful plans I am almost certain that I can make them work. 90. Activities sponsored by a religious organization 91. Student government 92. Department or college academic govern­ ance 93. Literary, oratorical, or dramatic activities 94. Intramural athletics 95. Musical, dance or other fine arts activities 96. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 99. How well informed do you presently con­ 111. sider yourself to be in regard to national and international affairs? Women should have complete equality with men in social, political and economic matters. 112. 113. About what percent of your college expenses came from your parents, spouse, or guardian? 1. None 2. 1-25% 3. 26-50% 4. 51-75% 5. 76-100% 121. In thinking about your occupational future, which of the following do you feel you will have a preference for in the long run? (Select one of the eight responses in item 121 or item 122) 1. An academic life (teaching re­ search, other scholarly work) 2 . A business life 3. A professional life (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) A life of a trained technician or craftsman 5. A life centering upon some aspect of the creative arts 122. (Future continued) 1. A life centering upon a home and a family 2. Other 3. I have not given sufficient thought to this matter to say None 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% About what percent of your college expenses came from grants-in-aid or scholarships (e.g., college, public or private agency, including G.I. Bill)? 1. None 2. 1-25% 3. 26-50% 4. 51-75% 5 76-100% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 123 What do you plan to do immediately after graduation? (Select one of the ten responses in item 123 or 124) T. Attend a graduate or professional school . 2. Take a position in government service 3. Take a position in business or industry 4. Take a teaching position 5. Go into military service (Continued in item 125) 124. (plans continued) 1. Join the Peace Corps, Vista, or some similar volunteer organi­ zation 2. Become a homemaker 3. Take any job I can get 4. I have no definite plans 5. Other Academic Advisement Items 115-120. Consider the assistance you received from your ACADEMIC ADVISOR. KEY: 115. 1. 2. 3. 4. Very helpful Helpful Not much help Not relevant- no experience The help and guidance you received as a junior and/or senior 116. The help and guidance you received as a freshman and/or sophomore 117. The help and guidance you received from college academic affairs office 118. My adviser's attitude toward my per­ sonal problems 119. My adviser's knowledge of MSU resources My adviser’s help in selecting courses CAREER COUNSELING AND FUTURE PLANS About what percent of your college expenses came from personal earnings, personal loans, or savings? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 114. 120. * * * * * * * * * * * 125. 126. If you could have your own choice in the matter, in which kind of firm, organization, or situation would you prefer to work after you finish your schooling? Mark only the one of the nine alternatives in either item 125 or 126 that applies. 1. Own business (or farm) 2. Small business firm 3. Medium to large firm or corpora­ tion - 4. Own professional office (e.g., law office, dental office) 5. An educational institution (e.g., high school, college) (work continued) 1. A public or private research organization 2. A public or private welfare agency 3. Government service (other than research, welfare or military) 4. Other firm, organization or situation * * * * * * * * * 127. Have you had formal career or voca­ tional counseling while at MSU? (Check the major experience.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No as as as as a a a a freshman sophomore junior senior 128. If you sought formal career or voca­ tional counseling, where did you go for help? (Please check the principle source.) 1. Counseling Center 2. My Academic Adviser 3. From some other source 4. I wanted help but didn't know where to go. 5. I did not seek career counseling. 129. If you received career or vocational counseling, how satisfied were you? 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Undecided 4. Dissatisfied 5. Not applicable - I did not seek help. Items 130-132. Winter term 1981 the Board of Trustees at Michigan State University declared the university to be in a finan­ cial crisis. For questions 130-132 please select the response that best corresponds with your awareness or involvement. 130. Were you aware of the financial crisis at MSU during the winter and spring of 1981? 1. Yes 2. No 131. If you answered 'yes' to 130, did you actively support any of the pro­ grams scheduled for elimination? 1. Yes 2. No 132. If yes, how were you involved? 1. Wrote a letter to the Board of trustees or the President. 2. Wrote a letter to a state sena­ tor or representative 3. Marched in protest of the budgetcuts 4. Actively worked with ottier students, faculty, or staff on special projects or presenta­ tions. 5. Was supportive of a cause but did not get involved.