i,» ”ii": I: 2:; wag? ilk . "- 1 " -"'§ .-1.( Alrt‘wf-afi‘l b.5151: u .._.—.._ 1.... an. M3 '7‘- ‘79 4 15'," V. 1.3ng akfli\ i! '5 .J ,. “1.; 0 U n riwvy #22 5"»! - @5?mm~ & . c "J a»). .‘4‘139‘3',’ lfm" .ul.“n RETURNING MATERIALS: IVIESI_J Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES Win be charged if book is returned after the date stamr" ' 10w. '- v:—- “.- ltD! OF TEE COHEAPATLVE RATLJGS OF STU ErTS U) A M m A norm EDUAAGECLJL‘ comes - BY THE mcumY ADVISE. BY FEES mo BY Tnzzismvzs b-f’ ESTHER FERNS Submitted to tne Dean of the College of Home Economics of Micniqen State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of tee requirements for tne degree of MASTER OF SClEfiCE Denartment of Home Management and Cnild DeveIOpment Dims -._._ _- fi__—_____ _ A CECE I? C :LJIJGJI LNTS m,‘ . The author wishes to express her rratitude to Hrs. Beatrice O'Donnell and Irs. Alice Thorpe for help in statistical work; to Hiss Linda Nelson and Kiss kilns Earner for sh ring the rating scales from their home management residence groups; and to Dr. Irma Gross, Head of the Department of Home Fanagement and Child Development, for her supervision, inspiration and assistance in the organization and writing of this study. TABLE 0: CONTENTS INTRODuCTION Purnoee Method Description of Method FlnDInGS Part 1 - Entire group Agreements Faculty to Self Faculty to Peer Self to Peer Summary of Section higher Ratings Faculty to Self Faculty to Peer Self to Peer Summary of Section Lower Ratings PaoUIty to Self Faculty to Peer Self to Peer Summary of Section DlSCUDSIOR OF FINDINGS Agreement Among Ratings Higher Ratings Lower Ratings Page H \J 11"»)! 10 11 12 16 17 18 20 22 23 2h 26 28 29 20 31 33 Part 2 - One adviser group compared to entire group Agreements Faculty to Faculty to higher Ratings Faculty to Faculty to Lower Ratings Facu1ty to Faculty to Summary SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Self Peer Self Peer Self Peer Page 36 37 3o INTRODUCTLON \ In teacning the resident courses in nome management at Michigan State University a metnod of evaluation has been worked out wnicn is used by tne faculty advisor to rate tne student, by tne student to rate nerself and by tne otner members of tne peer group to rate tne student. A score card has been develoned as a rating device WthH in agreement witn tne modern nnilosonny of none management includes tnese large classifications on which the student is rated,(A) goals, values and standards including groun relationsnios, personal develonment in manager- ial characteristics and acceptance of differences, and(B) tne managerial process itself. Eacn of tnese has been broken down so that tnere is a total of nineteen items wnicn make no tne rating scale.1 Tne rating scale is used in tne course as it is found in tne text— book. The four levels of acnievement on wnicn eacn student is rated are: Score 1. Falls below wnat is exoected of a senior in none economics. Score 2. Meets want is expected of a senior in come economics. Score 3. Somewnat above wnat is eXnected of a senior in home economics, ‘ Score h. Much above want is exnected of a senior in home economics. To use tne scale, tne student is rated on eacn of tne 19 items on one of tne four levels of acnievement. l. Tnis rating scale is found in Management for Modern Families, Irma 3. Gross and Elizabetn Walbert Crandall, page 50h.fAnnleton, Century, Crofts, 1953. Been of tne items is clearly defined on pages 505. 500. 507. .- ' 2 The rating scale than is a three-way sort of evaluation device for the faculty advisor, the student herself, and the user group for the purpose of rating eacn individual student in the home management residence group. Eight students usually comprise a home management residence group, so that there are nine ratings available on each student, one by the faculty, one by the student, and seven by the peers. Observation of these ratings over a period of time suggested that there was considerable agreement in the way tne faculty rated the student and the way she rated herself; between the way the faculty rated the student and the way the peer groun rated her: and tne way the student and the neer groun rated the student, but no careful study had been made of agreements and disagreements. It seemed likely that an interesting study could be made to deter— mine what the relationship was between the ratings by the faculty, tne peer and the student herself, and to determine in what items there were agreement and difference. pURPOSE CF TnlS STUDY It is tne nurnose of this study to determine tne relationships between ratings on snecific items by tne a. Faculty and student , b. Faculty and peer, c. Student and peer, in these classifications, 8. Agreement among tnem, b. One nigner tnan the other, e. One lower than tne other. ME 'I‘nOD This study is based on the rating scales of 53 students in groups of seven and eight wne were in seven home management groups during winter, spring, and summer terms of 195h, under the direction of three advisers. Of these, 37 were under one adviser, eight under another adviser, and eight under a third faculty member. Since the majority of students was working under one faculty member, it was interesting to run two parallel studies on the two groups, one with tne entire groue of 53 students and the other with the 37 students of one adviser for comparison. The ratings by faculty; peer and self of the 53 students were con- sidered in grouns according to the time of their residence in Home Manage— ment house, as shown in Table 1. TABLE 1, Symbol Time in Residence *Wl First half winter term *WB Second half winter term ‘51 First half spring term *52 Second half spring term Sul Summer term *Su2 Summer term Su} Summer term *Starred groups under one adviser. 5 From the rating sheets which were obtained from the faculty advisers, a composite sheet was made for each student. It included this information: a. rating by faculty adviser - F b. rating by student (self) - 3 c. rating by peer rroup - F To determine these ratings the numerical value as given in the text, page 50h, was given to each score. Each item had been checked on one of the four levels of achievement; below average, 1 average, 2 above average, 3 superior, A If the faculty rated the student above average (3), the faculty rating was 3. If the student rated herself average (2), the student rating was 2. If two members of the peer group rated the student average (2), the score was 2 x 2 or A; and four members rated her better than averave (3) the score was A x 3 or 12; and one rated her superior, the score was 1 x A or A. The total of the scores A, 12 and A was 20, which divided by 7, the number of girls rating the girl, was 2.9. This number represented the average of the peer ratings. Faculty, student and peer ratings for each of the 19 items on the rating scale were determined for each student and tabulated in the left hand margin of the rating scale. N «F' N u \rl WWW WW NNDI NNNNUJ 6 Michigan State COllege 0011131081110 of Ratings school of Home Economics 1 Faculty HMCD 1432a "' 8011' 1" Peer lmI’IIIG §CALE FOR HOME MAGEMENT REQI‘PENCE __--___._..__.,...-._.iT ____________ l 1 Aspect of Below ! Average Better superior Comments Management :average i aggza'nage __________ l--- ..i--_.__....-...._.._________-_._ I A. Goals,values ! , and standards i 1. Group relation— ‘ l t ! ships a. Leadershiy ,' _ , b. CooEeratiog ‘ g It ; 5.} T I *7— ..- c. Contribution to the arena 3.... .. -.Lflt. J _+ .15. _ 2. Personal i E development ‘ _ g a. Managerial ' 1 characteristics ; ; ”Observation .._...__.__... J; a. w, . _‘_ “Jr- 2)Initiative F 4 A W "' I H 3)Re§ponsibili t}: z *" .____._‘__ ”W M. x 1* e W! I ‘0. Acceptance of : | ‘ . a differences _____'H' HH‘H' x 3. Qtandards (con— 1 venti onal and flexible) ' 9.. Foods and l "H” ' nutrition j E,“ . a x ‘0. Care of house T— i W; t H and own room. 4: 1 J. x c. Aesthetic ', H”, , standards ’ * a # a I (1. social usage .fi_ - by H- x B. The managerial ' i rocess ' f 1. P nning 1 a. Time and energy 3 jfim _, '3 j“: j 4H b. Money L 'fl-t: -_x* iii—w. 4 c. Materials “WM 1 2. Controlling the - 1 plan in action = 1 s. 211119 and energi 4:“ '_ {M x 13. Money JHL,___LH1L "' c. Materials q’ M— ”Ax-##— d. 191235113192 lea-5L Maw L 3. Evaluation M '3 1””. r" T “*‘m 1 , 3 Specific points to be rated are. underlined! I V 4 DESCRIPTION OF METnOD It was then necessary to decide when the scores would be considered a. in agreement, b. higher, c. lower. A conference was arranged with Mrs. Beatrice O'Donnell who gave the benefit of her experience in research. her recommendation was that a score would be considered (a) in agreement, when there was a difference of 0.} point or less between the scores being compared, (b) higher, wnen the score was more than 0.} point higher than the score with which it was being comnared, (c) lower. wnen the score was more than 0.3 noint lower than the score with waicn it was being compared. For examnle, a student rating is: P S F 2.6 2 3 Leadership 3.1 3 3 Cooperation 2.6 2 3 Contribution to the group In the category of Leadership, (a) in comparing F, the faculty rating of the student whiCh was 3 to S, the student rating of the student wnicn was 2, 3 was more than 0.3 noint higher than 2, so it was recorded "higher”, (b) in comnaring r, the faculty rating of the student wnich was 3 to P, the peer rating of the student wnich was 2.6, 3 was more than 0.3 higher than.2.6 so the rating was considered "higher", (c) in com— paring S, the student rating of herself which was 2 to the peer rating llvllll'll ll‘r which was 2.6, 2 was more than 0.3 point lower than 2.6, so it was recorded ”lower”. A separate tabulation for each item on which students were rated was set up for this comparison of ratings. On each tabulation sheet three ratings were recorded for each of the seven groups in the study: a. Faculty to self b. Faculty to peer c. Self to peer Subheadings under each of these made it possible to record these scores which were: a. In agreement b. Higher c. Lower Percentages of agreement, higher and lower ratings were calculated. Significant differences2 at the .05, .01 and .001 levels were determined. These are indicated by * for the .05 level, *‘ for the .01 level, and *** for the .001 level of significant difference. 2. Reference: Statistics for Sociologists, Hagood-Price, Henry Holt Company. New York, 1962. pg. 561. Table 2. See example below: mmsum faculty to Self Faculty to'Peer Self to Peer Grou} Agree— Higher bower Agree— higher Lower Agree— higher Lower Total ment ment ment in _‘_ ___ Group ‘W1 5 2 o 5 1 1 h o .3 7 *W2 2 2 5 1 1 2 2 3 7 *s1 0 2 3 o 5 3 h s '32 3 h o 5 1 1 3 o h 7 Sul 63 1 1 h 3 1 3 3 2 s *Su2 3 ‘3 2 5 o 3 2 1 5 8 Su3 2 3 3 2 2 n 3 2 3 8 Total 28 15 10 29 8 16 2O 9 2h 53 Per; 52.8 28.3 18.9 514.7 15.1 30.2 37.7 17 145.3 100 cm * Indicates group under one adviser. llll'll'llvllil‘l‘lljll‘ .Ial‘ PART 1 FIPDLEGS 1. Agreement among ratir s a “C a. Faculty to self b. d. Faculty Self to Surm a ry 2. Higher ratings 8.. b. c. d. Fa C111 ’6 :7 Faculty Summary 3. Lower ratings a. b. 0. Faculty Faculty Self to Summary to peer ueer of section to self to peer peer of section to self to peer peer of section 10 11 stRmmh T 1. Faculty to self When comparison was made of the way the faculty rated the student and the way the student rated herself in the various items there was considerable agreement. See Figure A. The highest percent of agreement was in the item Foods and Nutrition, where the faculty rated 60.h percent of the student, or 32 students, the same as the students rated themselves. The lowest percent of agreement was found to be 31+.03 when only 18 students rated themselves the same as the faculty advisers rated them in Accentance of Differences. In Judging 5 items there was 1'0 to M9 nercent agreement between the ratings by the faculty adviser of the student and the ratings by the students of themselves. These items were: Controlling time and energy ”1.5 percent Responsibility u5.3 percent Social usage k5.3 percent Planning money M5.3 percent Evaluation h7,2 percent Supervision M9.l percent Agreement between the ratings by the faculty adviser and the self ratings between 50 to b0 percent of the students was evident in judgin 3. 12 the student in eleven items: Planning materials 50.0 percent Contribution to the group 50.9 percent Planning time and energy 50.9 percent Controlling money 51.9 percent Leadership 52.8 percent Otservation 52.8 percent Initiative 52.8 percent Controlling materials 52.8 percent Care of the house 5H,? percent Aesthetic standards 5M.7 percent Coeperation 56.1 percent Agreement between faculty advisor and student was relatively high, in from 111.5 to 60.h percent of the cases with only one exception . which was in agreement in 3U.0 percent of the cases. Eleven items were in 50 to 59 percent agreement, 6 in NO to ”9 percent agreement and only one over 60 percent. 2. Faculty to peer When comparison was made of how the faculty rated student and how the peer group rated her, there was less agreement than when comparing the facultyhratings with self-ratings. See Figure B. The highest percentage of agreement was found to be 58.5 percent in the item Aesthetic standards wnen 31 students agreed with the faculty ratings. 13 Tne lowest percent of agreement was found to be 13.8 percent in two items, Controlling time and energy and Controlling money, when only 18 faculty and peer—ratings agreed. anee additional items were in agreement between Bo and 39 percent of tne cases: Care of the house 35.8 percent o Evaluation 35.8 percent * Planning materials 35.8 percent I. Between hO and M9 percent agreement was found in eleven items: Controlling materials Ml.5 percent Social usage h3.h percent Observation h3.h percent Supervision 95.3 percent Cooperation A h7.2 percent Acceptance of differences M7.2 percent Foods and nutrition 37.2 percent ' Planning money MT.2 percent Contribution to the group M9.0 percent Initiative U9.1 percent Responsibility E9.1 percent Between 50 and 59 percent agreement was found in tnree items: Planning time and energy 50.9 percent Leadership 5h.7 percent Aesthetic standards 58.5 percent in The percentage of agreement was a little lower wnen comparison Q was made of faculty to peer ratings, ranging from 33.8 to 58.5 percent agreement. Only five of these ratings were below h0 percent agreement. Eleven items were in No to h9 percent agreement. and only three in 50 to 59 percent agreement. 3. Self and.peer - There was the least agreement in ratings When comparison was made of self-ratings and peer-ratings of the students. See Figure C. The greatest agreement was in 95.3 percent of the cases ween 2h students agreed with tflClT peers in rating the student on tne item Initiative. The least agreement was in 21.2hpercent of the cases wnen only 11 students agreed with their peers in rating the student in the item Planning materials. Other agreements between 20 and 29 percent were: Controlling time and energy 2M.5 percent*** Evaluation 26A percent *" Between 30 and 39 percent were: Acceptance of differences 30.2 nercent" Planning time and energy 32.l percent“l Contribution to the group 33.9 percent. Observation 33.9 percent* Controlling money 3M.6 percent’ 15 Responsibility 35.8 percent. Social usage 35.8 percent* Planning money 35.8 percent"l Leadership 37.7 percent Care of room 37.7 percent Supervision 37.7 percent More than no percent agreement included: Gosperation ”1.5 percent Foods and Nutrition hl.5 percent Controlling materials h1,5 percent Aesthetic standards h3.h percent The lowest percent of agreement appeared when comparing self to peer, when the range was from 21.2 to 95.3 percent, with all but 5 items in less than MO percent agreement. Eleven items were in 30 to 39 per- cent agreement, and only 3 in 20 to 29 percent agreement. Agreement Among Ratings Summary of Section 16 The greatest agreement in the ratings by faculty, self and peer was found to be between the faculty and self ratings, with less among the faculty and peer ratings, and least among the self and peer ratings. The following table clearly shows the relationship. Table 1. Agreement Among Ratings Percent of Agreement Number of Items Rated Between Between Between Between Over 60 20—29 percent 30—39 percent hO-h9 percent 50—59 percent percent Total Faculty to self Faculty to peer Self to peer o o 3 1 5 11 b 11 5 11 3 0 1 0 0 19 19 19 \' -. .. ., 1!. - \ . 0050.02 \ \ - r. r. I. I! v \ . . \ . anho62 \-. \. - a ‘- Ur. I'll! I) I L . awhlnldz HI” 17 annEB RATINGS 1. Faculty to self Tne faculty tended to rate tne student higner than sne rated ner- self. See Figure D. Tne greatest percent of nigner ratings was 37.7 in Social usage wnen tne faculty rated 20 students nigner taan the student rated herself. The smallest percent of higner ratings was 20.8 in Controlling materials wnen tne faculty rated ll students higner than tne student rated herself. nigner ratings between 20 and 29 percent of tne cases were in tnese items: Controlling money 91.2 percent Initiative 2M.6 percent Resnonsibility 2H.b percent Foods and nutrition 26.h percent Supervision 25.h percent Evaluation 26.” percent Leadership _ 28.3 percent Aesthetic standards 28.} percent Care of the house 28.} percent Controlling time and energy 28.3 percent .‘ 18 Rigner ratings in between 30 and 39 percent of tne cases were in 7 other items: Observation 30.2 percent Acceptance of differences 30.2 percent Planning materials 30.8 percent Cooperation 32.1 percent Contribution to tne group 3U.O percent Planning time and energy 35.8 percent Planning money 35.8 percent Tne range of percentage of nigner ratings was from 20.8 to 37.7 percent of the cases wnen comparing faculty to self ratings. witn 11 items rated nigner in 20 to 29 percent. and 8 items in 30 to 39 percent of the cases. 2. Faculty to peer The peer group tended to rate the student higuer tnan tne faculty rated her. See Figure E. The largest percent of nigner ratings occurred when rating two items Planning materials and Controlling money ween only 13 students or 2U.b per cent of the cases were rated nigner by the faculty than by tne peers. Tne smallest percent of higner ratings occurred wnen rating the item Supervision waen only 7 students or 13.2 percent of tne cases were rated nigner by tne faculty than by tne peers. v 19 Nine other higner ratings which were found to be between 10 and 20 percent were: Leadersnip 15.1 percent Initiative 15.1 percent Controlling materials 15.1 percent Aesthetic stardards 17.0 percent Social usage 17.0 percent Planning time and energy 17.0 percent Evaluation _ 17.0 percent Contribution to the group 18.9 percent Controlling time and energy 18.9 percent Seven otner higner ratings between 20 and 25 percent were: Observation 20.8 percent Acceptance of differences 20.8 percent Care of tne nouse 20.8 percent Cooperation 22.6 percent Responsibility 22.6 percent Foods and nutrition 22.6 percent Planning money 22.6 percent Tne range of percent of nigner ratings was from 13.2 to 22.6 percent of tne cases, wnen comparing faculty to peer rating and almost equally divided between tne 10 to 19 percent range and tne 20 to 29 percent range. we"- 20 3. Self to peer The peer group tended to rate the student higher than the student rated herself. See Figure F. The highest percent of higher ratings by the student than the peer occurred in Acceptance of differences when 18 students or 3h percent of the cases rated themselves vigner tnan their peer group rated tnan. The lowest percent of higher ratings by the student occurred in Supervision when only “ students or 7.5 percent of the cases rated themselves higher than their peer group rated them. In rating 11 items, the percentage of higher ratings by the student than the peer was under 20 percent: Social usage' 9.M percent Initiative. 11.3 percent Planning time and energy 11.3 percent Contribution to the group 15.1 percent Controlling materials 15.1 percent Leadership 5 17.0 percent Observations 17.0 percent Care of house 17.0 percent Cooperation 18.9 percent Aesthetic standards 18.9 percent Planning money 18.9 percent ‘C 21 In ratinv six items the percentage of higher ratings by the student . L' than the peer was between (0 and 29 percent. Foods and nutrition 20.8 percent Planning materials 23.1 percent Responsibility 23.6 percent Controlling tire and energy 23.; percent Controlling money 23.6 percent Evaluation 2H.6 percent The range 0* percentage of higher ratings was from 7.5 to '34.0 percent WHE“ comparing self to peer ratings. with 12 items rated higher in less than PO percent, and 6 items in 20 to 29 percent, and only 1 itgm in over 30 7701367113 Of the gases. 22 nlenjfi RATlnGS Summary of Section The faculty tenfied to rate tue etnaent nigner teen sue rated ner— self, but the neer croup ratei tne stnient niyuer tnnn eitner tne faculty or tne stnaent rated nerself. Tue followin: taDl clearly snows tne relationSnin. Table 2. Percent of higher Rating]: Fumter of t ms Rated Faculty to self Faculty to peer Self to peer ll . __ ___.__T___.,.l...... Below 10 percent 0 0 2 Between 10 and 19 percent 0 10 10 Between 20 and 29 percent 11 9 t Between 30 and 3? nercent 8 O 1 Total 19 19 J 19 D .- , . . x. 02.» 2. x . - .0 .’ , . -. . t :5 z e . . - i‘. 1‘14} D 8W5... . n! dV ‘31 33 LOYH'ER RA: 1. L‘ GS 1. Faculty to self When comnarison was made of tne number of lower ratings by tne faculty and by tne student, tne student tended to rate nerself lower than the faculty rated ner. See Figure G. The greatest number of lower ratings was in tne item Acceptance of differences wnen tne faculty rated 19 students lower tnan tne student rated nerself or 35.8 percent of tne cases. Tne smallest number of lower ratings was in Cooneration wnen tne faculty rated only 6 students lower tnan they rated themselves, or 11.3 percent of tne cases studied. Ten otner items rated within the range of 10 to 20 nercent were: Foods and nutrition 13.2 percent Planning time and energy 13.2 percent Contribution to the group 15.1 percent Observation 17.0 percent Care of the house 17.0 percent Aesthetic standards 17.0 percent Social usage 17.0 percent. Leadersnin 18.9 percent Planning money 18.9 percent Planning materials 19.2 percent :4] .0, 2h‘ Five items were rated within tne range of 20 to 29 percent: Initiative 22.6 percent Supervision 2h.5 percent Controlling materials 26.h percent Evaluation 26.h percent Controlling money 26.9 percent Two other items rated comparatively high in percentage of occurrence among the lower ratings. Responsibility 30.2 percent Controlling time and energy 30.2 percent When comparing lower ratings by faculty and student the range of percentage of lower ratings Was from 11.3 to 35.8 percent of the cases. Eleven items were rated lower in 10 to 19 percent of the cases, 5 in 20 to 29 percent and 3 in 30 to 39 percent. 2. Faculty to peer When comparison was made of the lower ratings by the faculty and by the peer group of tne student, the faculty was found to rate the student lower than tne peer. See Figure n. Tne largest number of lower ratinas was in Evaluation wnen 28 students or h7.2 percent of tne cases studied were rated lower by tne faculty tnan by the peer group. The smallest number of lower rat‘nes was in Aesthetic standards when 13 students or 23.8 percent of the cases were rated lower by the faculty than by the peer group. 25 Within the range of 20 to 29 percent, 2 other items wnich were rated lower by the faculty were: Controlling time and energy 27.2 percent Responsibility 28.3 percent Within the range of 30 to 39 percent were 11 items rated lower by the faculty: Leadersnip 30.2 percent Cooperation 30.2 percent Foods and nutrition 30.2 percent Planning money 30.2 percent Contribution to tne group 32.1 percent Acceptance of differences 32.1 percent Planning time and energy 32.1 percent Observation 35.8 percent Initiative 35.8 percent Social usage 39.b percent Planning materials 39.6 percent Witnin 30 to 39 percent h otner items were rated lower by tne faculty: Controlling money h1.5 percent Supervision h1.5 percent Care of tne house U3.h percent Controlling materials h3.u percent «I “V 24 When comparing lower ratings by faculty and.peer, tne range of per- centage of lower ratings was from 23.5 to 1L7.2 percent of tne cases. Three items were in tne 20 to 29 percent range, 11 in tne 30 to 39 percent, and 5 items in more tnan NO percent of the cases. 3. Self to peer When comparison was made of lower ratings by the student herself witn those of the peer groan wnen rating tne student, tne student rated nerself lower considerably more often turn tne peer group. See Figure I. Tne greatest number of lower ratings was in tne item Planning time and energy when 30 students, or 56.6 percent of tne students in one study rated themselves lower tnen tne peer group rated tnem. The smallest number of lower ratings was in the item Acceptance of differences wnen 19 students or 38.8 percent of tne cases studied rated themselves lower tnan tne peer group rated tnem. Otner items rated lower by self tnan peer in tne range of 30 to 39 percent were: Foods and nutrition 37-7 percent Aestnetic standards 37.7 percent COOperation 39.6 percent Resnonsibility 39.6 percent tems rated lower by self tnan peer in tne range of h01so M9 per- cent were: Controlling money u0.h percent 27 Initiative h3.u percent Controlling materials “3.” percent Leadersnip M5,} percent Care of the house h5.3 percent Planning money 35.3 percent Observation h9.1 percent Evaluation L'-9.l percent tems rated lower by self than peer in tne range of 50 to 59 per- cent were: Controlling time and energy 50.9 percent Contribution to tne group 50.9 percent Supervision 52.8 percent Social usage 53.7 percent Planning materials , 55.8 percent When comparing lower ratings of self and.neer, tne range was in 35.8 to 53.6 percent of tne cases. Only 5 items were rated lower in 30 to 39 percent of tne cases. Eignt items were rated lower in ho to M9 percent and 6 in more tnan 50 percent of the cases. ‘lfi my LOWER RATILGS Summary of Section 28 The faculty tended to rate the student lower than sne rated her— self in only a small number of cases. lower than the peer group rated her more often. Tne faculty rated tne student Tne student rated herself lower than tne peer group rated her considerably more often. The following table clearly snows this relationsnip. Percent of _‘ Lower Ratings Table 3. Number of Items Rated Between 10 Between 20 Between 30 Between NO Between 50 - 19 percent 29 percent 39 percent M9 percent - S9 percent Total ’- __‘_. Facultyfto self Faculty to neer1Eelf to peer ll 0 O 5 3 O 3 11 5 O 5 8 O O 6 19 : 19 19 «a, - . . - 83 .oz . ...... i... .0. . r «U ‘ I. . M‘, - . o‘.l.3 I. ‘3 a . omfioz \ § _‘. I It? lull I}!!! OOND .02 ..r K? . 3-. i: 1r. If 29 DI SCUSSlO-L‘: CF F1537311‘1GS AGE -‘EI-II*1\; 'I' AMONG RAT lnGS Chart 1 shows the spread in percent of agreement ratings among the three comparisons, faculty to self, faculty to peer, and self to peer. In tnis section there was considerable agreement on ratings. A. Agreements. The percentage of agreement in ratings was closest in tne item Initiative, a spread of only 7.5 percent between tne faculty to self rating wnicn was in agreement in 52.8 percent and the self to peer rating which was in agreement in h5.3 percent of tne cases. Tne faculty to peer rating was in agreement in h9.1 percent of the cases. ' The item Social usaHe snowed a spread of 9.5 percent. It was rated alike by faculty to self in 1'-5.3 percent and by faculty to peer in .3.11 percent of tne cases, and somewhat lower by the self to peer in 35.8 percent of tne cases. Another item, Controlling materials with a spread of ratings of 11.3 percent, snowed agreement in “1.5 percent of tne cases by faculty to peer and self to peer, and somewnat higher by faculty to self in 52.8 percent of the cases. Planning money was rated in agreement by faculty to self in ”5.3 percent of tne cases studied and by faculty to peer in 117.2 percent. Leadersnip found close agreement in faculty to self in 52.8 per- cent of tne cases witn faculty to peer in 5h.7 percent. G s, ,5. on 30 Contribution to tne group was rated in agreement by faculty to self in 50.9 percent of as cases and by faculty to peer in l”LO percent. Comnarison of ratings of the item Control‘ing money found tne faculty to peer arreeing in 33.9 percent and self to peer in 3¥.b per- cent of tne cases studied. Care of tne house was rated by tne same two groups, faculty to l peer, in 35.? percent, and self to peer in agreemen‘ in 37.7 percent of tne cases. Botn faculty to self and faculty to peer rated tne item Planning time and energy in agreement in 50.9 percent of tne cases. There were more similarities in agreement ratings tnan differences. B. Differences Only one item was consxicuous’y different. Tne item Plann ng materials snowed a spread of 27.8 percent**when faculty to self were in a agreement in 50.0 percent of tne cease and self to peer only in 21.2 percent of tne cases. In tne comparison of agreement ratinrs by tne tnree groups, faculty to self, faculty to peer, and self to peer, tne range was from agreement to tre greatest difference wnicn was 27.3 percent, significant at tne .01 level. his. 0050 .02 . _ neg. l? 31 annER RATlnGS There were similar numbers of agreements and differences in tne comparison of tne higher retinas by faculty to self, faculty to peer. and self to peer. See Cnart 2. A. Agreement Re.no“sibilitv is tie item on vnicn tnere was closest agreement in tne nigner ratinys. Faculty to self was in agreement witn self to peer in 23.5 percent of tne cases studied. Faculty to peer was also cl‘se \ i to this witn nigner ratings in 92.0 percent of tne cases. Only a 2.0 per— cent Spread of ratings was found. Controlling money “38 in close agreement. Faculty to self rated nigner in 20.9 percent of tne cases and was only sligntly lower tnnn faculty to peer in 2fl.b percent and self to peer in 25.0 percent of tne cases. Tne Spread of percentages was Jnly 3.8 percent. Foods and nutrition is an item in wbich close agreement in bigber q ratir s was found 3y faculty to peer in Z¢.c .ercent and self to near 54 __ L in 20.8 percent of tne cases. 4.. Evaluation found clcse agreement between higher ratings by faculty to self in 25.3 percent of tne cases and by self to peer in 23.5 per— cent of tne cases. Leadership was in close agreement between faculty to peer and self to peer When tne former rated nigner in 15.1 percent of tne cases and tne latter in 17.0 percent. 1[' when faculty to peer rated it hirher in 17.0 percent and self to peer in 18.9 percent of the cases. B. Differences The greatest difference in higher ratings appeared in Social usaye with a spread of 29.3 percent.** Faculty to self rated hirher in 37.7 percent and self to peer in only 9.4 percent of the cases studied. A spread of 20.7 percent was found between faculty and self and faculty and peer. Planning time and energy shoued considerable difference when faculty to self rated it higher in 35.9 percent and self to peer in ll.3 percent of the cases, a difference of 2L.6 percent.** Comparison of the higher ratings by faculty to self in 35.9 percent of the cases to faculty'to peer in only 17.0 percent of the cases, showed a difference of 18.9 percent.* Supervision was rated higher by faculty to self in 26.A percent in contrast to only 7.5 percent of the cases by self to peer, a difference of 18.9 percent.* In the comparison of higher ratings by the three groups, faculty to self, faculty to peer, and self to peer the closest agreements were within 1.9 percent. The greatest difference was 23.3 percent. Cf the differences, two were significant at the .01 level, and 3 were at the .05 level. .0 x 8r»: 2 ~ .’ 33 LOWER RATlnGS Tnere were few close agreements and many differences in tne com— parison of lower ratings of faculty to self, faculty to neer and self to peer. Tne spread of nercenteges in lower ratings is snown in Chart 3. A. Agreements In Accentence of differences faculty to self and self to neer were in agreement on lower rati gs in 35.3 nercent witn faculty to peer similar to it in 12.0 percent of tne cases. Controlling money found close agreement oetween tne lower ratings by faculty to neer and self to peer in h1.5 percent and ”0.” percent of tne cases resrectively. Cu In Controlling materials agreement was found wnen it was rate lower by botn faculty to neer enfi self to reer in UK.” neroent of tne cases. Evaluation snowed closeness in agreement on laner ratings Dy faculty to Deer and self to neer in “7.2 nercent~eni ”9.1 rercent of tne cases resnectively. In Care of tee rouse, faculty to self nnfi self to neer were in o <, 7 rd 2 D 1. 1' :9 . ‘. ~74... .2 ' l -. i , l. relatively close airs ".es in 13.3 mercent en& 45.} nercent of tee cases. B. Differences Planning time and energy snowed toe greatest difference in lower *Yv ratings. A 6ifference of “3.3 percent arreared t * -euveen tie lower rating 3h by faculty to self and self to peer in 13.2 percent and 55.6 percent of toe cases. In this same item, foculty to self rated lower in 13.2 nercent of toe cases wnicn wnen connared to faculty to peer lower rating 32.1 nercent of tne cases snowed difference of 18.9 neroent.‘ Social usase snowed a soread or difference of 37.7 percent** in tne lower ratings. Faculty to self rated tne item lower in 17.0 percent of tne cases comuared to self to reer in 5h.7 nercent of tne cases. Comparing faculty to self witn faculty to user in 39.5 percent of tne cases snowed a difference of 22.6 neroent.‘ Planning materials was rated loner by feculty to self in 10.2 per- cent of tee cases and by self to peer in 53.8 percent of the cases, a difference of 35.5 percent.“I Contribution to toe groun snowed a difference of 35.9 nercen’c"“'I when faculty to self rated tne item lower in 15.1 uercent of tne cases and self to peer in 51.0 percent. Observation witn a Spread of 32.1 nercent** was rated lower by faculty to user in 17.0 nercent and by self to user in 119.1 nercent of tne cases. Cooperation was rated lower by faculty to self in 11.3 nercent of toe cases and by self to neer in 39.6 nercent, a difference of 28.3 percent.** Care of tne house snowed a similar difference of 28.3 nercent“ when faculty to self rated it lower in 17.0 percent of tne cases and self to peer in h5.3 percent. Faculty to self compared to faculty to (1) (fl ,3)‘ “-3. 6 Q: m ()1 9-1. H) H; (D '1 (D :3 O (D peer wito lower ratings in 113.1: nercent of tne case of 25.U percent."I Sunervision snowed a difference of 23.3 nercent** between faculty to self in 25.3 percent and self to user in R2.8 percent of the cases. Leadership snowed a difference of 2s.” percent* in lower ratings by faculty to self in 18.9 percent of tne cases and self to veer in h5,3 percent. Planning money also had a difference of 2#,h rercent* in lower ratings between faculty to self in 13.9 rercent of toe cases and self to peer in h5.3 rercent. In Foods 31d nutrition the difference of 23.9 nercent* anneared between lower ratings by faculty to self and.self to nner in 13.0 per— cent and 37.7 percent of tne cases resuectively. Aesthetic standards showed a difference of 20.7 percent"I in lower ratings by fncu ty to self in 17.0 percent and by self to neer in 37.7 percent of the cases. In tne comnarison of lower ratings by tne tnree grouns tne range was from agreement to h3.h percent difference. Of tne differences, one was at tne .001 level of significance, 7 were at tne .01 level and 7 at the .05 level. l‘. Gum’s;- “I 36 PART 2 As stated in tne Introduction it was tnournt tngt a comnarison of tne ratings of tne students wno were under one adviser witn those of tne entire grouo mignt make an interesting and valuable addition to tnis study. The followine tables snow tne connarieon of tne nercent of agree- ment on eaco item rated by tne entire groun and by tne one—adviser group. Tre difference between tnem arnears in tie right—nand column. Tne percent is nreceded by a (J) if the difference was hirner for the one adviser and y a (—) if it was loser. Tne item or items in eacn grouo in Which tne faculty and students were in greatest agreement are marked Witn a (#4), and in least agree— ment with a (fi). Items rated within 2.0 percent of each other or less were con— sidered in close agreement, and tnose d ffering 10.0 nercent or more were considered to be arbitrarily lacking in agreement. 37 Table M. Asnszxzzr __ FACULT! TO SELF Entire One adviser Difference Controlling materials s2.8 % ou.9 g #{12.1 % Controlling time & energy “1.5 g 51.3 g } 9.8 g Observation 52.8 4 62.1 $ # 9.3 4 Planning materials 50.0 % R8.3 % ¥ 8.} % Initietive 52.3 s 60.0 s i 7.2 % Evaluation I h7.2 s su.o 2 ¢ 6.5 s Contribution €0.9 % 57.1 4 $ 6.2 % Resnonsibility h5.3 % 51.3 % $ 6.0 % Foods and nutrition bO.h % bh.9 4 ¥ h.5 % Cooperation 56.6 % b0.0 4 % 3.h ¢ Planning money M3.3 % h8.b % { 3.3'% Care of house 5h.7 $ 57.1 4 } 2.h 4 Sunervision h9.1 s 51.3 % 4 2.2 i Lendersnip 52.8 % 5h.0 % #fif 1.2 % Plenning time and energy 60.9 % 51.3 % ### 0.h % Aestnetic 5b.? <3 5‘4.o % H- 0.7 4% Acceptance of differences 3M.O % 032.5 % ##- 1.5 % Controlling money 51.q % u5.9 s - C.o s Social usage 118.3 % 334.1 6% «ft-10.2 a!» 38 Agreement -— Faculty to Self Similarities: Planning time and ener,v was rated in closest agreement by tne entire arouo (50.0 nercent) and tne one adviser groun (51.3 percent), a difference of only 0.11 percent. Three otner items in close agreement were: Aesthetic standards (0.7 percent difference), Leadership (1.2 percent difference) and Accentance of differences (1.5 percent difference). Differences: Tne cnief differences between tne entire eroun and one~advieer group ratings were in Controlling of meterisls (12.1 nercent) and Social usage (10.2 percent). In tne first item tne one faculty adviser rating was higner, in tne other item it was lower. Table 5. . '11-» .1 fiLn Juli): '1' .. FAV Initiative Fooas and nutrition Sunervision Resnonsibility Social usage Leadership Planning materials Evaluation Planning money Controlling time and energy ' Controlling materials Planning time and.energy Observation Aesthetic Care of house Cooperation Controlling money Accepting differences Contribution to group I???“ U141. 1 TO PEER Entire 140.1 b7.2 hg.3 u9.1 J. -.—"—' .4 o N «3% 6A “6% &&&o\ (3‘ J's. on J1 (Knit ”(fix One adviser Difference t2.l 57.1 51+.o OZ 6’1 {R 09x OR «SA so (5’3. 05k 5% ca ‘63. o’Q 83% 6% 23K ‘on a; 1‘ 73.9 ,t 8.7 ,zs.o ‘fs 7.9 734 7.h 7.11 7.3 xxxxkx‘kx 1.5 3: 5+3: :53 43> I ‘k 0.7 #4- 1.3 l.h '3- 1.h 39 % t 035 L. OK 6% ea 0% 0% 6‘ 6K GK 0‘} ck 0‘16“. Agreement -— Faculty to Peer Similarities: The greatest similarity was in Care of tne house. It was rated in agreement by tne entire group (39.8 percent) and by tne one adviser. group (35.1 percent), a difference of only 0.7 percent. Four otner items in close agreement were: Cooperation (1.3 per— cent difference), Controlling money (1.h percent difference). Acceptance of differences (l.h percent difference) and Aestnetic standards (1.5 percent difference). Differences: Tnere was only one difference of more tnan 10.0 percent. Tne one adviser groun rated Initiative higher by 13.0 percent. 31 Table 6. oiGnER BATH-GS _. FeCL‘LTx To SELF Entire One adviser Difference 1. Social usage 37.7 % M5.9 % ¢ 5.2 3 2. Planning time and energy 35.9 4 37.3 % §¥¥ 1.9 3 3. Aestnetic 28.3 3 29.9 3 4%} 1.6 $ u. Leadership 28.3 e 29.9 i ##1 1.6 e 5. Cooperation 33.1 9 32.5 % %#} O,h % C. Controlling money 21.2 % 21.b % ### 0.h % 7. Controlling tine and energy 22.3 i 27.0 ¢ #' 1.3 % 8. Care of mouse 23.3 4 27.0 $ ¥#- 1.3 $ 9. Contribution to group 33.0 4 32.5 4 #4- 1.5 % 10. Evaluation 25.u t 2L.3 e - 2.1 e 11. Supervision 29. % 2h.3 % - 2.1 % 1?. Foods and nutrition 9?.U 3 53.3 3 — 2.1 4 13. Initiative 2h.6 % 21.5 t _ 3.0 % 1H. Acceptance of di ferences 30.2 % 27.0 3 - 3.2 3 15. Planning money 36.9 i 32.5 g _ 3.u e 1o. Controlling materials 20.8 t 16.2 e _ h.o % 17. Responsibility 2h.e % 13.0 i - 5.7 e 13. Planning materials 30.8 i 25.0 % — 5.8 % 19. Observation 3r.2 % 21.6 4 _ 8.6 e h2 nigner Ratings —— Faculty to Self Similarities: Tnere were eignt items in close agreement between tne two groups of ratings. The two closest (0.h percent of difference) were Controlling money and Cooneration. Otner close agreements were: Controlling time and energy (1.3 percent), Care of tne nouse (1.3 percent), Contribution to tne groun (1.5 percent). Leafiersnin (1.6 percent), Aestnetic staniards (1.b percent) and Planning time and energy (1.9 Percent). Differences: There were no differences greater teen 10.0 percent. Table 7. nlfinER RATLDGS __ FACULT TU PEER Entire One adviser Difference 1. Contribution to group 18.9 g 18.9 % $# .0 % 2. Cooneration 99.0 § 21.5 § ##— 1.0 5 3. Care of house 23.3 § 27.0 % 3"- 1.3 % M. Controlling money 2M.b % 21.5 g — 3.0 % 5. Planring time and energy 17.0 t 13.5 t — 3.3 t e. Aestnetic 17.0 i 13.5 e — 3.5 e 7. Observation 20.8 % 16.2 e — h.o e 8. Controlling time and energy 13.9 % 13.5 § — 5.h % 9. Foods and nutrition 22.6 % 13.2 % - 6.h % lO. Resnonsibility 22.5 % 1:.2 % - 6.L % 11. Initiative 15.1 t 3.1 e - 7.0 3 3. Leadersnip 15.1 4 3.1 3 - 7.0 % 13. Acceptance of differences 20.2 i 13.5 i _ 7.3 4 1”. Planning materials 2H.b % 16.2 4 _ R.u ” l5. Plarning money 22. $ 13.5 3 - 9.1 % 15. Supervision 13.2 % 2.7 % 2—10.5 % 17. Eveluztion 17.0 s 5.h e #-ll.6 % 18. Social usage 17.0 3 5.u e #_1l.o % q. Controlling meterials 15.1 ” 2.7 3 #-12.h % nu fligner Ratings —- Faculty to Peer Similarities: . Tvcre were tnree items in closer agreement between tne two groups of ratings. Tue closest was in Contribution to tne group wmere tne two groups enreed. Two otner itens were Cooperation (1.0 percent) and Care of tne house (1.3 percent) in wnicn tnere was close agreement. Differences: Tnere were four items on wnicn tnere was greater than 10.0 percent difference: Supervision (10.5 percent). Evaluation (11.0 percent). ”‘11). Q 1 I (D Social usage (ll.t percent) and Controllin: materials (12.1.perc All of these items were rated Higher more often by tne ntire group than tne one adviser group. LOHZR RATIYGS __ FACULTY T0 SELF Acceptance of differences Controlling money Social usage Planning money Sxm ervisi 0n Responsibility Aestnetic Care of house Observation Planning time and energ‘ Foods and nutrition Leadersnip Planning materials C y. .- ,e.atlon “5 P 7‘ JD In H- .4- [—1. etive Contritution to group Evaluation Controlling materials Controlling time and energy 5% d’lx <5". 5K UK ‘oK 0‘41 ea 6% 69‘ ex GK no.5 29.9 15.9 v n ,4 Tb \ 6%. 3R 'c‘l‘o SR ‘0‘\ oqx as UK "cg. 6\ “ch 8% ‘6»; 0% )0 ,1 in 7‘ 3.0 H; 1.9 ## .0 ##— 0.2 ii- 0.3 i,— 0.8 ##— 0.3 #4- 0. One adviser Difference % ex 0% 6‘ 59‘» 3% Ba oKo'rXoKofi‘on 3'" 1.“. 6-K '0‘; 6\ 6A \Y’. 1-5- 6 Lower Ratings —- Faculty to Self Similaritie f!) : There were seven items in close agreement between tae two groups rating: Planning mercy, an item in which the two groans agreed. Supervision (0.2 nercent), ReSponsibility (0.3 percert). Aesthetic standards (0.8 percent). Care of house (0.8 percent). Observation (0.3 percent) and Social usage (1.9 nercert). Differences: There were no di‘ferences greater toe: 10.0 percent. In Table 9. LOWER RATLFJS _. FACULTY TO PEER Entire One adviser Difference Controllijg time and energy 27.? % L5.C $ 13.7 4 Controlling meteriels h3.h 4 51.3 % # 7.9 g Acceotarce of differ.*ces 32.0 t 37.3 e 7 5.8 i Contribution to grovp 33.1 4 37.3 3 { 5.6 4 Controlling morey h1.5 % ”5., g { h.U % Evaluation h7.2 % 51.3 a ; h.1 % Social usage 39.6 % R3,: 4 { 3.6 % Aesthetic 2h,5 % 27.0 e 7 2.5 % Cooperation 30.2 % 32.5 g f 2.3 % Observation 3R.8 % 37.5 % ##¢ 2.0 % Surervision M1.5 % M3.2 % 4%; 1.7 % Pianoilg materials 39.6 % L0.5 4 ##¢ 0.9 g Planning ti.e and energy 39.3 % 32.5 C #$# 0.1 % Planning money 18.9 % 10.9 t #* .0 % Care of house h3.h ; n3.2 % ##- 0.2 % Leadersnip 3F.2 % 29.3 $ ##— 0.3 % ReSponsibility 23.3 % 27.0 % ##- 1.3 i Foods and nutrition 30.2 % 27.0 v - 3.2 % Initiative 35.8 $ 23.9 $ - 5.9 $ “8 Lower Ratings —— Faculty to Peer Similarities: Tiers were eight items whicn were in close agreement by the two groups rating: Planning money, on item in wnicn tne two groups agreed, Planning time and energy (0.1 percent), Care of nouse (0.2 percent), Leadersrip (0.3 percent), Plainirg materials (0.9 percent), ReSponsibil- ity (1.3 percent), Supervision (1.7 percent) and Observation (2.0 percent). her “‘4. ”a erences: There was only one item wricn tuere was a difference of more than 10.0 percent. Controlling time and energy W39 rated lower more often by tne one adviser grouo by 18.7 percent. 1‘9 S Ul-"LTJLRY Tne items on wnicn tnere were differences of 10.0 percent or more were: Agreement Faculty to Self Controlling materials f 12.1 % Social usage - 10.2 g Faculty to Peer Initiative ,t 13.0 93 Higher Faculty to Self None Faculty to Peer Supervision — 10.5 % Evaluation - 11.6 % Social usage - 11.6: $6 I Controlling materials - l2.” % Lower Faculty to Self None Fbculty to Peer Controlling time and energy * 18.7 % Since all items considered in tnis study were rated witnin a range of 10.0 percent of tne cases eitner nigncr or lower tnan agree— ment, witn tne exception of only 8 ratings listed above, tne conclusion is that toe ratings by tne one adviser group and by tne entire group are generally corsistent wito eacn otner. 50 SUMMARY AND COFCLUSLUES Agreements. The in ulty and studen. rated tne student in egreement more times tnsn did tne feculty end peer or the student and neer. Faculty to Self: In tne item Foods and nutrition there was €0.N percent agreement, the nignest resorted when 32 stuéents were in agreement wits tne faculty rating. Since tnis subject is one in whicn totn tne faculty and tne student have nad considerable training and since it is sucn a specific, measurable item, tnis might be expected. Least ecreement was in Acceptance of differences, wnen only 3h percent of tne cases, or 18 students, agreed witn tne faculty on tne ratinrs. It is a more difficult item to rate, since seen one rating migit reve her own iiens on differences of stilities, skills and view- point. It is more erstrsct than an item like Food and nutr H. d l". O :5 0 Faculty to Peer: Tne faculty and neer group agreed most often on Aesthetic standards, )4. in 58.5 percent of tee cnses. Tnis s enotfler item in whicn tne trein- ing of botn student and faculty would make teem suite aware of tne artistic aoneerance of tne nrnse and tne cnoice of table linens and tneir ennrcnriateness. In Controlling tine end energy and Controlling money tne faculty d and neer group were in least agreement, in only 33.o percent of tne '51 cases. nis course is one first in wnicn tne student nas been aware of time, energy and money as resources and it is nossiole tnat tneir inexperience nee caused tnis lacV of agreement. Self to Peer: Tne agreement between self and peer is lower than tne other two comparisons. Tney agreed most often on Initiative, in MS.3 percent of tne cases studied, and least often on Planning materials. In 3 none 1 management resioence t is suite easy to snot tne "self starters" and F" tnose Who are prompt in doing tnings as well as seeing tnings to be done, so agreement was fairly nign. They agreed least often on Planning materials, in 21.2 percent of toe cases. Some variation may be exnected in tnis first steo of tne management nrocess since mucn of tnis concept is new to many students. nigner Ratings. Tne faculty in general rated tne student nigner tnan sne rated nerself; tne faculty rated tne student nigner less often tnan tne neer group did: ard tie student rated herself nigner tnan tne peer groun did still less often. Faculty to selt: The faculty rating on Social usage was nigner tnan tne student rating of nerself}in 37.7 oercent of tne cases. Tne student may modestly underrate nerself. Tne lowest percent of bigner ratings was in Controlling materials. in 20.8 percent of tne cases. 52 Faculty to Peer: Toe greatest number of nianer ratings of the student by tne faculty compared to veer ratings of the student was in Planning materials, and Controlling money wnen 2% percent of tne cases were rated higner by tne faculty tnan by tne neers. Tne lowest number of nigger ratings was on Supervision when only 13.2 percent of tne cases were rated hianer by the faculty than tne peers. Tne closeness of tne student to her neer groun nay exolain tnis. Tney saw many details in their closer relationsnin wnile tne adviser saw it in its entirety. Tnis may have influenced tne rating. Self to Peer: Accentance of differences, erneared aeain nere. Tnis time 18 students or 33 nercent of tne cases rated tnemselves nigoer than neir peer group did. Only 7.6 rercent or u students rated themselves nigner on Super- ,Jo vis on tnan tne neer groun did, wnicn would indicate tnnt tne students and users have rated tnis item by suite similar standards. Lower Ratings. In general tne student rated nerself lower tnan tne faculty rated ner. Tne faculty rated tne student lower tnan tne neer groun rated her, and tne student rat 0 $ : nerself lower tran tne user group. F6, Faculty to 591 Most frequent among tnese lower retinas was Acceptance of differences 3 ‘ wnen tne faculty judged tne student lower teen sne juered nersel in 35.8 H, percent of tne cases. '53 Faculty to peer: Lower ratings in Evaluation by faculty compared to peer occurred in L7.2 percent of the 02335. Lowest number of lower ratings were in Aesthetic stanr; 24.5 percent of the cases. Self to peer: Lower ratings by self than peer occurred in 56.6 percent of the cases in Planning time and energy. The lowest number of low ratings was in Acceptance of differences in 35.8 percent of the cases. Certain conclusions can he drawn from the ratings of 53 students included in this study: Agreements: The faculty Ind student agreed on ratings more times than did faculty and peers; the faculty and peer agreed more times than student and peers. Higher ratings: The peer group rated the student higher more often than the faculty rated her; the faculty reted her higher than she rated herself. Lower ratings: The student rated herself lower than the faculty rated her; the faculty rated her lower than the peer group rated her. The study of the one adviser group which paralleled this concurred in these conclusions.