Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The influence of evaluative conditions and pre-conference contact on paricipants' evaluation of a conference Peterson, Kenneth Paul 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 P48.pdf [ 6.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101823.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101823-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101823-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101823-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101823-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101823-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101823-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101823-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101823.ris

Full Text

THE INFLUENCE OF EVALUATIVE CONDITIONS AND PRE-CONFERENCE CONTACT ON PARTICIPANTS' EVALUATION OF A CONFERENCE by KENNETH PAUL PETERSON B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h . Columbia, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n (Adult Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SEPTEMBER, 1971 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, B r i t i s h Columbia Date: September, 1971 ABSTRACT In e v a l u a t i n g the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, an attempt was made to develop instruments f o r a s s e s s i n g the achievement of o b j e c t i v e s , to determine i f d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d i n i n d i v i d u a l and group methods of e v a l u a t i o n , and to deter-mine i f t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s i n e v a l u a t i v e responses between those who took p a r t i n a p r e - c o n f e r e n c e survey on p e r s o n a l ob-j e c t i v e s and those who d i d not. Pre-conference data c o n s i s t e d of p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s i n a t t e n d i n g . Data c o l l e c t e d at the end of the conference i n c l u d e d p e r s o n a l and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s ; Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e measures; and e v a l u a t i v e measures of compon-ents o f the c o n f e r e n c e . The twelve f a c t o r s e x t r a c t e d from the a t t i t u d i n a l measures by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s confirmed the o r i g i n a l p a r t i t i o n -ing o f the e v a l u a t i o n instrument. The occurrence of two f a c t o r s w i t h i n the Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was not u n i d i m e n s i o n a l when a p p l i e d to the p o p u l a t i o n s t u d i e d . To determine the e f f e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l and group methods of e v a l u a t i o n , p a r t i c i p a n t s were as s i g n e d to one of three e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . Those i n the I n d i v i d u a l Non-C o o p e r a t i v e C o n d i t i o n f i l l e d out the e v a l u a t i o n form by them-s e l v e s ; those i n the I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e C o n d i t i o n were p e r m i t t e d to converse w i t h o t h e r s ; and those i n the Group Coopera t i v e C o n d i t i o n p u b l i c l y s t a t e d t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the I n d i v i d u a l Non-Cooperative and I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e C o n d i t i o n s and between the I n d i v i d u a l Non-Cooperative and Group Cooperative C o n d i t i o n s . The Group Cooper a t i v e C o n d i t i o n produced the g r e a t e s t consensus of o p i n i o n and the I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e C o n d i t i o n had the h i g h e s t response means. Two d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s , "communications'* and " c o n t r o l s and i n f l u e n c e s " were e x t r a c t e d by stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s f o r the f i r s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of group p r o c e s s q u e s t i o n s . The v a r i -ables "communications" and " p r o c e s s " were d i s c r i m i n a t o r s i n the second a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . In comparing the e v a l u a t i v e responses of p a r t i c i -pants who r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e survey on o b j e c t i v e s , those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n the survey, and those who d i d not r e c e i v e i t , the o n l y s t a t i s t -i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and those who d i d not r e c e i v e i t . The o b j e c t i v e s p e r t a i n i n g to "Intra-NAFSA A f f a i r s " and "Government P o l i c i e s " were e x t r a c t e d i n stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s . The 3 x 3 x 10 f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out to t e s t the combined i n f l u e n c e of the group process q u e s t i o n s , the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , and the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e survey c o n d i t i o n s on the amount of change i n responses. S i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s were ob t a i n e d on the pr e - c o n f e r e n c e survey c o n d i t i o n s and on the i n t e r a c t i o n of the survey c o n d i t i o n s w i t h the group process q u e s t i o n s . L i n e a r h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g showed a s i g -n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between those who r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n or d i d not r e c e i v e the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of the Study 2 Procedure 3 Data C o l l e c t i o n 3 A n a l y s i s o f Data 4 Pl a n of the Study 5 Review of the L i t e r a t u r e 6 P r i n c i p l e s o f E v a l u a t i o n 7 Conference E v a l u a t i o n 8 Survey of Instruments 14 Footnotes 17 CHAPTER II THE CONFERENCE SETTING 19 O b j e c t i v e s o f Planners and Resource P e r s o n n e l 20 The Conference Program 21 The Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s 23 P e r s o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 23 E d u c a t i o n a l Background 25 O c c u p a t i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .... 26 Conference P a r t i c i p a t i o n P a t t e r n s 30 The P a r t i c i p a n t s ' O b j e c t i v e s 31 Footnotes 33 CHAPTER I I I ANALYSIS OF DATA 34 Responses to E v a l u a t i o n Items 34 General R e a c t i o n to the T o t a l Conference 34 E v a l u a t i o n of Component P a r t s of the Conference 35 E v a l u a t i o n of Conference Content. 42 v PAGE E v a l u a t i o n o f the Group Process 44 F a c t o r A n a l y s i s o f E v a l u a t i o n Items 49 C o n d i t i o n s o f E v a l u a t i o n 60 E f f e c t s o f Pre-Conference Survey on Attainment of O b j e c t i v e s 71 Pre-Conference Survey and E v a l u a t i o n C o n d i t i o n s 77 Footnotes 82 CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 83 Summary 84 Pl a n n e r s ' O b j e c t i v e s 84 P a r t i c i p a n t s 84 P a r t i c i p a n t s 1 O b j e c t i v e s 86 P a r t i c i p a n t s ' E v a l u a t i o n 86 F a c t o r A n a l y s i s 89 I n d i v i d u a l v s . Group E v a l u a t i o n 90 Pre-Conference Survey C o n d i t i o n s 91 Pre-Conference Survey and E v a l u a t i o n C o n d i t i o n s 9 2 Co n c l u s i o n s 92 I m p l i c a t i o n s 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY 97 APPENDIX A 100 APPENDIX B 10 2 APPENDIX C 109 APPENDIX D 110 APPENDIX E 116 APPENDIX F 124 APPENDIX G 131 v i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s by Age 24 II Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s by N a t i o n a l i t y 25 I I I Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s by Highest L e v e l of E d u c a t i o n Received 26 IV Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s by Occupation 27 V Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s by Type of Employer 28 VI Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s by Years of Experience Working With F o r e i g n Students 29 VII Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s by Number of S p e c i a l I n t e r e s t Meetings Attended 30 V I I I Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s by Type of Meetings Attended 31 IX Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of O b j e c t i v e s S t a t e d i n the Pre-Conference Survey 32 X Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s ' Responses f o r each Item on the Kropp-Verner S c a l e 36 XI Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s by S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h D u r a t i o n , S i z e and L o c a t i o n of Conference 37 XII Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s ' Responses to Questions Regard-i n g t h e i r S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h S e l e c t e d Aspects of the Conference 39 v i i TABLE PAGE XI I I Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s ' Responses i n E s t i m a t i n g T h e i r Success i n A c h i e v i n g O b j e c t i v e s 42 XIV Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s ' I n i t i a l Responses to Items on the Group Process 45 XV Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s ' Second Responses to Items on the Group Process 48 XVI P a r t i t i o n o f V a r i a n c e Among F a c t o r s 49 XVII F a c t o r 1 Group Process 50 XVIII F a c t o r 2 P e r s o n a l O b j e c t i v e s 51 XIX F a c t o r 3 Conference O r g a n i z a t i o n 52 XX F a c t o r 4 Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e " U t i l i t y " 53 XXI F a c t o r 5 Length of Conference 53 XXII F a c t o r 6 S i z e o f Conference 54 XXIII F a c t o r 7 Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e " F u t i l i t y " 54 XXIV F a c t o r 8 I n n e r - D i r e c t e d O b j e c t i v e s .... 55 XXV F a c t o r 9 D i s c u s s i o n C o n t r o l 56 XXVI F a c t o r 10 F a c i l i t i e s 57 XXVII F a c t o r 11 P e r s o n a l Involvement 57 XXVIII F a c t o r 12 S i z e o f Conference 58 XXIX Group Process F a c t o r 59 XXX Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Experimental Groups on Questions R e l a t e d to the Group Pro-cess Before (1) and A f t e r C2) I n t e r v e n i n g D i s c u s s i o n 65 v i i i TABLE PAGE XXXI D i f f e r e n c e s i n Means Between F i r s t and Second C y c l i n g W i t h i n Experimental Groups on H o t e l l i n g ' s "T2" T e s t 66 XXXII D i f f e r e n c e s i n Combined Means of F i r s t and Second C y c l i n g Between Experimental Groups on H o t e l l i n g ' s " T 2 " T e s t 66 XXXIII F P r o b a b i l i t y M a t r i c e s of the F i r s t C y c l i n g of Group Process Questions 68 XXXIV C l a s s i f i c a t i o n M a t r i x f o r F i r s t C y c l i n g of Group Process Questions 69 XXXV F P r o b a b i l i t y M a t r i c e s of the Second C y c l i n g of Group Process Questions 70 XXXVI C l a s s i f i c a t i o n M a t r i x f o r Second C y c l i n g o f Group Process Questions 71 XXXVII Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on O b j e c t i v e s w i t h P a r t i c i p a n t s Grouped A c c o r d i n g to Pre-Conference Survey C o n d i t i o n s 73 XXXVIII D i f f e r e n c e s Between Means f o r the Pre-Conf erence Survey on H o t e l l i n g ' s " T 2 " T e s t 74 XXXIX Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Number o f P a r t i c i p a n t s i n Each Pre-Conference Survey C o n d i t i o n Responding to the O b j e c t i v e s .... 74 XL F P r o b a b i l i t y M a t r i x on P e r s o n a l O b j e c t i v e s 75 XLI C l a s s i f i c a t i o n M a t r i x f o r P e r s o n a l O b j e c t i v e s 76 X L I I Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Pre-Confer-ence Survey Groups on Questions R e l a t e d to the Group Process Before Q ) and A f t e r (2) I n t e r v e n i n g D i s c u s s i o n 78 X L I I I A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e of the Amount of Change i n Responses Between the F i r s t and Second C y c l i n g of the Group Process Questions .... 80 i x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Design f o r the Experimental C o n d i t i o n s 63 2 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e S t r u c t u r e f o r Amount of Change Between F i r s t and Second C y c l i n g o f Group Process Questions 79 x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Concurrent with, the r e c e n t expansion o f formal o r g a n i z a t i o n s , the conference has emerged as a major method f o r p r o v i d i n g communication and ed u c a t i o n . The u n p a r a l l e l e d i n c r e a s e i n the use of t h i s method has not been accompanied by a development of s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h and methodology f o r e v a l u a t i o n so i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s remains u n c e r t a i n . People who at t e n d conferences g e n e r a l l y r e p r e s e n t a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of many o c c u p a t i o n a l , p r o f e s s i o n a l , e d u c a t i o n a l and c u l t u r a l groups. T h e i r reasons f o r a t t e n d i n g the c o n f e r -ence may be v a r i e d . Some p a r t i c i p a n t s may wish to i n c r e a s e t h e i r knowledge or s k i l l i n a p a r t i c u l a r area, others may att e n d i n v o l u n t a r i l y , w h i l e s t i l l o thers may a t t e n d f o r s o c i a l reasons or to i n c r e a s e t h e i r v i s i b i l i t y i n the f i e l d . The purposes f o r which conferences are planned are as w i d e l y v a r i e d as the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' reasons f o r a t t e n d i n g them. Some conference p l a n n e r s attempt to c o n s t r u c t programs t h a t approximate past c o n f e r e n c e s , or which f u l f i l l what they 1 2 c o n s i d e r to be the needs of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Some plan n e r s c l e a r l y s p e c i f y l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h e i r c o n f e r e n c e s , while others p l a n conferences because they have become a t r a -d i t i o n or are a r e q u i r e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f u n c t i o n o f t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n . Regardless o f the s t a t e d purpose, conferences appear to have a number of i n t e r r e l a t e d components. These i n c l u d e the needs, e x p e c t a t i o n s and o b j e c t i v e s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s , pro-gram p l a n n e r s and resource p e r s o n n e l , the elements o f the p l a n n i n g process i t s e l f , and the p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l e n v i r o n -ment of the conference s e t t i n g . In e v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a conference, one of the major problems i s to develop an assessment procedure which w i l l not o n l y h e l p to a s c e r t a i n the degree to which the pur p o r t e d o b j e c t i v e s have been achieved, but which w i l l a l s o d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the many f a c t o r s i n t e r -a c t i n g i n the conference s e t t i n g . PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The study r e p o r t e d here had two main purposes. The f i r s t was to develop e v a l u a t i o n instruments s u i t a b l e f o r a s s e s s i n g the achievement of conference o b j e c t i v e s by p a r t i c i -pants i n a four-day e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . The second major purpose was to determine whether or not d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between i n d i v i d u a l and group methods of e v a l u a t i o n . PROCEDURE Data f o r t h i s study were d e r i v e d from e v a l u a t i o n forms completed by p a r t i c i p a n t s at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s h e l d at Totem Park Convention Centre, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia from May 11 to May 14, 1971. The conference was j o i n t l y sponsored by the Canadian Bureau of I n t e r n a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n and the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s , and attended by overseas s t u d e n t s , Canadian and American s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y and s t a f f members, as w e l l as members of some community, government and b u s i n e s s agencies. Data C o l l e c t i o n Data were c o l l e c t e d at two times, one month p r i o r to the conference and at the end of the conference. L e t t e r s were sent t o a l l those who had r e g i s t e r e d f o r the conference by A p r i l 22, 1971, r e q u e s t i n g t h a t they submit t h e i r p e r s o n a l ob-j e c t i v e s f o r a t t e n d i n g . CAppendix A ) . Data c o l l e c t e d at the end of the conference c o n s i s t e d of CI) p e r s o n a l and s o c i o -economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s ; C2) Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S cale measures; C3) s e l e c t e d e v a l u a t i o n measures designed f o r t h i s study, i n c l u d i n g those d e r i v e d from the pre-conference c o l l e c t i o n of data on o b j e c t i v e s ; and (_A) data on the experimental treatments g i v e n conference groups, i n terms of group and i n d i v i d u a l e v a l u a t i o n . These data were o b t a i n e d 4 by a q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i s t r i b u t e d to p a r t i c i p a n t s immediately b e f o r e t h e i r f i n a l d i s c u s s i o n group s e s s i o n and c o l l e c t e d at the end of t h i s s e s s i o n . (Appendix B). Two experimental treatments were i n v o l v e d i n the e v a l u a t i o n . The f i r s t experimental treatment, i n i t i a t e d d u r i n g the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e p e r i o d , c o n s i s t e d o f three c o n d i t i o n s estab-l i s h e d by the pre- c o n f e r e n c e l e t t e r r e q u e s t i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s ' o b j e c t i v e s f o r a t t e n d i n g . The f i r s t c o n d i t i o n i n c l u d e d those p a r t i c i p a n t s who r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d the l e t t e r on p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s ; the second c o n d i t i o n i n c l u d e d those p a r t i c i p a n t s who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n the l e t t e r ; and the t h i r d con-d i t i o n i n c l u d e d those who d i d not r e c e i v e the l e t t e r . The second experimental treatment d i v i d e d the c o n f e r -ence d i s c u s s i o n groups i n t o three experimental groups of s i m i -l a r s i z e . The f i r s t group completed the q u e s t i o n s on the group process without c o n v e r s i n g w i t h one another and the second group completed the ques t i o n s under c o n d i t i o n s which p e r m i t t e d them to converse w i t h one another i f they so d e s i r e d . The t h i r d group completed the group process q u e s t i o n s under condi-t i o n s which f o r c e d them to d i s c l o s e t h e i r r a t i n g s on a l l ques-t i o n s . A n a l y s i s o f Data The f i r s t stage of the r e g i s t r a n t s ' responses the a n a l y s i s c o n s i s t e d o f s o r t i n g to the pr e - c o n f e r e n c e l e t t e r 5 requesting objectives. Two judges categorized these responses and an inter-judge r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .83 was computed. In the second stage of analysis, the completed evalu-ation forms were coded, keypunched and computerized using programs from the U.B.C. IBM System 360/67 program's l i b r a r y . MV-TAB was used to obtain univariate tables, TRIP was used to obtain means and standard deviations and Hotelling's "T ", BMD07M was used for step-wise discriminant analysis, BMDX64 was used for general l i n e a r hypothesis t e s t i n g i n the l e t t e r condition, and BMDX72 was used for factor analysis. PLAN OF THE STUDY Following the review of l i t e r a t u r e which concludes th i s chapter, the International Conference on Foreign Student A f f a i r s , including the objectives of program planners and pa r t i c i p a n t s , i s described. Chapter III contains an analysis of responses by the par t i c i p a n t s to the items used i n evalu-ating the conference, an analysis of the evaluation instruments, and the results of the experimental conditions designed to de-termine whether differences e x i s t between i n d i v i d u a l and group methods of evaluation and whether differences i n evaluative responses exi s t between p a r t i c i p a n t s who were contacted p r i o r to the conference regarding t h e i r personal objectives and those who were not contacted. Chapter IV contains a summary of the results of this study and implications for future research on conference evaluation. 6 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The conference is one of the most widely used methods of adult education. Government, business and industry, labour, educational i n s t i t u t i o n s , professional and service organiza-tions, as well as numerous ad hoc bodies such as c o a l i t i o n s of the poor, the unemployed and those concerned with s o c i a l prob-lems at a l l levels of society use the conference method. It is as pervasive a method of adult education as any employed today, and i t s use should increase in the future as populations become more mobile and formal s o c i a l organizations continue to develop. While the l i t e r a t u r e of adult education i s replete with references to the need for evaluation i n a l l aspects of the f i e l d , the extent of s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n lags far be-hind the applied use of conference technology. At present, the conference is one of the least examined methods i n adult education. Moreover, many of the studies concerned with this area have weaknesses in s c i e n t i f i c methodology or p r a c t i c a l i t y which cannot pass unnoticed. The review of the l i t e r a t u r e presented here w i l l be lim i t e d to a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e s of evaluation as outlined i n adult education publications, and then be d i r -ected to those studies concerned with evaluation of the confer-ence. F i n a l l y , a review of the re s u l t s of a survey conducted on e v a l u a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t s e s t a b l i s h e d by a p r e v i o u s w i l l be p r e s e n t e d u s i n g a framework s t u d y o f a s i m i l a r n a t u r e . P r i n c i p l e s o f E v a l u a t i o n The l i t e r a t u r e o f a d u l t e d u c a t i o n r e v e a l s a c o n s i s t e n t s e t o f o p e r a t i n g p r i n c i p l e s f o r the e v a l u a t i o n o f programs g e n e r a l l y . These p r i n c i p a l f u n c t i o n s o f e v a l u a t i o n were'sum-m a r i z e d by V e r n e r : . . . I n the f i r s t p l a c e we are i n t e r e s t e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the a d u l t e d u c a t i o n p r o -gram i s m e e t i n g the e d u c a t i o n a l needs of the p a r t i c i p a n t . 1 ...A second b a s i c purpose f o r e v a l u a t i n g a d u l t e d u c a t i o n i s t h a t of. d e t e r m i n i n g how e f f e c t i v e a d u l t e d u c a t i o n p r o c e s s e s are i n a c h i e v i n g g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s . 2 ...A t h i r d b a s i c r e a s o n f o r e v a l u a t i o n i s t h a t o f e n h a n c i n g our knowledge about e d u c a t i n g a d u l t s . 3 A f o u r t h f u n c t i o n i m p l i e d above i s t h a t e v a l u a t i o n e n a b l e s program p l a n n e r s t o i d e n t i f y and, i n some i n s t a n c e s , r e c t i f y t h o s e a s p e c t s o f a program w h i c h a r e found w a n t i n g . There i s as l i t t l e d i s a g r e e m e n t on the "how" o f e v a l u a t i o n as t h e r e i s on the q u e s t i o n o f "why" an e v a l u a t i o n s h o u l d be c a r r i e d out i n the f i r s t p l a c e . The s u g g e s t e d method o f approach i s e s s e n t i a l l y f i v e - f o l d : (1) Determine what t o e v a l u a t e ; C2) D e f i n e the b e h a v i o u r d e s i r e d ; C3) Determine a c c e p t a b l e e v i d e n c e ; C4) C o l l e c t e v i d e n c e ; . (5) Summarize and e v a l u a t e the e v i d e n c e . 8 In a s s e s s i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a program, e v a l u -a t o r s are u s u a l l y f a c e d w i t h problems stemming from the use of vaguely s t a t e d or even u n s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s , the c o n s t a n t l y changing nature of the i n d i v i d u a l , the complex i n t e r a c t i o n s o c c u r r i n g w h i l e measurements are being made, and the d i f f i c u l t y o f d e s i g n i n g instruments t h a t w i l l r e l i a b l y and v a l i d l y measure changes t a k i n g p l a c e . Furthermore, i n c o n s i d e r i n g those l i m i -t a t i o n s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s of the e v a l u a t i o n be-comes h i g h l y tenuous.^ The p r i n c i p l e s and problems of e v a l u -a t i o n , however, d i f f e r l i t t l e i n terms of the continuum of e v a l u a t i o n which extends from c a s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n s to complex s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h . ^ Conference E v a l u a t i o n S t u d i e s which r e p o r t s p e c i f i c a l l y on the d e s i g n and development of e v a l u a t i o n procedures f o r conferences are v e r y l i m i t e d i n number. Moreover, the use of Sutton's c r i t e r i a f o r a c c e p t a b i l i t y , where "A study was c o n s i d e r e d to c o n t r i b u t e to knowledge i f i t t e s t e d or extended e x i s t i n g theory or i f i t 7 opened up a new body of theory" narrows the number s t i l l f u r -t h e r . The s t u d i e s c o n s i d e r e d a c c e p t a b l e under these c r i t e r i a are r e p o r t e d i n the s e c t i o n immediately f o l l o w i n g . o Max Densmore, i n a study of r e s i d e n t i a l programs, analysed conference success i n terms of the degree of o v e r - a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by p a r t i c i p a n t s i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r 9 s e l f - p e r c e i v e d l e a r n i n g increment. I n v e s t i g a t i n g a sample of 630 p a r t i c i p a n t s of ten conferences h e l d at the K e l l o g g Center f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y , Densmore d i s c o v e r e d a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f -p e r c e i v e d l e a r n i n g and o v e r - a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the c o n f e r -ence as expressed on the Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e . Two fundamental weaknesses i n h i s study may be t r a c e d to c r i t e r i o n measures employed. F i r s t , the r e l i a b i l i t y o f s e l f - p e r c e i v e d l e a r n i n g measurements i s h i g h l y q u e s t i o n a b l e i n l i g h t of the amount of ego involvement the p a r t i c i p a n t b r i n g s to the e v a l u -a t i v e measurement. Second, the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f the Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e has y e t to be proven, although the instrument i s used e x t e n s i v e l y at conference c e n t e r s through-out North America. The i n f u s i o n of f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e and the r a p i d i n c r e a s e i n the number of conference c e n t e r s which r e s u l t e d from the K e l l o g g Foundation's i n t e r e s t i n t h i s area d u r i n g the m i d - f i f t i e s l e d Kafka^ to examine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the r e s i d e n t i a l e d u c a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e . Kafka used a sample of f o u r r e s i d e n t i a l programs, three of which were d i d a c t i c i n nature w i t h 34, 31 and 19 p a r t i c i p a n t s r e s p e c t i v e l y , and a f o u r t h which was d i a l e c t i c i n nature w i t h 20 p a r t i c i p a n t s . He t e s t e d to determine i f the p u r p o r t e d advantages of r e s i d e n t i a l edu-c a t i o n such as i s o l a t i o n from the o u t s i d e "everyday" e n v i r o n -ment, i n t e n s e exposure to content, and group support c o n t r i b -u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to l e a r n i n g . He found no s i g n i f i c a n t 10 p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the supposed advantages mentioned p r e v i o u s l y and c o g n i t i v e achievement. He d i d , however, c o n c l u d e t h a t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the program i t s e l f and the i n t e n t i o n s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s were o f f a r more i m p o r t a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e t h a n were any o f the r e s i -d e n t i a l a s p e c t s o f the l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e . K a f k a d i d not d i s m i s s the v a l u e o f r e s i d e n t i a l edu-c a t i o n , s t a t i n g t h a t c o g n i t i v e achievement i s s t r o n g l y i n f l u -enced by the i n t e r a c t i o n s between an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l i t y and h i s e n v i r o n m e n t . On the o t h e r hand, he d i d c o n c l u d e t h a t a t p r e s e n t i t i s f a i t h r a t h e r t h a n e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e t h a t i s the b a s i s f o r the c l a i m t h a t the e d u c a t i o n a l e n v ironment i n i t s e l f p r o duces e f f e c t i v e l e a r n i n g . James J a c k s o n " ^ approached the p r o blem o f c o n f e r e n c e e v a l u a t i o n on a w i d e r b a s i s t h a n most. He endeavoured t o d e t e r m i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the g o a l s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s a t t e n d i n g c o n f e r e n c e s , the g o a l s o f n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s ( i . e . , i n d i v i d u a l s b e l o n g i n g t o the same s p o n s o r i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n b u t u n a b l e t o a t t e n d ) , and the g o a l s o f the p l a n n i n g committee members. In a d d i t i o n , he sought t o e v a l u a t e s a t i s f a c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l g o a l s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The b a s i c assumptions u n d e r l y i n g h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n were t h a t a f u n c t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e s h o u l d be d e s i g n e d a c c o r d i n g t o p r o v e n e d u c a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s , t h a t the t o t a l c o n f e r e n c e e x p e r i e n c e must s e r v e and r e f l e c t the g o a l s of those d i r e c t l y c o n c e r n e d , and t h a t 11 the e x p e r i e n c e must be e v a l u a t e d i n terms o f p a r t i c i p a n t s a t i s f a c t i o n , as w e l l as i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f component f e a t u r e s . Jackson's i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n c l u d e d f i v e conferences o f s i m i l a r d e s i g n . He m a i l e d out a pr e - c o n f e r e n c e q u e s t i o n n a i r e to o b t a i n the o b j e c t i v e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s , n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s , and p l a n n i n g committee members. His p o s t - c o n f e r e n c e e v a l u -a t i o n instrument c o n s i s t e d of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i s t r i b u t e d at the c o n c l u s i o n of the conference. Jackson's a n a l y s i s o f data r e v e a l e d a Spearman Rank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t of .93 between the o b j e c t i v e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s and n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s , i n d i c a t i n g a h i g h degree of c o n s i s t e n c y between those able to a t t e n d and those unable to a t t e n d . There was, however, o n l y a very mod-e r a t e agreement (r = .56) between the p l a n n i n g committee's e x p r e s s i o n o f members' goals and those expressed by p a r t i c i -pants and n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s , showing a c e r t a i n amount of f a i l u r e i n communications between the p l a n n i n g committee and the members. As w e l l as det e r m i n i n g the extent to which the objec-t i v e s were achieved at each o f the conferences s t u d i e d , Jackson a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t approximately s e v e n t y - f i v e per cent of the p a r t i c i p a n t s made no p a r t i c u l a r plans or p r e p a r a t i o n s f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the co n f e r e n c e s . He a l s o d i s c o v e r e d weaknesses i n the p l a n n i n g committees' knowledge of the conference method. To a l l e v i a t e t h i s problem, he recommended conference p l a n n i n g 12 o r i e n t a t i o n workshops f o r those committees i n which the membership i s r o t a t e d frequently". George Cropper*"*" examined the problem of e v a l u a t i o n d e sign from a d i f f e r e n t approach. He developed a system o f observable b e h a v i o r a l c a t e g o r i e s based on process and r e s u l t c r i t e r i a . U sing a sample of 234 j u n i o r and s e n i o r e x e c u t i v e s from b u s i n e s s , s e n i o r o f f i c i a l s i n government and s e n i o r m i l i -t a r y o f f i c e r s who were a l l c o n s i d e r e d to be e x p e r i e n c e d con-f e r e n c e p a r t i c i p a n t s and p l a n n e r s , he conducted h i s study through m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . O p e rating under the assump-t i o n s t h a t the g e n e r a l o b j e c t i v e s of conferences were to enable p a r t i c i p a n t s to g a i n an awareness of problems, to h e l p f a c i l i -t a t e s o l u t i o n s to problems, to i n c r e a s e the acceptance of s o l -u t i o n s and to improve a b i l i t y to execute d e c i s i o n s , Gropper asked h i s respondents to i d e n t i f y c r i t i c a l requirements and b e h a v i o r a l c a t e g o r i e s which would d i f f e r e n t i a t e between success and f a i l u r e . By i s o l a t i n g c r i t e r i a elements and o b s e r v i n g performance u s i n g Flanagan's " C r i t i c a l I n c i d e n t Technique", Gropper suggested t h a t conference e v a l u a t o r s should more c l o s e l y approximate methods employed i n other r e s e a r c h f i e l d s where h i g h r e l e v a n c e c r i t e r i o n measures have been e s t a b l i s h e d . Moreover, he suggested t h a t such a common frame of r e f e r e n c e might be employed i n a g e n e r a l i z e d manner to r e l e v a n t behav-i o u r at any number of c o n f e r e n c e s . In h i s survey, Gropper r e c e i v e d 547 i n c i d e n t s of l e a d e r s h i p requirements and 634 i n c i d e n t s of p a r t i c i p a n t requirements. Using two independent judges, he developed an e v a l u a t i o n system which i n c l u d e d 12 c r i t i c a l requirements w i t h 74 c r i t i c a l b e haviours f o r conference l e a d e r s and 10 c r i t i c a l requirements with 71 c r i t i c a l behaviours f o r conference p a r t i c i -p a n t s. F o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t o f h i s c a t e g o r i e s of c r i t i c a l r e -quirements f o r both l e a d e r s and p a r t i c i p a n t s ; the s u b - c a t e g o r i e s of b e haviours are not i n c l u d e d as they are i m p l i c i t i n the c r i t i c a l requirements. C r i t i c a l Requirements f o r Conference Leaders I. P l a n n i n g and s c h e d u l i n g conference; 2., H e l p i n g conferees to prepare f o r the conference; 3. S e t t i n g g o a l s ; 4. Developing i n t e r e s t and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d i s c u s s i o n 5. Keeping the conference goals b e f o r e c o n f e r e e s ; 6. H e l p i n g conferees to understand problems; 7. Developing s o l u t i o n s to problems; 8. H e l p i n g conferees to get along w i t h each o t h e r ; 9. R e s o l v i n g d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n ; 10. G e t t i n g d e c i s i o n s made; I I . Winning support f o r d e c i s i o n s ; -^2 12. P l a n n i n g and p r e p a r i n g f u t u r e c o n f e r e n c e s . C r i t i c a l Requirements f o r Conference P a r t i c i p a n t s 1. H e l p i n g i n the p r e p a r a t i o n f o r conference; 2. H e l p i n g i n o r i e n t a t i o n of conference toward e s t a b l i s h e d g o a l s ; 3. C o n t r i b u t i n g toward development, i n t e r e s t and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d i s c u s s i o n ; 4. C o n t r i b u t i n g to c o n f e r e e s ' understanding of problems; 5. C o n t r i b u t i n g to s o l u t i o n of problems; 6. G e t t i n g along w i t h o t h e r c o n f e r e e s ; 7. Making e f f o r t to reach agreement; 8. Reaching d e c i s i o n ; 9. Winning support f o r d e c i s i o n ; 10. H e l p i n g i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r f u t u r e a c t i o n . 14 While Gropper concluded t h a t "...the c r i t i c a l r e q u i r e -ments developed i n t h i s study make p o s s i b l e a r e l e v a n t c r i t e r -i o n t h a t can be a p p l i e d o b j e c t i v e l y " , ^ he d i d not use these c r i t e r i a or the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique i n a conference s e t t i n g . T h e r e f o r e , although the system would appear to be sound, there i s no i n d i c a t i o n of i t s p r a c t i c a l i t y . I t i s perhaps i n t h i s area of p r a c t i c a l i t y t h a t the system might be weak. I t would be d i f f i c u l t to o b t a i n an adequate number of t r a i n e d o b s ervers f o r a l a r g e conference w i t h a number of d i s c u s s i o n groups. Survey of Instruments A l a n B. Knox*^ analysed items from s e v e n t y - f i v e e v a l u a t i o n forms which were r e c e i v e d from u n i v e r s i t y conference c e n t e r s . He r e p o r t e d e i g h t g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s of items which i n c l u d e d : C I ) P e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; C2) Promotion; C3) Reasons f o r attendance; C4) F a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s ; C5) Conference o r g a n i z a t i o n ; (6) Program components; C7) General r e a c t i o n s ; C8) Follow-up. F o l l o w i n g the procedure d e v i s e d by Knox, a survey of e v a l u -a t i o n instruments was conducted f o r the p r e s e n t study, and 84 u s a b l e instruments were r e c e i v e d . ^ These instruments were ana l y s e d i n t o c a t e g o r i e s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h those suggested by Knox CAppendix D). 15 Under Category A, PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, the Knox study c l a s s i f i e d 48 items; the p r e s e n t study y i e l d e d only 44 items although nine more instruments were i n c l u d e d i n the survey. T h i s suggests t h a t e v a l u a t o r s have e i t h e r found a l t e r n a t e methods f o r g a t h e r i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n such as from r e g i s t r a t i o n forms, or t h a t they are now l e s s concerned w i t h the p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s . In Category B, PROMOTION, the Knox study c o n t a i n e d 28 items, w h i l e the p r e s e n t study i n c l u d e d 50 items. The major d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the i n c r e a s e d number of items regard-in g advance conference i n f o r m a t i o n , f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e , and the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' w i l l i n g n e s s to recommend the conference to o t h e r s . Category C, REASONS FOR ATTENDING, showed l i t t l e change between the two s t u d i e s . Knox r e p o r t e d 7 items i n t h i s c a t e -gory and the p r e s e n t study c o n t a i n e d 10 items. In Category D, FACILITIES AND SERVICES, the Knox study r e p o r t e d 17 items w h i l e the p r e s e n t study y i e l d e d 61 items. The q u e s t i o n s concerning meals and room accommodations account f o r the major d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of items. Perhaps t h i s i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the i n c r e a s e d awareness of the n e c e s s i t y to p r o v i d e and e v a l u a t e s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the t o t a l conference en-vironment . The Knox study does not p r o v i d e f i g u r e s f o r Category E, CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION. The prese n t study i n d i c a t e d 210 items i n t h i s category. 16 In Category F, PROGRAM COMPONENTS, the d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of items c l a s s i f i e d i s q u i t e s u b s t a n t i a l . The Knox study l i s t e d 95 items under t h i s c a tegory, w h i l e the p r e s e n t study found 293 items. Most of the i n c r e a s e was accounted f o r by q u e s t i o n s which d e a l t w i t h new ideas t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t gained; the h a n d l i n g of s u b j e c t matter i n terms of the par-t i c i p a n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of how i t should be handled; r a t i n g s o f speakers; e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p r e s e n t a t i o n s ; and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . These changes would seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t e v a l u a t o r s are becoming more concerned about r a t i n g r e s o u r c e p e r s o n n e l and about the need f o r a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In Category G, GENERAL REACTIONS, the Knox study r e p o r t e d 135 items w h i l e the p r e s e n t study i n c l u d e d 307 items. The major d i f f e r e n c e s were i n those areas concerning p a r t i c i -pants' suggestions r e g a r d i n g the s t r o n g e s t and weakest elements of programs; ge n e r a l r e a c t i o n s ; and the degree to which the a c t u a l experience c o i n c i d e d w i t h the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s . In Category H, FOLLOW-UP, 50 items were c o n t a i n e d i n the Knox study w h i l e 80 were i n c l u d e d i n the p r e s e n t study. The l a r g e s t d i f f e r e n c e was accounted f o r by the q u e s t i o n r e -garding the use to which the p a r t i c i p a n t planned to put con-f e r e n c e l e a r n i n g outcomes when he r e t u r n e d home. 17 FOOTNOTES C o o l i e Verner, "Some C o n s i d e r a t i o n s of E v a l u a t i o n i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n " . E x t e n s i o n Papers. (Edmonton: Univ-e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a , no d a t e ) , p. 2. 2 I b i d . , p. 3. 3 I b i d . , p . 7 . P a t r i c k G. Boyle and Irwin R. Jahns, "Program Development and E v a l u a t i o n " i n Robert M. Smith et a l . ( e d s . ) , Handbook of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , (New York: M a c M i l l a n , 19 70), p. 60; J.R. Kidd, How A d u l t s Learn, (New York: A s s o c i a t i o n P r e s s , 1959), p. 288; Harry L. M i l l e r , Teaching and Le a r n i n g i n A d u l t  E d u c a t i o n , (New York: M a c M i l l a n , 1964), p. 296; Wilson Thiede, " E v a l u a t i o n and A d u l t E d u c a t i o n " i n Gale Jensen et a l . ( e d s . ) , A d u l t Education,' O u t l i n e s o f an Emerging F i e l d of U n i v e r s i t y  Study, (Adult E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n of the U.S.A., 1964), p. 294. Thiede, " E v a l u a t i o n and A d u l t E d u c a t i o n " , p. 292. Da r c i e Byrn et a l . , E v a l u a t i o n i n E x t e n s i o n , (Topeka: H.M. Ives £ Sons Inc., 1959), p. 2. E l i z a b e t h Walker Sutton, " A n a l y s i s of Research on S e l e c t e d Aspects of E v a l u a t i o n i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n " , u n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , ( T a l l a h a s s e e : F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ) , 1966, p. 20. Max L. Densmore, "An E v a l u a t i v e A n a l y s i s of S e l e c t e d U n i v e r s i t y Conference Programs Conducted at K e l l o g g Center f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y " , unpub-l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , (East Lansing: M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1965). James A. Kafka, "Determinants o f R e s i d e n t i a l A d u l t E d u c a t i o n E f f e c t i v e n e s s " , u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago, 1970). 18 James Donovan Jackson, "A Study of Conference Goals as R e l a t e d to the P l a n n i n g and E v a l u a t i o n of E d u c a t i o n a l Con-f e r e n c e s " , u n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , (East Lansing: Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1956). George L. Gropper, "A Study o f the C r i t i c a l Require-ments of Conference Behavior", u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , ( P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h , 1956). ^ I b i d . , p. 23. * ^ I b i d . , p. 36 . * ^ I b i d . , p. 70. *^Alan B. Knox, "Approaches to Conference E v a l u a t i o n " , Working Paper, (TFn.iversity of Nebraska, no date) . *^A copy of the l e t t e r used f o r t h i s survey i s found i n Appendix C. The survey was made of the top 7 5 American i n d u s t r i a l c o r p o r a t i o n s , 10 commercial banks, 10 r e t a i l and wholesale companies, 10 insurance companies, 10 t r a n s p o r t a t i o n companies, and 10 p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s as found i n Fortune's " F i v e Hundred", as w e l l as the 35 l a r g e s t American and Canadian u n i v e r s i t y conference programs. E i g h t y - f o u r sent u s a b l e i n -struments, 13 sent instruments which were u n s u i t a b l e f o r t h i s survey, 48 sent l e t t e r s but d i d not Include e v a l u a t i o n i n s t r u -ments, and 15.did not r e p l y to the survey. None i n d i c a t e d the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the instruments they sent although most commented on the need f o r such t e s t s . C a t e g o r i e s f o r the e v a l u a t i o n instrument used i n t h i s study were developed from the survey i n s t r u m e n t s . CHAPTER II THE CONFERENCE SETTING In c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g a scheme f o r a s s e s s i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a conference, the e v a l u a t o r must c o n s i d e r the goals and o b j e c t i v e s of the program p l a n n e r s and resource p e r s o n n e l , the e x p e c t a t i o n s and o b j e c t i v e s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , and the s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environment of the conference s e t -t i n g . T h i s chapter c o n s i d e r s these component p a r t s as they r e l a t e to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the conference i n terms of the s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s of the p l a n n e r s and r e s o u r c e person-n e l and i s f o l l o w e d by a d e s c r i p t i o n of the conference program developed to meet these o b j e c t i v e s . The t h i r d s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s an a n a l y s i s of the conference p a r t i c i p a n t s i n terms of t h e i r p e r s o n a l and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , as w e l l as t h e i r conference attendance b e h a v i o u r s . The f i n a l s e c t i o n i n t h i s c hapter c o n t a i n s a summary of the o b j e c t i v e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a t t e n d i n g the conference. 19 20 OBJECTIVES OF PLANNERS AND RESOURCE PERSONNEL In d e v e l o p i n g the theme of the 1971 c o n f e r e n c e , "Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us", the p l a n n e r ' s goals were to p r o v i d e a new program concept "which would enable NAFSA and CBIE members to e x p l o r e and experience mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p s without l o s i n g any of the v a l u e o f p r e v i o u s conferences.""'" T h e i r aims were " t o p r o v i d e a method whereby p a r t i c i p a n t s c o u l d see themselves as they performed t h e i r s e p a r a t e d u t i e s , t o . g e t the ' C o r r i d o r C o n v e r s a t i o n ' i n t o the conference meet-i n g s , and to c r e a t e a u s e f u l d i a l o g u e between (a) s e c t i o n s , (b) CBIE and NAFSA members, and (c) students and p r o f e s s i o n a l s The f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t from p r e - c o n f e r e n c e l i t e r a t u r e d i s t r i b u t e d by the program p l a n n e r s o u t l i n e s t h e i r i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n of the theme of the conference and t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s i n d e v e l o p i n g the program: ...the theme of t h i s year's conference i s "Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us" which i s q u i t e a p p r o p r i a t e to such a g a t h e r i n g and the times i n which we l i v e . . . ...The conference asks the q u e s t i o n who am I; where do I stand i n my commitment to the p r o f e s s i o n ; what am I doing; why am I i n i t ; what are my r o l e c o n f l i c t s . We a l s o ask what e f f e c t do I have on my s t u d e n t s , how do I a f f e c t them; who am I k i d d i n g ? The p l a n n i n g committee f e l t the conference c o u l d t r y to c r e a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g , not con-v i n c i n g ; p r o v i d e d i a l o g u e , not speeches; enable o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r improving i n t e r -p e r s o n a l competence; allow ample time f o r i n s t a n t i s s u e involvement; develop a frame-work f o r c r o s s c u l t u r a l , c r o s s s e c t i o n a l , c r o s s d i s c i p l i n a r y e x p e r i e n c e ; and at the same time, ensure movement and f l e x i b i l i t y . 21 We do not have the answers so we have to p r o v i d e the process to f i n d t h a t p e r s o n a l answer, f o r each one at the conference. How many times have we s a i d the bes t p a r t of the conference was i n the sm a l l group d i s c u s s i o n s , i n the h a l l s , i n the bedrooms, i n the b a r s , e t c . For these reasons, f o r these needs, f o r t h i s purpose we have d e v e l -oped the theme and these o b j e c t i v e s : 1. Put p a r t i c i p a t i v e d i s c u s s i o n back i n t o the conference by p r o v i d i n g a s m a l l group ex p e r i e n c e f o r everyone. 2. Let the p a r t i c i p a n t s p r o v i d e the content, the meat, of the d i s c u s s i o n s by having more open agendas. 3. Let the. i n d i v i d u a l member know where he stands w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the t o t a l conference by s t r u c t u r i n g a system which w i l l p r o v i d e r e g u l a r o b j e c t i v e feedback, through the use of a competent drama ensemble. 4. Develop an i n n o v a t i v e c r e a t i v e c o n f e r -ence t h a t w i l l s t i m u l a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n and excitement by p r o v i d i n g competent group f a c i l i t a t o r s and the top process c o n s u l t a n t . 5. Develop b r i d g e s o f understanding by s t r u c t u r i n g the sm a l l groups to i n c l u d e segments from Canada, U.S.A., and overseas and d e l e g a t e s from a l l s e c t i o n s . 6. Improve i n t e r p e r s o n a l competence by p r o v i d i n g an i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n -ment and p r o v i d i n g a c o n s u l t a n t t h a t w i l l s t i m u l a t e t h i s l e a r n i n g . 3 THE CONFERENCE PROGRAM Since the p l a n n e r s o f t h i s conference d i d not supply much content f o r the program but merely p r o v i d e d a s t r u c t u r e 22 f o r group i n t e r a c t i o n , t h i s s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the methods they employed and the techniques used by r e s o u r c e p e r s o n n e l i n making t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n s . A copy of the d e t a i l e d con-f e r e n c e program appears i n Appendix F. To c a r r y out the theme of the conference, the p l a n n e r s s t r u c t u r e d s m a l l d i s c u s s i o n groups, each w i t h a group convenor and approximately twelve conference p a r t i c i p a n t s . Dr. Thomas Bennett II of George W i l l i a m s U n i v e r s i t y , Chicago, i n t r o d u c e d the concept of s m a l l groups, gave g u i d e l i n e s on how they should operate, and p r o v i d e d a s s i s t a n c e to the group convenors. Members of the Tarragon Theatre, a student dramatic group a t t a c h e d to the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia p r o v i d e d con-f e r e n c e p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h feedback about the p r o g r e s s they were making i n t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n groups. As i n d i c a t e d i n the program o u t l i n e , Dr. Bennett h e l d a one-day t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n w i t h group convenors p r i o r to the a c t u a l conference and p r e s e n t e d two l e c t u r e s to the e n t i r e assembly of p a r t i c i p a n t s d u r i n g the conference. The Tarragon Theatre group, which worked i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h Dr. Bennett, performed three dramatic s k i t s b e f o r e the e n t i r e conference p o p u l a t i o n . M a t e r i a l s f o r t h e i r f i r s t p r e s e n t a t i o n were gathered from i n t e r v i e w s w i t h overseas students and p e r s o n n e l who work w i t h overseas s t u d e n t s , as w e l l as from r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s on the a c t i v i t i e s of the student i n f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s . Subsequent p r e s e n t a t i o n s were made from m a t e r i a l o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the s m a l l g r o u p s , the meetings o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t g r o u p s , p l e n a r y s e s s i o n s and s o c i a l e v e n t s . To meet the needs o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s e c t i o n s a f f i l i a t e d w i t h NAFSA, the p l a n n e r s p r o v i d e d m e e t i n g times f o r a l l groups. These m e e t i n g s , w h i c h were under the c h a i r m a n s h i p o f v a r i o u s s e c t i o n members, used l e c t u r e s , q u e s t i o n - a n d - a n s w e r p e r i o d s , p a n e l s and group d i s c u s s i o n t e c h n i q u e s . A d e t a i l e d o u t l i n e o f the t o p i c s c o v e r e d a t t h e s e meetings appears i n the c o n f e r e n c e program. THE CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the c o n f e r e n c e p a r t i c i p a n t s are d i s c u s s e d under f o u r major h e a d i n g s i n c l u d i n g p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e d u c a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , o c c u p a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and c o n f e r e n c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n p a t t e r n s . P e r s o n a1 Char a c t e r i s t i c s The d a t a i n d i c a t e d t h a t 265 C59. 28 %) o f the 447 con-f e r e n c e p a r t i c i p a n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n the e v a l u a t i o n were men and 182 (40.72%) were women. The mean age o f the c o n f e r e n c e p a r t i c i p a n t s was 36.8 y e a r s w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 13.485. As T a b l e I shows, over h a l f (58.83%) were between the ages o f twenty and t h i r t y 24 Table I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY OF CONFERENCE AGE PARTICIPANTS Age Range Number Percent No Response 2 0.45 18 - 19 11 2.46 2 0 - 2 9 149 33.33 30 - 39 114 25. 50 40 - 49 80 17.90 50 - 59 60 13.42 60 - 69 30 6. 71 70 and over 1 0.22 TOTAL 447 100.00 Mean = 36.8 Standard D e v i a t i o n = 13.485 n i n e . E i g h t y p a r t i c i p a n t s (17.90%) were i n the 40 to 49 age range, 60 (13.421) were i n the 50 to 59 age range and 31 (6.93%) were over s i x t y years of age. Only e l e v e n p a r t i c i p a n t s (2.46%) were under the age of twenty. An examination of the n a t i o n a l i t i e s of conference p a r t i c i p a n t s r e v e a l e d t h a t 278 (62.19%) were Americans and 47 (10.51%) were Canadians. (Table I I ) . The 26 p a r t i c i p a n t s (5.82%) of European background and the 28 (6.26%) from East and Southeast A s i a c o n s t i t u t e d the next l a r g e s t c a t e g o r i e s . 25 The remaining p a r t i c i p a n t s were from A f r i c a , the Middle E a s t , Southern A s i a , L a t i n America, New Zealand and the Caribbean. Table II PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS BY NATIONALITY Country of O r i g i n Number Percent U n i t e d S t a t e s Canada Europe ( i n c l u d i n g U n i t e d Kingdom) East and Southeast A s i a A f r i c a M iddle E a s t Southern A s i a L a t i n America Caribbean Australia-New Zealand TOTAL 278 47 26 28 19 17 16 8 4 4 447 62.19 10. 51 5.82 6.26 4. 25 3.80 3.58 1.79 .89 .89 100.00 E du c a t i o n a1 Background D e s c r i p t i v e data p e r t a i n i n g to the e d u c a t i o n a l back-grounds of conference p a r t i c i p a n t s are shown i n Table I I I . One hundred e i g h t y - s i x (41.61%) h e l d Master's degrees, 98 26 Table I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS BY HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION RECEIVED L e v e l of Ed u c a t i o n Number Percent Some h i g h s c h o o l High s c h o o l g r a d u a t i o n Some c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y B achelor's degree Master's degree Doctor's degree TOTAL 2 11 88 98 186 62 447 .45 2.46 19.69 21.92 41.61 13.87 100.00 (21.92%) h e l d Bachelor's degrees and 62 conference p a r t i c i p a n t s (13.87%) h e l d d o c t o r a l degrees. An a d d i t i o n a l 19.69% r e p o r t e d some u n i v e r s i t y or c o l l e g e e x p e r i e n c e , e l e v e n (2.46%) had graduated from h i g h s c h o o l , and two (.45%) had completed some years i n h i g h s c h o o l . O c c u p a t i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Of the 447 conference p a r t i c i p a n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n the e v a l u a t i o n , 121 (27.07%) were s t u d e n t s . Nine of the students h e l d p a i d p o s i t i o n s i n u n i v e r s i t i e s working with, f o r e i g n s t u -dents and one was employed as a program c o n s u l t a n t f o r a com-munity agency. 27 Tab l e IV p r e s e n t s a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of the employed conference p a r t i c i p a n t s by o c c u p a t i o n . One hundred f i f t e e n (25.72%) were f o r e i g n student a d v i s o r s , f o r t y - t w o (9.40%) h e l d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s and f o r t y (8.95%) were v o l u n t e e r s or community agency workers. P r o f e s s o r s , t e a c h e r s , (6.49%) Table IV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS BY OCCUPATION Occupation Number Percent Student Not employed F o r e i g n Student A d v i s o r Admissions O f f i c e r C o u n s e l l o r Teacher of E n g l i s h as a Second Language V o l u n t e e r or Community Agency Worker A d m i n i s t r a t o r P r o f e s s o r / T e a c h e r Business/Industry/Government Employee Embassy O f f i c i a l TOTAL 121 12 115 23 28 19 40 42 29 11 . 7 447 27.07 2.68 25.72 5.14 6. 26 4.25 8.95 9.40 6.49 2.46 1.57 100.00 28 c o u n s e l l o r s (6.26%), and admissions o f f i c e r s (5.14%) c o n s t i -t u t e d the next l a r g e s t o c c u p a t i o n a l groups. The remaining p a r t i c i p a n t s were e i t h e r employees i n b u s i n e s s or government, embassy o f f i c i a l s , or not employed at the time of the c o n f e r -ence . Over h a l f o f the conference p a r t i c i p a n t s (52.80%) were employed by u n i v e r s i t i e s or c o l l e g e s (Table V ) . P r i v a t e or Table V PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS BY TYPE OF EMPLOYER Type of Employer Number Percent Student 121 27.07 Not employed 12 2.68 U n i v e r s i t y or c o l l e g e 236 52.80 Other e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n 15 3.36 Business or i n d u s t r y 3 .67 P r i v a t e or community s e r v i c e agency 32 7.16 Canadian or U.S. government agency 7 1. 57 F o r e i g n government agency 7 1. 57 Other 14 3.13 TOTAL 447 100.00 29 community s e r v i c e agencies was the next l a r g e s t category o f employer (7.161) f o l l o w e d by e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s other than u n i v e r s i t i e s or c o l l e g e s (3.36%). The remaining p a r t i c i -pants were e i t h e r employed by b u s i n e s s or government agencies or not working. A n a l y s i s of the data on years of experience i n the p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d t hat the l a r g e s t number of employed conference p a r t i c i p a n t s (32.66%) had h e l d t h e i r p r e s e n t jobs f o r between one and f i v e y e a r s . Seventy-nine (17.67%) had been i n the same p o s i t i o n f o r between s i x and ten y e a r s , 36 (8.05%) f o r between e l e v e n and f i f t e e n y e ars and 40 (10.29%) f o r more than f i f t e e n y e a r s . (Table V I ) . Table VI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH FOREIGN STUDENTS Years of Experience Number Percent Not a p p l i c a b l e 130 31.32 1 - 5 146 32.66 6 - 1 0 79 17.67 11 - 15 36 8.05 16 - 20 29 6.49 21 or more 17 3.80 TOTAL 447 100.00 30 Conference P a r t i c i p a t i o n P a t t e r n s Of the 447 p a r t i c i p a n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n the e v a l u a t i o n , f o r t y - e i g h t (10.47%) were group convenors f o r the d i s c u s s i o n groups. Almost a l l of the p a r t i c i p a n t s (96.20%) took p a r t i n the s e c t i o n or s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t meetings, w i t h the m a j o r i t y a t t e n d i n g at l e a s t t h r e e of these meetings. (Table V I I ) . Table VII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS BY NUMBER OF SPECIAL INTEREST MEETINGS ATTENDED No. o f Meetings Attended Number Percent None 17 3.80 1 12 2.68 2 48 10.74 3 64 14.32 4 82 18.34 5 67 14.99 6 54 12.08 7 27 6.04 8 13 2.91 9 63 14.09 TOTAL 447 100.00 31 Table V I I I shows t h a t the m a j o r i t y of p a r t i c i p a n t s (60.85%) attended meetings of the s e c t i o n s to which they were a f f i l i -ated, as w e l l as other s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t meetings. Table V l l l PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS BY TYPE OF MEETINGS ATTENDED Type of Meeting Attended Number Percent Did not a t t e n d any meetings 17 3. 80 Only meetings of o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n which they h e l d membership 66 14. 77 Meetings of o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n which they h e l d membership, as w e l l as other meetings 272 60.85 Only meetings of o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n which they d i d not h o l d membership 92 20. 58 TOTAL 447 100.00 THE PARTICIPANTS' OBJECTIVES By A p r i l 22, 1971, three hundred s i x t y - o n e p a r t i c i p a n t s had r e g i s t e r e d f o r the conference. T h i s group, which made up the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e survey p o p u l a t i o n , was requested to s t a t e o b j e c t i v e s f o r attendance i n terms of f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t 32 would a s s i s t them i n p e r f o r m i n g t h e i r j o b s ; i n f o r m a t i o n that would a s s i s t them i n p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g ; and e x p e c t a t i o n s i n terms of d e v e l o p i n g more e f f e c t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Two judges s o r t e d the 189 responses r e c e i v e d (52.70%) i n t o g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s as shown i n Table IX. A Pearson r was used to compute r e l i a b i l i t y and a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t Table IX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECTIVES STATED IN THE PRE-CONFERENCE SURVEY O b j e c t i v e Number Percent Government 32 6.58 U n i v e r s i t i e s 59 12.13 Program Development 91 18.72 Intra-NAFSA 19 3.90 Student A t t i t u d e s 57 11.72 Research and E v a l u a t i o n 17 3.49 Ideas and Information 15 3.08 F r i e n d s h i p s 86 17.69 I n t e r c u l t u r a l Experience 46 9.46 Problem-Solving 41 8.43 U n c l a s s i f i e d 23 4.73 TOTAL 486 100.00 33 of .83 was ob t a i n e d . The r e s u l t i n g c a t e g o r i e s were c o n s t r u c t e d as statements of o b j e c t i v e s and i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a q u e s t i o n which was used to e v a l u a t e the content of the c o n f e r e n c e . ^ FOOTNOTES Excer p t from p r e - c o n f e r e n c e memorandum, "Re: 1971 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s , Programs", Appendix E. 2 I b i d . 3 Excerpt from p r e - c o n f e r e n c e l e t t e r , "Developing the Theme, 'Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us', About the I n t e r -n a t i o n a l Conference i n Vancouver, May, 19 71," Appendix E. ^Question 14 on conference e v a l u a t i o n form i n Appendix B. CHAPTER I I I ANALYSIS OF DATA T h i s chapter analyses the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' e v a l u a t i o n of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s , i n -c l u d i n g t h e i r degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h component p a r t s of the conference. The r e s u l t s of a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the e v a l -u a t i o n instrument are p r e s e n t e d and f o l l o w e d by an a n a l y s i s of the experimental c o n d i t i o n s designed to determine the e f f e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l and group e v a l u a t i o n . The next s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a t i o n s i n conference e v a l u a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from e i t h e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g or not t a k i n g p a r t i n the pre-conference survey on o b j e c t i v e s f o r a t t e n d i n g . The chapter concludes w i t h a m u l t i p l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s of the amount of change i n p a r t i c i p a n t s ' responses between the f i r s t and sec-ond c y c l i n g s of e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d to the e f f e c t i v e -ness of the group p r o c e s s . RESPONSES TO EVALUATION ITEMS Of the 447 p a r t i c i p a n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n the e v a l u a t i o n , 402 (89.93%) s t a t e d t h a t they would s t i l l have come to the con-f e r e n c e had they known at the b e g i n n i n g what they knew as a r e s u l t of p a r t i c i p a t i n g . F o r t y - f i v e (10.07%) would not have attended had they p r e v i o u s l y been aware of what i t would be l i k e . 34 35 General R e a c t i o n to the T o t a l Conference O v e r - a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the conference was meas-ured u s i n g the Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e Scale f o r E v a l u a t i n g Meetings.^" The mean s c a l e score o b t a i n e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n the e v a l u a t i o n was 4.87. Table X, which pre-sents a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses to each item on the s c a l e , shows t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s were q u i t e s a t i s f i e d g e n e r a l l y w i t h the t o t a l c onference. Items 3 to 8 on the s c a l e which are e s s e n t i a l l y con-cerned w i t h the p e r c e i v e d u s e f u l n e s s of the conference were checked more f r e q u e n t l y than any other items. Of those ex-p r e s s i n g some d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the conference, the major-i t y checked items 9 to 13 which are approximately at the mid-p o i n t i n the s c a l e and i n d i c a t e an i n d i f f e r e n c e toward the exp e r i e n c e . Only one p a r t i c i p a n t s t a t e d t h a t he "had not l e a r n e d a t h i n g " and one t h a t " i t was a complete waste of time". E v a l u a t i o n o f Component P a r t s of the Conference To e v a l u a t e the g e n e r a l environment of the conference, the p a r t i c i p a n t s were requested to i n d i c a t e t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h i t s d u r a t i o n , s i z e and l o c a t i o n . The responses to these q u e s t i o n s are t a b u l a t e d i n Table XI. Table X PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS ' RESPONSES TO EACH ITEM ON THE KROPP-VERNER SCALE Item No. of Responses % of Responses % of Participants Replying to Each Item 1. It was one of the most rewarding experiences I ever had. 58 3.89 12.97 2. Exactly what I needed. 33 2.21 7.38 3. I hope we can have another one i n the near future. 132 8.85 29.53 4. It provided the kind of experience I can apply. 151 10.12 33.78 5. It helped me personally. 206 13.81 46.08 6. It solved some problems for me. 164 10.99 36.69 7. I think i t served i t s purpose. 158 10.59 35.35 8. It had some merits. 195 13.07 43.62 9. It was f a i r . 58 3.89 12.97 10. It was neither very good nor very poor. 56 3.75 12.53 11. I was mildly disappointed. 62 4.16 13.87 12. It was not exactly what I needed. 46 3.08 10.29 13. It was too general. 54 3.62 12.08 14. I am not taking any new ideas away. 21 1.41 4.70 15. It didn't hold my interest. 21 1.41 4.70 16. It was much too superficial. 25 1.67 5.59 17. I leave dissatisfied. 27 1.81 6.04 18. It was very poorly planned. 23 1.54 5.15 19. I didn't learn a thing. 1 .07 .22 20. It was a complete waste of time. . . . 1 .07 .22 TOTAL 1492 100.00 37 Table XI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS BY SATISFACTION WITH DURATION, SIZE, CONFERENCE AND LOCATION OF Response Number Percent DURATION OF CONFERENCE No response 2 .45 S a t i s f i e d with l e n g t h 376 84.12 D i s s a t i s f i e d with l e n g t h 69 15.44 TOTAL 447 100.00 SIZE OF CONFERENCE No response 2 .45 S a t i s f i e d w i t h s i z e 393 87.92 D i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h s i z e 52 11.63 TOTAL 447 100.00 LOCATION OF CONFERENCE Poor l o c a t i o n 14 3.13 A c c e p t a b l e l o c a t i o n 70 15.66 Very good l o c a t i o n 363 81.21 TOTAL 447 100.00 Three hundred s e v e n t y - s i x p a r t i c i p a n t s (84.12%) were s a t i s f i e d w i t h the d u r a t i o n of the conference. Of the 69 38 (15.44%) who were d i s s a t i s f i e d , approximately h a l f f e l t t h a t i t s h ould have been l e s s than f i v e days w h i l e the other h a l f would have p r e f e r r e d the conference to l a s t from one to two weeks. Most p a r t i c i p a n t s (87.92%) i n d i c a t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the s i z e of the conference. The 52 (11.63%) who expressed d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n a l l would have p r e f e r r e d to a t t e n d a s m a l l e r con-f e r e n c e w i t h between 200 and 300 p a r t i c i p a n t s . The l o c a t i o n of the conference was r a t e d as e x c e l l e n t by 363 (81.21%) of those t a k i n g p a r t i n the e v a l u a t i o n , and as a c c e p t a b l e by an a d d i t i o n a l 70 (15.66%). D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the l o c a t i o n as expressed by 14 p a r t i c i p a n t s (3.13%) centered on the f a c t t h a t Totem Park, the Convention Centre, i s q u i t e d i s t a n t from downtown Vancouver. Table XII summarizes the means and sta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of p a r t i c i p a n t responses to e v a l u a t i v e items on o t h e r compon-ent aspects of the t o t a l conference i n c l u d i n g f a c i l i t i e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , s o c i a l events and the program i t s e l f . Responses to these items were on a 7-point s c a l e w i t h p o s i t i o n 7 meaning " e x c e l l e n t " , p o s i t i o n 4, "adequate", and p o s i t i o n 1, "very poor". A "0" response was g i v e n i f the item e v a l u a t e d was not a p p l i c a b l e to the p a r t i c i p a n t . The responses to items i n the Conference F a c i l i t i e s c a tegory were a l l above a mean r a t i n g of 5. Three hundred seventy-nine p a r t i c i p a n t s (84.79%) gave a r a t i n g between 4 and 39 Table XII MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THEIR SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED ASPECTS OF THE CONFERENCE Number of Standard Category Responses Mean D e v i a t i o n FACILITIES Room Accommodations 419 5. 203 1.495 Meals 434 5.620 1.361 Meeting Rooms 432 5.421 1.377 Convention Personnel 417 5.393 1. 530 CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION O v e r - a l l d e sign 441 4.950 1.487 Pre-conference l i t e r a t u r e 426 4.228 1.737 Schedule of events 442 4.968 1. 504 D i r e c t i o n s 440 4.773 1.611 L e i s u r e time 438 3. 580 1. 744 SOCIAL EVENTS Thursday evening event 430 5.891 1. 513 Other s o c i a l events 410 5.19 2 1. 424 CONFERENCE PROGRAM Dr. Bennett's p r e s e n t a t i o n 386 4.930 1.711 S e c t i o n Meetings 429 4. 837 1. 312 D i s c u s s i o n groups 442 4.780 1.675 Tarragon Theatre 440 6.39 8 1.125 E x h i b i t s 390 3.633 1.482 40 7 on room accommodations, w h i l e 42 (6.45%) gave r a t i n g s be-tween 1 and 3. Over n i n e t y per cent f e l t t h a t meals r a t e d scores between adequate and e x c e l l e n t , and only twenty-seven p a r t i c i p a n t s (6.08%) expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r meals. Meeting room accommodations were r a t e d by 403 p a r t i c i -pants (90.16%) as adequate or more than adequate, and by twelve (2.68%) as l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y . Three hundred s e v e n t y - f i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s (92.77%) f e l t t h a t the c o n v e n t i o n p e r s o n n e l were s a t i s f a c t o r y . As shown i n T a b l e X I I , the means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of responses to items e v a l u a t i n g the Conference O r g a n i z a t i o n were lower than those e v a l u a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s . Three hundred s i x t y - s i x (81.88%) f e l t t h a t the o v e r - a l l conference d e s i g n was at l e a s t adequate, but 147 p a r t i c i p a n t s (32.98%) were l e s s than s a t i s f i e d w i t h the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e l i t e r a t u r e they r e c e i v e d . Under Conference O r g a n i z a t i o n , the item " s c h e d u l i n g of events" had the h i g h e s t mean score at 4.968 and the lowest s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.504. Three hundred seventy-one (83.00%) r a t e d t h i s item between 4 and 7 on the s c a l e . One hundred twenty-one (27.07%) of those p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the e v a l u a t i o n r a t e d the " d i r e c t i o n s , i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r events" as j u s t ade-quate, w i t h 84 (18.79%) e x p r e s s i n g d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and 235 (52.58%) g i v i n g r a t i n g s between 5 and 7. The item e v a l u a t i n g "time a v a i l a b l e f o r own p u r s u i t s " r e c e i v e d a low r a t i n g of between 1 and 3 by 214 p a r t i c i p a n t s (47.87%). 41 The Thursday evening s p e c i a l event (Harbor C r u i s e , P l a n e t a r i u m , Chinatown) was g i v e n an " e x c e l l e n t " r a t i n g by 206 p a r t i c i p a n t s (46.081) who took p a r t i n i t . Only 31 (6.931) f e l t t h a t i t was u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . The mean of responses to the item on other conference s o c i a l events was 5.192 w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.424. P o s i t i o n 6 on the s c a l e was c i r c l e d by 106 p a r t i c i p a n t s (23.71%) and an a d d i t i o n a l f i f t y -f i v e per cent r a t e d other s o c i a l events as adequate or b e t t e r than adequate. Ratings on the Conference Program Events were the most d i v e r s e , w i t h the means of responses r a n g i n g from 6.398 f o r the Tarragon Theatre's p r e s e n t i o n s to 3.633 f o r E x h i b i t s . Dr. Bennett's p r e s e n t a t i o n "Opsimpathy" had the l a r g e s t d e v i a t i o n about the mean (M = 4.930, S.D. = 1.711) wit h 68 p a r t i c i p a n t s (15.21%) e x p r e s s i n g d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h i t and 318 (71.13%) g i v i n g i t a r a t i n g between "adequate" and " e x c e l l e n t " . The s e c t i o n or s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t meetings were ranked between 5 and 7 by 275 p a r t i c i p a n t s (61.52%), w h i l e the d i s c u s s i o n groups r e -c e i v e d the same r a t i n g from 274 p a r t i c i p a n t s (61.30%). The Tarragon Theatre's p r e s e n t a t i o n s were g i v e n a r a t i n g of 7 by 265 (66.00%) wi t h only 14 p a r t i c i p a n t s (3.03%) r a t i n g them as l e s s than adequate. E x h i b i t s were the l e a s t s a t i s f y i n g aspect of the con-f e r e n c e ; 167 p a r t i c i p a n t s (37.26%) gave them r a t i n g s i n d i c a t -i n g inadequacy and 57 (12.75%) d i d not respond to the q u e s t i o n . 42 E v a l u a t i o n o f Conference Content E v a l u a t i o n o f the content of the conference program was conducted by having p a r t i c i p a n t s express as a percentage ranging from 0% to 100% the degree to which they f e l t t h a t t h e i r p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s had been met. The means and s t a n -dard d e v i a t i o n s of t h e i r responses are shown i n Tab l e X I I I . V a r i a t i o n s i n the number of responses to each item are accounted f o r by the f a c t t h a t those t a k i n g p a r t i n the e v a l u a t i o n were Table X I I I MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES IN ESTIMATING THEIR SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES Number of Standard Category of O b j e c t i v e Responses Mean D e v i a t i o n Government 248 55. 161 31. 042 U n i v e r s i t i e s 302 53. 868 25. 000 Program Development 379 53. 765 24. 622 Intra-NAFSA 306 43. 850 29. 532 Student A t t i t u d e s 404 57. 814 30. 124 Research and E v a l u a t i o n 315 38. 102 27. 522 Ideas and Information 309 51. 427 33. 452 F r i e n d s h i p s 427 74. 108 22. 717 I n t e r c u l t u r a l Experience 405 64. 185 28. 010 Problem-Solving 371 44. 644 28. 713 43 to respond only to those items which i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e i r own o b j e c t i v e s i n a t t e n d i n g . As i n d i c a t e d by the responses shown i n Table X I I I , "becoming acquainted or renewing apquaintances w i t h c o l l e a g u e s " was the most u n i v e r s a l o b j e c t i v e o f those who attended. Four hundred twenty-seven p a r t i c i p a n t s (95.53%) responded to t h i s item and the mean of responses was 74.108. The o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n an i n t e r c u l t u r a l experience and to f i n d out more about students were the next most important o b j e c t i v e s , w i t h the mean f o r the i n t e r c u l t u r a l experience (M = 64.185) h i g h e r than the mean f o r student a t t i t u d e s (M = 57.814). Three hundred seventy-nine p a r t i c i p a n t s (83.891) were concerned with program development which o b t a i n e d a mean response o f 53.765 and 371 (83.00%) had " p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g " as an o b j e c t i v e which o b t a i n e d a mean scor e of 44.644. Three hundred f i f t e e n p a r t i c i p a n t s (70.47%) were i n t e r e s t e d i n r e s e a r c h and e v a l u a t i o n , but fewer reached t h e i r o b j e c t i v e on t h i s item than any other (M = 38.10 2). The objec-t i v e s concerned w i t h new ideas and i n f o r m a t i o n , intra-NAFSA problems, and u n i v e r s i t y programs and procedures were important to 309 (69.13%), 306 (68.48%) and 302 p a r t i c i p a n t s (67.56%) r e s p e c t i v e l y , and as a group they were at l e a s t f i f t y per cent s u c c e s s f u l i n r e a c h i n g t h e i r g o a l s . Government r e g u l a t i o n s concerned the fewest p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h 248 (55.48%) responding to t h i s item. The mean response was 55.161. 44 E v a l u a t i o n of the Group Process Three hundred e i g h t y - t h r e e (85.68%) of those t a k i n g p a r t i n the conference e v a l u a t i o n answered the q u e s t i o n s r e -l a t e d to the group p r o c e s s . Those q u e s t i o n s were a l l r a t e d on a seven-point s c a l e by p a r t i c i p a n t s , w i t h p o s i t i o n "7" denoting the most f a v o r a b l e and "1" the l e a s t f a v o r a b l e response. A summary o f the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of p a r t i c i p a n t s ' responses appears i n Table XIV. Two hundred twenty-two p a r t i c i p a n t s (57.97%) f e l t t h a t t h e i r group was e f f e c t i v e i n i d e n t i f y i n g problems of common i n t e r e s t , w h i l e 86 (22.45%) s a i d t h a t t h e i r group was not very e f f e c t i v e . S e v e n t y - f i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s (19.58%) r a t e d t h e i r group at the mid-point on the s c a l e . Ratings o f the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of groups i n s o l v i n g problems f o l l o w e d a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n . Two hundred e l e v e n p a r t i c i p a n t s (55.09%) gave r a t i n g s between "5" and "7" to t h e i r groups, 79 (20.63%) e v a l u a t e d at the mid-point o f the s c a l e , and 93 (24.28%) gave r a t i n g s between "1" and "3" to t h e i r groups. E i g h t y - e i g h t p a r t i c i p a n t s (22.98%) f e l t t h a t they p e r s o n a l l y had l e a r n e d l i t t l e about the content of problems being d i s c u s s e d i n t h e i r groups, and 70 (18.28%) r a t e d t h e i r amount of l e a r n i n g at the mid-point of the s c a l e . Two hund-red t w e n t y - f i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s (58.75%) f e l t t h a t they had l e a r n e d a gre a t d e a l of con t e n t . 45 Table XIV MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS' INITIAL RESPONSES TO ITEMS ON THE GROUP PROCESS* Standard Item Mean D e v i a t i o n 1. I d e n t i f i e s problems o f common i n t e r e s t 4.556 1.614 2. Works toward s o l u t i o n o f problems 4.559 1.649 3. Learns about content o f problems 4.566 1.609 4. Learns about problem-s o l v i n g p rocess 3.870 1.750 5. Climate o f the group 5.659 1.483 6. Involvement o f the group as a whole 5.098 1.495 7. P e r s o n a l involvement i n the d i s c u s s i o n s 5.085 1.552 8. Communications among group members 5.278 1.444 9. L i s t e n s to each other and t r i e s to understand v a r i o u s ideas b e i n g pro-posed as s o l u t i o n s 5.226 1.458 10. C o n t r o l s or i n f l u e n c e s on the d i r e c t i o n of the group 5.779 1.313 *383 p a r t i c i p a n t s responded to the items on the group p r o c e s s . 46 Approximately t h i r t y - e i g h t per cent of the p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e d t h e i r l e a r n i n g about the "process by which problems are s o l v e d " between p o s i t i o n s "1" and "3" on the s c a l e . One hundred f i f t y - t h r e e p a r t i c i p a n t s (39.96%) s t a t e d t h a t they had l e a r n e d a s u b s t a n t i a l amount about the p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g p r o c e s s . P a r t i c i p a n t s g e n e r a l l y gave h i g h e r r a t i n g s to the q u e s t i o n on "group c l i m a t e " than they d i d on other items. Three hundred twenty (83.55%) o f the 383 p a r t i c i p a n t s e v a l u -a t i n g the group process s a i d t h a t the c l i m a t e o f t h e i r group was " f r e e and s u p p o r t i v e , w i t h a r e s p e c t f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i f -f e r e n c e s " , and o n l y 32 (8.35%) d e s c r i b e d the c l i m a t e of t h e i r group as " r e s t r i c t i v e , w i t h p r e s s u r e toward c o n f o r m i t y " . T h i r t y - o n e p a r t i c i p a n t s (8.09%) gave t h e i r group a r a t i n g o f "4". Involvement of t h e i r group as a whole i n the d i s c u s s i o n s was d e s c r i b e d by 276 p a r t i c i p a n t s (62.06%) as h i g h , and as low by 48 p a r t i c i p a n t s (12.53%). F i f t y - n i n e (15.40%) gave a r a t -ing of "4" to t h e i r group. The same number of p a r t i c i p a n t s (15.40%) r a t e d t h e i r p e r s o n a l involvement i n the group as "4", w h i l e 270 (70.50%) s t a t e d t h a t they were h i g h l y i n v o l v e d and 54 (14.10%) t h a t they were not h i g h l y i n v o l v e d . Group communications were d e s c r i b e d as "guarded and c a u t i o u s " by 45 p a r t i c i p a n t s (11«75%) and as "open and authen-t i c " by 295 (77.02%). F o r t y - t h r e e p a r t i c i p a n t s (11.23%) r a t e d t h e i r group at the mid-point of the s c a l e . 47 Two hundred e i g h t y - e i g h t p a r t i c i p a n t s (75.201) f e l t t h a t members of t h e i r group " l i s t e n e d to one another and t r i e d to understand the v a r i o u s ideas being proposed as s o l u t i o n s to problems", w h i l e 45 (11.75%) s a i d t h a t t h e i r group members d i d not l i s t e n to one another, and 50 (13.05%) r a t e d t h e i r group members at the mid-point on the s c a l e . Three hundred twenty-six p a r t i c i p a n t s (85.12%) gave h i g h r a t i n g s to t h e i r groups on c o n t r o l and d i r e c t i o n , and s t a t e d t h a t they " c o n t r o l l e d themselves"; 40 (10.44%) r a t e d t h e i r group at the mid-point of the s c a l e , and 17 (4.44%) f e l t t h a t " c o n t r o l was imposed on them". The q u e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to the group process were asked a second time i n accordance w i t h the experimental con-d i t i o n s o f the study. As Table XV i n d i c a t e s , the means of responses to q u e s t i o n s were a l l h i g h e r on the second admin-i s t r a t i o n than they were on the f i r s t c y c l e . E i g h t e e n out of twenty "6" and "7" c a t e g o r i e s c o n t a i n e d a h i g h e r percentage of p a r t i c i p a n t r a t i n g s on the second c y c l e o f responses. 48 Table XV MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS' SECOND RESPONSES TO ITEMS ON THE GROUP PROCESS* Standard Item Mean D e v i a t i o n 1. I d e n t i f i e s problems o f common i n t e r e s t 4.742 1.562 2. Works toward s o l u t i o n of problems 4.752 1.550 3. Learns about content of problems 4.676 1.479 4. Learns about problem-s o l v i n g process 4.204 1.759 5. Climate of the group 5.812 1.331 6. Involvement o f the group as a whole 5.402 1.311 7. P e r s o n a l involvement i n the d i s c u s s i o n s 5.303 1.428 8. Communications among group members 5.58 8 1.29 3 9. L i s t e n s to each o t h e r and t r i e s to understand v a r i o u s ideas b e i n g pro-posed as s o l u t i o n s 5.449 1.311 10. C o n t r o l s or i n f l u e n c e s on the d i r e c t i o n o f the group 5.932 1.175 *383 p a r t i c i p a n t s responded to the items on the group process A l l means were h i g h e r i n the second c y c l i n g o f q u e s t i o n s . 49 FACTOR ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION ITEMS F a c t o r a n a l y s i s was conducted on a l l of the a t t i t u d i n a l v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d i n the e v a l u a t i o n instrument. Those v a r i a b l e s which d e s c r i b e d p a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as sex, age and e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l were excluded from t h a t a n a l y s i s . Twelve f a c t o r s were e x t r a c t e d w i t h estimated communalities (squared m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n s ) i n s e r t e d i n the p r i n c i p a l d i a g o n a l . Orthogonal r o t a t i o n of the a x i s was em-p l o y e d u s i n g K a i s e r ' s varimax c r i t e r i o n . Each of the f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d had a lower l i m i t l o a d i n g o f at l e a s t .45. The p a r t i t i o n of v a r i a n c e among f a c t o r s i s shown i n Table XVI. Table XVI PARTITION OF VARIANCE AMONG FACTORS F a c t o r No. F a c t o r L a b e l % V a r i a n c e Accounted f o r Cumulative % V a r i a n c e Accounted f o r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Group Process P e r s o n a l O b j e c t i v e s Conference O r g a n i z a t i o n Kropp-Verner " U t i l i t y " Length of Conference S i z e of Conference Kropp-Verner " F u t i l i t y " I n n e r - D i r e c t e d 14. 27 5.84 4.06 2.97 2.58 2.30 1.95 14. 27 20.11 24.17 27.14 29. 72 32.02 33.97 9 10 11 12 D i s c u s s i o n C o n t r o l F a c i l i t i e s P e r s o n a l Involvement S i z e of Conference Obj e c t i v e s 1. 66 1. 56 1.42 1. 32 1. 29 35.63 37.19 38.61 39.93 41.22 50 A l i s t of the variables i d e n t i f i e d in F a c t o r 1 i s presented i n Table XVII, together with the f a c t o r loadings and the o r i g i n a l communalities which are included as e s t i -mates of r e l i a b i l i t y . Factor 1 was i d e n t i f i e d as "Group Process". Within i t are found 19 vari a b l e s , 18 o f which are contained i n the two cycles of the ten questions r e l a t e d to the effectiveness of the group process. The s i n g l e variable Table XVII FACTOR 1 GROUP PROCESS Item No. Item Name Factor Loading. 16.8 16. 5 15.9 15.6 15.8 16.6 16. 2 16.9 15.1 15.5 15. 2 16.1 16. 3 15.7 16. 7 15.3 15.4 13.4.3 16.4 Group Communications .76 Group Climate -75 Listening § Understanding -74 Group Involvement -74 Group Communications - -73 Group Involvement .73 Working toward Solutions .73 Listening § Understanding .72 Identifying Problems -72 Group Climate -71 Working toward Solutions - 6 8 Identifying Problems - 6 7 Learning about Problem Content - 58 Personal Involvement .56 Personal Involvement .55 Learning about Problem Content - 54 Learning about Problem-solving Process -53 Discussion Group . 4 9 Learning about Problem-solving Process - 4 7 .79 .82 .74 .75 .79 .77 . 74 .72 .77 .76 .72 .72 .71 .83 . 83 .68 .79 .61 .74 present i n this factor which i s not accounted f o r by group process questions ,is 'Discussion groups' (13.4.$]) from the Conference Programme Events section of the instrument. The 51 r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s s i n g l e v a r i a b l e and the group process v a r i a b l e s i s q u i t e e v i d e n t . The ' D i s c u s s i o n groups' v a r i a b l e asked p a r t i c i p a n t s to r a t e the technique i n g e n e r a l , w h i l e the group process v a r i a b l e s attempted to r a t e the com-ponent p a r t s of the same technique. the 10 v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d i n the pr e - c o n f e r e n c e survey as p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r a t t e n d i n g the conf e r e n c e . (Table XVIII) Those v a r i a b l e s are concerned w i t h o b j e c t i v e s r e g a r d i n g the upda t i n g of p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l s , i n f o r m a t i o n , and communication among c o l l e a g u e s . They i n c l u d e the seeking o f s p e c i f i c i n f o r -mation about government and u n i v e r s i t y p o l i c i e s , about pro-grammes and c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s i n e f f e c t i n oth e r g e o g r a p h i c a l F a c t o r 2, I I P e r s o n a l O b j e c t i v e s it i n c l u d e s seven of Table XVIII FACTOR 2 PERSONAL OBJECTIVES Item No. Item Name. F a c t o r Loading 14. 2 14.10 14.6 14. 3 14.9 14.8 14.1 U n i v e r s i t i e s P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g Research and E v a l u a t i o n Program Development I n t e r c u l t u r a l Experience F r i e n d s h i p s Government .64 .61 .59 . 59 . 54 .49 .45 .65 .62 . 55 . 52 .60 .52 .63 52 areas, and about research, and e v a l u a t i o n ; a l s o , t here i s a s o c i a l o b j e c t i v e i n v o l v i n g f r i e n d s h i p s , as w e l l as the s o c i a l o b j e c t i v e of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an i n t e r c u l t u r a l e x p e r i e n c e . F a c t o r 3, "Conference O r g a n i z a t i o n " i n c l u d e s f o u r of the f i v e v a r i a b l e s c o n t a i n e d i n the second s u b - s e c t i o n of Question 13 which i s e n t i t l e d Conference O r g a n i z a t i o n . A l l of the items are concerned w i t h elements o f the program t h a t are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the conference p l a n n i n g committee. (Table XIX). \ Table XIX FACTOR 3 CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION Item F a c t o r 0 No. Item Name Lo ding h 13.2.3 Schedule f o r d a i l y events .74 .62 13.2.4 D i r e c t i o n s § I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Events .72 .58 13.2.1 O v e r - a l l Conference Design .55 .61 13.2.2 Pre-conference L i t e r a t u r e .47 .46 F a c t o r 4, "Kropp-Verner ' U t i l i t y ' " i n c l u d e s f o u r of the 20 items c o n t a i n e d i n the Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e . These items are contiguous and occur at the top of the s c a l e , i n d i c a t i n g a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward the event. They i n d i -cate t h a t the event s o l v e d some problems, h e l p e d the p a r t i c i -pant p e r s o n a l l y , p r o v i d e d p r a c t i c a l experience and would be 53 worth r e p e a t i n g . The f i f t h item i n F a c t o r 4 r e p r e s e n t s the t o t a l number of responses to the Kropp-Verner S c a l e . (Table XX). Table XX FACTOR 4 KROPP-VERNER ATTITUDE SCALE "UTILITY Item F a c t o r No. Item Name Loading h 2 11. 5 I t h e l p e d me p e r s o n a l l y . .49 .52 11.3 I hope we can have another one i n the near f u t u r e . .48 .52 11.6 I t s o l v e d some problems f o r me. .46 .52 11.4 I t p r o v i d e d the k i n d of experience I can apply to my own s i t u a t i o n . .46 .53 T o t a l number of items checked .95 1.13 F a c t o r 5, "Length of Conference" i n c o r p o r a t e s the q u e s t i o n answered by those p a r t i c i p a n t s who were d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the d u r a t i o n o f the conference. The f a c t o r l o a d i n g o f 2 t h i s v a r i a b l e (1.15) i s the h i g h e s t o f any i n the a n a l y s i s . (Table XXI). Table XXI FACTOR 5 LENGTH OF CONFERENCE* Item . No. Item Name Fa c t o r Loading h 2 12.1.b I f the l e n g t h of the conference was not s a t i s f a c t o r y , how many days do you t h i n k i t s h o u l d have been? 1.15 1.00 * 70 p a r t i c i p a n t s responded to t h i s q u e s t i o n . F a c t o r 6, which a l s o had a h i g h f a c t o r l o a d i n g , was concerned w i t h the " S i z e of the Conference". (Table X X I I ) . Table XXII FACTOR 6 SIZE OF CONFERENCE* Item F a c t o r ~ No. Item Name Loading h 12.2.b I f the s i z e o f the conference was not s a t i s f a c t o r y , how many people do you t h i n k there should have been? .98 1.00 *52 p a r t i c i p a n t s responded to t h i s q u e s t i o n . F a c t o r 7, "Kropp-Verner ' F u t i l i t y ' " i n c l u d e s t h r e e of the 20 items c o n t a i n e d on the Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e . CTable X X I I I ) . These items a l l occur at the bottom o f the s c a l e and i n d i c a t e a n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e toward the conference. The items i n d i c a t e t h a t the event was u n i n t e r e s t i n g , t h a t no new ideas were obta i n e d , and th a t the p a r t i c i p a n t i s l e a v i n g the event d i s s a t i s f i e d . The magnitude of the l o a d i n g s on t h i s f a c t o r and on F a c t o r 4 were the lowest of any m u l t i -v a r i a b l e f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d i n the a n a l y s i s . Table XXIII FACTOR 7 KROPP-VERNER ATTITUDE SCALE "FUTILITY" Item F a c t o r No. Item Name Loading h 2 11.15 I t d i d n ' t h o l d my i n t e r e s t . . 53 .44 11.17 I leave d i s s a t i s f i e d . .50 .50 11.14 I am not t a k i n g any new ideas away. .49 .52 55 F a c t o r 8, " I n n e r - d i r e c t e d O b j e c t i v e s " i n c l u d e s two v a r i a b l e s from the p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s s e c t i o n of the e v a l u -a t i o n instrument. These v a r i a b l e s , 'Student A t t i t u d e s ' and 'Ideas and I n f o r m a t i o n ' would appear to have l i t t l e i n com-mon which might d i f f e r e n t i a t e them from the v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d i n F a c t o r 2. (Table XXIV). Two f e a t u r e s which might be unique about these v a r i a b l e s are t h a t they are not b u i l t i n t o a programme through s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t or s e c t i o n meetings as are those v a r i a b l e s concerned w i t h Government, U n i v e r s i t i e s , Intra-NAFSA, Research and E v a l u a t i o n , and P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g ; nor are they l i k e the F r i e n d s h i p and I n t e r c u l t u r a l Experience o b j e c t i v e s which are accounted f o r and a n t i c i p a t e d by the p l a n n i n g committee. Secondly, the m o t i v a t i o n to achieve the o b j e c t i v e s i n F a c t o r 8 would appear to be more s e l f - g e n e r a t e d , w h i l e the o b j e c t i v e s i n F a c t o r 2 might be more e a s i l y achieved simply through the process of a t t e n d i n g the c o n f e r e n c e . Table XXIV FACTOR 8 INNER-DIRECTED OBJECTIVES Item No. Item Name. F a c t o r Loading 14. 5 14.7 Student A t t i t u d e s Ideas and I n f o r m a t i o n .71 .65 .72 . 73 56 F a c t o r 9 i n c l u d e s two c y c l e s of a s i n g l e v a r i a b l e from the group process s e c t i o n o f the e v a l u a t i o n instrument. (Table XXV). The v a r i a b l e " D i r e c t i o n and C o n t r o l " i s r e l a t e d to the c o n t r o l s and i n f l u e n c e s e x e r t e d upon d i s c u s s i o n groups. Perhaps the s i n g l e element d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t h i s f a c t o r and F a c t o r 1 i s t h a t w h i l e a p a r t i c i p a n t c o u l d be f a i r l y ob-j e c t i v e about answering the other q u e s t i o n s on group p r o c e s s , the q u e s t i o n of who c o n t r o l s p r o b a b l y e l i c i t e d a g r e a t e r degree of p e r s o n a l and group ego involvement than any other q u e s t i o n . An examination o f means and st a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (Table X) r e v e a l e d t h a t i n bot h c y c l e s o f the group process q u e s t i o n s , the item on c o n t r o l had the h i g h e s t means and the lowest s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s across the experimental c o n d i t i o n s . Table XXV FACTOR 9 DISCUSSION CONTROL Item No. . Item Name > F a c t o r Loading h 2 16.10 15.10 D i r e c t i o n and C o n t r o l D i r e c t i o n and C o n t r o l .69 .69 .76 .71 F a c t o r 10, l a b e l l e d " F a c i l i t i e s " c o n t a i n s three o f the v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d i n s u b - s e c t i o n 1 of Question 13. (Table XXVI). Those v a r i a b l e s are a l l concerned w i t h p h y s i c a l aspects of the 57 conference environment and f a l l mainly under the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Conference Centre. They i n c l u d e s l e e p i n g room accom-modations, meeting room accommodations and meals. Table XXVI FACTOR 10 FACILITIES Item F a c t o r ^ No. Item Name Loading h 13.1.1 Room Accommodations .57 .51 13.1.2 Meals .57 .45 13.1.3 Meeting Rooms .49 .37 F a c t o r 11, "P e r s o n a l Involvement" i s d e r i v e d from the two c y c l e s of the group process q u e s t i o n s and a l s o o c c u r r e d i n F a c t o r 1. (Table XXVII). I t s e x t r a c t i o n as a sepa r a t e f a c t o r a l s o might be accounted f o r by the f a c t t h a t i t was the o n l y group process q u e s t i o n which d i s t i n g u i s h e d the i n -d i v i d u a l from the group as a whole. Table XXVII FACTOR 11 PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT Item No Item Name F a c t o r , Loading h' 16.7 P e r s o n a l Involvement 15.7 P e r s o n a l Involvement .57 .48 .83 .83 58 F a c t o r 12, " S i z e of Conference" i s the second doublet o c c u r r i n g i n the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s (Table XXVIII), and f i r s t o c c u r r e d as F a c t o r 6. Table XXVIII FACTOR 12 SIZE OF CONFERENCE* Item F a c t o r ~ No. Item Name Loading h 12.2.b I f the s i z e of the conference was not s a t i s f a c t o r y , how many people do you t h i n k there s h o u l d have been? .64 1.00 *52 p a r t i c i p a n t s responded to t h i s q u e s t i o n . Since the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e d two c y c l e s of the ten group process q u e s t i o n s , a second f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of on l y the f i r s t a p p l i c a t i o n of the s e t was conducted i n order to s u b s t a n t i a t e and i n c r e a s e the power of the f a c t o r . Accord-i n g l y , the ten sub-questions o f Question 15 on the e v a l u a t i o n instrument were f a c t o r a n a l y s e d by the same method and a s t a b i l i t y check was computed by means of a random d i v i s i o n o f the data. The r e s u l t i n g f a c t o r c o n t a i n s the n i n e v a r i a b l e s from the f i r s t c y c l e that were i n c l u d e d i n the i n i t i a l f a c t o r -i n g . (Table XXIX). In summary, f a c t o r a n a l y s i s has i n d i c a t e d a number of dimensions p r e s e n t i n the e v a l u a t i o n instrument developed f o r t h i s conference. The major dimensions c o n f i r m the o r i g -i n a l p a r t i t i o n i n g of the instrument and suggest a number of 59 Table XXIX GROUP PROCESS FACTOR Item F a c t o r 9 No. Item Name Loading h 2 15.1 I d e n t i f y i n g problems .77 . 59 15.6 Group involvement .76 .57 15.9 L i s t e n i n g and understanding .75 .57 15.8 Group communications .72 .52 15.2 Working toward s o l u t i o n s .71 . 50 15.5 Group c l i m a t e . 69 .48 15.3 L e a r n i n g about problem content .60 .36 15.4 L e a r n i n g about p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g process . 56 .32 15.7 P e r s o n a l involvement .55 .30 component p a r t s which would pr o b a b l y be p r e s e n t i n oth e r c o n f e r e n c e s . F a c t o r s such as those concerning t e c h n i q u e s , o b j e c t i v e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , f a c i l i t i e s , d u r a t i o n and s i z e o f the conference, w h i l e a f u n c t i o n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r conference p o p u l a t i o n and the c o n d i t i o n s of o b s e r v a t i o n , would.appear to be g e n e r a l i z a b l e to the conference method. The occurrence o f two f a c t o r s w i t h i n the Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e , however, i n d i c a t e s t h a t the s c a l e was not u n i -dimensional when a p p l i e d to the p o p u l a t i o n s t u d i e d . In t h i s i n s t a n c e , the s c a l e measured r e a c t i o n s to two dimensions, the " u t i l i t y " of the event and the " f u t i l i t y " o f the event. F u r t h e r , upon examination of i n d i v i d u a l items i t would appear t h a t the s c a l e attempts to measure r e a c t i o n s to s e v e r a l component aspects of an event which cannot be grouped t o g e t h e r . These i n c l u d e the achievement of p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s (Item 1 -- I t was the most rewarding experience I ever had), a t t i t u d e s toward the 60 o r g a n i z a t i o n of the event (Item 18 -- I t was very p o o r l y p l a n n e d ) , and a t t i t u d e s toward l e a r n i n g (Item 19 -- I d i d n ' t l e a r n a t h i n g ) . I t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t there i s a s i n g l e dimension of a t t i t u d e s toward a conference; moreover, to combine a number of dimensions i n t o a s i n g l e r a t i n g as the Kropp-Verner S c a l e does i s a h i g h l y q u e s t i o n a b l e approach to e v a l u a t i o n . I t i s n e i t h e r a d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e i n t h a t the s c a t t e r o f the responses made by an i n d i v i d u a l i s o f t e n non-contiguous, nor i s i t a cumu-l a t i v e s c a l e because endorsement of one statement does not mean agreement or disagreement w i t h statements on e i t h e r s i d e of i t . F i n a l l y , the dichotomous nature of the s c a l e r e s t r i c t s i t s s e n s i t i v i t y to a degree which renders d i a g n o s i s i m p o s s i b l e . For i n s t a n c e , i t i s a l l but im p o s s i b l e to determine the s t r e n g t h s or weaknesses of t h i s conference from a Kropp-Verner s c o r e o f 4.87 with the l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n , " I t had some m e r i t s " . CONDITIONS OF EVALUATION Conference e v a l u a t i o n may be c a r r i e d out under a number of c o n d i t i o n s . For example, the p a r t i c i p a n t may be gi v e n an e v a l u a t i o n form to f i l l out i n h i s l e i s u r e time and r e t u r n to the pl a n n e r s b e f o r e he leaves the conference or a f t e r he has r e t u r n e d home. In other i n s t a n c e s , conference p a r t i c i p a n t s may be requested to f i l l out e v a l u a t i o n forms 61 du r i n g the f i n a l group s e s s i o n . In s t i l l o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s , the p a r t i c i p a n t s may be r e q u i r e d to s t a t e p u b l i c l y t h e i r assessment of the conference. From numerous s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s of the behaviour of i n d i v i d u a l s i n groups,^ i t has become apparent t h a t p r e s s u r e toward u n i f o r m i t y i s a u b i q u i t o u s and ve r y powerful f o r c e . For the i n d i v i d u a l , group p r e s s u r e can take a number of forms: (1) One of the common ways i n which we v a l i d a t e our o p i n i o n s i s to compare them w i t h o t h e r s . I f others d i s -agree, i t r e f l e c t s upon the p e r c e i v e d c o r r e c t n e s s of our opin-ions . (2) When others i n a group d i s a g r e e w i t h us, we expect them, e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y , to t r y to induce a change i n our a t t i t u d e . T h i s inducement may take one or more of s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t e forms, some of which are more p a i n f u l than o t h e r s . (3) When i t i s p o i n t e d out to us by others t h a t they d i s a g r e e w i t h us, one of the i m p l i c a t i o n s to be drawn i s t h a t agreement on the i s s u e i s v e r y important. (4) The knowledge t h a t others d i s a g r e e w i t h us cr e a t e s d i s s o n a n c e . One of the most common ways to reduce t h i s dissonance i s to change one's o p i n i o n so t h a t dissonance i s l e s s e n e d ; another i s to r e j e c t or devalue the group. 62 (5) When we are i n disagreement w i t h others i n a group, our needs f o r a p p r o v a l , a f f i l i a t i o n and s t a t u s become more s a l i e n t , c a using us to conform so t h a t our s t a t u s might be p r e s e r v e d . T h e r e f o r e , i t seems c l e a r t h a t disagreement w i t h others produces f o r c e s which act upon an i n d i v i d u a l to change a d i v e r g e n t a t t i t u d e . C o n c u r r e n t l y , i t seems e v i d e n t t h a t disagreement w i t h a group induces a p e r c e p t i o n of group p r e s s u r e to change. Many of the above aspects of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s behav-i o u r i n groups would appear to have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the procedures under which conference e v a l u a t i o n s are conducted. To study t h i s phenomenon, the p r e s e n t study s u b j e c t e d the d i s c u s s i o n groups to one of three c o n d i t i o n s f o r e v a l u a t i v e purposes; an i n d i v i d u a l non-cooperative c o n d i t i o n , an i n d i v -i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n , and a group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n . In the i n d i v i d u a l non-cooperative c o n d i t i o n , the par-t i c i p a n t s assessed the group process by themselves. In the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s were p e r m i t t e d to communicate w i t h other group members i f they wished to do so as they f i l l e d out t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n forms. The group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n r e q u i r e d each group member to s t a t e p u b l i c l y h i s assessment of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the group process f o r each of the ten q u e s t i o n s asked. The i n s t r u c -t i o n s g i v e n to each of the groups are shown i n Appendix G. 63 F o l l o w i n g the f i r s t measure of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the d i s c u s s i o n groups, a l l of the groups were g i v e n an oppor-t u n i t y to d i s c u s s the e v a l u a t i o n measures f o r ten to f i f t e e n minutes. P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the i n d i v i d u a l n o n-cooperative con-d i t i o n and i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n were then g i v e n the same d i r e c t i o n as they had p r e v i o u s l y r e c e i v e d f o r f i l l -i n g out the same qu e s t i o n s f o r a second time. P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n were i n s t r u c t e d to attempt to reach a group consensus. A diagram of the d e s i g n f o r t h i s p a r t of the study i s shown below. ( F i g u r e 1). I t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n would f o r c e a g r e a t e r consensus than the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n , and t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n would produce more con-f o r m i t y than the i n d i v i d u a l non-cooperative c o n d i t i o n , d e s p i t e the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r d i s c u s s i o n g i v e n to a l l groups between the two p o s t - c o n f e r e n c e measures. F i g u r e 1 DESIGN FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS Groups Post-Conf. 1 I n s t r u c t i o n s Post-Conf. 2 I n d i v i d u a l non-cooperative S i l e n c e ! S i l e n c e I n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e Communication Communication Group c o o p e r a t i v e Recording of i n d i v i d u a l p o s i t i o n s < Attempt at consensus 64 The data on the experimental c o n d i t i o n s were analysed, and Table XXX summarizes the means and sta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the three experimental c o n d i t i o n s on q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d to the group process both b e f o r e and a f t e r the i n t e r v e n i n g d i s c u s s i o n p e r i o d . Table XXXI shows t h a t the i n t e r v e n i n g d i s c u s s i o n p e r i o d d i d not produce s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups' e v a l u a t i o n of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the group process b e f o r e and a f t e r the d i s c u s s i o n p e r i o d when 2 H o t e l l i n g ' s "T " s t a t i s t i c was computed. However, Table XXXII which p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of H o t e l l i n g ' s **T2" t e s t on d i f f e r e n c e s between the three experimental groups, shows s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the i n d i v i d u a l non-cooperative c o n d i t i o n and the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i o n c o n d i t i o n (P = .0402), and between the i n d i v i d u a l non-cooperative c o n d i t i o n and the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n (p = .0034). D i f f e r e n c e s between the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e and the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n d i d not r e a c h the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .1879), a l -though there was a t r e n d toward s i g n i f i c a n c e . As shown by the standard d e v i a t i o n s of the e x p e r i -mental groups on q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d to the group process both b e f o r e and a f t e r the d i s c u s s i o n p e r i o d , the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n does produce the g r e a t e s t consensus among p a r t i c i -pants i n answering q u e s t i o n s . (Table XXX). With the excep-t i o n of the q u e s t i o n on the p e r s o n a l involvement of each 65 Table XXX MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS ON QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE GROUP PROCESS BEFORE (1) AND AFTER (2) INTERVENING DISCUSSION I n d i v i d u a l I n d i v i d u a l Group Questions Non-Cooperative C o o p e r a t i v e C o o p e r a t i v e M SD M SD M SD 1. I d e n t i f i e s 1) 4. 405 1. 674 4. 798 1. 608 4. 609 1. 424 Problems 2) 4. 754 1. 677 4. 895 1. 647 4. 586 1. 349 2. Solves 1) 4. 635 1. 742 4. 758 1. 655 4. 429 1. 405 Problems 2) 4. 643 1. 522 5. 000 1. 623 4. 624 1. 460 3. Content 1) 4. 333 1. 486 4. 774 1. 622 4. 722 1. 544 2) 4. 524 1. 543 4. 887 1. 531 4. 624 1. 352 4. Process 1) 3. 849 1. 721 4. 202 1. 830 3. 684 1. 621 2) 4. 381 1. 673 4. 371 1. 915 3. 880 1. 652 5. Climate 1) 5. 421 1. 636 5. 911 1. 368 5. 782 1. 208 2) 5. 698 1. 466 5. 871 1. 367 5. 865 1. 153 6. Group 1) 4. 968 1. 523 5. 242 1. 527 5. 173 1. 270 Involvement 2) 5. 341 1. 334 5. 443 1. 387 5. 421 1. 220 7. P e r s o n a l 1) 4. 897 1. 373 5. 185 1. 645 5. 248 1. 489 Involvement 2) 5. 103 1. 350 5. 363 1. 548 5. 436 1. 373 8. Communi- 1) 4. 992 1. 467 5. 629 1. 405 5. 368 1. 215 c a t i o n s 2) 5. 317 1. 395 5. 734 1. 362 5. 707 1. 079 9. L i s t e n e d § 1) 5. 095 1. 488 5. 524 1. 322 5. 203 1. 380 Understood 2) 5. 294 1. 386 5. 605 1. 436 5. 451 1. 090 10. C o n t r o l 1) 5. 722 1. 451 6. 089 1. 028 5. 594 1. 279 2) 5. 849 1. 315 6. 113 1. 295 5. 797 • 998 66 Table XXXI DIFFERENCES IN MEANS BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND CYCLING WITHIN EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS ON HOTELLING'S "T2" TEST D i f f e r e n c e s T 2 I n d i v i d u a l Non-cooperative I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e Group Co o p e r a t i v e 14.215 3.627 15.468 .1.370 .349 1.494 .1940 .9656 .1410 Table XXXII DIFFERENCES IN COMBINED MEANS OF FIRST AND SECOND CYCLING BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS ON HOTELLING'S M T 2 " TEST D i f f e r e n c e s T2 I n d i v i d u a l Non-Cooperative and I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e I n d i v i d u a l Non-Cooperative and Group Cooper a t i v e I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e and Group Cooper a t i v e 36.072 46.938 27.820 1. 665 2.173 1. 287 .0402* .0034* .1879 67 member i n h i s group, the standard d e v i a t i o n s on responses were a l l lower than those i n the o t h e r two groups. However, wh i l e the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n does apppear to induce g r e a t e r c o n f o r m i t y i n responses, i t ' does not produce the h i g h e s t means. The i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n con-s i s t e n t l y produced h i g h e r means both b e f o r e and a f t e r the i n t e r v e n i n g d i s c u s s i o n p e r i o d , w h i l e the i n d i v i d u a l non-c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t e d i n the lowest means. To a s c e r t a i n whether responses to the group pr o c e s s q u e s t i o n s would account f o r the main d i f f e r e n c e s among the experimental c o n d i t i o n s , a stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out. In the f i r s t c y c l i n g of q u e s t i o n s on the group p r o c e s s , the f i r s t v a r i a b l e to be removed was "group communications" (15.8), which d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the i n -d i v i d u a l n o n-cooperative and the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e con-d i t i o n s at the .003 l e v e l , between the i n d i v i d u a l non-c o o p e r a t i v e and the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s at the .02 l e v e l , and between the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e and group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s at the .12 l e v e l . The second item removed i n the stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was the q u e s t i o n concerning " c o n t r o l s and i n f l u e n c e s on the group" (15.10). T h i s item then d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the i n d i v i d u a l non-c o o p e r a t i v e and i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s at the .0006 l e v e l , between the i n d i v i d u a l non-cooperative and group coop-e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s at the .02 l e v e l , and between the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e and group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s at the .006 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . (Table XXXIII). 68 Table XXXIII F PROBABILITY MATRICES OF THE FIRST CYCLING OF GROUP PROCESS QUESTIONS Experimental Group I n d i v i d u a l I n d i v i d u a l E xperimental Group Non-Cooperative Cooperative Communications I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e .00034 Group Cooper a t i v e .02558 .12237 C o n t r o l s $ I n f l u e n c e s I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e .00067 Group C o o p e r a t i v e .02839 .00656 On the b a s i s of the two v a r i a b l e s removed i n the step-wise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n m atrix was c r e a t e d . (Table XXXIV). While the v a r i a b l e s removed d i s c r i m i n a t e d be-tween the experimental groups, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of cases i n t o groups i n d i c a t e s t h a t the c l u s t e r s of measurements around each of the group means o v e r l a p to a c o n s i d e r a b l e degree as a r e s u l t o f the s m a l l d i s t a n c e between means. Only 61 of the cases (44.85%) i n the i n d i v i d u a l n on-cooperative c o n d i t i o n , 68 (54.83%) i n the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n , and 36 of the cases (27.06%) i n the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n were c l a s s i f i e d i n the case to which they belonged. 69 Table XXXIV CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOR FIRST CYCLING OF GROUP PROCESS QUESTIONS Cases C l a s s i f i e d i n t o Groups I n d i v i d u a l I n d i v i d u a l Group O r i g i n a l Non-Cooperative C o o p e r a t i v e C o o p e r a t i v e Group No. % No. % No. % I n d i v i d u a l Non-Cooperative 61 44. 85 56 41. 17 19 13. 97 I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e 32 25. 81 68 54. 83 24 19. 36 Group Coo p e r a t i v e 46 34. 59 51 38. 35 36 27. 06 Stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t analys i s of the second c y c l i n g of group process q u e s t i o n s a g a i n removed "group communications" as the f i r s t v a r i a b l e (16.8). I t d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the i n d i v i d u a l non-cooperative and i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i -t i o n s at the .01 l e v e l , between the i n d i v i d u a l n o n-cooperative and group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s at the .01 l e v e l , and between the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e and group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s at the .84 l e v e l . The second v a r i a b l e removed was the q u e s t i o n r e l a t e d to " p r o c e s s " (16.4), which d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the i n d i v i d u a l n o n-cooperative and i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i -t i o n s at the .02 l e v e l , between the i n d i v i d u a l n o n-cooperative and group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s at the .0003 l e v e l , and be-tween the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e and group c o o p e r a t i v e condi-t i o n s at the .06 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . (Table XXXV). 70 Table XXXV F PROBABILITY MATRICES OF THE SECOND CYCLING OF GROUP PROCESS QUESTIONS Experimental Group I n d i v i d u a l I n d i v i d u a l E x p e rimental Group Non-Cooperative C o o p e r a t i v e C ommun i c a t i o n s I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e Group C o o p e r a t i v e .01034 .01445 .84159 Process I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e Group Cooper a t i v e .02498 .00038 .06681 On the b a s i s of the two v a r i a b l e s removed as d i s c r i m -i n a t o r s i n the second c y c l i n g of q u e s t i o n s , the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n m a t r i x again i n d i c a t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p p i n g . (Table XXXVI). Only 47 of the cases (37.30%) i n the i n d i v i d u a l n o n - c o o p e r a t i v e , 48 (38.71%) i n the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e , and 67 of the cases C50.37%) i n the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n were c l a s s i f i e d i n the case to which they belonged. The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the experimental group condi-t i o n s used i n t h i s study. While the d i f f e r e n c e between the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e and group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s was not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , i t d i d i n d i c a t e a tendency 71 Table XXXVI CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOR SECOND CYCLING OF GROUP PROCESS QUESTIONS Cases C l a s s i f i e d i n t o Groups O r i g i n a l I n d i v i d u a l I n d i v i d u a l Group Group Non-Cooperative C o o p e r a t i v e Cooperative No. % No. % No. % I n d i v i d u a l Non-Cooperative 47 37. 30 37 29. 37 42 33. 33 I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e 33 26. 61 _48 38. 71 43 34. 68 Group Coopera t i v e 25 18. 80 41 30. 83 67 50.37 toward s i g n i f i c a n c e . The items which b e s t d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the experimental c o n d i t i o n s were "group communications", "con-t r o l s and i n f l u e n c e s " , and the " p r o c e s s " of group d i s c u s s i o n . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found to e x i s t between the f i r s t and second c y c l i n g of the group process e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s w i t h i n experimental groups. EFFECTS OF PRE-CONFERENCE SURVEY ON ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTIVES Of the 447 p a r t i c i p a n t s who completed the conference e v a l u a t i o n , 154 (34.45%) r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d the pre-conference survey l e t t e r on p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r attendance, 71 (15.88%) r e c e i v e d the l e t t e r but d i d not r e t u r n i t , and 222 72 p a r t i c i p a n t s (49.66%) d i d not r e c e i v e the l e t t e r . T a b l e XXXVII shows the means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r t h o s e t h r e e groups o f p a r t i c i p a n t s on t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o the e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n on o b j e c t i v e s . To a s c e r t a i n whether d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d among t h e s e groups on t h e i r r e s p o n s e s 2 to t h i s q u e s t i o n , a H o t e l l i n g ' s "T " s t a t i s t i c was computed w i t h the r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e X X X V I I I . The o n l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o c c u r r e d between p a r t i c i p a n t s who r e c e i v e d the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e s u r v e y l e t t e r b u t d i d not r e t u r n i t and tho s e who d i d not r e -c e i v e t h e l e t t e r (p = .0143). In e x a m i n i n g the r e s p o n s e s o f each group t o the o b j e c t i v e s (Table X X X V I I ) , i t may be seen t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s who r e c e i v e d b u t d i d n o t r e t u r n the c o n f e r e n c e l e t t e r and those who d i d n o t r e c e i v e the l e t t e r c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d t h e i r a t t a i n m e n t o f o b j e c t i v e s h i g h e r t h a n d i d t h o s e who r e t u r n e d the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e s u r v e y l e t t e r . However, the p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o each o b j e c t i v e showed t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s who d i d not r e c e i v e the l e t t e r and tho s e who r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d the l e t t e r r a t e d fewer o b j e c t i v e s as "Not A p p l i c a b l e " t o them. (Table XXXIX). S t e p w i s e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s on p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s i n terms o f the t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s c r e a t e d by the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e s u r v e y i n d i c a t e d two d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s . ( T able X L ) . The f i r s t e n t e r e d was Intra-NAFSA (14.4) w h i c h d i s c r i m i n a t e d 73 Table XXXVII MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON OBJECTIVES WITH PARTICIPANTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO PRE-CONFERENCE SURVEY CONDITIONS Received § Received § Category of Returned Did not Return Did not O b j e c t i v e L e t t e r L e t t e r Receive L e t t e r 1. Government M 53. 999 M 67. 571 M 52. 466 SD 31. 923 SD 26. 188 SD 31. 039 2. U n i v e r s i t i e s M 53. 551 M 57. 222 M 53. 086 SD 23,821 SD 21. 546 SD 26. 790 3. Program M 51. 643 M 52. 844 M 55. 468 Development SD 25. 460. SD 25. 838 SD 23. 622 4. NAFSA M 40. 201 M 37. 549 M 47. 520 SD 29. 934 SD 28. 090 SD 29. 274 5. Student M 54. 202 M 55. 930 M 60. 875 A t t i t u d e s SD 2 7. 560 SD 25. 508 SD 26. 897 6. Research M 36. 199 M 36. 431 M 40. 140 SD 26. 918 SD 25. 951 SD 28. 581 7. Ideas § M 48. 156 M 47. 272 M 54. 594 Inf o r m a t i o n SD 27. 110 SD 30. 124 SD 27. 363 8. F r i e n d s h i p M 74. 767 M 75. 347 M 73. 211 SD 21. 817 SD 23. 410 SD 23. 196 9. I n t e r c u l t u r a l M 59. 970 " M 62. 031 M 67. 652 Experience SD 29. 836 SD 30. 259 SD 25. 621 10. Problem- M 40. 291 M 49. 508 M 46. 138 S o l v i n g SD 27. 083 SD 27. 563 SD 29. 947 74 Table XXXVIII DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS FOR THE PRE-CONFERENCE SURVEY ON HOTELLING'S " T 2 " TEST Groups Compared R e c e i v i n g § r e t u r n i n g l e t t e r v s . 12.356 R e c e i v i n g § not r e t u r n i n g l e t t e r R e c e i v i n g § r e t u r n i n g l e t t e r v s . 12.872 Not r e c e i v i n g l e t t e r R e c e i v i n g § not r e t u r n i n g l e t t e r v s . 24.196 Not r e c e i v i n g l e t t e r 1.158 1. 241 2.306 3241 . 2652 .0143* Table XXXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN EACH PRE-CONFERENCE SURVEY CONDITION RESPONDING TO THE OBJECTIVES Received § Received § Returned Di d not Return Di d not Re-Category L e t t e r L e t t e r c e i v e L e t t e : of N = 154 N = 71 N = 222 O b j e c t i v e No % No. . % . No. % 1. Government 91 59.0 27 38.0 122 55.0 2. U n i v e r s i t i e s 107 69.0 45 63.0 150 68.0 3. Program Develop-ment 129 83.0 58 82.0 192 86.0 4. NAFSA 99 64.0 40 56.0 167 75.0 5. Student A t t i t u d e s 138 89.0 64 90.0 202 91.0 6. Research 115 74.0 51 72.0 149 67.0 7. Ideas 6j I n f o . 102 66.0 44 62.0 163 73.0 8. F r i e n d s h i p 151 97.0 69 97.0 207 93.0 9. I n t e r c u l t u r a l Exp. 136 88.0 64 90.0 20 5 92.0 .0. Problem-s o1vine 130 84.0 61 86.0 180 81.0 A- JL, \J l—" ^/ l i t *S \y V ^L. A & 75 Table XL F PROBABILITY MATRIX ON PERSONAL OBJECTIVES Group C o n d i t i o n Group Received/Returned C o n d i t i o n Received/Didn't Return Intra-NAFSA -Received/Didn't Return .66367 Did not Receive .02469 .02585 Government Received/Didn't Return .10014 Did not Receive .07466 .00364 between those who r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d the l e t t e r and those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n the l e t t e r (p = .66), between those who r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d and those who d i d not r e c e i v e the l e t t e r (p = .02), and between those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n and those who d i d not r e c e i v e the l e t t e r (p = .02). The second v a r i a b l e e n t e r e d i n t o the s e t of d i s c r i m -i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s was "Government" (14.1) which d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the r e c e i v e d / r e t u r n e d group and the r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n group (p = .10), between the r e c e i v e d / r e t u r n e d and d i d not r e c e i v e groups (p = .07) and between the r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n and d i d not r e c e i v e groups (p = .003). Only 76 f o r the l a t t e r comparison was p l e s s than .05 although the other values d i d approach t h a t l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n m atrix formed on the b a s i s o f t h i s s e t of two d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s i n d i c a t e d c o n s i d e r -able o v e r l a p p i n g of the groups. (Table X L I ) . Only 31.501 Table XLI CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOR PERSONAL OBJECTIVES Cases C l a s s i f i e d i n t o Groups Received § Received § Did not O r i g i n a l Returned Did not Return Receive Group L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r No. % No. % No. % Received % Returned L e t t e r •40 31. 50 43 33. 86 44 34. 64 Received § d i d not Return L e t t e r 20 33. 26 29 46. 78 13 20. 96 Did not Receive L e t t e r 51 26. 29 53 27. 32 90 46. 39 of the cases i n the r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d l e t t e r c o n d i t i o n , 46.78% of the cases i n the r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n l e t t e r c o n d i t i o n , and 46.39% of the cases i n the d i d not r e c e i v e l e t t e r c o n d i t i o n were c l a s s i f i e d i n the case to which they belong. In summary, while i t appears p l a u s i b l e t h a t those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n the pr e - c o n f e r e n c e l e t t e r may have 77 had d i f f e r e n t objectives i n attending, the differences be-tween a l l three groups do not appear s u f f i c i e n t l y large to warrant such a conclusion. The difference obtained on 2 Hotelling's "T " s t a t i s t i c between those who received but did not return the pre-conference survey l e t t e r and those who did not receive i t would require further testing at other conferences to determine the influence of pre-conf erence conditions on the attainment of objectives as perceived by the p a r t i c i p a n t s . PRE-CONFERENCE SURVEY AND EVALUATION CONDITIONS In studying the effects of i n d i v i d u a l and group methods of evaluation on questions related to the group process, no attempt was made to determine whether differences existed i n the amount of change i n response made by each i n -di v i d u a l between the f i r s t and second cycl i n g of the questions. Table XXX presented the means and standard deviations of responses to the group process items when par t i c i p a n t s were c l a s s i f i e d by group conditions, while Table XLII shows the means and standard deviations when par t i c i p a n t s were grouped by conditions i n the pre-conference survey on objectives. A 3 x 3 x 10 f a c t o r i a l analysis was subsequently carr i e d out to test the combined influence of pre-conference 78 Table XLII MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PRE-CONFERENCE SURVEY GROUPS ON QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE GROUP PROCESS BEFORE (1) AND AFTER (2) INTERVENING DISCUSSION Groups Received § Received § Did not Returned Did not Return Receive Questions L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r M SD M SD M SD 1. I d e n t i f i e s 1) 4. 184 1. 670 4. 375 1. 548 4. 869 1. 538 Problems 2) 4. 378 1. 647 4. 613 1. 486 5. 021 1. 479 2. Solves 1) 4. 301 1. 774 4. 359 1. 675 4. 799 1. 521 Problems 2) 4. 465 1. 740 4. 645 1. 548 4. 974 1. 382 3. Content 1) 4. 324 1. 673 4. 328 1. 381 4. 809 1. 603 2) 4. 354 1. 556 4. 661 1. 482 4. 892 1. 393 4. Process 1) 3. 684 1. 902 3. 609 1. 610 4. 080 1. 665 2) 4. 213 1. 876 4. 000 1. 669 4. 263 1. 712 5. Climate 1) 5. 544 1. 515 5. 875 1. 339 5. 668 1. 504 2) 5. 717 1. 506 5. 919 1. 191 5. 840 1. 251 6. Group 1) 4. 949 1. 565 5. 141 1. 457 5. 186 1. 457 Involvement 2) 5. 291 1. 369 5. 354 1. 392 5. 490 1. 244 7. P e r s o n a l 1) 4. 838 1. 536 5. 016 1. 464 5. 276 1. 573 Involvement 2) 5. 079 1. 423 5. 339 1. 402 5. 438 1. 428 8. Communication 1) 5. 044 1. 524 5. 313 1. 446 5. 427 1. 372 2) 5. 433 1. 331 5. 565 1. 288 5. 696 1. 265 9. L i s t e n e d § 1) 4. 963 1. 508 5. 094 1. 310 5. 447 1. 413 Understood 2) 5. 220 1. 374 5. 355 1. 319 5. 629 1. 245 10. C o n t r o l s § 1) 5. 669 1. 210 5. 750 1. 543 5. 864 1. 242 In f l u e n c e s 2) 5. 803 1. 316 5. 839 1. 308 6. 047 1. 017 and e v a l u a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s on the amount of change i n response to group process q u e s t i o n s . (See F i g u r e 2). The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s are p r e s e n t e d i n Table X L I I I . N o n - s i g n i f i c a n t c ^"Se % 4* X ^f3 3> ^  % X X V 7% Individual Non-Cooper at ive Individual Cooperative Group Cooperative F i g u r e 2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE STRUCTURE FOR AMOUNT OF CHANGE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND CYCLING OF GROUP PROCESS QUESTIONS 80 F r a t i o s were ob t a i n e d on two of the independent v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d i n g the group experimental c o n d i t i o n s (F = 1.93855, p > .05) and the ques t i o n s on the group process (F = 1.73110, p = .06). The c o n d i t i o n c r e a t e d by the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e survey on o b j e c t i v e s produced a s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o (F = 3.45323, p < .05), and a s i g n i f i c a n t F f o r i n t e r a c t i o n was produced between the pr e - c o n f e r e n c e survey c o n d i t i o n s and the q u e s t i o n s on the group process CF = 1.71650, p < .05). Table X L I I I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE IN RESPONSES BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND CYCLING OF THE GROUP PROCESS QUESTIONS Source of V a r i a t i o n SS d f MS F p Between means 103.631 1 103.631 93.740 Between group c o n d i t i o n s 4.286 2 2.143 1.939 Between p r e - c o n f e r e n c e survey c o n d i t i o n s 7.635 2 3.818 3.453 .05 Between q u e s t i o n s 17.224 9 1.914 1.731 .06 Group c o n d i t i o n s x pre-conference survey c o n d i -t i o n s 3.229 4 .807 .730 Group c o n d i t i o n s x qu e s t i o n s 17.104 18 .950 .860 Pre-conference survey c o n d i t i o n s x q u e s t i o n s 34.157 18 1.898 1.717 .05 H Q 1 .005 1 .005 0 Q 5 H02 7.492 1 7.492 6.777 .01 E r r o r 4174.403 3776 1.106 81 To d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the groups c r e a t e d by the pre - c o n f e r e n c e survey on o b j e c t i v e s , a l i n e a r h y p o t h e s i s m a t h e m a t i c a l l y formulated as b = c was t e s t e d . T h i s hypo-t h e s i s CHQ-^ ) of no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n the pr e - c o n f e r e n c e l e t t e r on o b j e c t i v e s and those who d i d not r e c e i v e the l e t t e r was h e l d t e n a b l e (F = .00459, p > .05). A second l i n e a r hypo-t h e s i s was then t e s t e d ; i t s mathematical e x p r e s s i o n i s 2a = b + c. Th i s h y p o t h e s i s CHQ2*) of no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence between two times those who r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d the pre - c o n f e r e n c e l e t t e r and those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n p l u s those who d i d not r e c e i v e the l e t t e r was r e j e c t e d (F = 6.77740, p < .01). In summary, the m u l t i p l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e c a r r i e d out on the amount of d i f f e r e n c e between p a r t i c i p a n t s ' responses to the f i r s t and second c y c l e s o f the group process q u e s t i o n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t those who had r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e l e t t e r d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those who d i d not r e t u r n or d i d not r e c e i v e the survey. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount of change i n response between the three experimental c o n d i t i o n s i n i t i a l l y s e t up to determine the e f f e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l and group e v a l u a t i o n . Thus, change between the two c y c l e s of group process q u e s t i o n s was i n f l u e n c e d by the pre - c o n f e r e n c e c o n d i t i o n s but u n r e l a t e d to the c o n d i t i o n s of e v a l u a t i o n . 82 FOOTNOTES Th i s a t t i t u d e s c a l e i s designed to measure the r e a c t i o n of a t o t a l group i n attendance at a s h o r t - t e r m o r g a n i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y ( i . e . , meeting, conference, e t c . ) . I t p r o v i d e s an assessment of the success of the a c t i v i t y i n terms of the a t t i t u d e s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . The median or mean f o r a l l the responses i s computed and t h i s g i v e s a measure of the success of the a c t i v i t y on an e l e v e n - p o i n t s c a l e . . As the o v e r - a l l median tends toward "1", the r e a c t i o n i s i n c r e a s i n g l y f a v o r a b l e s i n c e "1" i s the most f a v o r a b l e p o s s i b l e r e a c t i o n , and c o n v e r s e l y , "11" i s the l e a s t f a v o r a b l e r e a c t i o n . H.H. Harman terms t h i s f a c t o r "The Heywood Case". See Modern F a c t o r A n a l y s i s , Second E d i t i o n , (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1967), pp. 117-118, 192, 219, 232. The f a c t o r s t a b i l i t y check i n d i c a t e s how w e l l f a c t o r spaces from two s e t s of data c o i n c i d e . One s e t of raw data i s d i v i d e d randomly i n t o two approximately equal p a r t s . The f i r s t s e t of data i s used i n a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s to produce a set of r e g r e s s i o n equations f o r f a c t o r s c o r e s . The second set of data produce a second s e t of r e g r e s s i o n equations to produce two s e t s of f a c t o r s c o r e s . The f a c t o r scores are used to produce c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between the f a c t o r s from the t w o - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . C a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n s are i n t e r p r e t e d i n the same manner as product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s . C a n o n i c a l C o r r e l a t i o n and Chi Square v a l u e between the two s e t s of f a c t o r scores f o r the p r e s e n t study were: C a n o n i c a l C o r r e l a t i o n = .998 X 2 = 2090.733, d.f . = 1, p < .001 See C h a r l e s A. K i e s l e r , "Group Pre s s u r e and Conform-i t y " , P a r t I I I i n Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, Judson M i l l s , ed., (New York: M a c M i l l a n , 1970), pp. 233-307. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS The f i r s t purpose of t h i s study was to develop e v a l u a t i o n instruments s u i t a b l e f o r a s s e s s i n g the a c h i e v e -ment of conference o b j e c t i v e s by p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a four-day e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . The second purpose was to determine whether there was a d i f f e r e n c e between i n d i v i d u a l and group methods of e v a l u a t i o n , and whether d i f f e r e n c e s i n e v a l u a t i v e responses e x i s t e d between p a r t i c i p a n t s who were c o n t a c t e d p r i o r to the conference r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and those who were not c o n t a c t e d . One month p r i o r to the conference, l e t t e r s were sent to a l l r e g i s t r a n t s r e q u e s t i n g t h a t they l i s t and submit t h e i r p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r a t t e n d i n g . At the end of the conference, data were c o l l e c t e d by q u e s t i o n n a i r e d u r i n g the f i n a l d i s c u s s i o n s e s s i o n . These data i n c l u d e d p e r s o n a l and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s , Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e measures, and e v a l u a t i o n measures designed f o r t h i s study. 83 84 SUMMARY Planner's O b j e c t i v e s The p l a n n i n g committee of the 1971 NAFSA-CBIE Conference s e l e c t e d as the program theme, "Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us". The program was designed to p r o v i d e optimum o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the p a r t i c i p a n t s to ex p l o r e t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l commitments through d i a l o g u e w i t h other pro-f e s s i o n a l s and students i n a c r o s s - c u l t u r a l environment. To f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r o b j e c t i v e , the plann e r s p r o v i d e d a s t r u c t u r e f o r group i n t e r a c t i o n . The primary techniques employed were s m a l l d i s c u s s i o n groups and a dramatic group to p r o v i d e d a i l y feedback. In a d d i t i o n , s e c t i o n and s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t meetings were planned so t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s c o u l d meet t h e i r own spec-i f i c and g e n e r a l o b j e c t i v e s . P a r t i c i p a n t s Men c o n s t i t u t e d 59% of the 447 p a r t i c i p a n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n the conference e v a l u a t i o n , w h i l e 41% of the p a r t i c i -pants were women. The mean age of p a r t i c i p a n t s was 36.8 y e a r s . Almost s i x t y per cent were between the ages of 20 and 39, 2.46% were under twenty, and the remaining 38% were over 40 years of age. Americans accounted f o r 62% of the conference p a r t i c i p a n t s , w h i l e 10.5% were Canadians. The remainder came from o u t s i d e North America, w i t h those from East and Southeast 85 A s i a c o n s t i t u t i n g the l a r g e s t group (6.26%) and those from the Caribbean c o n s t i t u t i n g the s m a l l e s t (.89%). Forty-two per cent of the p a r t i c i p a n t s h e l d Master's degrees, 22% h e l d Bachelor's degrees, and 14% h e l d d o c t o r a l degrees. An a d d i t i o n a l 22% of the p a r t i c i p a n t s had some u n i v e r s i t y or c o l l e g e e x p e r i e n c e , 2.5% had graduated from h i g h s c h o o l , and only 0.5% had not completed h i g h s c h o o l . Twenty-seven per cent of the conference p a r t i c i p a n t s were s t u d e n t s . Of the p a r t i c i p a n t s who were employed, 26% were f o r e i g n student a d v i s o r s , 9% were i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i -t i o n s , and 9% were v o l u n t e e r or community agency workers. S i x per cent of those t a k i n g p a r t i n the e v a l u a t i o n were employed as p r o f e s s o r s or t e a c h e r s , 6% were c o u n s e l l o r s and 5% were ad-m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r s . The remaining o c c u p a t i o n a l groups i n c l u d e d teachers of E n g l i s h as a second language, and employees of b u s i n e s s , i n d u s t r y and government; on l y 2.68% were unemployed. Over h a l f of the conference p a r t i c i p a n t s worked at u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s . P r i v a t e and community s e r v i c e agencies employed 27% of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , w h i l e the remaining p a r t i c i p a n t s were e i t h e r employed by other e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , b u s i n e s s or government agencies. T h i r t y - t h r e e per cent o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s had been working w i t h f o r e i g n students f o r f i v e y e ars or l e s s , w h i l e 18% had been i n t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n s f o r between s i x and ten y e a r s , and 19% had e l e v e n or more years of e x p e r i e n c e . 86 P a r t i c i p a n t s ' O b j e c t i v e s Nineteen per cent of the statements r e c e i v e d i n the pre- c o n f e r e n c e survey of p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s were concerned w i t h program development, w h i l e 181 were concerned w i t h mak-ing new f r i e n d s or renewing former acquaintances. Twelve per cent i n d i c a t e d the need f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g u n i v e r -s i t y p o l i c i e s , procedures and programs, and 12% a l s o wanted to know more about f o r e i g n students and t h e i r problems. Nine per cent of those responding to the survey were concerned w i t h t a k i n g p a r t i n the i n t e r c u l t u r a l group e x p e r i e n c e , and 8% w i t h l e a r n i n g about p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g p r o c e s s e s . With the e x c e p t i o n of 5% of the statements which were u n c l a s s i f i e d , the remainder of the responses concerned ideas and i n f o r m a t i o n , r e s e a r c h and e v a l u a t i o n , intra-NAFSA a f f a i r s , and government p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g f o r e i g n s t u d e n t s . P a r t i c i p a n t s ' E v a l u a t i o n The Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e Scale was used to measure g e n e r a l r e a c t i o n s to the conference. The mean s c a l e value o b t a i n e d was 4.87 which i n d i c a t e d t h a t " I t had some m e r i t s " . The most f r e q u e n t l y checked item on the s c a l e was No. 5, " I t helpe d me p e r s o n a l l y " . Three g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s were asked r e g a r d i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the d u r a t i o n , s i z e and l o c a t i o n of the conference.. E i g h t y - f o u r per cent were s a t i s f i e d w i t h 87 the d u r a t i o n o f the c o n f e r e n c e , w h i l e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 881 were s a t i s f i e d w i t h the s i z e . E i g h t y - o n e p e r cen t found the l o c a -t i o n v e r y s a t i s f a c t o r y , w h i l e o n l y Z% thought t h a t i t was poor. S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h component p a r t s o f the c o n f e r e n c e was measured on a s e v e n - p o i n t s c a l e w i t h a r a t i n g o f " 1 " i n d i c a t i n g " v e r y p o o r " and a r a t i n g o f "7" s i g n i f y i n g " e x c e l l e n t " . The mean responses on i t e m s r e g a r d i n g room accommodations, meals, m e e t i n g rooms and c o n v e n t i o n c e n t e r p e r s o n n e l were a l l between 5.2 and 5.6 on the s c a l e . Mean resp o n s e s t o items measuring s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the o v e r - a l l c o n f e r e n c e d e s i g n , p r e - c o n f e r e n c e l i t e r a t u r e , s c h e d u l i n g o f e v e n t s , and d i r e c t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r ev e n t s ranged be-tween 4.2 and 4.9. The p a r t i c i p a n t s ' mean response t o the i t e m on " l e i s u r e t i m e " was o n l y 3.5, i n d i c a t i n g a l e s s e r degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h i s element o f the c o n f e r e n c e t h a n w i t h any o t h e r a s p e c t . A mean r a t i n g o f 5.9 i n d i c a t e d t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s were v e r y s a t i s f i e d w i t h the s p e c i a l Thursday e v e n i n g s o c i a l e v e n t , and a r a t i n g o f 5.2 on a l l o t h e r s o c i a l e v e n ts i n d i c a t e d t h a t they too were w e l l r e c e i v e d . P a r t i c i p a n t s ' r e s p o n s e s t o items r e g a r d i n g the con-f e r e n c e program showed t h a t the T a r r a g o n T h e a t r e Ensemble, r a t e d a t 6.4, was the most s u c c e s s f u l element o f the program. Dr. B e n n e t t ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n , s e c t i o n meetings and d i s c u s s i o n groups were r a t e d 4.9, 4.8 and 4.8 r e s p e c t i v e l y . E x h i b i t s , 88 however, r e c e i v e d a very low mean of 3.6 i n d i c a t i n g t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s found them l e s s than adequate. The p a r t i c i p a n t s e v a l u a t e d the degree to which they a t t a i n e d t h e i r p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s as a percentage ranging from "0" to "100". T h e i r responses to items on o b j e c t i v e s showed t h a t f r i e n d s h i p s and the i n t e r c u l t u r a l e xperience were the two o b j e c t i v e s b e s t met by the c o n f e r -ence, w i t h the mean percentage of attainment e q u a l l i n g 74% and 64% r e s p e c t i v e l y . The o b j e c t i v e s concerned w i t h problem-s o l v i n g , Intra-NAFSA a f f a i r s , and r e s e a r c h and e v a l u a t i o n were the l e a s t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y achieved o b j e c t i v e s w i t h mean per-centages of 44%, 43% and 38% r e s p e c t i v e l y . The means on a l l other o b j e c t i v e s were between f i f t y and s i x t y p e r cen t . Approximately e i g h t y - s i x per cent o f the p a r t i c i -pants t a k i n g p a r t i n the conference e v a l u a t i o n responded to the t en q u e s t i o n s measuring the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the group p r o c e s s . Between s i x t y and seventy p e r cent of the p a r t i c i -pants regarded t h e i r groups as e f f e c t i v e on most of the ten items c o n t a i n e d i n the instrument, w i t h three n o t a b l e excep-t i o n s . The q u e s t i o n concerned w i t h l e a r n i n g about the process of p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g e l i c i t e d c o n s i d e r a b l y more n e g a t i v e responses than any other q u e s t i o n as almost s i x t y per cent of the par-t i c i p a n t s r a t e d t h i s item between p o s i t i o n s "1" and "4" on the s c a l e . The two other q u e s t i o n s i n which the response p a t t e r n s were d i f f e r e n t were those r e g a r d i n g group c l i m a t e and c o n t r o l s and i n f l u e n c e s on the group. E i g h t y - t h r e e per 89 cent f e l t t h a t the group c l i m a t e was " f r e e and s u p p o r t i v e " , and 85% i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were no u n d e s i r a b l e c o n t r o l s e x e r c i s e d over t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n groups. In responding to the ten items on the group process f o r a second time as p a r t of the experimental c o n d i t i o n s of the study, p a r t i c i p a n t s g e n e r a l l y gave h i g h e r r a t i n g s to the items. F a c t o r A n a l y s i s A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f the e v a l u a t i o n instrument e x t r a c t e d twelve f a c t o r s which accounted f o r 42% of the v a r i a n c e . . The f a c t o r s were l a b e l l e d as f o l l o w s : The f a c t o r s i d e n t i f y a number of major dimensions which may be regarded as component p a r t s of the conference. Such f a c t o r s as t e c h n i q u e s , o b j e c t i v e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , f a c i l i t i e s , and s i z e and d u r a t i o n of the conference would appear to be g e n e r a l i z a b l e to the conference method. On the other hand, the occurrence of two f a c t o r s w i t h i n the Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e Scale i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was not u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to t h i s popu-l a t i o n . F a c t o r 1 F a c t o r 2 F a c t o r 3 F a c t o r 4 F a c t o r 5 F a c t o r 6 F a c t o r 7 F a c t o r 8 F a c t o r 9 F a c t o r 10 F a c t o r 11 F a c t o r 12 Group Process P e r s o n a l O b j e c t i v e s Conference O r g a n i z a t i o n Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e Scale " U t i l i t y " Length of Conference S i z e of Conference Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e Scale " F u t i l i t y I n n e r - D i r e c t e d O b j e c t i v e s D i s c u s s i o n C o n t r o l F a c i l i t i e s P e r s o n a l Involvement S i z e of Conference I I 90 I n d i v i d u a l vs. Group E v a l u a t i o n To determine whether a d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between i n d i v i d u a l and group methods of e v a l u a t i o n , three experimental c o n d i t i o n s were used f o r the ten items on the group p r o c e s s . In the " i n d i v i d u a l n o n - c o o p e r a t i v e " c o n d i t i o n , p a r t i c i p a n t s assessed the group process by themselves. In the " i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e " c o n d i t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s were p e r m i t t e d to communi-cate w i t h other group members i f they wished w h i l e they f i l l e d out t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n forms. The "group c o o p e r a t i v e " c o n d i t i o n . r e q u i r e d each group member to s t a t e p u b l i c l y h i s assessment of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the group process f o r each of the ten q u e s t i o n s asked. F o l l o w i n g the f i r s t measure of the e f f e c t i v e -ness o f the group process f o r each of the q u e s t i o n s , a l l of the groups were g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y to d i s c u s s the e v a l u a t i o n measures b r i e f l y . P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the i n d i v i d u a l n o n - c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n and the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n were then g i v e n the same d i r e c t i o n s as they had p r e v i o u s l y r e c e i v e d and were asked to respond to the same qu e s t i o n s f o r a second time. P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n were i n s t r u c t e d to attempt to reach a consensus. H o t e l l i n g ' s "T " r e v e a l e d t h a t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i -cant d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between the i n d i v i d u a l n o n - c o o p e r a t i v e and the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n CP = .0402) and between the i n d i v i d u a l non-cooperative and group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s (p = .0034). D i f f e r e n c e s between the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e 91 and group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s d i d not reach the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .1879). The group c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n produced the g r e a t e s t consensus of o p i n i o n w i t h i n the group, w h i l e the i n d i v i d u a l c o o p e r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n produced the h i g h -e s t measurement means. Stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t the items r e g a r d i n g "communications" and " c o n t r o l s and i n f l u e n c e s " i n the f i r s t c y c l i n g of q u e s t i o n s , and "communi-c a t i o n s " and " l e a r n i n g about the p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g p r o c e s s " i n the second c y c l i n g b e s t d i s c r i m i n a t e d between groups. C l a s s i -f i c a t i o n of cases a c c o r d i n g to the s e t s of d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i -ables was i n e f f e c t i v e i n both c y c l e s as a r e s u l t of the s m a l l d i s t a n c e between means. Pre-Conference Survey C o n d i t i o n s To a s c e r t a i n whether d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d i n the e v a l u -a t i o n of achievement of p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s between those who r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d , those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n , and those who d i d not r e c e i v e the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e l e t t e r on p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s , a H o t e l l i n g ' s "T " s t a t i s t i c was computed and stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was used to i d e n t i f y d i s -c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s . A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between those who r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n the survey and those who d i d not r e c e i v e i t ( p = .0143). Step-wise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d two d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i -a b l e s , "Intra-NAFSA" and "Government". The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of cases based on t h i s set of d i s c r i m i n a t o r s f a i l e d to a l l o c a t e most cases e f f e c t i v e l y . 92 Pre-Conference Survey and Evaluation Conditions A multiple c l a s s i f i c a t i o n analysis of variance was carri e d out on the changes in responses made by i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s between the f i r s t and second c y c l i n g of the group process questions, the experimental group conditions and the pre-conference survey conditions. Differences were found to exis t between the responses to questions ( p = .06), between the pre-conference survey conditions (P = .05), and between the in t e r a c t i o n of pre-conference survey conditions and questions (p = .05). Further testing to ascertain where differences existed within pre-conference survey conditions indicated that while those who received but did not return and those who did not receive the pre-conference survey were • not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , those who received and returned were d i f f e r e n t from both of the other groups at a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l CP = .01). CONCLUSION In general, the res u l t s of th i s study indicated that p a r t i c i p a n t s were s a t i s f i e d with most of the f a c i l i t i e s , organization, s o c i a l events and program aspects of th i s con-ference. The one area in which t h e i r evaluation indicated low s a t i s f a c t i o n was In the achievement of personal objectives for attendance. With the exception of two s o c i a l objectives, 93 " f r i e n d s h i p s " and the " i n t e r c u l t u r a l e x p e r i e n c e " which re-c e i v e d h i g h r a t i n g s , the conference f a i l e d to s a t i s f y par-t i c i p a n t s beyond a l e v e l which was j u s t b a r e l y adequate i n some i n s t a n c e s and inadequate i n o t h e r s . The f i n d i n g s on experimental c o n d i t i o n s suggest that e v a l u a t i o n measurements are a f u n c t i o n of the c o n d i t i o n s imposed d u r i n g the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d . Examination of the e f f e c t s of p r e - c o n f e r e n c e c o n t a c t upon e v a l u a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h at d i f f e r e n c e s might e x i s t , but these d i f f e r e n c e s are not s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e to warrant a c o n c l u s i o n without f u r t h e r study of other c o n f e r e n c e s . The m u l t i p l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e on amount of change between the two c y c l e s of group p r o c e s s ques-t i o n s , the experimental group c o n d i t i o n s and the p r e - c o n f e r e n c e survey c o n d i t i o n s i n d i c a t e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences between those who r e c e i v e d and r e t u r n e d the survey and those who e i t h e r r e c e i v e d but d i d not r e t u r n the survey or those who d i d not r e c e i v e i t . No d i f f e r e n c e s i n amount of change were found to e x i s t as a r e s u l t of the e x p e r i m e n t a l group c o n d i t i o n s . In examining the r e s u l t s of the use of the Kropp-Verner A t t i t u d e S c a l e , t h i s study has r a i s e d s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s concerning the v a l i d i t y of t h i s w i d e l y used instrument. The s c a l e appears to be m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l , n e i t h e r d i f f e r e n t i a l 94 nor cumulative, and has s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t e d s e n s i t i v i t y because of i t s dichotomous n a t u r e . Those f a c t o r s suggest t h a t the s c a l e ought not to be used i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y and new s c a l e s should be developed to r e p l a c e i t . IMPLICATIONS The e v a l u a t i o n of courses and programs has become an i n c r e a s i n g l y important phase of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . I t i s now g e n e r a l l y accepted that a l l programs must be s u b j e c t to some form of a c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n o r d e r to determine the degree to which they are e f f e c t i v e i n a c h i e v i n g t h e i r s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s , and to a s c e r t a i n the e f f i c i e n c y of the methods and techniques employed i n r e a c h i n g those o b j e c t i v e s . As t h i s study has i n d i c a t e d , e v a l u a t i o n of the con-f e r e n c e method i s s u b j e c t to fundamental c o m p l e x i t i e s which can s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r e v a l u a t i o n r e s u l t s when i d e n t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n instruments are used on a s i n g l e event. The v a r i -a t i o n s which o c c u r r e d as a r e s u l t of e v a l u a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s i n t h i s study u n d e r l i n e a c r i t i c a l need f o r the development of n o n - r e a c t i v e measures. I f e v a l u a t i o n i s a f u n c t i o n of time, as o t h e r s t u d i e s have suggested, and a f u n c t i o n of c o n d i t i o n s of a p p l i c a t i o n as t h i s study has demonstrated, the problem of v e r i f i c a t i o n of r e s u l t s becomes acute. 95 The problem of a c c u r a t e e v a l u a t i o n i s f u r t h e r i n t e n s i f i e d by inadequate knowledge about r e c o r d i n g measure-ments. For example, one might q u e s t i o n whether the responses p a r t i c i p a n t s gave to the 7-point s c a l e i n t h i s study c o u l d be equated w i t h those responses which were g i v e n as p e r c e n t -ages. One might a l s o q u e s t i o n whether the d i s t a n c e i n terms of the 7-point s c a l e and the percentages from 0 - 100 were the same f o r a l l i n d i v i d u a l s . S i m i l a r l y , one might ask whether the order of items on the e v a l u a t i o n instrument might a l s o a f f e c t responses. I t may be t h a t a h i g h or low r a t i n g on the f i r s t item i n a group of q u e s t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e s a "response s e t " f o r those items f o l l o w i n g . The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s study f o r conference p l a n n e r s are t h r e e - f o l d . F i r s t , i t i s e v i d e n t from the e x p e r i m e n t a l con-d i t i o n s imposed i n t h i s study t h a t through m a n i p u l a t i o n of the c o n d i t i o n s of a p p l i c a t i o n , the e v a l u a t o r may produce h i g h e r or lower assessments of an event, r e g a r d l e s s of the s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of the measuring instrument employed. While v e r i f i c a t i o n o f e v a l u a t i o n i s a problem which s t i l l remains, use of the I n d i v i d u a l Non-Cooperative c o n d i t i o n i n e v a l u a t i o n should pro-duce a lower l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n which i s p r o b a b l y the most r e l i a b l e estimate upon which to gauge the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a program. Second, although the evidence i s not c o n c l u s i v e , i t would appear t h a t a p r e - c o n f e r e n c e survey of p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p e r s o n a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r a t t e n d i n g can e s t a b l i s h a " s e t " toward 96 the conference s e v e r a l weeks b e f o r e the a c t u a l event. Such a " s e t " might s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r e n t r y b e h a v i o r i n t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t would have w e l l - d e f i n e d o b j e c t i v e s and a s t r o n g e r m o t i v a t i o n to achieve them. For the conference p l a n n e r , i t would mean a d j u s t i n g the program where major p a r t i c i p a n t o b j e c t i v e s were overlooked, and i t might a l s o mean a more c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n on the p a r t of p a r t i c i p a n t s . However, i f the conference p a r t i c i p a n t s ' o b j e c t i v e s are i n c o r p o r a t e d by the p l a n n e r , the programs should be b e t t e r able to serve the needs of a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . F i n a l l y , conference p l a n n e r s should be c o g n i z a n t of the f a c t t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h an event i s not n e c e s s a r i l y an index of l e a r n i n g o r b e h a v i o u r a l change on the p a r t of the p a r t i c i p a n t . I f conferences are to f u l f i l l an e d u c a t i v e f u n c t i o n , the area of l e a r n i n g e v a l u a t i o n i s the most c r i t i c a l one f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY Boyle, P a t r i c k G. and Irwin R. Jahns. "Program Development and E v a l u a t i o n " i n Smith, Robert et a l . ( e d s , ) , Handbook  of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . New York: M a c M i l l a n , 19 70. Burke, Warner W., and R i c h a r d Beckhard ( e d s . ) . Conference  P l a n n i n g . Washington, D.C.: NTL I n s t i t u t e f o r A p p l i e d B e h a v i o u r a l Science d, NEA, 1970. Byrn, D a r c i e , (ed.). E v a l u a t i o n i n E x t e n s i o n . D i v i s i o n of E x t e n s i o n Research and T r a i n i n g , F e d e r a l E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e , U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1962. Densmore, Max L. "An E v a l u a t i v e A n a l y s i s of S e l e c t i v e Con-fe r e n c e Programs Conducted at K e l l o g g Center f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y " . Unpublished Ph.D. t h e s i s . East Lansing: M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1965. Durston, B e r r y H. "The E v a l u a t i o n Process i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . " . J o u r n a l of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress of U n i v e r s i t y A d u l t  E d u c a t i o n , 7:14-25, September, 1968. E i d e l l , T e r r y L. and John A. Klebe. Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y  on the E v a l u a t i o n o f E d u c a t i o n a l Programmes. Eugene, Oregon: Oregon U n i v e r s i t y , ERIC Cl e a r i n g h o u s e on Educa-t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , #ED 025-857. F r u c h t e r , Benjamin. I n t r o d u c t i o n to F a c t o r A n a l y s i s . New York: Van Nostrano^ 1954. G i u l i a n i , B e t t y . E v a l u a t i o n Summary f o r 12th Annual Seminar  f o r C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Leaders i n C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n . East Lansing: M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969. Gropper, George L. "A Study of the C r i t i c a l Requirements of Conference Behavior". Unpublished Ph.D. t h e s i s . P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h , 1956. G u i l f o r d , J.P. Fundamental S t a t i s t i c s i n Psychology and  E d u c a t i o n . Fourth E d i t i o n . New York: M a c M i l l a n , I9~6 5. Harman, H.H. Modern F a c t o r A n a l y s i s . Second E d i t i o n . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1967. H o t e l l i n g , H. "The s e l e c t i o n of v a r i a t e s f o r use i n p r e d i c t i o n w i t h some comments on the problem o f nuisance parameters". Ann, math. S t a t , 11:271-283, 1940. 98 Jackson, James Donovan. "A Study of Conference Goals as R e l a t e d to the P l a n n i n g and E v a l u a t i o n of E d u c a t i o n a l Conferences". Unpublished Ed.D. t h e s i s . E a s t Lansing: Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1956. Jensen, Gale et a l . ( e d s . ) . A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , O u t l i n e s of an  Emerging F i e l d of U n i v e r s i t y Study1 A d u l t E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n of the U.S.A., 1964. Kafka, James A. "Determinants of R e s i d e n t i a l A d u l t E d u c a t i o n E f f e c t i v e n e s s " . Unpublished Ph.D. t h e s i s . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, 1970. Kidd, J.R. How A d u l t s Learn. New York: A s s o c i a t i o n P r e s s , 1959. Knox, A l a n B. "Approaches to Conference E v a l u a t i o n " . Working Paper, U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska, no date. Knox, A l a n B. "Conference O b j e c t i v e s : Prelude to E v a l u a t i o n " . A d u l t L e a d e r s h i p , 10:234-36,248, February, 1962. K u l i c h , J i n d r a et a l . Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y on Program E v a l u a t i o n i n R e s i d e n t i a l A d u l t E d u c a t i o n (Conferences' and  I n s t i t u t e s ) . Research Committee, Conference and I n s t i t u t e D i v i s i o n , NUEA, no date. Mann, David K., Raymond E. C a r t e r and C a r l E. Larson. Program  E v a l u a t i o n i n I n s t i t u t e s and Conferences. Lawrence, Kansas: U n i v e r s i t y of Kansas P r e s s , 1963. M i l l e r , D e l b e r t C. Handbook of Research Design and S o c i a l  Measurement. New "York: David McKay, 1970. M i l l e r , Harry L. Teaching and L e a r n i n g i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . New York: M a c M i l l a n , 1964. Senders, V i r g i n i a L. Measurement and S t a t i s t i c s . New York: Oxford, 1958. Smith, Robert, George F. Aker, and J.R. Kidd ( e d s . ) . Handbook  o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . New York: M a c M i l l a n , 1970. Stephenson, W. "The I n v e r t e d F a c t o r Technique". B r i t i s h  J o u r n a l of Psychology, 26:344-61, 1936. Sutton, E l i z a b e t h Walker. " A n a l y s i s of Research on S e l e c t e d Aspects of E v a l u a t i o n i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . " Unpublished Ed.D. t h e s i s . T a l l a h a s s e e : F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1966. 99 Thiede, Wilson. " E v a l u a t i o n and A d u l t E d u c a t i o n " i n Jensen, Gale et a l . ( e d s . ) , A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , O u t l i n e s of an Emerg- i n g F i e l d of U n i v e r s i t y Stud"y"^ A d u l t E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n of the U.S.A. ,1964 . Verner, C o o l i e . "Some C o n s i d e r a t i o n s of E v a l u a t i o n i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n " . E x t e n s i o n Papers. Edmonton: U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a , no date. Webb, Eugene L., Donald Campbell, R i c h a r d Schwartz and Lee Se c h r e s t . U n o b t r u s i v e Measures. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. 101 PERSONAL OBJECTIVES FOR THIS CONFERENCE ExampIe: I f you were an A d m i s s i o n s O f f i c e r : " I am i n t e r e s t e d i n g a i n i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e h o u s i n g p r o b l e m s e n c o u n t e r e d by f o r e i g n s t u d e n t s . " I . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. PLEASE CHECK: I f e e l t h a t t h i s p r e - c o n f e r e n c e s u r v e y i s a \ - a« v e r y h e l p f u l i d e a ^--^ v b. h e l p f u l b u t n o t p r a c t i c a l n o t p r a c t i caI a t a I I APPENDIX B 102 EVALUATION FORM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FOREIGN STUDENT AFFAIRS As a p a r t i c i p a n t in this Conference, you can best evaluate its success. We are interested in your frank appraisal of a number of aspects of the Conference including programs, f a c i l i t i e s , techniques, and the degree to which your personal objectives were achieved. By a s s i s t i n g in this evaluation, you w i l l enable the planning committee to design e f f e c t i v e programs for future con-ferences. Thank you for your cooperation. PERSONAL INFORMATION. Sex: 1. Male Please check ( p r i a t e space. 2. Female ) or answer in the appro-2. How old are you? 3. What i s your nationality? Highest level of education achieved: 1. Some high school 4. Bachelor's degree 2. High school graduation 3. Some college or university 5. Master's degree 6. Doctor's degree STUDENTS ONLY answer this question; Non-Students proceed to Question 6. a) Do you hold a paid position i n an organization or agency concerned with Foreign Student Affairs? 1. Yes 2. No b) If YES to (a), are you employed: 1. Full-time 2. Part-time c) If YES to (a), what type of employer are you working for? 1. University or college 2. Other educational institution 3. Business or Industry 4. 5. 6. Private or Community Service Agency Government agency Other (specify) ' d) If YES to (a), what is your position? NON-STUDENTS ONLY answer this question. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 1,3 4 5,6 7 8 9,11_ 12 13 14 15 16 17 a) What is your occupation? 18 103 2. b) What type of employer are you working for? 1. University or college 2. Other educational institution 3. Business or industry 4. Private or community service agency 5. Canadian or US government agency 6. Foreign government agency 7. Not employed 8. Other (specify) 19,20_ c) How many years have you worked with foreign students? 21,23_ 7. Were you a work group convenor at this Conference? 1. Yes 2. No 24 8. a) Have you attended any Section/Special Interest Meetings? 1. Yes 2. No 25 b) If YES to (a) , how many meetings did you attend? 26 c) If YES to (a), did you attend 1. only meetings of organizations i n which you hold membership? 2. meetings of organizations i n which you hold member-ship, as well as other meetings? 3. only meetings of organizations i n which you do not hold membership? 27 9. If you had known about the Conference what you know now, would you have attended i t ? 1. Yes 2. No 28 10. a) Did you receive a pre-conference letter requesting your personal objectives for attending this Conference? 1. Yes 2. No 29 b) If YES to (a), did you complete and return i t ? 1. Yes 2. No 30 11. Please read a l l of the following statements; then check ( ) in the left-hand column a l l of those best stating how you feel about the Conference as a whole. 1. It was one of the most rewarding experiences I ever had. 31 "2. Exactly what I needed. 32 "3. I hope we can have another one i n the near future. 33 "4. It provided the kind of experience I can apply in my own situation. 34 5. It helped me personally. 35 (continued) 104 6. _7. 8. 10. 11. 12. _13. _14. 15. _16. _17. 18. 19, 20. It solved some problems for me. I think i t served i t s purpose. It had some merits. It was f a i r . It was neither very good nor very poor. I was mildly disappointed. It was not exactly what I needed. It was too general. I am not taking any new ideas away. It didn't hold my interest. It was much too superficial. I leave dissatisfied. It was very poorly planned. I didn't learn a thing. It was a complete waste of time. 12. How would you rate each of the following. Please check ( ). 1. a) Was the LENGTH OF THE CONFERENCE satisfactory? 1. Yes 2. No b) If NO to (a), how many days do you think i t should have been? 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51,53 54 55,56 2. a) Was the SIZE OF THE CONFERENCE satisfactory? 1. Yes 2. No b) If NO to (a), how many people do you think there should have been? 57 _ 58,60 3. Do you think that Vancouver was a good location for the Conference? 1. Poor location 2. Acceptable 3. Very good location 13. Would you please i n d i c a t e your s a t i s f a c t i o n with the following items by c i r c l i n g your position on the seven-point scale provided. 4-1 C CU O CD rH C0 rH <1) 0) ft CJ o a. X o < w FACILITIES 1. Room Accommodations 0 7 2. Meals 0 7 3. Meeting room accommodations 0 7 4. Convention Personnel (eg, desk clerk, information service) 0 7 6 6 6 ca < 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 u o o ft u cu > 1 1 1 61 62 63 64 1 65 (continued) 105 CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION 1. Over-all conference design 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 2. Adequacy of pre-conference l i t -erature 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 3. Schedule for daily events 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 4. Directions, instructions for events 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 5. Time available for own pursuits 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 SOCIAL EVENTS 1. Thursday evening special event (eg, Harbor Cruise, Planetarium) 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 2. Other Social Events (eg, English Traditional, After Ten, Mixers) 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 CONFERENCE PROGRAM EVENTS 1. Dr. Bennett's "Opsimpathy" 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 2. Section/Special Interest Meetings 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 3. Discussion (work) groups 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 4. Tarragon Theatre Ensemble 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 5. Exhibits 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 66_ 1 67 1 68" 1 69_ 1 70 1 71 1 72 1 73_ 1 74 1 75 1 76" 1 77" 14. A pve-oonfeven.ee survey of the personal objectives of r e g i s t r a n t s indicated a number of common concerns and expectations. Some of these w i l l include your own personal objectives, while others may not. Would you please estimate the percentage of success you had in achieving these objectives. Your r a t i n g can range from 0%, which means you had no success in achieving your objectives, to 100%, which means you were completely successful in achieving your objectives. If the objective listed is NOT APPLICABLE to you, please mark "NA" in the percentage column. 1. GOVERNMENT. Obtaining c l a r i f i c a t i o n of government regulations, immigration rules, visas, work permits. 1. % 1,3 4 5,7 2. UNIVERSITIES. Obtaining information on practices employed by other universities and colleges in admitting foreign students, evaluating credentials, counselling procedures. 2. 3. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT. Obtaining information and shar-ing ideas on program development in areas concerning students, e.g., orientation, community, exchange, language, intercultural, campus. 3. (continued) 8,10 11,13 106 4. INTRA-NAFSA. Obtaining c l a r i f i c a t i o n of NAFSA's purposes, e.g., discussing i t s organizational structure, direction, communication and financial 14,16 problems. 4. % 5. STUDENT ATTITUDES. Obtaining a r e a l i s t i c assess-ment of problems encountered by students studying in a foreign country, as expressed by the students themselves, e.g., immigration problems, academic 17,19 problems, social and personal problems. 5. % 6. RESEARCH AND _ EVALUATION. Obtaining research find-ings on foreign students and their problems, and evaluation findings on existing programs for stu- 20,22 dents studying i n a foreign country. 6. % 7. IDEAS AND INFORMATION. Promoting an idea, theory, 23,25 product, service or program. 7. % 8. FRIENDSHIPS. Becoming acquainted or renewing 2 6 2 g acquaintances with colleagues. 8. % ' 9. INTEROJLTURAL EXPERIENCE. Developing a better rapport with others as a result of participat- 2 g 3 1 ing i n an inter-cultural experience. 9. % * 10. PROBLEM-SOLVING. Solving problems unique to your 3 2 3 4 position as a student or professional person. 10. % ' PLEASE STOP HERE AND WAIT FOR YOUR GROUP CONVENOR TO GIVE 3 5 ' 3 6 YOU INSTRUCTIONS ON FILLING OUT THE LAST SECTIONS OF THIS EVALUATION FORM. 37 15. Would you please o i v c l e your position on the following items: 1. How effective do you feel your group was in identifying problems of common interest to a l l group members? Not very effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effective 38 2. How effective do you feel your group was in working i n an orderly, rational, but sensitive way toward the solution of problems? Not very effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effective 39 3. How much do you feel you personally learned about the content of the problems being discussed? L i t t l e or none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A great deal 40 (continued) 107 6. 4. How much do you feel you personally learned about the process by which problems can be solved? L i t t l e or none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A great deal 41 5. How would you describe the climate of your group? Restrictive, pres- Free, supportive, sure toward con- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 respect for indiv-formity idual differences 42 6. How would you describe the degree of involvement of your group as a whole? L i t t l e or no involvement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High involvement 43 7. How would you describe your personal involvement i n the discussions of your group? L i t t l e or no involvement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High involvement 44 8. How would you describe communications among members of your group? Guarded, cautious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Open, authentic 45 9. To what extent do you feel people i n your group r e a l l y listened to each other and tr i e d to understand the various ideas being proposed as solutions to problems? We did not l i s t e n We listened, we under-to each other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 stood and were under- 46 stood 10. How would you describe the controls or influences on the direction of your group? Control was impos- We controlled ed on us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ourselves 47 PLEASE STOP HERE AND WAIT FOR YOUR GROUP. CONVENOR TO GIVE YOU INSTRUCTIONS ON FILLING OUT THE LAST SECTION OF THIS EVALUATION FORM. 16. Would you please c i r c l e your position on the following items: 1. How effective do you feel your group was i n identifying problems of common interest to a l l group members? Not very effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effective 51 (continued) 108 2. How effective do you feel your group was in working i n an orderly, rational, but sensitive way toward the solution of problems? Not very effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effective 52 3. How much do you feel you personally learned about the content of the problems being discussed? L i t t l e or none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A great deal 53 4. How much do you feel you personally learned about the process by which problems can be solved? L i t t l e or none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A great deal 54 5. How would you describe the climate of your group? Restrictive, pres- Free, supportive, sure toward con- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 respect for indiv- 55 formity idual differences 6. How would you describe the degree of involvement of your group as a whole? L i t t l e or no involvement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High involvement 56 7. How would you describe your personal involvement i n the discussions of your group? L i t t l e or no involvement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High involvement 57 8. How would you describe communications among members of your group? Guarded, cautious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Open, authentic 58 9. To what extent do you feel people i n your group really listened to each other and tr i e d to understand the various ideas being proposed as solutions to problems? We did not l i s t e n We listened, we under-to each other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 stood and were under- 59 stood 10. How would you describe the controls or influences on the direction of your group? Control was impos- We controlled ed on us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ourselves 60 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 6 1 108 7. 2. How effective do you feel your group was in working i n an orderly, rational, but sensitive way toward the solution of problems? Not very effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effective 52 3. How much do you feel you personally learned about the content of the problems being discussed? L i t t l e or none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A great deal 53 4. How much do you feel you personally learned about the process by which problems can be solved? L i t t l e or none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A great deal 54 5. How would you describe the climate of your group? Restrictive, pres- Free, supportive, sure toward con- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 respect for indiv- 55 formity idual differences 6. How would you describe the degree of involvement of your group as a whole? L i t t l e or no involvement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High involvement 56 7. How would you describe your personal involvement i n the discussions of your group? L i t t l e or no involvement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High involvement 57 8. How would you describe communications among members of your group? Guarded, cautious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Open, authentic 58 9. To what extent do you feel people i n your group really listened to each other and tried to understand the various ideas being proposed as solutions to problems? We did not l i s t e n We listened, we under-to each other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 stood and were under- 59 stood 10. How would you describe the controls or influences on the direction of your group? Control was impos- We controlled ed on us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ourselves 60 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 61 APPENDIX C THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver 8, Canada F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n Research Centre March 4, 1971 Dear S i r : At p r e s e n t I am working on the development of s u i t a b l e instruments f o r e v a l u a t i o n of an I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference b e i n g h e l d at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l -umbia i n the s p r i n g , and would be i n t e r e s t e d i n o b t a i n -ing c o pies o f e v a l u a t i o n instruments which are b e i n g used i n other p l a c e s . I f p o s s i b l e , c o u l d you send me copies of any i n -struments you are employing, w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . I t would a l s o be most u s e f u l f o r me to have r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s or p u b l i c a t i o n s you may have w r i t t e n concerning p a r t i c i p a n t s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the content, i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques and/or o v e r - a l l d e s ign and management of the program. I would be most g r a t e f u l f o r any a s s i s t a n c e you c o u l d g i v e me i n t h i s p r o j e c t . Yours very t r u l y , Kenneth P. P e t e r s o n SURVEYS OF QUESTIONS ASKED ON CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORMS Knox Study Present Study Change - x + N = 75 N = 84 i n % Category of Item No. % No. % Use A. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Sex 5 6.7 4 4 .8 -1.9 2. Age 6 8.0 6 7 1 -0.9 3. Marital or family status 2 2.7 2 2 .4 -0.3 4. Size of community in which P. lives 2 2.7 0 --5. Distance travelled to conference 2 2.7 2 2 4 -0.3 6. Occupation or major act i v i t y 11 14.7 10 11 9 -2.8 7. No. of years i n present work 3 4.0 1 1 .2 -1.8 8. Associations of which P. is a member 1 1.3 4 4 8 +3.5 9. Level of formal education 7 9.3 8 9 .5 +0.2 10. Prior adult ed. experience (frequency, type, subject) 7 9.3 0 --11. Prior attendance at conferences 2 2.7 4 4 .8 +2.1 12. Income NC* 2 2 .4 13. Was release time from place of employment a problem? NC* _1 1 .2 48 44 PROMOTION 14. How and when did P. f i r s t learn about conference? 8 10.7 9 10 .7 0.0 15. Did P. have enough advance information? 7 9.3 13 15 .5 +6.2 16. Who or what influenced P. most to attend? 2 2.7 2 2 .4 -0.3 17. Who paid the expenses of attending conference? 1 1.3 6 7 .1 + 5.8 18. Was P.'s attendance at conference voluntary? NC* 5 6 .0 19. Would P. recommend to others that they attend future similar conferences? 9 12.0 15 17 .9 +5.9 20. Would P. be willing to help promote future conferences? . 1 1.3 0 " — 28 50 * This category was not used i n the Knox study. SURVEYS OF QUESTIONS ASKED ON CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORMS (continued) Knox Study Present Study Change N = 75 N = 84 i n % Category of Items No. % No. % Use C. REASONS FOR ATTENDANCE 21. What are P.'s reasons for attending or his objec-tives; what would he like most to gain from the experience? 5 6.7 6. 7.1 +0.4 22. Did the conference help to c l a r i f y P.'s objectives related to the topic? _2 2.7 _4 4.8 +2.1 7 10 D. FACILITIES AND SERVICES 23. Where P. stayed while attending conference 1 1.3 3 3.6 +2.3 24. P.'s satisfaction with or suggestions about meals, sleeping rooms, meeting rooms, parking, garage f a c i l i t i e s , social events, conference office personnel. 16 21.3 58 69.0 +47.7 17 6 T E. CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION 25. P.'s satisfaction or reaction to methods of con-ference organization including aspects like timing and length of conference, location, size of total and sub-groups, prior readings, audio-visual de-vices, number of sessions, techniques, time for pre-conference preparation, amount of work re-quired, scope of topics, etc. NC 80 95.2 26. General reaction of P. to organization of total conference 50 66.7 57 67.9 +0.2 27. Reaction to the organization of individual sessions 1 1.3 2 2.4 +1.1 5T 139 SURVEYS OF QUESTIONS ASKED ON CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORMS (continued) Knox Study Present Study Change N = 75 N = 84 in % Category of Items • No. % No. % Use PROGRAM COMPONENTS 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. To what degree did each session deal with P.'s major interests? How did P. believe that the various sessions compared generally (either rating each session on an excellent to poor scale, or selecting best sessions) Which sessions did P. consider inadequately covered? To which sessions would P. have liked to devote more time? Request P. to comment in own words on each session. P.'s assessment of how valuable each session was to him. (The c r i t e r i a of assessment included type of benefit or amount of value or importance or usefulness or money's worth. The object of assessment was either each session, each topic, or each unit, or each subj.) What were the major new ideas that P. gained within each session? Of a l l the topics, which did P. consider most import-ant or interesting? For each session, how well was the subject covered, compared with what P. would have liked to have covered? How would P. rate the conference materials? How satis f i e d was P. with order of presentation of topics? How did P. believe that the various speakers compared generally (either rating each speaker on an excellent to poor scale, or selecting best speakers) 1 1.3 12 14.3 +13.0 28 37.3 27 32.1 -5.2 4 5.3 12 14.3 +9.0 3 4.0 7 8.3 +4.3 1 1.3 3 3.6 +2.3 28 37.3 56 66.7 +29.4 1 1.3 6 7.1 +5.8 1 1.3 9 10.7 +9.4 1 NC NC 14 1.3 24 23 18.7 37 28.6 27.4 1.2 44.0 +27.3 +25.3 SURVEYS OF QUESTIONS ASKED ON CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORMS (continued) Knox Study Present Study Change N = 75 N = 84 i n % Category of Items No. % No. \ Use PROGRAM COMPONENTS (continued) 40. How would P. rate instructor's knowledge of his subject matter? NC 8 9.5 41. ' How well did each speaker f u l f i l l his assignment i n P.!s estimation? 1 1.3 1 1.2 -0.1 42. For each topic, how did P. rate the effectiveness of presentation, in terms of techniques or a b i l i t y to hold attention? 12 16.0 37 44.0 +28.0 43. How would P. rate opportunities for participation? NC 27 32.1 44. What recommendations would P. make regarding con-tent, format, etc.? NC 1 1.2 45. How appropriate did P. think the materials discussed were? NC 1 1.2 46. Would P. choose eight adjectives to describe the type of leader with whom he enjoys working. NC 1 1.2 9T 29T GENERAL REACTIONS TO TOTAL CONFERENCE PROGRAM 47. How closely did P.'s expectations for the program coincide with his actual experience? 3 4.0 24 28.6 +24.6 48. In P.'s estimation, how well did the subjects covered i n the program contribute to the achievement of the conference objectives? 4 5.3 15 17.9 +12.6 49. What was P.'s general reaction or satisfaction with the total program (modifications of the Kropp-Verner Scale were frequently used. Also, asking P. how closely the conference met his objectives for i t ) 40 .53.3 68 81.0 +27.7 SURVEYS OF QUESTIONS ASKED ON CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORMS (continued) Category of Items Knox Study N = 75 No. % Present Study N = 84 No. % Change in % Use 20 26.7 24 28.6 +0.9 20 26.7 47 56.0 +29.3 41 54.7 80 95.2 +40.5 4 5.3 10 11.9 +6.6 2 2.7 7 8.3 +5.6 NC 26 31.0 1 128 1.3 6 268 7.1 +5.8 38 50.7 14 16.7 -34.0 GENERAL REACTIONS (continued) 50. What was P.'s general reaction to the total program in his own words? 51. - What, i n P.'s estimation, were the 1 or 2 most valu-able ideas, parts, aspects, or contributions of the total program? 52. What would P. suggest as the least valuable aspects of the total program, that should be improved, changed or eliminated? 53. What was P.'s estimation of the level of the program (over his head, just right, too basic)? 54. Did P. feel that the program had caused him to in -crease his interest i n the subject? 55. What additions or deletions would P. suggest be made i n the program? 56. If participant had known then about the program what he knows at the end, would he have enrolled? H. FOLLOW-UP 57. Would P. be interested in further study of the same or other subjects, and i f so, what would be like to study and how would he like to do so? SURVEYS OF QUESTIONS ASKED ON CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORMS (continued) Knox Study Present Study Change N = 75 N = 84 in % Category of Item No. % No. % Use H. FOLLOW-UP (continued) 58. How does P. see the conference related to pertinent areas of his ongoing activity? 2 2 .7 13 15, .5 +12, .8 59. What specific applications of the conference benefits does P. plan to make in his 'faack home" situation? 5 6 .7 24 28, .6 +21, .9 60. What speakers would P. suggest for future conferences? 3 4, .0 4 4, .8 +0. .8 61. Does P. plan to attend the next conference in the sequence? 1 1 .3 9 10, .7 +9, .4 62. Can P. identify several specific problems that future conferences could help with? 1 1, .3 5 6, .0 +4, .7 63. Should the conference be repeated annually, i n P.'s estimation? NC 10 11, .9 64. Does P. plan to maintain post-conference contact with others i n attendance? NC 1 1, .2 50 80 116 APPENDIX E RE: 1971 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FOREIGN STUDENT AFFAIRS "PROGRAMS"77" In keeping w i t h the theme "Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us", the 1971 conference has been u n i q u e l y designed to do j u s t t h a t . We have developed a new program concept f o r NAFSANS and CBIE's to e x p l o r e and experience our mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p s without l o s i n g any of the v a l u e s of p r e v i o u s c o n f e r e n c e s . In p l a n n i n g , our f i r s t concern was to p r o v i d e a method whereby we c o u l d s e r i o u s l y see o u r s e l v e s as we go about our separate d u t i e s . We f e l t t h i s c o u l d only be accomplished i n s m a l l work groups of 12 to 15 people. Each group w i l l be a c r o s s s e c t i o n of the con-f e r e n c e and w i l l have members from each s e c t i o n , students and l e a d e r s . Our second concern i s to get the " C o r r i d o r C o n v e r s a t i o n s " i n t o the conference meetings. Our t h i r d concern i s to get a u s e f u l d i a l o g u e between a) s e c t i o n s ; b) Nafsans and Canadians; c) students and pro-f e s s i o n a l s -- where i n s t a n t i s s u e s and concerns can be d i s c u s s e d . We f e e l t h i s w i l l be accomplished by the s m a l l work group concept, f o c u s s i n g on concerns common to us a l l . So f o r these purposes, we have planned 1. s u f f i c i e n t hours of group d i a l o g u e to enable t h i s to happen; 2. a t r a i n e d convenor f o r each group r e c r u i t e d from our own ranks; 3. Dr. Thomas Bennett of Chicago as our process c o n s u l t a n t , 4. an o u t s t a n d i n g student dramatic group at t a c h e d to UBC who w i l l observe, absorb and m i r r o r back to us, "how F i n a l l y , normal meetings or workshops w i l l not be f o r f e i t e d . In f a c t , more time i s being made a v a i l a b l e to the s e c t i o n s f o r t h e i r unique concerns. Dr. Bennett w i l l i n t r o d u c e the concept and g i v e us guide-l i n e s f o r working t o g e t h e r . The work group convenors w i l l h e l p to s e t the stage w h i l e the a c t o r s perform f o r our i n f o r m a t i o n . The work group convenors and a c t o r s w i l l meet d a i l y w i t h Dr. Bennett to assess where we are a t , then feed-back to us each f o l l o w i n g morning. T h i s w i l l p r o v i d e the content f o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . T h i s conference i s shaping up to be an e x c i t i n g program i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g . 117 DEVELOPING THE THEME "SEEING OURSELVES AS OTHERS SEE US" ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN VANCOUVER, MAY, 1971 From the b e g i n n i n g , we agreed to d e s i g n and conduct a conference t h a t would be d i f f e r e n t . The conference became I n t e r n a t i o n a l as we c r o s s e d the Canadian border and j o i n e d w i t h our Canadian c o u n t e r p a r t . I t i s d i f f e r e n t as we put i t i n t o a u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g . The con-f e r e n c e asks the q u e s t i o n s who am I; where do I stand i n my commitment to the p r o f e s s i o n ; what am I doing; why am I i n i t ; what are my r o l e c o n f l i c t s . We a l s o ask what e f f e c t do I have on s t u d e n t s , how do I a f f e c t them; who am I k i d d i n g ? The p l a n n i n g committee f e l t the conference c o u l d t r y to c r e a t e u n derstanding, not c o n v i n c i n g ; p r o v i d e d i a l o g u e , not speeches; enable o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r improving i n t e r p e r s o n a l com-petence; a l l o w ample time f o r i n s t a n t i s s u e involvement; develop a framework f o r cross c u l t u r a l , c r oss s e c t i o n a l , c r o s s d i s c i p l i n ary e x p e r i e n c e ; and at the same time, ensure movement and f l e x i -b i l i t y . I t i s a monumental task. We do not have the answers so we have to p r o v i d e the process to f i n d t h a t p e r s o n a l answer, f o r each one at the con-f e r e n c e . How many times have we s a i d the b e s t p a r t of the con-f e r e n c e was i n the s m a l l group d i s c u s s i o n s , i n the h a l l s , i n the bedrooms, i n the b a r s , e t c . For these reasons, f o r these needs, f o r t h i s purpose we have developed the theme and these o b j e c t i v e s : 1. Put p a r t i c i p a t i v e d i s c u s s i o n back i n t o the c o n f e r -ence by p r o v i d i n g a s m a l l group expe r i e n c e f o r everyone. 2. Let the p a r t i c i p a n t s p r o v i d e the content, the meat of the d i s c u s s i o n s by having more open agendas. 3. Let the i n d i v i d u a l member know where he stands w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the t o t a l conference by s t r u c t u r i n g a system which w i l l p r o v i d e r e g u l a r o b j e c t i v e feedback, through the use of a competent Drama Ensemble. 4. Develop an i n n o v a t i v e c r e a t i v e conference t h a t w i l l s t i m u l a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n and excitement by p r o v i d i n g competent group f a c i l i t a t o r s and the top process con-s u l t a n t . 118 - 2 -5. Develop b r i d g e s of understanding by s t r u c t u r i n g the s m a l l groups to i n c l u d e students from Canada, U.S.A. and overseas and d e l e g a t e s from a l l s e c t i o n s . 6. Improve i n t e r p e r s o n a l competence by p r o v i d i n g an i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g environment and p r o v i d i n g a con-s u l t a n t who w i l l s t i m u l a t e t h i s l e a r n i n g . PROGRESS TO DATE: 1. The conference s e t t i n g has been e s t a b l i s h e d and a l l agree i t i s i d e a l f o r our purposes. 2. The programme l e a d e r s h i p has accepted the c h a l l e n g e and i s hard at work d e v e l o p i n g g u i d e l i n e s and i t s own competence. Many l e a d e r s are e x c i t e d about the pro-gramme concept and have asked to be i n c l u d e d . 3. Inter-group communication i s b e i n g s e t up to p r o v i d e a h i g h l e v e l of awareness through n o t i c e boards, c l o s e d c i r c u i t T.V. and newspapers, c a l l systems and drama group p r o c e s s . 4. E x c i t i n g t o u r s , t r i p s and s p e c i a l events w i l l p r o v i d e e n j o y a b l e shared experiences f o r everyone. 5. Food, refreshment and r e c r e a t i o n w i l l a l s o be a p a r t of the t o t a l concept of growing awareness. T h i s conference can be a major t u r n i n g p o i n t i n the l i f e of "NAFSA" and the Bureau. I t has a l l the elements of a success-f u l p e r s o n a l i z e d e x p e r i e n c e , where we can meet i n a c r o s s c u l t u r a l , c r o s s s e c t i o n a l s m a l l group and work to g e t h e r ; where we can cer-t a i n l y c r e a t e a r e l e v a n t , understanding community of people who can d i s c u s s new i s s u e s and e s t a b l i s h new d i r e c t i o n s , where we can become managers of the process of change, i n n o v a t o r s of c r e a t i v e programme... Where we can i f we w i l l r e g i s t e r . January 13, 1971. 119 PROGRAMME NEWS RELEASE #3 FROM: Dave Roxburgh, I n t e r n a t i o n a l House, UBC, Vancouver 8, B.C. MORE ABOUT THE CONFERENCE IN VANCOUVER IN MAY 19 71 The major i n g r e d i e n t s to the new concept i n programme f o r the conference are: a p e r s o n a l i z e d environment, s k i l l e d f a c i l i t a t o r s , a competent c o n s u l t a n t , dramatic feedback and r e l e v a n t content. The feedback w i l l be p r o v i d e d by "The Tarragon Theatre Ensemble" from the Theatre Department at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t -i s h Columbia. They work under the d i r e c t i o n o f Mr. Gordon Cavers, a graduate of U.B.C. The Ensemble i s a group of young people who have come t o g e t h e r to work f u l l time on a development and t r a i n -i n g programme. They are a l l former graduates from the Theatre Department. T h i s s m a l l group of a c t o r s and d i r e c t o r s have c r e a t e d an environment u n i q u e l y s u i t e d to the needs of our c o n f e r e n c e . S t i l l i n i t s e a r l y stages of development, the Ensemble i s working on two Broadway p l a y s as w e l l as t h e i r own t h e a t r e c o l l e g e . These w i l l be performed i n the new y e a r at a v a r i e t y of g a l l e r i e s and t h e a t r e s . They w i l l j o i n our conference e a r l y i n the p l a n n i n g stages and continue to p a r t i c i p a t e and r e f l e c t back to the d e l e g a t e s as we p r o g r e s s . They w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n the work groups and f a c i l i -t a t o r meetings. They w i l l respond to our needs f o r group content each morning. D i r e c t o r Gordon Cavers expressed h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the conference t h i s way; "we are e x c i t e d about doing a p r o d u c t i o n f o r the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference as i t p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t i s s u i t e d to ensemble work. I t i s a tremendous c h a l l e n g e but we are c o n f i d e n t t h a t we w i l l meet t h i s i n a way t h a t w i l l be e x c i t -ing and s a t i s f y i n g f o r both the conference d e l e g a t e s and our company. The i n i t i a l p r o d u c t i o n w i l l be c r e a t e d from m a t e r i a l which w i l l be gathered from: i n t e r v i e w s w i t h f o r e i g n students which w i l l r e v e a l some of the problems, f r u s t r a t i o n s which they p e r s o n a l l y e x p e r i e n c e ; i n t e r v i e w s w i t h p e r s o n n e l who d e a l with the f o r e i g n student; and from r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s on the a c t i v i t i e s of the student i n f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s . Seminars w i l l be a v a i l a b l e f o r the a c t o r s to meet the conference l e a d e r s w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y to preview performances and share responses, suggestions and g i v e a p p r o v a l . 120 - 2 -D i r e c t o r Gordon Cavers d e s c r i b e d h i s group as "Not a r a d i c a l or p o l i t i c a l nor r e l i g i o u s group of young people f o r whom the t h e a t r e has meaning; t h a t p r o v i d e s a means of e x p e r i -encing and growing, i t allows us to share and communicate our ideas and f e e l i n g s . " "Theatre only has meaning i f i t allows us to t r a n s c e n d our s t e r e o - t y p e d v i s i o n , our c o n v e n t i o n a l f e e l i n g and customs, our sta n d a r d o f judgement -- not j u s t f o r the sake of doing so, but so that we may experience what i s r e a l and d i s c o v e r our-s e l v e s . " (Grotowski.) H o p e f u l l y , we w i l l see ( i n them) o u r s e l v e s as others see us. 121 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on FOREIGN STUDENT AFFAIRS U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia - May 11-14, 1971 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR FOREIGN - CANADIAN BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS EDUCATION The N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s and the Canadian Bureau of I n t e r n a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n i n v i t e you to p a r t i c i -pate i n the f i r s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s to be h e l d at Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, May 11-14, 1971. Totem Park R e s i d e n t i a l Block on the b e a u t i f u l U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Campus i s the s i t e f o r the 1971 Conference. T h i s modern e d u c a t i o n a l complex w i t h i t s comfortable rooms f o r 1,200, numerous lounges, and a t t r a c t i v e d i n i n g f a c i l i t i e s w i l l house t h i s year's unusual Conference. For the f i r s t time Canad-ians and Americans w i l l assemble at the n a t i o n a l l e v e l to ex-change ideas and e x p l o r e methods of coping w i t h problems and i n n o v a t i n g new approaches i n the f i e l d of i n t e r n a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . The theme of t h i s year's Conference i s "Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us," which i s q u i t e a p p r o p r i a t e to such a g a t h e r i n g and to the times i n which we l i v e . Dr. Thomas Bennett o f George W i l l i a m s U n i v e r s i t y w i l l a ct as our c o n s u l t a n t and t r a i n e r as we come to-gether i n s m a l l work groups of about 12 to 15 to d i s c u s s concepts and ideas i n d e a l i n g w i t h f o r e i g n s t u d e n t s , study abroad, and other i n t e r n a t i o n a l programs. A Vancouver t h e a t r e group, "The Tarragon Theatre Ensemble," under the d i r e c t i o n of Mr. Gordon Cavers, w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n the conference by p r e s e n t i n g dramatic p l a y s and excerpts r e l a t i n g to your work and the Conference theme, h e l p i n g us to b r i n g t h i n g s i n t o f o c u s . In a d d i t i o n to these s p e c i a l f e a t u r e s there are numerous events planned to f a c i l i t a t e d i s c u s s i o n among p a r t i c i p a n t s , where a l l persons -- o l d t i m e r s , new comers, s t u d e n t s , persons from every area -- can exchange i d e a s , get to know each o t h e r , and l e a r n from each o t h e r . Ample time i s a l l o t t e d f o r meetings sponsored by NAFSA s e c t i o n s and committees -- such as f o r e i g n student ad-v i s o r s , admissions o f f i c e r s , E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s , community groups, study abroad c o u n s e l l o r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , e t c . ; these groups are d e v e l o p i n g very worthwhile programs. Western Canadian h o s p i t a l i t y w i l l permeate the e n t i r e Conference from the g r e e t i n g of v i s i t o r s at the a i r p o r t to the unusual Indian a r t m o t i f , from the scenes of a l o v e l y Japanese Garden 2. 122 and Totem Park to the n a t u r a l v i s t a s of ocean, mountain and f o r e s t . The U.B.C. campus i s l o c a t e d on a wooded p e n i n s u l a a few m i l e s from downtown Vancouver; d i r e c t t r a n s p o r t a t i o n from bus, r a i l r o a d , and a i r t e r m i n a l s to the campus w i l l be p r o v i d e d . The U n i v e r s i t y normally has about 22,000 students but our conference w i l l be a f t e r the s c h o o l term has ended. An o p p o r t u n i t y to e x p l o r e many of the c u l t u r a l and p l e a s u r -able aspects of the cosmopolitan c i t y of Vancouver i s p r o v i d e d Thursday evening w i t h about a h a l f dozen c h o i c e s a v a i l a b l e to c o n f e r e e s . F r i d a y culminates i n a t r a d i t i o n a l I ndian Salmon Bake and a Tarragon Theatre Ensemble P l a y . These items, and more, are i n c l u d e d i n the a l l - i n c l u s i v e Conference r e g i s t r a t i o n fee of $32.50 (only about $17.50 f o r s t u d e n t s ) ; t h i s fee covers c o f f e e breaks, s p e c i a l meals, p a r t i e s and a l l other conference expenses. The room and f u l l board r a t e per person i s only $11 f o r a s i n g l e room, $10 f o r a double room ($6.50 f o r students) per day; these r a t e s a l s o apply f o r e x t r a days b e f o r e and a f t e r the Conference. T h i s p r o v i d e s an unusual t o t a l Conference ex-pense which i s t r u l y economical f o r the f i v e day p e r i o d and much l e s s than past NAFSA Conference c o s t s . More important y e t , the t o t a l program w i l l g ive both o l d and new Conference p a r t i c i p a n t s a brand new e x p e r i e n c e . Please p l a n ahead and s e t aside May 11-14 as the time when you w i l l be i n South-western Canada as a p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h i s f i r s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference.on F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s . We w i l l be l o o k i n g forward to s e e i n g you at Totem Park on the UBC cam-pus. F u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n and d e t a i l s , as w e l l as the combina-t i o n r e g i s t r a t i o n - r o o m r e s e r v a t i o n form w i l l be m a i l e d to you i n l a t e March; a l s o , i n f o r m a t i o n about a l t e r n a t i v e h o t e l - m o t e l accommodations (somewhat d i s t a n t and i n c o n v e n i e n t ) w i l l be i n -cluded. NAFSA s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups w i l l be sending out f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n p r i o r to t h a t time concerning t h e i r meet-ings at the Conference. Reduced c h a r t e r and group r a t e s a l l o w e x c e p t i o n a l l y economical t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ; NAFSA r e g i o n a l c h a i r -men and the CBIE n a t i o n a l o f f i c e have t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . F u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n by Canadian, American and f o r e i g n students i s planned. Please h e l p r e c r u i t students on your campus, and i n v e s t i g a t e sources of t r a v e l funds f o r them. Some s p e c i a l f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e may be a v a i l a b l e to a s s i s t them w i t h room and board at the Conference s i t e ; f o r i n f o r m a t i o n on t h i s w r i t e d i r e c t l y to Ms. Marty E t c h i s o n , F o r e i g n Student A d v i s o r , Univer-s i t y of Washington. Space f o r e x h i b i t s i s somewhat l i m i t e d and those w i s h i n g d i s p l a y space should w r i t e f o r more i n f o r m a t i o n d i r e c t l y to the E x h i b i t s Chairman, Jay M c G i l v e r y , Student A f f a i r s , Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby, B.C., Canada. 3. 123 Wives and husbands of Conference p a r t i c i p a n t s are most welcome, and are i n v i t e d to a t t e n d the dramatic p r e s e n t a t i o n s , take p a r t i n the s m a l l work groups, and otherwise p a r t i c i p a t e i n the en-t i r e Conference. They, a l s o , w i l l r e c e i v e the economical $10 d a i l y r a t e f o r room and r e g u l a r meals; i f p a r t i c i p a t i n g f u l l y i n the Conference, they are expected to pay the normal r e g i s t r a -t i o n f e e , otherwise j u s t the student fee ( c o v e r i n g a l l s p e c i a l meals, and other e v e n t s ) . E i t h e r way, the t o t a l room and board-r e g i s t r a t i o n package produces a very i n e x p e n s i v e v a c a t i o n . To b e n e f i t f u l l y from the t o t a l Conference program t h r u s t and the s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t group programming, a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s should p l a n to a r r i v e i n Vancouver by Monday evening, May 10; the d a i l y room and board r a t e s f o r the f i v e Conference days b e g i n w i t h d i n n e r that evening, and i n c l u d e b r e a k f a s t and lunch on Saturday, May 15. Monday evening there w i l l be an i n f o r m a l s o c i a l occas-i o n . Tuesday w i l l be devoted almost e n t i r e l y to NAFSA s e c t i o n and committee programming, open to a l l . The Conference theme w i l l be accentuated Wednesday through the dramatic and work group s e s s i o n s ; t h i s w i l l be continued, i n t e r m i x e d w i t h s e c t i o n / committee programming on Thursday -- w i t h the evening a l l o c a t e d to the s p e c i a l s o c i a l events. The combination of dramatic and work groups s e s s i o n s and s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t group programs con-t i n u e s through F r i d a y , the Conference c l o s i n g w i t h the Salmon Bake, t h e a t r i c summary, and p a r t y t h a t n i g h t . Vancouver i n mid-May i s u s u a l l y sunny and warm, although evenings may be c o o l and r a i n might occur. Casual and s p o r t s c l o t h e s w i l l be i n order f o r the e n t i r e l e n g t h of t h i s s e m i - i s o l a t e d " r e s i d e n -t i a l r e t r e a t " type of i n f o r m a l conference. I f you have q u e s t i o n s or need s p e c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n about the Con-fe r e n c e program, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , accommodations, e t c . , p l e a s e w r i t e to the Conference g e n e r a l chairman, Ted Carpenter, I n t e r -n a t i o n a l S e r v i c e s O f f i c e , 102 Communications B u i l d i n g (DS-40), U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, S e a t t l e , Washington 98105, U.S.A. 124 APPENDIX F CANADIAN BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR FOREIGN STUDENT AFFAIRS I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s May 11-14, 1971 Sunday, May 9 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. C o u n c i l of D i r e c t o r s of F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s ( C o d f i s h ) ( a l l day) Commission on I n t e n s i v e E n g l i s h Program (CIEP) ( a l l day) N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s (NAFSA)(2 hours) F i e l d S e r v i c e S t e e r i n g Committee Monday, May 10 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 8:00 p.m. C o d f i s h C a l l day) CIEP C a l l day) NAFSA Board Meeting C a l l day) 1970-71 C o u n c i l of A d v i s o r s to F o r e i g n Students and S c h o l a r s CCAFSAS) B r i t i s h Columbia Reception Night Community S e c t i o n CCOMSEC) 1970-71 E x e c u t i v e Committee Meeting Tuesday, May 11 7:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. B r e a k f a s t S e r v i c e A v a i l a b l e C I hour) OPSIMPATHY and TSEMGWANKS C45 minutes) U.S. Students Abroad CUSSA) Government L i a i s o n Committee and CAFSAS C2 hours) "Young Americans Abroad as Seen Through the Eyes of the S t a t e Department" 125 Tuesday, May 11 (continued) -2-10:00 a.m. Admission S e c t i o n (ADSEC) (2 hours) A s i a Report I Overseas Workshop and C o n s u l t a t i o n P r o j e c t Report 10:00 a.m. A s s o c i a t i o n o f Teachers of E n g l i s h as a Second Language (ATESL)(2 hours) Reading: Problem from Beginning to End " R e a d a b i l i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y i n T e s t i n g " " F a c t o r s of D i f f i c u l t y i n TESL Reading M a t e r i a l s " 10:00 a.m. COMSEC (2 hours) " I n t e r p r e t i n g the Community to F o r e i g n Students" "A Community O r g a n i z a t i o n E v a l u a t e s I t s Host Family Program" "Student Reactions to Community Programming' 11:00 a.m. U.S. F o r e i g n Student R e l a t i o n s Committee (US-FSR)C4 1/2 hours) Workshop on Committee A f f a i r s 12:00 noon Lunch S e r v i c e A v a i l a b l e C I hour) 12:00 p.m. COMSEC A d v i s o r y Committee Luncheon Meeting 12:00 p.m. ADSEC Luncheon Business Meeting C2 hours) Report on Turkey L a t i n American II Workshop 1:30 p.m. USSA Two groups w i l l meet s i m u l t a n e o u s l y f o r 45 minutes each A. "The U.S. Student i n Canada" B. "What the I n t e r n a t i o n a l House O f f e r s the American Student Overseas" 1:30 p.m. CAFSAS C2 hours) " C r u c i a l Issues i n Graduate T r a i n i n g of F o r e i g n Students" 126 Tuesday, May 11 (continued) -3-2:00 p.m. ADSEC A s i a n Report II (2 hours) Taiwan Hong Kong I n d i a 2:00 p.m. J u n i o r C o l l e g e Committee (2 hours) "Should F o r e i g n Students A t t e n d J u n i o r C o l l e g e s ? " 2:00 p.m. ATESL Research (2 hours) " A u t o m a t i c i t y i n Encoding Second Language Responses: I n s i d e the Black Box" "The Computer and W r i t i n g " 2:00 p.m. COMSEC (1 hour) " I n t e r n a t i o n a l Students and the F r i e n d s They Make" 3:00 p.m. COMSEC-COSERV (1 hour) " R e f l e c t i o n s i n a P h y s i c i a n ' s Head-Mirror of the American H o s p i t a l Community as Seen by the F o r e i g n M e d i c a l Graduate" 3:30 p.m. USSA (1 hour) "U.S. Students Abroad, A New S e c t i o n --Goals f o r Present and Future A c t i o n " 3:30 p.m. "Student O r g a n i z a t i o n and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n NAFSA" (1 hour) 3:30 p.m. Government L i a i s o n Committee (2 hours) "Recent Developments i n U.S. Laws and Regu l a t i o n s A f f e c t i n g F o r e i g n Students and S c h o l a r s " 4:30 p.m. Regional Meetings (1 hour) 5:30 p.m. Dinner S e r v i c e A v a i l a b l e (1 hour) 7:00 p.m. Business Meetings: ATESL, CAFSAS, COMSEC, USSA 7:30 p.m. HARAMBEE (1 hour) 9:00 p.m. "COMSEC's F i r s t Decade" 9:30 p.m. COMSEC 10th A n n i v e r s a r y P a r t y 127 Wednesday, May 12 7:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 12:00 noon 2:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 8:30 p.m. a f t e r 10:00 p.m. Thursday, May 13 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 9:45 a.m. 12:00 noon 12:00 noon 12:00 noon 1: 30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. _4_ B r e a k f a s t S e r v i c e A v a i l a b l e (1 hour) Pl e n a r y S e s s i o n (1 hour) Work Groups Lunch - work groups eat tog e t h e r Work Groups E n g l i s h T r a d i t i o n a l D i n n e r . S e r v i c e A v a i l a b l e (1 hour) Work Groups " A f t e r Ten" -- Caribbean, O r i e n t a l , Mediterranean, European ATESL E x e c u t i v e Committee B r e a k f a s t "A P r e s e n t a t i o n of the P r a c t i c e s § P r i n c i p l e s o f T r a n s c e n d e n t a l M e d i t a t i o n as Taught by M a h a r i s h i Mahesh Y o g i " Ensemble Feedback and Input Tarragon Theatre Ensemble Work Groups Lunch S e r v i c e A v a i l a b l e COMSEC 1971-72 E x e c u t i v e Committee Luncheon Meeting Region IV Luncheon Meeting COMSEC-CAFSAS-ISS (2 hours) "Urban L i f e : Drama or Trauma - New Dimensions i n Community Involvement of F o r e i g n Students" Government L i a i s o n Committee (1 hour) "Embassies - Help or Hindrance to the F o r e i g n Student A d v i s o r ? " "Students' Concerns" 128 Thursday, May 13 (continued) -5-2:00 p.m. ADSEC Canadian E d u c a t i o n Today (2 hours) "Canadian Secondary S c h o o l s " "Community C o l l e g e s of Canada: The N a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e " "Canadian U n i v e r s i t i e s " 2:00 p.m. J u n i o r C o l l e g e (2 hours) "Role of the Two Year Program i n I n t e r -n a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n " 2:00 p.m. Research and Surveys Committee Meeting " F o r e i g n C r i t i c i s m of American E d u c a t i o n : Recent P u b l i c a t i o n s " 2:00 p.m. ATESL (2 hours) "Shock Language L e a r n i n g or What i s i t Li k e to Learn a Language" 2:00 p.m. US-FSR (2 hours) "Developing the I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e s i d e n t i a l C o l l e g e " 2:00 p.m. Committee f o r L a t i n American Students (CLAS) and O r i e n t a t i o n f o r L a t i n Americans (1 1/2 hours) "Progress to Date and New D i r e c t i o n s " 3:30 p.m. CAFSAS (1 hour) "What's New i n . . . A Kaleidoscope of News and Innovations from the F i e l d " 3:30 p.m. Student (1 hour) "Toward New P r o f e s s i o n a l i s m i n F o r e i g n Student A f f a i r s " 4:00 p.m. USSA (1 hour) " H e l p i n g the American and Canadian Students Go Abroad -- Nuts and B o l t s " 5:00 p.m. C u l t u r a l E x p l o r a t i o n and Dinner Late Evening TSEMANLUSGEKS 129 F r i d a y , May 14 7:30 a.m. 8:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 9:45 a.m. 12:00 noon 12:00 noon 1:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:15 p.m. -6-B r e a k f a s t S e r v i c e A v a i l a b l e C o n t i n e n t a l B r e a k f a s t Ensemble Feedback and Input Work Groups Lunch S e r v i c e A v a i l a b l e ADSEC Luncheon (1 hour) Free Lance T o p i c s CAFSAS-COMSEC (1 hour) "Looking at Ourselves Through the Eyes o f a F o r e i g n Student" ATESL (2 hours) "Shock Language L e a r n i n g . . . " ADSEC U hour) "The Admissions O f f i c e r ' s Role i n U.S. Study Abroad Programs" CAFSAS P r o f e s s i o n a l i s m i n F o r e i g n Student A d v i s i n g (1 1/2 hours) CBIE-ATESL-CAFSAS Academic A d m i s s i b i l i t y Versus Readiness to Learn (2 hours) COMSEC (2 hours) "Canadian P r o j e c t s I n v o l v i n g Overseas Students and the Community" Review of Student Conferences Experiences USSA C'l hour) "The U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a E d u c a t i o n Abroad Program as Others See I t " USSA CI hour) "Do's and Don'ts f o r Students Abroad" USSA Employment C l i n i c NAFSA Business Meeting Cl hour 45 minutes) 130 F r i d a y , May 14 (continued) -7-6:00 p.m. LLUHON SALMON BAKE 8:30 p.m. Theatre F i n a l e 9:30 p.m. Cast and Cask P a r t y Saturday, May 15 7:45 a.m. CAFSAS In-Coming E x e c u t i v e Committee Business Meeting 9:30 a.m. NAFSA A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l Meeting (1 1/2 hours) 10:00 a.m. USSA - "Loose Ends" 12:00 noon NAFSA Regiona l C o u n c i l (1 1/2 days) 131 M E M O R A N D U M APPENDIX G 1 TO: Group Convenors DATE: May 14, 19 71 FROM: Conference E v a l u a t o r s RE: INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILLING OUT QUESTIONS 15 and 16 ON THE EVALUATION. FORMS I. Would you and a l l members of your group f i l l out your e v a l u a t i o n forms up to Question 15. II . When everyone reaches #15, p l e a s e read the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s to your group: In an effort to increase inter cultural, intra-professional, and student-professional communications during this conference, the Planning Committee has provided you with a small group experience. An eval-uation of such an experience is d i f f i c u l t . However, through your cooperation in carrying out the instruc-tions which your group convenor will give to you, we should be able to obtain a reasonably accurate indi-cation of the over-all success of these work groups. I I I . Would you and your group members p l e a s e f i l l i n Question 15 WITHOUT CONVERSING WITH ONE ANOTHER. IV. When everyone has completed t h i s q u e s t i o n , would you, as group convenor, then i n i t i a t e a 10-minute d i s c u s s i o n on how e f f e c t i v e you and your group members f e e l the sm a l l work group experience has been d u r i n g t h i s week. T h i s d i s c u s s i o n s hould evolve around the q u e s t i o n s asked i n #15. For example, c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be g i v e n to the group's e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n i d e n t i f y i n g problems of common i n t e r e s t and i n communicating w i t h one another. V. When the d i s c u s s i o n has been completed, would you and your group members f i l l i n Question 16 (which i s a repeat of #15, again WITHOUT CONVERSING WITH ONE ANOTHER. VI. P l e a s e r e t u r n the envelope w i t h the completed e v a l u a t i o n forms to the r e g i s t r a t i o n desk i n the lobby o f the Common Block. THANK YOU MOST SINCERELY FOR YOUR COOPERATION. "''Instructions given to groups i n the I n d i v i d u a l Non-Cooperative C o n d i t i o n . M E M O R A N D U M 132 1 TO: Group Convenors DATE: May 14, 19 71 FROM: Conference E v a l u a t o r s RE: INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILLING OUT QUESTIONS 15 and 16 ON THE EVALUATION FORM I. Would you and a l l members of your group f i l l out your e v a l u a t i o n forms up to Question 15. I I . When everyone reaches #15, p l e a s e read the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s to your group: In an effort to increase inter cultural, intra-prof essional3 and student-professional communications during this conference, the Planning Committee has provided you with a small group experience. An eval-uation of such an experience is d i f f i c u l t . However, through your cooperation in carrying out the instruc-tions which your group convenor will give to you, we should be able to obtain a reasonably accurate indi-cation of the over-all success of these work groups. I I I . Would you and your group members p l e a s e f i l l i n Q uestion 15; AS YOU ARE DOING THIS, FEEL FREE TO CONVERSE WITH ONE ANOTHER IF YOU SO DESIRE. IV. When everyone has completed t h i s q u e s t i o n , would you, as group convenor, then i n i t i a t e a 10-minute d i s c u s s i o n on how e f f e c t i v e you and your group members f e e l the s m a l l work group experience has been d u r i n g t h i s week. T h i s d i s c u s s i o n should evolve around the q u e s t i o n s asked i n #15. For example, c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be g i v e n to the group's e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n i d e n t i f y i n g problems of common i n t e r e s t , i n seeking s o l u t i o n s to problems, and i n com-municating w i t h one another. V. When the d i s c u s s i o n has been completed, would you and your group members then f i l l i n Question 16 (which i s a repeat of #15), AGAIN FEELING FREE TO CONVERSE WITH ONE ANOTHER IF YOU SO DESIRE. VI. Please r e t u r n the envelope w i t h the completed e v a l u a t i o n forms to the r e g i s t r a t i o n desk i n the lobby o f the Common Block. THANK YOU MOST SINCERELY FOR YOUR COOPERATION. I n s t r u c t i o n s given to groups i n the I n d i v i d u a l C o o p e r a t i v e C o n d i t i o n . 133 M E M O R A N D U M 1 TO: Group Convenors DATE: May 14, 19 71 FROM: Conference E v a l u a t o r s RE: INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILLING OUT QUESTIONS 15 and 16 ON THE EVALUATION FORMS I. Would you and a l l members of your group f i l l out your e v a l u a t i o n forms up to Question 15. I I . When everyone reaches #15, p l e a s e read the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s to your group: In an effort to increase inter cultural, intra-prof essional, and student-professional communications during this conference3 the Planning Committee has provided you with a small group experience. An eval-uation of such an experience is d i f f i c u l t . However, through your cooperation in carrying out the instruc-tions which your group convenor will give to you, we should be able to obtain a reasonably accurate indi-cation of the over-all success of these work groups. I I I . a) Read the f i r s t s u b -question i n #15, and ask the group members to i n d i c a t e t h e i r p o s i t i o n by r a i s i n g t h e i r hand. (Convenor, p l e a s e be sure to i n d i c a t e your p o s i t i o n a l s o ) . EXAMPLE: "On Question 1, how many would choose p o s i t i o n 7? p o s i t i o n 6? e t c . " b) Each group member, i n c l u d i n g the convenor should then c i r c l e the p o s i t i o n he chose on h i s own sheet. c) Continue i n t h i s manner u n t i l you have completed a l l q u e s t i o n s . IV. When your group has completed #15, would you, as group convenor, i n i t i a t e a 10-15 minute d i s c u s s i o n on the questions you have j u s t completed to determine whether your group members can reach a consensus on t h e i r answers. V. When the d i s c u s s i o n has been completed, would you and your group members p l e a s e f i l l i n Question 16 (which i s a repeat o f #15), f o l l o w i n g the same procedure as i n Pa r t I I I above. "'"Instructions g i v e n to groups i n Group C o o p e r a t i v e C o n d i t i o n , Please r e t u r n the envelope w i t h the completed e v a l u a t i o n forms to the r e g i s t r a t i o n desk i n the lobby of the Common Block. THANK YOU MOST SINCERELY FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101823/manifest

Comment

Related Items