H

II

I
U

W

l
l

”I!

‘f
f.

JIM/{2”

W
I .N,

h

\.
¥ 4‘—
, x:
‘t

f
l

o’a’lf'fl/I

I

§ (111W

 

 

31167 I

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove this chockou! from your "cord.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton date dun.

 
  
 

  

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

   

\
I

---
[ 3| II 1
EL—
-I I:

L__
Jl IT

MSU I. An Affirmative Action/Equal Oppommily Institution

Wanna-9.1

    

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN ANALYSIS OW CHANCE IN STUDENT VALUES

DURING
GRADUATE SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
AS

RELATED TO p1ACULTY VALUES

Vartin 310k
Robert Brumback
Cherles Calhoun
Adejoke Oeunnivi
John Willson

AN ABSTRACT O” A
GROUP RESEARCH PPOJECT

Submitted to
Michfiman State Universitv
in Dertial Fulfillment of the requirements
for the decree of

”ASTER Om SOCIAL WORK
SCHOOL OW SOCIAL WOPK

(T‘\

19 »9

LIBRARY 3.
Michigan State '
University

     
    
   

fl

 

.r-w-yvaTN

AQCTRACT

The purpose of this study is to find out the derree to
which the values of first and second year eraduate Social
'Jork students changed as they progressed throueh the academic
program. A value survey developed by Dr. Wilton Rokeach was
used.

We hypothesized that students' values would tend to
become more like that of an exnerienced professional social

worker. The hypothesis specifically concerned the values of

”World at Peace" and ”Self Control”. Our hypothesis was not

w

statistically proven on the basis 0 the data for these two

F11

values. lne composite data did reveal some general trends.
Instrumental values were found to be more stable than terminal
values, i.e., p als seemed to cmanne more resdily than the
meals by which seals are achieved. Certain trends, indicating

the possibility of change in specific values, were apparent

in the data and are discussed in the text.

AN ANALYSIS OR CHANCE IN STUDENT VALUES
DURING
GRADUATE SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
AS
RELATED TO FACULTY VALUES

U”)

‘7

Martin Blok
Robert Brunback
Charles Calhoun
Adeioke Oeunnivi
John Willson

GROUP RESEARCH PROJECT

Submitted to
Michisah State Universitv
partial fulfillment of the reouirements
For the decree o?

in

MASTER OR SOCIAL UORK
SCHOOL 0” SOCIAL WORK

1969

List of C harts

C hart

I.

II.

III.

VI.

VII.

VIII .

Mean ranks of students in 1968 and 1969 and
faculty in 1969 for values "World at Peace"
and "Self-control".

The direction and number of changes for terminal
and instrumental values from 1968 to 1969 in the
students populations ranknposition of values .

Rank position and mean rank of "Salvation" for

students in 1968 and 1969 and the faculty in 1969.

Rank position and mean rank of "True Friendship"

for the students in 1968 and 1969 and the faculty
in 1969.

Rank position and means ranking of "Ambitious"
for the students in 1968 and 1969 and for the

faculty in 1969.

Rank position and mean ranking of "Helpful" for
the students in 1968 and 1969 and for the

faculty in 1969 .

Rank position and mean ranking of "Intellectual"
for the students in 1968 and 1969 and the faculty

in 1969.

Values ranked in the same position by the three
groups.

Page

12

14

15

16

17

17

18

19

Table of Contents
3.192
Hypothesis ...... ..........1
Introduction..................... ..... 2
Methodology...................... ............. ..........6
Presentationoffindings.............. ..... 9
SupplementaryFindings................ ......... 12
Discussion. ............. ............ 2.1
Recommendations for further research. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
Append1x26

Bibliography... ......... ...................... .. 31

Hypothesis

We hypothesize that as an individual progresses toward

attainment of graduate education in Social Work, his values will

tend to become more like that of an experienced professional social

worker, particularly regarding those values listed above, i.e. , "A

World at Peace " and Self Control."

When resurveyed at the end of the second year of graduate study,

we hypothesize a change in the student mean rank ordering of these

two values:

1.

We expect "A World at Peace, " which was ranked on
the first survey in 1968 at a mean position of 9.00 on
an 18 point terminal value scale, to show a mean
ranking higher (i.e. , numerically lower) than 9.00 on
the second survey.

We expect "Self Control," which was ranked on the
first survey in 1968 at a mean position of 12.29 on an
18 point instrumental scale, to show a mean ranking

higher (numerically lower) than 12 .29.

We also hypothesize that the faculty mean rankings of
"A World at Peace " and”Self Control" will be higher
(numerically lower) than the first survey taken in 1968

of 9.00 and 12.29 respectively.

«V

Introduction

We are concerned in this paper with the values of first
and second year graduate social work students and the degree
to which these values are subject to change as they progress
through the academic program. The araduate social work pro—
gram at Michigan State University is a two year course of
study which is designed in such a manner as to combine social
work methods, theories of personality growth and development,
and practical experience. Each year new students enroll in
this program and bring with them a wide variety of experiences
related to the field of social work which has had an influence
upon and is incorporated into their value system.

The purpose of this study is to describe the organization
and alteration of values of first and second year graduate
students in the Michiaan State University School of Social
Work. To obtain our data, we employed an instrument developed

by Dr. Milton Rokeach, A Value Survey (Form D, copyrighted in

 

1967).

Our interest in this subject arew out of a study completed
in May of 1968 wherein this value survey was employed as a means
to contrast and compare the values of graduate business and
social work students. The graduate social work students partic—
ipating at that time were first year students: durinz April of

1969, we re-administered this same value survey to this same

group of students (now second year students) thus giving us
a test—retest situation. The School of Social Work faculty
members were also asked to complete the same value survey.

We hypothesized, prior to administerinq this survey,
that as students progressed to their second year we would
find their values becominq more like that of the faculty.

We did not hypothesize specifically concerning all
values held by our test group. We will concern ourself with
two specific values: "A World At Peace” and "Self—control."
These are defined by Rokeach (p. 163) as beine "terminal"
and "instrumental" values respectively, i.e., a terminal or
end—state value would be a world at peace. A means to that
end-state would be an instrumental value as, in this case,
the value of self—control. The latter was selected because
as graduate students we are strivina toward a state of self—
control so as to function effectively as a caseworker. Self—
control is a valued state for the caseworker because to have
one's own feelings under control is conducive to diagnosis
and treatment as it is performed within the framework of the
casework relationship. "A World At Peace” was selected be-
cause it has a two—fold meaning for the caseworker. One, the
caseworker is closely identified as a practicing member of
what has long been termed ”the helping profession." This
implies that the caseworker is a humanitarian individual and

would have a hinh regard for a world at peace. This is a

desired end—state. A second possible meaning of "A World At
Peace" is that this is, for the caseworker, the ultimate
desired end-state for his client pOpulation. This, of course,
has a more dynamic meaning than the term "end—state" implies.
However, for the purposes of this paper, we will regard ”A
World At Peace" as an end—state or terminal value. It should
also be noted that we are not considering in our hypothesis
such individual variables as: religion, culture, social class,
occupation, or political orientation. Such things as age and
sex were used to match the results obtained from first and
second year students.

Values are, of course, capable of being consciously or
unconsciously held. When we observe what an individual does
or says we are able to make inferences as to the nature of
his values. As individuals we do not hold all_values equal;
instead we arrange them in order of their individual importance

to us. We used Dr. Rokeach's Value Survey to allow each

 

participant to demonstrate his value system, i.e., each
participant is asked to arrange his values in a hierarchy (or
ranking order) starting with the value most important to him
and ending with the value of least importance. Inspection of

the Value Survey itself reveals that Dr. Rokeach has selected

 

eighteen terminal and eighteen instrumental values for the
individual to arrange in the order that best describes his own

value system. It would be absurd to state that Dr. Rokeach

thinks we only have thirty—six values simply because this is

all he includes in his Value Survey. In the process of

 

developing his Value Survey, Dr. Rokeach has tested each in—

 

dividual item in terms of its being a positive value (or as
he would describe them, "desirable" values) and that each
value would have some degree of meaning for the individual
using the survey.

Just as we are not concerning ourselves here with such
individual matters as religion, cultural, occupational, or
political backgrounds, we are also not considering the pre—
disposing factors that led the groups used in this study to
choose social work as a profession (anymore than we would
attempt to determine why faculty members chose the combined
professions of social work and teaching).

To quote from the study previously mentioned that also
employed this value survey (p. 3): "The field of Social Work
. . . is oriented toward a professional goal of enchancement
of the general welfare of mankind." This "professional goal”
has been presented to the test group by twenty—two faculty
members throughout the past academic year. By comparing the
rank ordering of values of the same graduate social work students
in their first and second years with the same value survey
results obtained from the faculty, we will test whether the
values (as previously limited and defined) of the students will
become more similar to those of the faculty, as we hypothesize

they will.

Methodology

The second year graduate students and the faculty of
Michigan State University School of Social Work are the
subjects of the project. The value surveys were administered
to the students in their advanced Social Casework class while
the faculty completed the value surveys individually at their
own convenience.

The value survey was administered to A2 of the “5 first
year graduate students in the Spring of 1968. In the Spring
of 1969 the same group of students, now in their second year
of graduate study, were given the same value survey as part
of the present study. Due to changes in the student popula-
tion and a decision not to use the value surveys of the
experimenters we were unable to utilize the total sampling
from the Spring of 1968. Therefore, it was necessary to
match individual one for one from the samples. Because there
was no definite means of identification of individual samples,
such as ID numbers, the matching was done on the basis of
sex, age and residence which gave an unambiguous match. The
total N of the matched samples was 31.

According to the previous study, the faculty was "polled"
to determine their hierarchy of values. The previous study
does not give specific value rankings for the faculty and
only states that the faculty chose three values - "A World at

Peace", "Equality", and "Freedom”. Because of the lack of

‘J

data it is necessary for us to assume that the faculty values
are basically stable. This assumption allows us to compare
the first and second year value ratings with the faculty value
ratings.

The instrument used to test the ranking of values was a
value survey designed and COpyrighted by Dr. Melvin Rokeach,

a social psychologist at Michigan State University (see
appendix, p 30). The instrument lists 18 terminal values
defined by Rokeach as those end states of existence which

the individual is personally striving for. Also included are
18 instrumental values defined as modes of conduct, e.g.,
honesty, courage, which are socially worth striving for. Each
subject being surveyed is presented with an alphabetical list
of all 36 of these values in the two groups of 18 each. He is
asked to re—arrange the values within each list in order of
their importance to him as guiding principles in his life. A
unique aspect of these lists of values is that all are
recognized as positive values in our culture.

The subject is assumed to be unaware of any psychological
significance to his responses and would have no reason to
disguise them. It is assumed that the subject depended on his
own value system as a guide to develop a hierarchy of the
values.

Statistical tests used were + tests for non—independent

groups to test the students change in value rankings. A T

‘4

test for independent groups was used for faculty and student
rankings to determine if they have different mean rankings on
the two value "World at Peace" and "Self Control". Values
were scored according to the way each respondent ranked the
values with the value ranked the highest having a numerical
ranking of 1 and the value ranked the lowest having a
numerical ranking of 18. Means were taken by taking the
sum of the individual rankings for each value and dividing
the sum of N (14 faculty and 31 students).

A sample of the value survey is included in this paper

for the reader's inspection.

in?

PRESENTATIOH O? FINDINWS

Null fvoothcs_" Ifumher One

Our first experimental hypothesis stated in null form

for the purposes of testing is tha t the value "World at

H g, 0 . 1,-,. . .
eace , hHlCh has ranked by the 1,,

‘TJ

F
t Ci

0
.3\
3
V”)
Cr
S I
r ‘J
~D
W
U)
U)
2
J
H
CD
Q)

mean re nk posi ion of -.00 on the eighteen point termi: a1

value scale, will not be ranked lower numericallv tllan 9. 00

(‘\

.f)
T
)
3

C

C,

bv the match d sample of

Pesults-

The 1969 data in dicate a mean ranking of 10.70. A
t— test for non— independent groups was performed on the data
to deter "mi e if the movement from the 9.00 to the 10.70 mean
ranking was statistically significant; no si n1 Hfic nt
difference between the students' two rankings of “World at

1

Peace" was found. Therefore, the null thothesis cannot be

rejected and the exp nerimental hypothesis is not confirmed.

 

-. ——.

 

1. The value of t was found to be 1.185. Vith thirtv degrees
of freedom the value of t reouired for statistical
signifi icance at the .10 1e vel of confidence is 1.b9

N u‘l l”_H_'-r‘p_o.t_h_e_s__i_sm ’I'\I_u_m_h~e_r‘ Tw o

he second experimental hvnothesis stated in null form
for testing is that the value "Self Control”, which was
ranked at a mean position of 12.29 on the eighteen point
instrumental scale by the 1908 student sample, will not be

1

d lower numericallv bv the matched sample of students

"3
Q)
73
:3:
(D

in 1969.

Results:

The 1969 student sample ranked ”Self Control” at a
mean position of 12.70. A t~test for nonnindenendent groups
was performed on the data to determine if this 12.70 mean
ranking was different from the 12.29 mean ranking of the

l
1968 student sample. The value of t obtained was .230H.

J

This value of t indicates that there is no significant

(\

difference between the 1968 and the 1969 mean rankings.
Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be reiected and tne

experimental hvoothesis is not confirmed.

H—“—.—_ ._.. ~H->v ..po—u .--aa. —-—. —- .- --.~.-—-— —. -‘ ~ - . ...w-u—D ~nfi—.»~.-—-—-— ~.— ..---—— ~-..—_-—--—..._._ --fi cup—q. _.-._.._-..._~.-..-.~‘ q -- —-v ‘ -—.—.—.——-

l. The value of t needed to attain the .10 level of
confidence with thirty defrees of freedom is 1.697.

10.

[full .H_,*~/‘p_o_t_he_s_i_s_- ‘Iiumben Three
The third experimental hypothesis, stated in null
form for testing, is that the faculty's mean rankings
of "World at Peace" on the terminal scale and "Self Control”
on the instrumental scale will not be numerically lower than

the 1968 student sample, which ranked ”World at Peace" and

"Self Control” at 9.00 and 12.29 respectively.

Results:

The data obtained from the facultv in 1969 indicate
that the faculty's mean ranking of "World at Peace” was
6.78, as compared to the mean ranking of 9.00 by the student
sample in 1968. Similarly, the facultv's mean ranking of
”Self Control" was 11.89. as compared to the students' mean
ranking of 12.29 in the 1968 data. These faculty rankinms
for ”World at Peace” and "Self Control” were lower numeri—
callv than the respective student rankings in 1968. This
fact points to the rejection of null hvpothesis number three:
however, the null thothesis cannot be reiected. as a t—test

1
was not performed on these data.

—. .. .— - .».-.._._‘.- - _- - ~ - -_ - .. -. ____. -_.-... -_.- -...h.- -._ v-.-..---.i—._- ..._..».a.. ....——.—-c. -_. — ——--

1. A t—test was not performed because of the failure of the
data to confirm the first two experimental hypothesis:
the third hypothesis is seen as being a logical foundation
necessarv to support anv statements which may have been
made regarding significant chance in student values. As
there was no significant change in the hypothesized values,
the confirmation of the third experimental hvpothesis is
unnecessarv.

11.

SUPDLEMEHTARV FINDIN”S

In observing the movement of the students' mean rankings
of the two values ("World at Peace" and "Self Control"), it
was noted that their mean rankings move awav from the faculty's

mean rankings.

 

19f‘1.._St_u;le.n_t_a 1-1.9-619. "tics” _ "1,916.9. 1.3.9.2;1353L11

Q 1

WORLD AT DEACE 1 9'00 10°70 6' ‘ H
_--___.__---~_---i_-i__--_-_-_._ l 1

12.20 2. 0 _ .ar 1

SELF CONTROL _ _-h”-_a___4_m_w_};_Z,_.wfl__m_“£}_:?_-_~_J

A t—test for independent groups was performed on the 1969
student and faculty data to determine if there was actuallv a
difference between the student and faculty. The result for
"World at Peace" was a value of 2.U0 for t. With 80 degrees
of freedom the value of t required for the .05 level of
confidence is 2.021. Therefore, we can conclude that there is
a difference between the students' and faculty's mean ranking
of "World at peace" in the 1969 data: the faculty ranked this
value higher than did the students.

The value of t obtained for the mean rankings of ”Self
Control" was .620. A t of 1.6 is needed to attain the .10 level
of confidence with the same U3 degrees of freedom. Therefore,
no significant difference was found between the students'

and facultv's mean rankings of the value "Self Control”.

12.

‘3

An additional finding is that the individual scores for
these two values were not clustered around the mean, i.e.,
there was a high variance in both the 1969 student sample's
rating of "Self Control" and the 1969 faculty's rating. The
range of scores was also very great. For example. the ranges
for the faculty and students on this value were an identical
3 to 18. These rather sporadic scatterings of scores may
indicate that this value scale has some severe limitations
as far as reliability across different people, i.e., there is
apparently a great deal of difference between the ways a
group of individuals interpret the cue words which represent
the values on paper. If this is the case, we could expect to
have our data extremely susceptible to this problem because of
the hurried nature in which most of the individuals rated the
values (to get out of class sooner) and because of the small
samples which we used in compiling our data.

.33: 9.591.123: fisheries- in. re 1* pea-1.21.92

If the data is grouped according to the order in which
each group ranked each value (rather than the mean ranking for
each value), the number of values which changed in their rank
order from the 1968 data to the 1969 data for the students can

be observed, along with the direction of the change. Although

13.

the change in terms of rank order is not here tested bv
statistical analysis, it does point to some trends in the
data by allowing us to look at croup scores in the same
terms as individual scores.

A trend is first of all observable in the amount of
chanqe evid,nt in the terminal scale and the correspondine
lack of chanqe in the instrumental scale. On the terminal
scale there were four moves toward the faculty, ten moves
awav from the facultv, and Four values which did not change
in rank. On the instrumental scale there were seven moves
toward the faculty, one move awav from the facultv, and ten
values which did not chanre in rank position.

Chart II: The direction and number 0” chanses for

terminal and instrumental values From

1968 to 1969 in the student population's
rank position of values.

.0. 7."... a - a- .. __ _. .—. ,, _ -. ...... _.. .. «—.

 

 

 

 

'Kifid“6§”65§fi¥6”£dmflhé’ Terminal“ *“ihgtkuwentai
;rank order Values Values 4
r__lh-.l _ __l,ill.i___-i-_rmil__-l -_J_ui_ -_-d,-i --l.___- _ ,__l
i u 7
gChanae toward the faculty

Chanse away From the faculty 10 l

_..._. ..._.,.._-_.. - .4 -. ..l -1... -_.. _ -..- _- - --i... ._ _._ - - .... -__-. .. _._ -_.._.._. --._._. ,+___-_..__.. _. ,.-...._-.._-..-..._ “4r
. 4
‘Mo chance U 10 ‘

 

 

There is an apparent trend for the instrumental values to
remain stable. i.e., to keep the same rank position. and a
trend for the terminal values to chande awav from the

facultv.

14.

£h.a.r1r:-e§_i-i-n_ fair: Iliemiral 13.9.8112

A comparison of the ran? position of each terminal
value shows that Y'Eoualitv” lost the number one position
(the hiqhest rank position) it held in 1968 and was ranked
this value fourth (a hiTh rank position): therefore. the
students moved away from the facultv's rankins, since one
and four are himh rank and twelve is not.

Students ranked “Salvation“ thirteenth in both 1968
and 1969, while the faculty's ranked this eimhteenth (the
lowest possible rank position). The mean ranks for the
students were 11.61 and 12.25 for 1968 and 1969 respectivelv.
The faculty's mean rankinq was 16.65.

Chart 111: Rank position and mean rank of “Salvation"

for the students in 1968 and 1969 and the
faculty in 1969.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-—-— -—--~-- ~-- —- -+-- -,_ ~-~-~ a -- —— , .
1968 1909 FacultVI
”33515"p’Jéi’tlEf _, *‘ “ ' "“17'3‘66'“ """fit—h‘ ‘ "F “1‘8 t h
HL" ._ - -.._..-... - - - -__-~._....- - -.-_ .- -_.._ -..- ...- .-.Ji..-_ .-._.-_.._.- .__.-._-- .1_-._m.——--——.— __,.__‘L1
Mean Rank 11.61 12.25 16.65
1...--- 1..- -. -- 1.-.- -1...” __ -- .- -M - ..___-1 _- -1--- ---1“ - ._ 1-11-11"...

 

 

 

" was more important

These data show that the value "Salvation
to the students than it was to the facultv, i.e., the students
rated "Salvation" hioher (lower numericallv) than the faculty.
Yet the movement (chanee between 1968 and 1969) is in the

direction of facultv's rating, i.e., as less important than

the other values.

15.

”True Friendship" was ranked at the ninth position
(the exact middle rank position) bv the students in 1968.
In 1969 the rank position moved up to fourth. The faculty's
rank position for this value was eleventh which is a
relatively low rank position.

Chart IV: Rank position and mean rank of ”True

Friendship“ for the students in 1968
and 1969 and the facultv in 1960.

 

 

1968 1960 Facultv
Rank Position 9th Uth 11th
r—-- -- - -—- - .- ‘ -‘~- -- --~---* — -- ,-,- -° 1. ---1" - w —- **-------—~ -———~1r
Mean Rank 6.77 6.87 10.07
-,.--_._.._. __ -.... .1. -.._.. -..L. -..- .-__.-.-._-__ -11.... ----._..-._..-.-.-..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean rankinms of the students on "True F1riendship”

were 8.77 and 6.87 in 1969 and 1960 respective1V. The
facultv's mean rankinq for "True Wriendship” was 10.07,
which placed this value in the lower half of their heirarchv
of terminal valueS' whereas the students' mean rankinms for
both 1968 and 1969 fall into the upper half of their heir-
archv of terminal values. The-efore. the students rated
"True Friendship" as more important than the faculty, and
there is movement awav from the facultv's lower position.

Change inhthe Instrumental Scale

 

The rank position of "Ambitious" in 1968 student sample
was fifth (in the upper third): in the 1969 student sample.
the rank position chanqed to eleventh (in the lower half).

The facultv's rank position for this value was fourteenth:

16.

therefore, the students appear to be approachins the
faculty in the way they rank the value ”Ambitious".
Chart V: Rank position and mean rankinm of

”Ambitious” for the 1968 and 1969
student samples and the 1969 faculty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sample.
_H..-M_dwh--~. .1. _,_H“._. -
1968 1969 Faculty
,__i_1whi_w.-_.-l-ilm_.l._lll__i
Rank Position 5th 12tn lUth
ne~-~~~~~--«‘~+-e«-~-pm~e~ - a+
I 11
Mean Rank 6.26 10.42 12.1.
U1_..1-.1... .. ._.__. *--...- - -.-._ _,..- 1.. -..~_.__+- - _ ...1..- .__-___J JL

 

 

 

The students chansed to seven rank positions lower and a
mean ranking which was H.16 lower than their 1968 mean
ranking.

The value "Helpful" was aiven a rank position of fourth
by the students in 1968 and 1969 (i.e., there was no move—
ment). The rank position of "Helpful" was eleventh for the
faculty sample: this was in the lower half of the instru—
mental scale: whereas, the students rank-d it in the upper
third of the instrumental scale.

Chart VI: Rank position and mean rankinq of ”Helpful"

for the 1968 and 1969 student samples and
the 1969 facultv sample.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“———’----—~-—-———-~——-~.-- -< -—- ~°~ -‘ ----—‘-— ""‘1 "‘- - -—-- -*-‘ ~-- ~- 1~- “r
1968 1969 Faculty
Tm.._ - eqm4._i-_ - ___ -l_
Rank Position Nth Uth 11th
1P- ————«--—--—- ---——'--————~—--L---~- -— -—- —.- 1.11., -— *1F----,..__._
Mean Rank 6.19 6.51 8.6“
-_ ____. ..-........_. -- ...._....-- .. -.-.-.- ._ ...«.. 1.-..-.— ...__,__._-.- J»..-

 

 

 

17.

Similarlv, the mean rankine for the three mroups indicates
that the students rated "Helpful" in the upper half of the
instrumental scale and the facultv rated "helpful” in the
lower half of the same scale.

"Intellectual” was ranked at a position of thirteenth
by the student sample in both 1968 and 1969. This rank
position is in the lower half of the instrumental scale:
the faculty ranked "Intellectual" in the sixth rank
position, which is in the upper third of the instrumental
scale. TLerefore, it appears that there is a difference
between the students and facultv rankinqs of the value
"Intellectual", with the students rankines beina lower than
the faculty's rankine.

Chart VII: Rank position and mean rankinm of

”Intellectual" for the 1968 and 1969

student samples and the 1069 facultv
sample.

' I

 

 

 

 

 

1+ -1..- -1- -- ---~ ‘— * -- -- ~ ~ - ~------- -- ~- ~ -~--~ ~~ —- ---~-~+-—-—w
I 1968 1969 Racultv '
+1 A-J__,_-_.- _.- _ i-e--.rl - - -__._ - “will". -__
lRank Position 13th L 13t? 6th 1
~__11--1 l___1m-li-_li_ .1-__._--_-11._-1-__-_-_1,
4 s
flVean Rank 1 10.12 11.5U 7.1“ H

There does appear to be some stabilitv in the students' rank
position of this value, but the mean rankinds of 10.12 in
1968 and 11.511 in 1969 indicate that "Intellectual” is even
less important in 1969 than it was in 1038. This chanee is

.-

in a direction awav from the facultV.

18.

95'

t!

Eisiisgafiiss Jetween .thc.-- ”Three..- earn

19 fl oups
On the terminal scale there was only one value "A
Sense of Accomplishment” which was ranked at the same

position (sixth) for each of the three aroups.

Th

(D

instrumental scale showed more similarities than

the terminal scale. There were three values. ”Polite"
"Clean", and "Obedient" which received the same rank positions
by all three mroups.

Chart VIII: Values ranked in the same position bv
the three eroups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I ’ALUE ”M W A 1-- "stifln‘téw 1““‘fi's‘tfi‘e’n‘ti‘s' I ‘M’T‘Féultsfl
L.m_ii_ii-i-_--i--ii_..il9 .“i.iti--JLXZLI.TU_HL9(QI.’
‘Terminal Scale: ; ‘ i 1
___ I
it TA oeWnSe wa 3 6th 6th I 6th 3
1‘ Accomplishment" . 4 i
---.... -_- Th- w”- - — — - t “ _- ' - ‘V‘H‘W‘ — “___.-- ._ -__ ‘ -~_— ."M ___”-- -- “-4. « MM!
Instrumental Scale: ' l
I..— ‘— H 6 ‘1
E; "Polite" ‘7 16th 16th 1 m ':
ff— ___._.. M... - ..-_..- i-.. - ..., _- __ - _ ii. _.. “iii..- .-_.____. .--_ .4.-._.__. .-_--_..- .1 , .._.-.~-
9 "Clean” ‘ 17th 17th 17th
L_-.i_li--------i--- --i----iiiiiii_--iiii_ii--.i.iiii-i
A- "Obedient' 18th 18th 18th
~-.. - -_ --_ ~ ._ .. .. _. -- -._ ---1. _. - ----- _- _.,.._..__ .-__.. "'"1"’M“—." _.. _. -..._._ l--...._.. .__. ‘ .

 

 

 

None of the values received the same mean rankinq for all
three eroups (See Appendix).
_D.J'-..s.c.t.1§.8.i.<>.a.ef- _-'*.‘«:V.0.r‘._1.d. at- .P.e.a.c-e.?’. 9.1.99.8 1.". .C 0 M I __1’10

Althoush the experimental hvpotheses refiardinq the student
chanse in mean rank for ”World at Peace” and "Self Control” were
not verified, the sienificant ditference between the 1969

Mtu ent and the 1969 faculty samples mean rankines for “World

at Peace" may be used as an index of student movement opposite

19.

in direction from that which was first hvpothesized. hat is,
the student's 1968 to 1969 chanee in rank position and mean
rank on ”World at Peade" indicates that their ratinq of this
value is movina awav from the faculty. There was a similar
direction of movement in the ratinss of ”Self Control”, but
this movement did not produce a statisticallv sienificant
diOference between the 1969 student and the 1969 faculty
samples, as did the end rankinss for ”World at peace”.

Part of the difficultv mav be due to the sizes of the
student and “acultv samples and the validitv of the value scale,
i.e.. there is a ouestion as to whether or not the value scale

measures what it purports to measure in our proiect.(See paeefS)

c}

DISCUSSION

Bissussian. -Qf_..C.e.n-e__ra.1. Beads .151. ..Cb.s.._C_8_-§s

We would eXpect a sreater desree of chanse in the
instrumental value scale as compared to the terminal value
scale because of the way in which these two scales are
defined by Rokeach (p. 160). He defines end—state or
terminal values as beins one's coals: instrumental values
represent one's means to those coals. However, our findinss
indicate that the instrumental scale values were more stable,
i.e., showed less chanse than the terminal scale values.
This may point to the instrumental scale values beine less
subject to chanme than Rokeach hypothesizes. These instru—
mental values mav reflect the life stvle. i.e.. the wav one
behaves in one's environment and this life stvle mav not be
so subject to chanse as the end coals which we feel are
important at a particular time in our life. In other words.
we tend to chanse our meals but not the means we use to
achieve these soals. For the eroup of students used in this
project their awe mav be an important factor in the stability
of their life style. i.e., they are at a point in life where
they have inteerated their own particular habits into their
life style which. unlike the adolescent, has been firmly

established as a part of their personality. therefore less

likely to chhnme.

21.

(.3

Discussion of Specific Trends

 

There was an unexpected drOp in the student’s ranking
of ”Equality”. This negative chanee might be attributed to
the students being involved in the Social Work curriculum
which tends to accentuate values other than ”Equality".
Other factors may have been operating to show the 1968 data.
Specifically, the assassination of Dr. Wartin Luther King,
which occurred approximately one month prior to the 1968
adminstration of the value scale.

1

The faculty's rating of ”Ambitious’ and ”Salvation”
was lower than the students. This I'nigjht be explained by the
negative connotation that these values hold for the pro—
fessional social worker, i.e., the concept of personal
ambition and the concept of external damnation for one's
sins are not a part of the therapeutic concept. It would
appear that the pore experience one has in casework, the more
antithetical these values might become. Although the students
did not move in their rank position of “Salvation”, they did
become more like the faculty in their rank positioning of
”Ambitious”. This may reflect the students' incorporation of
the casework oriented values.

The change in the students from 1968 to 1969 to a
higher ranking for "True Friendship” is a movement away from
the faculty. This movement might be related to the partici—

pation of the second year class in group work activities,

22.

(1}

mainly sensitivitv training. This trainina emphasizes
close interpersonal relationships. Conseouently, if the
value of true friendship has thereby been enhanced for the
students it would not have been for the faculty, because
the faculty, as a group, did not participate in sensitivity
training.

The instrumental value "Helpful” did not chante rank
positions for 1968 and 1969 student samples. The students
were higher than the faculty? this represents an apparent
disparity of retinas on a value which would seem to be
crucial to social work practice. There miaht be a difference
in the ways that the students and the faculty interpret the
meaninq of "Helpful”. The students may be rankinq ”Helpful"
as a terminal value rather than an instrumental value, i.e.,
the students to see ”Lelpful” as a seal state, whereas the
faculty may be perceiving it as a tool to use in therapy.

We feel the value "Intellectual", which received a
lower ranking by the students, reflects an actual difference
in values between the students and faculty. This difference
may be due to faculty's emphasis in their own lives as
professors upon intellectual achievement. The students may
be reflecting the interpretation of "Intellectual" as beina

a defense asainst true expression of one's self.

\u‘

Discussion of the Similarities

 

There were similarities in the data, i.e., four values
received the same rank position for all three groups. He
feel that this part of the data reflect basic values which
are either neutral (”Sense of Accomplishment”), or nerative
(”Polite”, ”Clean” and ”Obedient”) in their connotations
for persons involved in social work, whether they are

students or faculty members.

24.

{KSCOTUJENEYJflfhls INDR IWJREWHSR IhjShflfliCH

ihe ”Social work” professional orientation, i.e., theory,
methods, skills, is felt to have an effect on terminal values
and the most significant change would be expected to be seen
during that time in their education when students are firs
exposed to this professional orientation. Students educated
in undergraduate social work would be exposed to the profes—
sional orientation prior to entering graduate social work
school whereas graduate students with a non—social work back—
ground would be exposed to this professional orientation during
their first year of graduate social work studies. The sample
utilized in this study does not allow for an evaluation of
the effects of this variable and treats individuals as though
they were equally influenced by all variables. In order to
improve this type of study allowance should be made for such
variables as, educational background of students, age of
students, set of students and professionally related experience
prior to entering graduate school. In order to measure the
continuum of value change it would be necessary to administer
the value scale to the undergraduate student population, the
first year graduate student population, the second year graduate
student population, derreed practicing professionals who are

non-faculty members, and faculty members.

25.

V"

APPENDIX

Rank position for each terminal value for each group

 

Students Students Faculty Direction of
1968 1969 1969 Student Change
Related to Faculty

Equality 1 12 4 +
Self Respect 2 l 2 -
Mature Love 3 2 7 -
Inner Harmony 4 3 1 +
Freedom 5 7 5 -
A Sense of

Accomplishment 6 6 6 0
Family Security 7 5 8 -
Wisdom 8 9 3 -
True Friendship 9 4 11 -
A World at Peace 10 11 9 —
Happiness 11 8 10 +
An Exciting Life 12 10 12 -
Salvation 13 13 18 0
A World of Beauty 14 14 13 0
Social Recognition 15 17 14 -
Pleasure 16 15 16 -
A Comfortable Life 17 16 15 +
National Security 18 18 17 0

26.

(L

Mean ranking for each instrumental value for each group

 

Students Students Faculty

1968 1969 1969

Loving 3.67 3.80 5.57
Honest 4.83 3.58 5.07
Broadminded 5.22 5.54 5.35
Helpful 6.19 6.51 8.64
Ambitious 6 . 2 6 10 .42 12 . 14
Forgiving 7 .5 l 8 .32 8 .64
Responsible 7.54 8.16 7.07
Courageous 8.64 6.83 6.57
Imaginative 8.96 8.61 7.28
Capable 9.03 6.80 7.50
Cheerful 9.70 9.54 12.28
Independent 9 . 7O 7 .61 8 .2 1
Intellectual 10 . 12 11 . 54 7 . 14
Logical 11.29 12.32 11.07
Self Controlled 12 .29 12 . 70 11 . 85
Polite 14 . 12 14 . 96 13 . 14
Clean 15.61 16.25 15.71
Obedient 16.70 16.32 17.28

27.

fit

Rank position for each instrumental value for each group

 

Students Students Faculty Direction of
1968 1969 1969 Student Change
Related to Faculty
Loving 1 2 3 +
Honest 2 l 1 +
Broadminded 3 3 2 0
Helpful 4 4 1 1 0
Ambitious 5 12 14 +
Forgiving 6 10 10 +
Res ponsible 7 8 5 -
Courageous 8 6 4 +
Imaginative 9 9 7 0
Ca pa ble 10 5 8 +
C heerful 1 l l l 1 5 0
Independent 12 7 9 +
Intellectual 13 13 6 0
Logical 14 14 12 0
Self Controlled 15 15 13 0
Polite 16 l6 l6 0
Clean 1 7 1 7 l 7 0
Obedient 18 l 8 18 0

 

Students Students Faculty

1968 1969 1969
Equality 4.74 11.64 6.21
Self Respect 5.32 4.35 5.71
Mature Love 5.48 5.09 6.42
Inner Harmony 6 . 5 8 6 . 38 5 . 64
Freedom 7.26 7.16 6.35
A Sense of
Accomplishment 7.29 7. 16 6.42
Family Security 7.68 7.03 6.57
Wisdom 8.71 9.29 6.00
True Friendship 8 . 77 6 . 87 10 .07
A World of Peace 9.00 10.70 6.78
Happiness 9.58 8.42 10.00
An Exciting Life 10.87 10.51 10.50
Salvation 11.61 12 .25 16.64
A World of Beauty 12 .26 12 .45 11.50
Social Recognition 13 .48 13 . 54 13 . 14
Pleasure 13.68 12 .90 14.35
A Comfortable Life 14 .51 13 .35 14 .2 1
National Security 15.03 15.22 15.14

29.

VALUE SURVEY

Birthdate Sex: Male

 

 

Female

 

 

City and State of Birth

 

Name (fill in only if requested)-

0 19"] by Milton Mach

Form D

30.

INSTRUCTIONS

On the next page are 18 values listed in alphabetical order. Your task is to
arrange them in order of their importance to YOU, as guiding principles in YOUR
life. Each value is printed on a gummed label which can be easily peeled off and
pasted in the boxes on the left-hand side of the page.

Study the list carefully and pick out the one value which is the most important
for you. Peel it off and paste it in Box I on the left.

Then pick out the value which is second most important for you. Peel it off
and paste it in Box 2. Then do the same for each of the remaining values. The
value which is least important goes in Box 18.

Work slowly and think carefully. If you change your mind, feel free to change
your answers. The labels peel off easily and can be moved from place to place.
The end result should truly show how you really feel.

 

“\lfiuth-I

d—ed—n-d—I—e—Iu-l
”NOSUIIBWNHOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

A COMFORTABLE LIFE
(a prosperous life)

AN EXCITING LIFE
(a stimulating, active life)

A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMEN‘I'
(lasting contribution)

A WORLD AT PEACE
(free of war and conflict)

A WORLD OF BEAUTY
(beauty of nature and the arts)

EQUALITY (brotherhood,
equal opportunity for all)

FAMILY SECURITY
(taking care of loved ones)

FREEDOM

(independence, free choice)
HAPPINESS

(conte ntedness)

INNER HARMONY
(freedom from inner conflict)

MATURE LOVE
(sexual and spiritual intimacy)

NATIONAL SECURITY
(protection from attack)

PLEASURE
(an enioyable, leisurely life)

SALVATION
(saved, eternal life)

SELF-RESPECT
(self-esteem)

socuu. Recoeumon
(respect, admiration)

TRUE FRIENDSHIP
(close companionship)

WISDOM
(a mature understanding of life)

 

WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED, GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE.

 

Below is another list of 18 values. Arrange them in order of importance, the
same as before.

h. _E... ~7a___ 74‘

AMBITIOUS
(hard-working, aspiring)
W:::M"* '*
BROADMINDED
(open-minded)
__T" '— "a”
' CAPABLE
(competent, effective)
CHEERFUL
(lighthearted, ioyful)

”_k,
. J11. ,*H K._,

 

 

 

 

 

 

i LAM-u IHM

 

 

 

 

CLEAN
(neat, tidy)
COURAGEOUS
(standing up for your beliefs)

' , - '7 i" ' 5' , .,.I,. ,,,,e.'._..'.'..'._._':.._.s...1.“\

FORGIVING
(willing to pardon others)

 

 

 

 

 

 

'- W I r =_ __ A ,
- I 7 , i l 7 ' 77m\

HELPFUL (working
. for the welfare of others)
' ‘5-1 a" " .' "
HONEST
(sincere, truthful)
W; 1r. ', Isms. '
IMAGINATIVE
(daring, creative)
INDEPENDENT
(self-reliant, self-sufficient)
“ _rr'z r1; . 1m- ..-.;mfic

 

 

”NOWhWN-fl

 

_.——_——_—.H.

 

— ...- _'.,. .t J:-I~!-.'.— --

vb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__-__ iii 7 1.. ___—__r
1- —- Ilium—nim‘=_.

 

 

 

 

 

I 2 INTELLECTUAL
_ (intelligent, reflective)
W 31.1.
I 3 LOGICAL

(consistent, rational)

  

 

 

 

I LOVIN” mu.” . um;- 1‘ WW
'4 (affectionate, tender)
'5 OBEDIENT- ”- . L ‘

(dutiful, respectful)

   

 

POLITE
(courteous, well-mannered)
”We : e...
RESPONSIBLE
(dependable, reliable)

_-
O

 

 

_-
N

‘--‘__

 

 

SELF-CONTROLLED
I (restrained, self-disciplined)

 

 

 

_;f-.. '0‘ .

DINLIOHTUH n {3‘ IIY

Lfi1ry lksrctuni, Jluiiti1ljavaxis011, chsogl1 Dczu1s, .1050: 1 Ikartcn1,
Mary Jane ficlscr, A Comparative Dcscrirtion of Social
lfork_zn1d lihzinesmsi3tudtn1ts Ir1scd (n1 a.‘L11uc1f‘M1rv ,

(in abstract of a qroup resear01 grojoct, ICU School of
of Social dork, 1963).

‘J

"11Eclicfsz Attitudes) and Values: A TheoryS of

Hilton Rokeac
Chance, (San Francisco: Josscy— —na 3 ,

Cur :1nidzatxior1 arul
Inc., lu‘lisrcls, lfioo).

31.

‘IICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

Ills! lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll I lllll

 

31293012603167