UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Student perceptions of campus environment Gellor, Jaime Mendez 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_A2 G44.pdf [ 5.47MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101888.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101888-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101888-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101888-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101888-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101888-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101888-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101888-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101888.ris

Full Text

by JAIME MENDEZ GELLOR BSE, Cebu Normal C o l l e g e , 1956 M 0A. } X a v i e r U n i v e r s i t y , 19 61 M. Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f Maryland, 1962 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n the F a c u l t y o f Educa t i o n We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard 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 m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e 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 s t u d y . 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 c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f 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 a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . JAIME M. GELLOR Department o f Education The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l umbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date September 20, 1971 Chairman: Dr. Myrne B. Nevison G e l l o r , J . M. Student p e r c e p t i o n s of campus environment ABSTRACT The problem of t h i s study was to a s c e r t a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p of s t u d e n t s ' d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n of a campus environment to some p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t e s of p e r c e p t i o n were c o n s i d e r e d : p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , l e n g t h of s t a y i n c o l l e g e , sex, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e s , academic marks, and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s . The major c o n c e p t u a l framework o f t h i s study i n c l u d e d K e l l y ' s (1955) psychology o f p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s and Snygg and Combs' (1959) phenomenological determinant of b e h a v i o r pos t u l a t e . The s u b j e c t s o f t h i s study i n c l u d e d 594 students e n r o l l e d a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , P h i l i p p i n e s , d u r i n g the s c h o o l year 1970-71. The C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s of C. Robert Pace (1966) and the new Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (1966) were the two major instruments used i n the study. In a d d i t i o n , the c l a s s a d v i s e r s e v a l u a t e d the s t u d e n t s ' l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s u s i n g the L e a d e r s h i p R a t i n g Form. Means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , the F t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Comparison Test, and the Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t were the s t a t i s t i c a l techniques used i n the a n a l y s i s of data. The r e s u l t s showed t h a t the freshmen, sophomore, j u n i o r and s e n i o r students had a consensus o f the v a r i o u s dimensions t h a t make up the s c h o o l environment. I t was found t h a t the n e g a t i v e p e r c e i v e r s of campus environment tended to have some a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , w h i l e p o s i t i v e p e r c e i v e r s of campus environment tended to have some p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . In g e n e r a l , students tended to r a t e the campus environment lower as they stayed l o n g e r i n the campus. Males were found to r a t e the campus environment lower than females. Furthermore, i t was found that the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f a campus environment was n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n d i v i d u a l academic performance and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s . I m p l i c a t i o n s from the f i n d i n g s were made f o r c o u n s e l o r s , f a c u l t y members and s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f o r the improvement of v a r i o u s e d u c a t i o n a l programs a t the c o l l e g e . The major c o n c l u s i o n of the study i s t h a t students i n the c o l l e g e have a consensus p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus e n v i r o n m e n t and t h a t those w i t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s o f the e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s have some p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e d to t h e i r manner of e v a l u a t i n g the i n s t i t u t i o n a l image. I . THE PROBLEM „ . . . 1' D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms 5^ I I . THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7-7 P e r c e p t u a l Theory 7-P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t s Theory . 8* B i o - P h y s i c a l and S o c i a l Theory o f P e r s o n a l i t y 10^ R e l a t i v e D e v i a n t Theory 12> Review of the L i t e r a t u r e 13-: S t u d i e s Having G e n e r a l Relevance to the Problem 151" St u d i e s Having P a r t i c u l a r Relevance to the Problem . 20* I I I . RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES 26 P e r c e p t i o n and P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s 26-Length of Stay i n C o l l e g e 20 P e r c e p t i o n and Sex 30. Grade-Point Average, C o l l e g e Entrance Scores, and L e a d e r s h i p Role 3.1 Hypotheses 33J IV. DESIGN OF THE STUDY, PROCEDURES, AND INSTRUMENTS 36 Design 3% Procedures 36' Su b j e c t s 36 C o l l e c t i o n o f Data 37-Instruments 41 The C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s 41 The Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory . . . . 43 Nonstandardized Measures 4.5" A n a l y s i s o f Data 46 S c o r i n g 4'6 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s 48 V. RESULTS 50 R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypothesis I 51 R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypothesis I I 58 R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypothesis I I I 67 R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypothesis IV „7p R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypothesis V .7,4 V I . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . £0 Statement o f the Problem <80 T h e o r e t i c a l Framework s80 Procedures ,81 F i n d i n g s §>2 R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to D i f f e r e n t i a l P e r c e p t i o n s £2 R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to Student Subgroups' P e r c e p t i o n on Seven Dimensions o f C o l l e g e Campus &86 R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to P e r c e p t i o n o f Campus Environment and Length o f Stay i n C o l l e g e ,89 R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to the D i f f e r e n c e s i n P e r c e p t i o n Between Male and Female Students 91 R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to P e r c e p t i o n o f Campus Environment and Students' Marks, C o l l e g e Entrance Scores, and L e a d e r s h i p Roles 93 L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study 96 Summary of Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research 97 Con c l u s i o n s 99 REFERENCES 10.1 APPENDIX A. D e f i n i t i o n o f the CUES 10.6, APPENDIX B 0 C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 108" APPENDIX C. D e s c r i p t i o n o f S c a l e s Used from the Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory 113; APPENDIX D. S i x S c a l e s Used from the Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory 115 APPENDIX E. L e a d e r s h i p T r a i t s R a t i n g Form (For C l a s s A d v i s e r s ) 120 LIST OF TABLES y TABLE PAGE I. S u b j e c t s Included i n the Study C a t e g o r i z e d by Academic Year 3© I I . P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s P e r c e n t i l e s of Negative, T y p i c a l , and P o s i t i v e R a t e r s o f Campus Environment 52 I I I . ANOVA Summary o f Students' P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s 5£ IV. A Comparison o f Mean D i f f e r e n c e s of Students' P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s Using Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range Test 5,6'. V. P e r c e n t i l e s for C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s C a t e g o r i z e d by Academic Year VI. ANOVA Summary o f CUES P e r c e n t i l e s o f Freshmen, Sophomore, J u n i o r , and S e n i o r Students 61/ V I I . S i g n i f i c a n t CUES Mean D i f f e r e n c e s Between Subgroups Using Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range Te s t 63-, V I I I . Ranking o f CUES by Academic Year 69,, IX. A Comparison o f Mean D i f f e r e n c e s Between Males' and Females' P e r c e n t i l e Scores on the C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s 72 : X. ANOVA Summary o f CUES Subscales w i t h Sex an Independent V a r i a b l e 7 5.--XI. R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Students' Marks', C o l l e g e Entrance Scores, and L e a d e r s h i p Q u a l i t i e s to CUES P e r c e n t i l e Scores 77 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s P e r c e n t i l e P r o f i l e s of Negative, T y p i c a l , and P o s i t i v e R a t e r s of Campus Environment 5 ^ / 2. I l l u s t r a t i v e CUES P e r c e n t i l e P r o f i l e s of Students C a t e g o r i z e d by Academic Year . . . 6<6; 3. P r o f i l e Comparing Mean P e r c e n t i l e D i f f e r e n c e s Between Male and Female Students on CUES 73? ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The w r i t e r wishes to express h i s g r a t i t u d e to the f o l d i n g persons f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e i n t h i s study: Major acknowledgment i s due to Dr. Myrne B. Nevison, who served as a d v i s o r f o r the t h e s i s and provided the time, support and pa t i e n c e i n the development of the study. S p e c i a l a p p r e c i a t i o n i s a l s o g i v e n to Dr. Robert Conry f o r h i s s i n c e r e h e l p as s t a t i s t i c a l c o n s u l t a n t . I a l s o wish to thank Drs. J . D. F r i e s e n , W. Davi s , V. M i t c h e l l , G. M. C h r o n i s t e r , and A. S h i r r a n f o r s e r v i n g on the committee. The w r i t e r i s a l s o indebted to Superintendent P a c i f i c o A. Ramos, Mr. V i c e n t e Galeza and Mr. Leonardo Eduave, who co o r d i n a t e d the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i n the P h i l i p p i n e s , and the students a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t e f u l to the Canadian I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Agency and the P h i l i p p i n e Bureau o f P u b l i c Schools f o r p r o v i d i n g the arrangements and funds f o r my study at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. J . M 0 G. DEDICATION This d i s s e r t a t i o n i s d e d i c a t e d to my c h i l d r e n , Karen, Jimmy and I v o r , who w i l l need more time to understand why I had to be away f o r three y e a r s . THE PROBLEM "A human being does not grow up in a vacuum; his development is determined not only by the physical environment as the biologist proved, and by the family environment as Freud proved, but by the massive data collected by the cultural anthropologists showed by the larger societal and cultural institutions . . . Murray and Kluckhohn, 1956, p. 4). n Understanding students' differential perceptions of campus environment is important in working with students, and considerable attention has been given to the study of campus environment is general (Maddi, 1961; McConnel, 1962; Schoen, 1966; Abbott, 1967; De Mars, 1968; Salzman, 1970). But, very limited research has been made comparing students' perceptions of campus environment and personality charac-t e r i s t i c s , and no research has been done relating deviant perception of a campus to personality t r a i t s . Yet i t is probable that students who deviate in their perception of the college also manifest personality characteristics which are potentials for such educational i l l s as apathy, academic discontent, dropping out, underachievement, and student unrest. This study attempts to identify personality characteristics of such deviant perceivers. I t was assumed that the c o l l e g e campus can be d e f i n e d , and i s best d e s c r i b e d by the p e r c e p t i o n o f the students who have stayed the l o n g e s t p e r i o d i n that e n v i r o n -ment. I t was f u r t h e r assumed that there would g e n e r a l l y be a consensus among the students i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of the campus environment, but that there would be students who d e v i a t e d from the g e n e r a l consensus e i t h e r p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a t i v e l y i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s and t h a t these d e v i a t e s would have p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e d them from the m a j o r i t y . I t was hyp o t h e s i z e d i n t h i s study that these d e v i a t e s have u n r e a l i s t i c p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t would r e q u i r e r e o r i e n t a t i o n from teachers and c o u n s e l o r s . Kluckhohn (1957) accepted the presence of such d e v i a n t s as a kind of p e r s o n a l i t y i n a g i v e n c u l t u r e when he wrote, " T h i s does not, o f course, imply t h a t the p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the members o f any group are i d e n t i c a l . There are d e v i a n t s i n every s o c i e t y and i n every s o c i a l c l a s s w i t h i n a s o c i e t y (p. 152)." Edwin L. Herr (1965) recommended the need f o r s t u d y i n g d e v i a n t campus environment p e r c e i v e r s when he wrote, " D i s t i n c t i v e deviance i n p e r c e p t u a l responses . . . may i d e n t i f y students who t r u l y do not p e r c e i v e e n v i r o n -mental demands upon them which seem to be strongly evident to the majority of the student population (p. 588)." A major jus t i f i c a t i o n for the need of identifying the correlation of the students' ratings of campus environ-ment with some selected personality traits is Holland's (1959) theory that students' satisfaction with college w i l l be greater i f his type is congruent with his college environment. He states that " . . . generally congruent person-environment interactions are conducive to greater satisfaction (p. 73)." In Holland's (1968) study to support his theory, he found that "students are happier, the more closely they resemble the majority of the students . . . (p. 5)." The information from this investigation has potential for application in the total educational program. It could be util i z e d by the college counselors, administrators, and faculty members in the aspects of individual counseling; and could be used in group guidance, orientation, formu-lating educational goals, faculty-student dialogue, curriculum revision, and the improvement of the school plant. Studying the environmental press should suggest to teachers and school counselors reasons for individual and group problems on adjustments. I t may suggest reasons f o r d i s o r i e n t e d p e r c e p t i o n and poor i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h a s p e c t s o f the s c h o o l environment. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the t o t a l p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and environmental press may be more p r e d i c t i v e of s u c c e s s , development and change than any s i n g l e a s p e c t o f e i t h e r person or the environment. Counselors may be b e t t e r a b l e to guide students i n f i n d i n g e f f e c t i v e and s a t i s f y i n g r o l e s i n the environment of a g i v e n i n s t i t u t i o n . School adminis-t r a t o r s may see more thoroughly the ways i n which the e d u c a t i o n a l program may be a d j u s t e d i f d i f f e r e n t kinds o f students are to develop most e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h them or f i n d optimum i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the aims of the s c h o o l . As Herr (1965) concluded, "when we understand student p e r c e p t i o n s of e d u c a t i o n a l c l i m a t e and demands more f u l l y , we w i l l have added i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n and behavior (p. 589)." This i n t u r n w i l l p r o v i d e c o u n s e l o r s the much needed c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e i r h e l p i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The b a s i c problem o f t h i s study was: Are d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n s of a campus environment r e l a t e d to some p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ? The f o l l o w i n g p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t e s of p e r c e p t i o n were c o n s i d e r e d : p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , l e n g t h o f s t a y i n c o l l e g e , sex, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e , academic marks, and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s . . DEFINITION OF TERMS The f o l l o w i n g terms are d e f i n e d f o r the purpose of t h i s study: Campus environment: The atmosphere of the c o l l e g e t h a t i n c l u d e s the f e a t u r e s and f a c i l i t i e s of the campus, r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , f a c u l t y , c u r r i c u l a , i n s t r u c t i o n s and examinations, student l i f e , and e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . D eviant p e r c e p t i o n s : The h i g h e s t (5%) and the lowest (5%) r a t i n g s of students on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the campus environment based on the C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s s c o r e s . P a s s i v e T r a i t s : P e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s as d e f i n e d by c o n f o r m i t y , a v o i d i n g f a c i n g problems, and dependency i n which normal i n d i v i d u a l s v a r y . A g g r e s s i v e T r a i t s : P e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as d e f i n e d by a f e e l i n g of s u p e r i o r i t y , b e i n g c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r s , and becoming angry e a s i l y , i n which normal i n d i v i -d uals v a r y . L e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s : The c l a s s a d v i s e r s ' e v a l u a t i o n o f student p o t e n t i a l and performance i n such r o l e s as: being a good committee c h a i r m a n , g i v i n g o r d e r s t h a t a r e a c c e p t a b l e to the group, i n f l u e n c i n g o t h e r s , and b e i n g r e g a r d e d by o t h e r s as a good l e a d e r . L e a d e r s h i p r o l e : The a c t u a l l e a d e r s h i p f u n c t i o n o f the s t u d e n t s i n v a r i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s as i n d i c a t e d by each s t u d e n t i n the p e r s o n a l d a t a s e c t i o n o f the answer s h e e t s . THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The t h e o r e t i c a l framework i n c l u d e s the p e r c e p t u a l or phenomenological approach to psychology o f Combs and Snygg, and the psychology o f p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s by K e l l y . To r e l a t e the r o l e o f d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n to p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , the development of t h i s t h e s i s has n e c e s s i t a t e d the i n c l u s i o n o f the t h e o r i e s o f Kluckhohn and S e c h r e s t . P e r c e p t u a l Theory To understand problems o f i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r , Combs and Snygg (1959) p o s t u l a t e d the s o - c a l l e d " p e r s o n a l " or " p e r c e p t u a l " or "phenomenological" theory o f psychology. The b a s i c p o s t u l a t e o f p e r c e p t u a l theory i s t h a t : " a l l b e h a v i o r , without e x c e p t i o n , i s completely determined by, and p e r t i n e n t t o , the p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d o f the behaving organism (p. 20)." Because of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , the p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d o f another person appears to ot h e r s as c o n t a i n i n g many i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s ; i t sometimes appears that other persons are incongruent w i t h our i d e a s ; but to the phenomenologists, the phenomenological f i e l d o f each i n d i v i d u a l i s r e a l i t y ; i t i s the o n l y r e a l i t y he can know. The theory on p e r c e p t u a l approach to psychology has much r e l e v a n c e i n the e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g . One o f the major aims o f ed u c a t i o n i s the development of adequate p e r s o n a l i t y as r e p r e s e n t e d by adequate s e l f - c o n c e p t . The p e r c e p t i o n o f a student's p o t e n t i a l as g i v e n by peers, parents and teachers appears to be s i g n i f i c a n t i n the fo r m a t i o n o f the a c t u a l i z a t i o n p r o c e s s . The same l i n e o f t h i n k i n g was shared by Herr (1965) when he wrote t h a t : . . . e d u c a t i o n a t a l l l e v e l s must once agai n experience t h e i r behavior and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward s t u d e n t s , not as conforming v e s s e l s but as i n d i v i d u a l s who o f f e r f a r more p o t e n t i a l than they have been gi v e n encouragement f o r p o s s e s s i n g (p. 589). I t , t h e r e f o r e , appears that the key to und e r s t a n d i n g behavior l i e s i n l a r g e measure i n the s k i l l developed i n the e x p l o r a t i o n s and understanding o f p e r c e p t i o n s . P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t s Theory The fundamental p o s t u l a t e as s t a t e d by K e l l y (1955) i s : "A person's processes are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y c h a n n e l i z e d by the ways i n which he a n t i c i p a t e s events (p. 103)." This theory o f p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s i d e r s the i n d i v i d u a l person r a t h e r than any.part o f the person. P a r t o f the s u b j e c t o f psychology i s assumed to be a p r o c e s s . Man u l t i m a t e l y seeks to a n t i c i p a t e r e a l events. A n t i c i p a t i o n i s not merely c a r r i e d on f o r i t s own sake; i t i s c a r r i e d on so t h a t f u t u r e r e a l i t y may be b e t t e r r e p r e s e n t e d . The systems by which K e l l y c o n s t r u c t s h i s theory assume t h a t man looks a t h i s environment through t r a n s p a r e n t p a t t e r n s which he c r e a t e s , and then attempts to put things together i n t o h i s own r e a l i t i e s . The c o n s t r u c t s which man formulates are intended to a i d him i n h i s p r e d i c t e d e f f o r t s . Among the c o r o l l a r i e s o f the fundamental p o s t u l a t e which hold b e a r i n g on t h i s study a r e : (a) " I n d i v i d u a l i t y C o r o l l a r y : People d i f f e r from each o t h e r i n t h e i r c o n s t r u c -t i o n o f events (p. 103)." People can be seen as d i f f e r i n g from each o t h e r , not o n l y because there may have been d i f f e r e n c e s i n the events which they have sought to a n t i c i p a t e , but a l s o because there are d i f f e r e n t approaches to the a n t i c i p a t i o n of some events; and (b) "Choice C o r o l l a r y : A person chooses f o r h i m s e l f t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e . . . through which he a n t i c i p a t e s the g r e a t e r p o s s i b i l i t y o f e x t e n s i o n and d e f i n i t i o n o f h i s system (p. 103)." I f a person's processes are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y channeled by the ways i n which he a n t i c i p a t e s events, i t f o l l o w s t h a t he must choose i n a manner which i s p r e d i c t e d by h i s a n t i c i p a t i o n s . The assumption o f the c h o i c e c o r o l l a r y i s , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t whenever a person i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the opportunity for making a choice, he w i l l tend to make that choice in favor of the alternative which seems to provide the best basis for anticipating the issuing events. According to this theory, when a person finds his personal construction (i.e., expectations) f a i l i n g him, he suffers anxiety, which in turn may lead to threat i f not dealt with constructively. In researches in social psychol-ogy, Maddi (1961), and Katsell (1968) have indicated that the expectations an individual has of an environment does affect the way in which he w i l l cope with that environment. When applied to the present study, i t appears Kelly would hold that those students whose view of the actual environ-ment is at variance from their personal expectations would be most susceptible to threat. In this study, i t was anticipated that some students would drop out of the school to remove the threat, and others would behave apathetically in their studies which results in underachievement because of seeking direct means of removing the threat. Bio-Physical and Social Theory of Personality The theory of personality by Henry A. Murray and Clyde Kluckhohn (1953) resulted from merging the findings of interdisciplinary f i e l d s . In brief, the theory states t h a t "the p e r s o n a l i t y o f an i n d i v i d u a l i s the product of i n h e r i t e d d i s p o s i t i o n s and environmental e x p e r i e n c e s . These experiences occur w i t h i n the f i e l d of h i s p h y s i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l , and s o c i a l environment, a l l o f which are mo d i f i e d by the c u l t u r e o f h i s group (p. 67)." The theory o f Murray and Kluckhohn does not deny the b i o l o g i c a l , b a s i s o f human nature nor the p h y s i o - c h e m i c a l b a s i s o f b i o l o g y . I t accepts the axiom t h a t no p o s t u l a t e o f a s c i e n c e o f behavior may be incongruent w i t h f a c t s or" p r i n c i p l e s a c c r e d i t e d i n other spheres. But i t holds to the p r o p o s i t i o n t h at there are d i f f e r e n t " l e v e l s " o f o b s e r v a t i o n , a n a l y s i s , and f o r m u l a t i o n s , and t h a t the behavior o f human p e r s o n a l i t i e s i s on a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l from p h y s i o l o g i c a l phenomena, and hence should be s t u d i e d and c o n c e p t u a l i z e d i n i t s own r i g h t without w a i t i n g f o r more " b a s i c " s c i e n c e s to p r o v i d e a complete f o u n d a t i o n . Murray and Kluckhohn c o n s i d e r p e r s o n a l i t y as a continuous f u n c t i o n a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f org a n i z e d processes and o v e r t behavior from b i r t h to death. He c o n s i d e r s the f o l l o w i n g f u n c t i o n s o f p e r s o n a l i t y : " t o e x e r c i s e i t s proc e s s ; to express i t s f e e l i n g s and v a l u a t i o n s ; and to reduce s u c c e s s i v e need t e n s i o n s (p. 4 9 ) . " Murray and Kluckhohn's theory i s v e r y c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to Cohen's (1966) p s y c h o - s o c i a l theory which s t a t e s that " p e r s o n a l i t y i s determined by some background events or c i r c u m s t a n c e s , . . . a t t i t u d e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the p a r e n t s , e a r l y e x p e r i e n c e s , or s o c i a l c l a s s background (p. 43).". This theory s t a t e s that behavior i s a r e s u l t o f the i n t e r a c t i o n between p e r s o n a l i t y and s i t u a t i o n by the members o f the system. R e l a t i v e Deviant P e r s o n a l i t y Theory To complete the co n c e p t u a l model of t h i s study, the theory of S e c h r e s t (1963) on r e l a t i v e d e v i a n t p e r s o n a l i t y has been adopted. A c t u a l l y , S e chrest's theory i s o n l y an e x t e n s i o n o f Berg's (1955) and Jackson's (1963) t h e o r i e s on d e v i a n t responses. Berg's statement o f the d e v i a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s was: Deviant response p a t t e r n s tend to be g e n e r a l ; hence those d e v i a n t behavior p a t t e r n s which are s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a b n o r m a l i t y as thus regarded as symptoms are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h other d e v i a n t response p a t t e r n s which are i n n o n c r i t i c a l areas of behavior and which are not regarded as symptoms of p e r s o n a l i t y a b e r r a t i o n s (p. 62). An a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s was made by Jackson (1963) as a l i m i t a t i o n on Berg's statement which r e s u l t e d i n a probably more a c c u r a t e but l e s s i n t e r e s t i n g form; namely, "Deviant response tendencies are sometimes a s s o c i a t e d (p. 35)." A f u r t h e r l i m i t i n g c o n d i t i o n under which the d e v i a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s o f Jackson might hold was p o s t u l a t e d by S e c h r e s t (1963) who s t a t e d that "those i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t are d e v i a n t on one measure, or i n one way, w i l l be d e v i a n t i n some oth e r way (p. 26)." When a p p l i e d to t h i s study, the r e l e v a n c e of the r e l a t i v e d e v i a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s i s s t a t e d as those i n d i v i d u a l s who are d e v i a n t i n r a t i n g the campus environment, w i l l a l s o be d e v i a n t i n some p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . A lthough none o f the t h e o r i e s as presented i s comprehensive enough to form the c o n c e p t u a l model f o r the study, taken together they can stand as a f u n c t i o n a l frame-work f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In summary, the r e l e v a n c e of the t h e o r e t i c a l model to t h i s study i s the p s y c h o l o g i c a l assumption t h a t i f the m o t i v a t i o n and behavior o f students i s to be f u n c t i o n a l l y approached, then t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f the environmental press has p e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s t h at must be c o n s i d e r e d i n the process of p l a n n i n g , e x e c u t i n g and e v a l u a t i n g o f the e d u c a t i o n a l program. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE V a r i o u s s t u d i e s to d e s c r i b e the d i f f e r e n c e s between campus environments can be c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to the questions that have guided the r e s e a r c h e r s . The e a r l i e s t approach was to ask, What are the demographic f e a t u r e s of the environment? Is i t p u b l i c or p r i v a t e , r u r a l or urban, r i c h or poor? A second approach was to ask the q u e s t i o n , Who l i v e s i n the environment? The assumption here i s t h a t students make the c o l l e g e . The t h i r d approach i s i l l u s -t r a t e d by the q u e s t i o n , How do students behave' i n the environment? The l a t e s t approach which has been adopted i n t h i s study, has been to ask the q u e s t i o n , What do students p e r c e i v e to be the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the environment? The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r s e l e c t i n g the l a s t approach was the s t r o n g t h e o r e t i c a l support which has been p r e v i o u s l y a l l u d e d t o . The study of campus environment has c o m p a r a t i v e l y gained momentum o n l y i n the l a s t decade. Murray's (1938) theory on environmental press pioneered i n the f i e l d o f environmental and p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I n d i v i d u a l s were seen as having c h a r a c t e r i s t i c needs, and the s t r e n g t h s and r e l a t i o n s h i p of these needs were what c h a r a c t e r i z e d the p e r s o n a l i t y . The i n t e r a c t i o n between p e r s o n a l i t y needs and environmental press was made a model f o r s t u d y i n g b e h a v i o r . The v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h done to d e s c r i b e the d i f f e r e n c e s between c o l l e g e environments used the c o l l e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of student subgroups as a b a s i s f o r d e f i n i n g environmental p r e s s . As can be noted i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e , o n l y a few i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were done comparing s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and no study made on d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n s o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l environment. This l a c k may be p a r t l y e x p l a i n e d by the almost c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t which found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between t o t a l s t u d e n t s ' p o p u l a t i o n p e r c e p t i o n of a campus environment and t h e i r p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . But Herr (1965) found the c h a l l e n g i n g p r ospects o f s t u d y i n g s e p a r a t e l y d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n s as a r e s u l t of h i s p o s t u l a t i n g o f the f i e l d theory and d i f f e r e n t i a l press and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s to c o u n s e l i n g . To date, he has not done any r e s e a r c h on the s u b j e c t . However, d e s p i t e the absence of d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d s t u d i e s on d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n of campus environment and p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , some o f the f o l l o w i n g i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h e s are o f c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t to the r e s e a r c h i n v e s t i g a t i o n . S t u d i e s Having G e n e r a l Relevance to the Problem S t e r n , S t e i n and Bloom (1956) made the f i r s t i n v e s -t i g a t i o n a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago on the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of s i t u a t i o n s , p e r s o n a l i t y and l e a r n i n g i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . The instruments used c a t e g o r i z e d students i n t o f o u r groups: a u t h o r i t a r i a n , a n t i - a u t h o r i t a r i a n , i r r a t i o n a l s , and r a t i o n a l s . I n i t i a l r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n s v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y i n the r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n s w i t h which each type o f person was r e p r e s e n t e d . A l t h o u g h the i n v e s t i -g a t i o n was much broader than measurement o f the c o l l e g e environment a l o n e , i t served an extremely important f u n c t i o n i n a i d i n g f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . In 1957, Pace and S t e r n a d m i n i s t e r e d the f i r s t e d i t i o n o f the C o l l e g e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Index to students and f a c u l t y a t i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r l e a r n i n g . The r e s u l t s showed t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the i n s t i t u t i o n a l c l i m a t e s were s i g n i f i c a n t and co u l d be d i r e c t l y measured. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l s o i n d i c a t e d a trend f o r c u l t u r e s w i t h i n a student p o p u l a t i o n to be as d i v e r s e as v a r i a b l e s among student bodies a t d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s . Among the e a r l i e s t s t u d i e s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the c o l l e g e e xperiences i n r e l a t i o n to environmental f a c t o r s was that done by Davie (1958) a t Ya l e U n i v e r s i t y . The assumption o f h i s study was that s a t i s f a c t i o n i s a d i r e c t r e s u l t of the i n t e r a c t i o n process between the student and c o l l e g e environment. A major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the environment was a r b i t r a t i l y d e f i n e d as any a t t r i b u t e s u b s c r i b e d to the s a t i s f a c t i o n measure on: (a) a v e r y hazy p e r c e p t i o n of Y a l e a t entrance ( n e g a t i v e ) , (b) spending money per month, (c) student employment, (d) g e t t i n g a l o n g w i t h g i r l s , (e) g e t t i n g along w i t h boys, and ( f ) ease of making f r i e n d s a t Y a l e . The g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n was t h a t those students who found what they expected to f i n d , e x perienced g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n than d i d those students who found l e s s of the expected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ! A s e r i e s of s t u d i e s were conducted by Pace (1960, 1963, 1967) u s i n g the o r i g i n a l and r e v i s e d C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s (CUES). Among the c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g s r e l e v a n t to t h i s study were: (a) students have a consensus on the p e r c e p t i o n of any campus environment, (b) incoming freshmen p e r c e p t i o n o f a campus environment i s more p o s i t i v e than t h a t o f upperclassmen, (c) the behavior of students expressed by them i n c o l l e g e are a l s o g e n e r a l l y congruent w i t h the environmental press of t h e i r campus, and (d) students majoring i n e d u c a t i o n g e n e r a l l y get h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e s in the p r a c t i c a l i t y and p r o p r i e t y s c a l e s . A l l these s t u d i e s emphasized the consensus o p i n i o n o f student subgroups r e g a r d i n g the dominant f e a t u r e s or i n t e l l e c t u a l -s o c i a l - c u l t u r a l c l i m a t e of the campus. In h i s d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , B u r nett (1963) attempted a d e s c r i p t i v e study o f the image of F o r t h Hays Kansas S t a t e C o l l e g e h e l d by h i g h s c h o o l s e n i o r s i n f o r t y s e l e c t e d p u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l s . In g a t h e r i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the study, a self-made s i x t y item i n v e n t o r y was used. Items were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o s u b j e c t areas d e a l i n g w i t h student body, p h y s i c a l p l a n t , student a c t i v i t y and other r e l a t e d matters. Items i n c l u d e d i n the Inventory were drawn from more than 200 essays w r i t t e n by freshmen s t u d e n t s , d e a l i n g w i t h advantages and disadvantages o f a t t e n d i n g p u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l s . V a r i a t i o n s i n the p a t t e r n s or responses suggested t h a t the image of the c o l l e g e was not e q u a l l y w e l l d e f i n e d i n a l l g e o g r a p h i c a l and s u b j e c t a r e a s . In g e n e r a l , the c l o s e r the s e n i o r s l i v e d to other o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , the more u n c e r t a i n they became about t h e i r o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g the S t a t e C o l l e g e . In the C i t y o f S t . L o u i s , Seymour (1965) s t u d i e d the nature and a c c u r a c y of c o l l e g e environment h e l d by students and c o u n s e l o r s i n nine h i g h schools and f o u r c o l l e g e s . The C o l l e g e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Index o f Pace and S t e r n was used to measure the p e r c e p t i o n o f the environment. The r e s u l t i n g p r o f i l e s were t r e a t e d f o r s i m i l a r i t y (or d i f f e r e n c e ) u s i n g both the D s t a t i s t i c s and p r o f i l e c o r r e l a t i o n s . I n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r score means were t r e a t e d f o r d i f f e r e n c e s u s i n g the jt t e s t . The f i n d i n g s were t h a t : (a) the p e r c e p t i o n s o f the fo u r area c o l l e g e s h e l d by the h i g h s c h o o l s e n i o r s were d i f f e r e n t from those o f h i g h s c h o o l c o u n s e l o r s ; (b) u s i n g c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r own c o l l e g e e n v i r o n -ment as a measure of a c o l l e g e ' s " r e a l " environment, the p e r c e p t i o n s o f the s e n i o r s and h i g h s c h o o l c o u n s e l o r s are q u i t e i n a c c u r a t e . Furthermore, h i g h s c h o o l s e n i o r s who were s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r i n g a t t e n d i n g one o f these c o l l e g e s p e r c e i v e d i t d i f f e r e n t l y from s e n i o r s who had not c o n s i d e r e d t h a t c o l l e g e . T h i s study presents a l o t o f i m p l i c a t i o n s to v o c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l o r s i n the h i g h s c h o o l s . D i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s were the concern i n D u l i n g ' s study (1966) i n which the CUES was a d m i n i s t e r e d to 683 j u n i o r s a t Colorado S t a t e C o l l e g e . The a n a l y s i s o f percep-t i o n s o f students b e l o n g i n g to v a r i o u s subgroups showed that s t a t i s t i c a l l y there were many d i f f e r e n c e s i n the mean sco r e s of each subgroup. I t was found that s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f campus environment seemed to change r e l a t i v e to how much time elapsed i n the qu a r t e r when the measurement was taken. L i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e was found when students were t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n c o l l e g e c l a s s e s . The r e s e a r c h e r recommended that f u r t h e r s t u d i e s be made a t oth e r l e v e l s o f the student body to determine i f the r e s u l t s were c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c of a l l c l a s s e s or i f a trend could be i d e n t i f i e d . The f a c t t h a t t h i s study u t i l i z e d only changes among those i n the j u n i o r l e v e l was noted as a weakness o f the study. McGibbeny (1967) ad m i n i s t e r e d the C o l l e g e C h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s Index to measure the i n t e r n a l and p u b l i c image of a S t a t e C o l l e g e . The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e to t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e a t the .05 l e v e l showed t h a t : (a) the p u b l i c i n t e l l e c t u a l and n o n - i n t e l l e c t u a l images of the S t a t e C o l l e g e were incongruent w i t h each o t h e r , and (b) the i n t e r n a l image of the c o l l e g e has not been communi-cated to p r o s p e c t i v e students and guidance d i r e c t o r s . I t was recommended t h a t emphasis on the improvement of i n t e l l e c t u a l c l i m a t e should be made w i t h i n the freshman y e a r , when the e x p e c t a t i o n s are s t i l l h i g h and v i a b l e . A s i g n i f i c a n t l i m i t a t i o n of the study was the absence of i n f o r m a t i o n as to the degree of i n f l u e n c e the guidance d i r e c t o r s have i n the freshmen's c h o i c e of the c o l l e g e . S t u d i e s Having P a r t i c u l a r Relevance to the Problem A study by Sinco (1968) on the p e r s o n a l i t y needs of students and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of the environmental press was done i n three ( p u b l i c , p r i v a t e , s e c t a r i a n ) u n i v e r s i t i e s i n the P h i l i p p i n e s u s i n g the C o l l e g e Charac-t e r i s t i c s Index to measure p e r c e p t i o n s and the S t e r n A c t i v i t i e s Index to measure p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . The f i n d i n g s showed t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the p e r c e p t i o n s of freshmen and sophomores were found on the e l e v e n environmental f a c t o r s and twelve p e r s o n a l i t y needs o f s t u d e n t s . However, the students from the p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y were found to have h i g h needs i n the f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s : A p p l i e d I n t e r e s t s , I n t e l l e c -t u a l I n t e r e s t , M o t i v a t i o n , O r d e r l i n e s s , C l o s e n e s s , and Submission. They showed low needs f o r e x p r e s s i o n -c o n s t r a i n t s and e g o i s m - d i f f i d e n c e . For the p r i v a t e s e c t a r i a n u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s , the press o f environment was found s t r o n g e s t i n academic c l i m a t e , academic achievement, s o c i a l p r e s s , academic o r g a n i z a t i o n , group l i f e , and v o c a t i o n a l c l i m a t e , and lowest i n student d i g n i t y . The press o f the environment i n a p r i v a t e n o n s e c t a r i a n i n s t i t u -t i o n was i n the d i r e c t i o n o f v o c a t i o n a l c l i m a t e and academic o r g a n i z a t i o n . Low press was p e r c e i v e d i n the f a c t o r s o f a s p i r a t i o n a l l e v e l , i n t e l l e c t u a l c l i m a t e , and academic c l i m a t e . In a study designed to determine the r e l a t i o n or congruency that e x i s t s among s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f the environment, as measured by the CUES, and the openness and 22 22-c l o s e d n e s s o f t h e i r b e l i e f systems, as measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism S c a l e E, Shearer (1969) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s when the freshmen most open to change were compared w i t h data gathered a t the f i r s t and second t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s . Furthermore, i t was concluded t h a t the upper-classmen's p e r c e p t i o n , t r a n s l a t e d i n t o b e h a v i o r , do much to c r e a t e an environment which f i t s t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n . Students most open to change d i d not p e r c e i v e the e n v i r o n -ment d i f f e r e n t l y than the students most c l o s e d to change. Thus, student p e r c e p t i o n s are due to f a c t o r s i n the environment r a t h e r than the openness o f c l o s e d n e s s o f t h e i r b e l i e f systems, as measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism S c a l e . Another p e r t i n e n t study i s t h a t o f Hersemann (1969). Students p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o f o u r s u b - c u l t u r e s — c o l l e g i a t e , v o c a t i o n a l , academic, and/ or n on-conformist; and s t a f f members c l a s s i f i e d i n t o Dean of S tudents' S t a f f members and S t a f f members i n o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s . The s u b j e c t s c o n s i s t i n g o f 242 upperclassmen and f o r t y s t a f f members answered the CUES. Student p e r s o n n e l workers and students g e n e r a l l y p e r c e i v e d the campus environment i n a s i m i l a r manner. P e r c e p t i o n s h e l d by members o f the non-conformist s u b c u l t u r e , however, were g e n e r a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those of o t h e r s u b c u l t u r e s . Non-conformists saw l e s s emphasis on the awareness dimension and s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s emphasis on the s c h o l a r s h i p dimension i n the environment. Dean of s t u d e n t s ' s t a f f members and s t a f f members i n other a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s had 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 on the community and s c h o l a r s h i p s c a l e s , w i t h the l a t t e r p e r c e i v i n g g r e a t e r s t r e s s i n these a r e a s . In the 1969 APGA conv e n t i o n a t Las Vegas, Vernon L. Hendrix presented a r e s e a r c h paper on J u n i o r C o l l e g e Environments and Student Program Change Mechanism, which u t i l i z e d a d i f f e r e n t approach and d i f f e r e n t instruments but was c o n s i d e r a b l y r e l a t e d to the pr e s e n t study. The primary concern of the study was to i d e n t i f y r e l a t i o n s h i p s between environmental measurements i n twenty-four c o l l e g e s and s e l e c t e d a t t i t u d e s and behaviors of the new freshmen. The instruments used were self-made Environmental S c a l e s ( C o n v e n t i o n a l Conformity, I n t e r n a l i z a t i o n , M a t u r a t i o n , and Humanism), Super's Work Values Inventory, and the Gener a l A p t i t u d e T e s t B a t t e r y (GATB). The a n a l y s i s u t i l i z e d the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n f o r the environmental v a r i a b l e s , a l o n g w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the environmental v a r i a b l e s and the two s t a n d a r d i z e d instruments mentioned. Because of i t s l a r g e sample (10,000 students), a significant level of oC equal to .001 was selected. It was found that in most cases the environmental measures were statistically significantly related to students' beliefs in the extent to which they could succeed, participate in college activities, and had been encouraged or discouraged to pursue their education. Salzman (1970) made a study of an a l l female liberal arts college on the relationships between students' needs and/or perceptions for experience of satisfaction with the college environment. Perceptual variables were determined by raw scores on the CUES. Need disposition was measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Scale, and satisfaction was assessed by the College Satisfaction Index. The results showed that: (a) a significant relationship between students' needs and their perceptions of the college emerged not only for the total sample but for the groups categorized as satisfied and dissatisfied; (b) students who tend to be satisfied manifested greater needs to be dependent, to conform, to follow instructions, to have things run smoothly, and to be generous with other individuals; (c) satisfied students perceived the college environment as being friendly and cohesive; as stressing personality enrichment and expressiveness; and as emphasizing polite-ness, c o n s i d e r a t i o n and academic p u r s u i t s ; and (d) d i s s a t i s -f i e d students manifested g r e a t e r needs to be s u c c e s s f u l and be r e c o g n i z e d , to c r i t i c i z e and a t t a c k c o n t r a r y p o i n t s of view, and to experience n o v e l t y and change i n d a i l y r o u t i n e . RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES The primary purpose of the p r e s e n t study was to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f a campus environment and some p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s . The study assumed that a l t h o u g h there w i l l be a consensus among students i n each a s p e c t o f campus e n v i r o n -ment, there w i l l be some students w i t h d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s who w i l l m a n i f e s t d i s t i n c t p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t e s to p e r c e p t i o n were h y p o t h e s i z e d : p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , l e n g t h of s t a y i n the c o l l e g e , sex, g r a d e - p o i n t average, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e , and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s . The r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s on which the hypotheses o f t h i s study were based, were the f o l l o w i n g : P e r c e p t i o n and P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s : W i l l s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f a campus environment c o r r e l a t e w i t h some p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? C. R. Pace (1966) found that what a student r e p o r t s to be true about h i s environment i s g e n e r a l l y u n r e l a t e d to h i s p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (p. 10)." However, Pace's s t u d i e s d i d not c a t e g o r i z e s e p a r a t e l y the low and h i g h r a t e r s o f campus environment i n h i s study, because h i s s t u d i e s were based on the t o p i c of consensus d e f i n i t i o n o f a campus environment. A s t i n (1965), who has made e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h on campus environment based on s t u d e n t s ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s t a t e d that "the c h a r a c t e r of a s o c i a l environment i s dependent upon the nature of i t s members, and t h a t i f we are a b l e to determine the c h a r a c t e r o f those who make up the group, we should know the c l i m a t e which t h a t group c r e a t e s (p. 308)." A s t i n wrote f u r t h e r t h a t ". . . i f we a c c e p t the c u r r e n t b e l i e f t h a t academic achievement i s more than i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y to l e a r n , . . . i t i s p r e f e r a b l e to study these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n d e t a i l as w e l l as the p e r c e p t i o n s of the student body as a whole (p. 308)." S i d l e s (1966) recommended r e s e a r c h on p e r c e p t i o n s -p e r s o n a l i t y i n t e r a c t i o n s when he wrote: "Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t i m p l i c a t i o n f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h a r i s i n g from the study i s the impetus to use both p e r s o n a l i t y measure and environmental dimensions, and the i n t e r a c t i o n s o f these f a c t o r s , i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h (p. 130)." However, there have been c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s on the s t u d i e s r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p of environmental percep-t i o n s to p e r s o n a l i t y . While Shearer (1969) concluded that the openness or c l o s e d n e s s of s t u d e n t s ' b e l i e f systems d i d not seem to i n f l u e n c e the change i n the s t u d e n t s ' percep-t i o n s o f the environment, Hersemann (1969) found t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s h e l d by members of the non-conformist s u b c u l t u r e were g e n e r a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those of members o f other s u b c u l t u r e s . Most of the s t u d i e s supported the f a c t t h a t students have a consensus i n d e s c r i b i n g a campus environment and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s are not r e l a t e d to p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c s . However, t h i s study assumes t h a t there . w i l l be a few " d e v i a t e s " who would r a t e an i n s t i t u t i o n e i t h e r v e r y p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a t i v e l y . Deviant p e r c e i v e r s are being h y p o t h e s i z e d as having p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , c o r r e l a t e s . Length of Stay i n C o l l e g e : Does the l e n g t h of s t a y i n the C o l l e g e r e l a t e to the p e r c e p t i o n o f students on the campus? This q u e s t i o n was s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned w i t h the s i m i l a r i t y or d i f f e r e n c e s of student subgroups' (freshmen, sophomores, j u n i o r s , and s e n i o r s ) r a t i n g s o f c o l l e g e environment, as c a t e g o r i z e d by t h e i r l e n g t h of s t a y i n the c o l l e g e . D u l i n g (1966) found t h a t student p e r c e p t i o n s o f the campus environment seemed to change r e l a t i v e to how much time has elapsed i n the q u a r t e r when the measurement was taken. The tendency was f o r the r a t i n g of the c o l l e g e environment to become more n e g a t i v e as the students stayed l o n g e r on the campus. The same r e s u l t s were found i n the study by Shemsky (1966) which found the freshmen group the l e a s t d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the S a i n t Joseph's C o l l e g e e n v i r o n -ment, w i t h the s e n i o r s s h a r i n g the g r e a t e s t amount of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h i s study has a l s o embraced the f i n d i n g s o f Shearer (1969) t h a t freshmen's p e r c e p t i o n s are much more complimen-t a r y to the u n i v e r s i t y than the upperclassmen's. The upperclassmen's p e r c e p t i o n s , t r a n s l a t e d i n t o b e h a v i o r , a l s o do much to c r e a t e an environment which f i t s t h e i r d e s c r i p -t i o n o f a campus environment. However, the o n l y study of the campus environment done i n the P h i l i p p i n e s ( S i n c o , 1968) found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the p e r c e p t i o n s between freshmen and sophomore students u s i n g the C o l l e g e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Index. This study, t h e r e f o r e , has attempted to shed l i g h t on the c o n s i s t e n c y of p e r c e p t i o n as r e l a t e d to l e n g t h of s t a y i n a P h i l i p p i n e campus environment. P e r c e p t i o n and Sex: Do male students d i f f e r i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of the campus environment from female students? Pace's assumption i s that there w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e i n the p e r c e p t i o n s o f an e d u c a t i o n a l environment between male and female s t u d e n t s . Herr (1965) took e x c e p t i o n to Pace's assumption. In h i s r e s e a r c h o f d i f f e r e n t i a l percep-t i o n s o f environmental press by h i g h s c h o o l students w i t h the use o f the High School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Index, the r e s u l t s showed that g i r l s tended to p e r c e i v e more i n t e l l e c -t u a l and dependency press than d i d boys. G i r l s a l s o tended to p e r c e i v e more emotional e x p r e s s i o n press f o r dominance, e m o t i o n a l i t y , n a r c i s i s m and s e x u a l i t y than d i d boys. In terms of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ( c h i square a t .05 l e v e l ) , boys p e r c e i v e d more press f o r p l a y and a g g r e s s i o n . The same r e s u l t s were supported i n the study o f F i n l e y (1968) i n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the phenomena of student s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r s c h o o l e x p e r i e n c e s , i n which g i r l s expressed s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n s cores than d i d boys. The r e s e a r c h of Abbott (1967) a l s o concluded t h a t sex d i f f e r e n c e s influence the p e r c e p t i o n s of a c o l l e g e e n v i r o n -ment. The f a c t t h a t t h i s study i s being done i n a p u b l i c normal c o l l e g e i n the P h i l i p p i n e s e t t i n g presents an u n p r e d i c t a b l e r e s u l t when i t comes to sex d i f f e r e n c e s . Only about o n e - f o u r t h of the s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study are males. In the P h i l i p p i n e s , i t has always been a c u l t u r a l a t t i t u d e to look upon t e a c h i n g as a feminine f u n c t i o n . The r i g i d admission requirements i n the R e g i o n a l Teacher-Education C o l l e g e s however, a t t r a c t many male students o f p o t e n t i a l . T h i s study, t h e r e f o r e , h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t the males w i l l r a t e the campus environment lower than the females s i n c e the F i l i p i n o c u l t u r e i n g e n e r a l demands t h a t the male take a more a g g r e s s i v e r o l e than the females. McConnel and H e i s t (1962) a b l y r e i n f o r c e d the c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e when he wrote: ". . . I t i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y apparent t h a t the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l background of students . . . c o n d i t i o n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s (p. 19)." Grade-Point Average, C o l l e g e Entrance Scores, and  L e a d e r s h i p R o l e : Do the g r a d e - p o i n t average, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e s , and l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s c o r r e l a t e w i t h s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of a campus environment? The a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study a r e : (a) the g r a d e - p o i n t average o f a l l the students i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study based on t h e i r f i r s t semester r a t i n g s d u r i n g the s c h o o l year 1970-71, (b) the r e s u l t s o f the r e q u i r e d c o l l e g e e n t r a n c e s c o r e s , and (c) the l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s as r a t e d by c l a s s a d v i s e r s , and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s as i n d i c a t e d by students i n the answer s h e e t s . Among Herr's f i n d i n g s (1965), i n h i s study o f h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s ' d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n , was th a t students who p a r t i c i p a t e d a c t i v e l y i n e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s or who assumed l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s p e r c e i v e d the environment d i f f e r e n t l y from those who d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y . I t r e s u l t e d i n achievement l e v e l h a v ing a f a r h e a v i e r r o l e i n p roducing the s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s than d i d p a r t i c i p a t i o n (or l e a d e r s h i p i n t h i s s t u d y ) . Pace (1969) r e p o r t e d p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o l a s t i c a p t i t u d e and s c h o l a r s h i p s c a l e s c o r e s . P l a n n i n g to e n t e r graduate s c h o o l was r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y to p r a c t i -c a l i t y , community, and p r o p r i e t y s c a l e s c o r e s , and p o s i t i v e l y to the s c h o l a r s h i p s c a l e . Dean (1966) found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between grades and what students s t a t e d they expected when h i g h s c h o o l s e n i o r s and what they s t a t e d they a c t u a l l y found as freshmen a t the campus. This study d i d not a n t i c i p a t e any p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n -s h i p o f s c h o o l marks, entrance scores and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s to the student's p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus environment. As a whole the students w i l l have a consensus r a t i n g o f the campus environment as i t a c t u a l l y e x i s t s , and t h i s unanimity of i m pression i s being hypothesized as not p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n d i v i d u a l performance. HYPOTHESES On the b a s i s o f the p r e c e d i n g q u e s t i o n s , the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses were made: I. The s t u d e n t s ' d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f a campus environment are r e l a t e d to some p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . A. The students w i t h p o s i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus environment w i l l get a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f c o n f o r m i t y , a v o i d i n g f a c i n g problems, and dependency; and a lower p e r c e n t i l e i n the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f f e e l i n g s u p e r i o r , b e i ng c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r s , and becoming angry. B. The students w i t h n e g a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n o f campus environment w i l l get a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f f e e l i n g s u p e r i o r , b e i n g c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r s , and becoming angry; and a lower p e r c e n t i l e i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s of c o n f o r m i t y , a v o i d i n g f a c i n g problems, and dependency. C 0 The t y p i c a l group's p e r c e p t i o n o f campus environment w i l l not be r e l a t e d to e i t h e r the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f c o n f o r m i t y , a v o i d i n g f a c i n g problems, and dependency, or the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f f e e l i n g s u p e r i o r , b eing c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r s , and becoming angry. I I . The freshmen, sophomore, j u n i o r and s e n i o r s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s w i l l have a consensus i n r a t i n g the seven major areas as d e f i n e d by p r a c t i c a l i t y , community, awareness, p r o p r i e t y , s c h o l a r s h i p , campus morale, and q u a l i t y of te a c h i n g and f a c u l t y - s t u d e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the campus environment. I I I . The s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f campus environment w i l l be lower, the lon g e r they s t a y i n the c o l l e g e campus. IV. The male s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f the c o l l e g e environment w i l l be lower than t h a t of the females. The s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus e n v i r o n ment w i l l not be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to t h e i r g r a d e - p o i n t average, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e s , and l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s . DESIGN OF THE STUDY, PROCEDURES, AND INSTRUMENTS DESIGN To i n v e s t i g a t e the f i v e p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t e s o f the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n , the f o l l o w i n g d e sign was used. The students were measured on the dependent v a r i a b l e : p e r c e p t i o n ; and on the independent v a r i a b l e s : p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , l e n g t h of stay i n the campus, sex, g r a d e - p o i n t average, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e s , and l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s . R e l a t i o n s h i p s between these dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e where p o s s i b l e . The s t u d e n t s ' p e r s o n a l r a t i n g s o f the campus environment, t h e i r concept of how other persons who know them w e l l would r a t e them on some p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , t h e i r w r i t i n g of a c t u a l l e a d e r s h i p r o l e , and the e v a l u a t i o n o f c l a s s a d v i s e r s o f the st u d e n t s ' l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s were the bases f o r measuring the dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s . PROCEDURES . S u b j e c t s The s u b j e c t s c o n s i s t e d of 594 students which was e q u i v a l e n t to 92 percent o f the e n t i r e student p o p u l a t i o n a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , P h i l i p p i n e s , d u r i n g the s c h o o l year 1970-71. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s u b j e c t s by academic. year and by sex i s shown on Table I. The Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , founded i n 1924, i s one o f the seven r e g i o n a l p u b l i c t e a c h e r - t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the coun t r y . The students e n r o l l e d i n the c o l l e g e come from t h i r t e e n s e r v i c e - a r e a p r o v i n c e s on the i s l a n d o f Mindanao. Among the requirements f o r a p p l i c a n t s to be admitted to the c o l l e g e a r e : (a) they must be secondary graduates who belong to the upper 50% o f the g r a d u a t i n g c l a s s ; (b) they must pass the i n t e r v i e w d u r i n g which o r a l E n g l i s h , p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n , and p e r s o n a l i t y are a p p r a i s e d ; and (c) they must pass the entrance examination g i v e n a n n u a l l y . A student who f a i l s i n three courses d u r i n g the year i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y dropped from the c o l l e g e (BNC 1970-71 Broc h u r e ) . C o l l e c t i o n of Data The i n v e s t i g a t o r sent a l e t t e r to the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e r e q u e s t i n g the c o l l e g e c o u n s e l o r , w i t h the a s s i s t a n c e o f another i n s t r u c t o r , to undertake the f o l l o w i n g f u n c t i o n s : (a) r e c e i v i n g , r e a d i n g , SUBJECTS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY CATEGORIZED BY ACADEMIC YEAR C u r r i c u l a r Year Male Female T o t a l Freshmen 25 132 157 Sophomores 23 119 142 J u n i o r s 25 115 140 S e n i o r s 30 125 155 T o t a l 103 491 594 and i n t e r p r e t i n g the Manual of I n s t r u c t i o n s and other p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g the study; (b) s c h e d u l i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the two major q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ; (c) c o l l e c -t i n g the forms f o r r a t i n g s t u d e n t s ' l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s from c l a s s a d v i s e r s ; (d) m a i l i n g the accomplished answer sheets to the i n v e s t i g a t o r ; and (e) making arrangements w i t h the r e g i s t r a r i n g a t h e r i n g other needed i n f o r m a t i o n such as the grade of s t u d e n t s , c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e s , and the h i s t o r y o f the c o l l e g e . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were answered by c l a s s groups. Before answering the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the students were requested to supply the f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n a l d a t a : name, sex, s e c t i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and s p e c i f i c l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s i n v a r i o u s s c h o o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . O r a l and w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r answering the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were g i v e n . S u f f i c i e n t time was provided f o r answering the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . A f i f t e e n - m i n u t e break was provided before the second q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a d m i n i s t e r e d . S i n c e the schedule f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g the q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s was done a week a f t e r the i s l a n d was v i s i t e d by a d e s t r u c t i v e typhoon, a s p e c i a l schedule f o r i n d i v i d u a l and g r o u p ' a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s to students who were absent was made. The w r i t t e n d i r e c t i o n s f o r answering the q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s can be r e f e r r e d to i n Appendixes B and D. The s i x t e e n c l a s s a d v i s e r s were requested to r a t e the l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s o f the s t u d e n t s . By p o l i c y and t r a d i t i o n , c l a s s a d v i s e r s are g e n e r a l l y the f i r s t persons the students would approach i n the s c h o o l r e g a r d i n g t h e i r d e s i r e f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . Assignment of c l a s s a d v i s e r s are g e n e r a l l y permanent to g i v e i n s t r u c t o r s the o p p o r t u n i t y to p r o v i d e b e t t e r knowledge and s e r v i c e to students as the students s t a y l o n g e r on the campus. In f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g l e a d e r s h i p r o l e was s u p p l i e d by the students themselves as p a r t of the i n f o r m a t i o n requested i n the answer sheet form. The g r a d e - p o i n t average o f the students was based on the f i r s t semester's grades submitted i n December 19 70 f o r the s c h o o l year 1970-71. Except f o r the two s e n i o r c l a s s e s undergoing a t the time on- and off-campus p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g , the students i n g e n e r a l take a load o f seven courses each semester. The s c h o o l uses a 1 ( e x c e l l e n t ) to 5 ( f a i l u r e ) f i g u r e marking system w i t h 2.5 as the standard f o r average mark. A student who gets a grade o f 3.6 to 4.4 i s c o n s i d -ered " c o n d i d i o n e d " and may pass or f a i l a course a f t e r The C o l l e g e Entrance Scores used were those from a Competetive Entrance Examination used as a b a s i s f o r admission to r e g i o n a l p u b l i c t e a c h e r - t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s . The Entrance Tests c o n s i s t s o f P a r t I : I n t e l l i g e n c e T e s t , and P a r t I I : Questions on E n g l i s h Usage and General I n f o r -ma t i o n . INSTRUMENTS Two s t a n d a r d i z e d instruments were used i n t h i s study A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f the measurement t o o l s f o l l o w s : The C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s (R. Pace, R e v i s e d , 1966). The CUES p r o v i d e a measure of the campus environment a l o n g seven dimensions or s c a l e s . They a r e : P r a c t i c a l i t y , Community, Awareness, P r o p r i e t y , S c h o l a r s h i p , Campus Morale and Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r s e l e c t i n g the s u b s c a l e s i s t h a t i t i s g e n e r a l l y accepted t h a t the atmosphere of any campus i s a mixture o f f e a t u r e s and a t t i t u d e s , i n c l u d i n g : r u l e s and procedures, f a c u l t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , student i n t e r e s t s , courses of study, e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s , the e x t e n t to which t h i s i s communicated among s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and the degree o f awareness, involvement, and c o n t r o v e r s y . The CUES d e f i n e s a s c h o o l environment by the p e r c e p t i o n o f the students who l i v e i n i t . The assumed v a l i d i t y of the student p e r c e p t i o n approach of Pace (1963) l i e s i n the f o l l o w i n g argument: . . . Regardless o f i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r , or a s s o r t e d p h y s i c a l f a c t s such as money or s i z e , the environment, i n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l sense, i s what i t i s p e r c e i v e d to be by the people who l i v e i n i t . . . . Thus r e a l i s t i c a l l y , what people t h i n k i s true i s true f o r them (p. 7). The s a i d assumption has been f u l l y supported by both Combs' and K e l l y ' s t h e o r i e s and adopted as the co n c e p t u a l frame-work o f the study. ^ The CUES q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d o f 100 items i n which the students were requested to answer e i t h e r true or f a l s e . The i n v e s t i g a t o r randomly d i s t r i b u t e d the items and s u b s t i t u t e d some words which were c o n s i d e r e d by a group of F i l i p i n o p r o f e s s i o n a l s to be absent i n the s t u d e n t s ' c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t , such as, p r o f e s s o r to i n s t r u c t o r ; messy to d i s o r -d e r l y , f i g u r e s to persons, d r i n k i n g to d r i n k i n g a l c o h o l i c beverages, u n i v e r s i t y housing to c o l l e g e b o arding houses, l o c a l p o l i t i c s to c i v i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( f a c u l t y members are not allowed to engage i n p o l i t i c s ) , bermuda s h o r t s to jeans ( s h o r t s are never used i n s c h o o l ) , pin-up p i c t u r e s to sexy p i c t u r e s , and pranks to m i s c h i e f s . In t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the student takes the f u n c t i o n of being a r e p o r t e r of the c o l l e g e and i n d i c a t e s whether he t h i n k s each statement i s g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ; a c o n d i t i o n that e x i s t s ; an event t h a t occurs or may occur; and the way the people g e n e r a l l y a c t or f e e l i n a p a r t i c u l a r environment. The CUES have a h i g h degree of i n t e r n a l 'consistency r a n g i n g from .89 to .94 based on Cronbach's C o e f f i c i e n t Alpha (Pace, 1969, p. 42). The instrument i s a l s o supported by a good d e a l of c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y , w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n s r a n g i n g from 40 to 60 (pp. 53-54). D e s c r i p t i o n o f the f i v e s c a l e s can be found i n Appendix A. The Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory ( A l l e n L. Edwards, New, 1966). The items i n the EPI were developed from three major s o u r c e s : (a) i n t e r v i e w s i n which i n d i v i d u a l s were asked i n f o r m a l l y about p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of someone w e l l known to them; (b) p u b l i s h e d b i o g r a p h i e s and auto-b i o g r a p h i e s ; and (c) statements w r i t t e n s p e c i f i c a l l y to r e p r e s e n t a g i v e n p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t . Each of the s e t s o f s c a l e s were i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d and the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was f a c t o r analyzed by the method of p r i n c i p a l components. Only s c a l e s w i t h h i g h l o a d i n g s on each of the f a c t o r s i n the f o u r a n a l y s e s were s e l e c t e d . The instrument has a r e l i a b i l i t y r a n g i n g from .71 to .94 u s i n g the Kuder-Richardson Formula of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y . Only s i x out of the 53 s c a l e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d because they best r e p r e s e n t the p a s s i v e and a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s needed f o r c a t e g o r i z i n g students i n t h i s study. The items i n the s i x s c a l e s were randomly d i s t r i b u t e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The EPI was designed to measure a l a r g e number of p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n which normal i n d i v i d u a l s v a r y . The new EPI d i f f e r e d from o t h e r p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n -t o r i e s . For i n s t a n c e , almost a l l items i n q u i r i n g i n t o the examinees' r e l i g i o n , and p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s , or i n t o h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h the f a m i l y , were e l i m i n a t e d . There were no items about h i s h e a l t h or b o d i l y f u n c t i o n s . Furthermore, n e a r l y a l l items t h a t had extreme s o c i a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e s c a l e v a l u e s were e l i m i n a t e d because of ". . . evidence (Walsh, Layton, and K l e i g e r , 1966) t h a t c o l l e g e students regard t h e i r being asked to respond " t r u e " or " f a l s e " to such items as an i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y (Edwards, 1966, p. 1 ) . " The EPI requested the examinee to d e s c r i b e h i m s e l f as he b e l i e v e s others who know him w e l l would r a t e him. I t i s based on the hypothesis ". . . t h a t the p e r s o n a l problems o f many i n d i v i d u a l s are r e l a t e d to the way i n which they b e l i e v e others p e r c e i v e them (p. 2 ) . " The i n v e s t i g a t o r assumed that the d i r e c t answering about one's behavior i n a group a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s e t t i n g i s a n x i e t y provoking and l e s s a c c u r a t e because the respondents are l i k e l y to be d e f e n s i v e i n the p r o c e s s . The s i x p a s s i v e and a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s used f o r the study were: Conformity (from Booklet I-A-H), Dependency (Booklet I V - J ) , Avoids F a c i n g Problems ( B o o k l e t I I - B ) , Becomes Angry (Booklet IV-E), C r i t i c a l of Others (Booklet IV-B), and F e e l s S u p e r i o r ( B o o k l e t I I I - H ) . Non-Standardized Measures The L e a d e r s h i p R a t i n g S c a l e Form requested the c l a s s a d v i s e r s to i n d i c a t e by a s s i g n i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e number of t h e i r r a t i n g i n the (1 to 5) continuum s c a l e , the measured r a t i n g t h a t best d e s c r i b e s the L e a d e r s h i p Q u a l i t i e s o f the i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t . Judgments of i n s t r u c t o r s were based on a c t u a l o b s e r v a t i o n s and experiences w i t h the students u s i n g the d e f i n i t i o n from the EPI (Edwards, 1966, p.7). The Le a d e r s h i p R a t i n g S c a l e Form can be found i n Appendix E. In an accompanying l e t t e r , the i n s t r u c t o r s were requested to keep t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n of s t u d e n t s ' L e a d e r s h i p Q u a l i t i e s h i g h l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . A l l accomplished forms were duly signed by the c l a s s a d v i s e r s . The L e a d e r s h i p R o l e , as s u p p l i e d by the students i n the answer sheet, was r a t e d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r a c c o r d i n g to the importance of the student's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n v a r i o u s e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . The same continuum as t h a t o f L e a d e r s h i p Q u a l i t y was used. A f t e r examining the r e t u r n s of the data, 594 o f the students were i n c l u d e d as -sample f o r the r e s e a r c h . S u b j e c t s were d e l e t e d on the bases of incomplete data r e t u r n due to (a) i n a b i l i t y o f the students to f o l l o w d i r e c t i o n s , and (b) the a d v i s e r r e f r a i n i n g from r a t i n g s a i d s tudent due to l a c k o f evidence as suggested i n the b a s i c i n s t r u c t i o n s . ANALYSIS OF DATA S c o r i n g S c o r i n g the CUES (Pace, 1969, pp. 12-13) i s based on a consensus r a t i o n a l e and obtained as f o l l o w s : a. Add the number of items answered by 66 percent or more of the students i n the keyed d i r e c t i o n . b. S u b t r a c t the number of items answered by 33 p e r c e n t or fewer of the students i n the keyed d i r e c t i o n . c. Add 20 p o i n t s to the d i f f e r e n c e , so as to e l i m i n a t e any p o s s i b i l i t y of o b t a i n i n g a neg a t i v e s c o r e . The manner f o r s c o r i n g the CUES has been m o d i f i e d i n the pr e s e n t study i n order to i d e n t i f y the i n d i v i d u a l Negative, T y p i c a l , and P o s i t i v e responses. Every i n d i v i d u a l student's i n c o r r e c t responses were s u b t r a c t e d from the . c o r r e c t responses based on the keyed d i r e c t i o n , and 20 p o i n t s were added to the d i f f e r e n c e to e l i m i n a t e n e g a t i v e s c o r e s . The scores were then converted to raw score p e r c e n t i l e s u s i n g the t a b l e i n the manual. The p e r c e n t i l e e q u i v a l e n t s f o r CUES s c o r e s , second e d i t i o n , were based on the r e f e r e n c e group of 100 c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s i n the United S t a t e s . The s c o r i n g f o r the EPI c o n s i d e r e d o n l y the answer sheets w i t h complete responses. A q u e s t i o n mark was not c o n s i d e r e d a response and t h e r e f o r e , was not scored to av o i d d i s t o r t e d r e s u l t s . The keys f o r s c o r i n g responses f o r the s c a l e s i n the EPI were based on the manual (pp. 45-48). The raw scores were converted i n t o p e r c e n t i l e s (pp. 36-44), which are based on p e r c e n t i l e norms o f u n i v e r -s i t y s t u d e n t s . There were two major reasons f o r u s i n g the p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e i n the a n a l y s i s . F i r s t , f o r c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f r e s u l t s s i n c e both instruments recommend i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by means of p e r c e n t i l e s ; and second, because of Pace's (1969) statement t h a t " s i n c e the raw scores on one s c a l e are not e q u i v a l e n t i n items w i t h the raw scores i n the other s c a l e s , the scores have been converted to p e r c e n t i l e s (p. 27)." In the EPI manual, Edwards a l s o wrote t h a t the " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f sco r e s on the EPI o r d i n a r i l y w i l l be accomplished by means of p e r c e n t i l e norms prepared f o r each of the s c a l e s (p. 5 ) . " S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s A l l data were processed a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia u s i n g the 360/67 Model Computer. In i d e n t i f y i n g the low, average, and h i g h r a t e r s o f the campus environment, the average of i n d i v i d u a l CUES scores were transformed to z^  s c o r e s . Each sco r e r e p r e -sented the d e v i a t i o n from the mean expressed i n standard d e v i a t i o n u n i t s . The i n d i v i d u a l £ scores were then s o r t e d from the lowest n e g a t i v e to the h i g h e s t p o s i t i v e z^  s c o r e v a l u e . The lowest 5% r a t e r s w i t h z^  s c ores r a n g i n g from -3.699 to -1.969 were c a t e g o r i z e d as Negative R a t e r s ; 5% o f the mid-average students w i t h z_ scores r a n g i n g from .131 to .234 as T y p i c a l R a t e r s ; and the h i g h e s t 5% w i t h z^  scores from 1.330 to 1.746 as P o s i t i v e R a t e r s . Each subgroup had t h i r t y students w i t h a t o t a l o f n i n e t y students f o r the three subgroups. I t can be noted from the s c o r e d i s t r i -b u t i o n t h a t there were more cases o f extreme p o s i t i v e than n e g a t i v e r a t e r s of the campus environment. In comparing p o s s i b l e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between means i n Hypotheses I to IV, an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was a p p l i e d u s i n g the F r a t i o (Walker and Lev, 1953, p. 25). For d e t e r m i n i n g which comparisons among the means were s i g n i f i c a n t i n Hypotheses I to I I I , Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range Tes t (Edwards, 1968, p. 131) was a l s o a p p l i e d . In d e t e r m i n i n g the degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p among the e l e v e n v a r i a b l e s needed to answer Hypothesis V, the Pearson Product Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t was employed as a s t a t i s t i c a l technique (Runyon and Haber, 1967, p. 85). The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e s e t f o r making s t a t i s t i c a l d e c i s i o n s was s e t a t oC.05 f o r a l l the hypotheses. CHAPTER V RESULTS The r e s u l t s o f the study w i l l be presented i n accordance w i t h the hypotheses. For a more meaningful p r e s e n t a t i o n , the subhypotheses w i l l be s i m u l t a n e o u s l y d i s c u s s e d . R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypo the s i s I_ Hypothesis I : The s t u d e n t s ' d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f a campus environment are r e l a t e d to some p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . Subhypothesis A: The students w i t h p o s i t i v e percep-t i o n o f the campus environment w i l l get a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f c o n f o r m i t y , a v o i d i n g f a c i n g problems, and dependency; and a lower p e r c e n t i l e i n the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f f e e l i n g s u p e r i o r , b e i n g c r i t i c a l of o t h e r s , and becoming angry. Subhypothesis B: The students w i t h n e g a t i v e percep-t i o n o f campus environment w i l l get a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f f e e l i n g s u p e r i o r , being c r i t i c a l of o t h e r s , and becoming angry; and a lower p e r c e n t i l e i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s o f c o n f o r m i t y , a v o i d i n g f a c i n g problems, and dependency. Subhypothesis C: The t y p i c a l group's p e r c e p t i o n of campus environment w i l l not be r e l a t e d to e i t h e r the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s of c o n f o r m i t y , a v o i d i n g f a c i n g problems, and dependency, or the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s of f e e l i n g s u p e r i o r , being c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r s , and becoming angry. Hypothesis I was t e s t e d by comparing the d i f f e r e n c e s of p e r c e n t i l e s i n the p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s of students i n three subgroups, namely the Negative R a t e r s , T y p i c a l R a t e r s , and P o s i t i v e R a t e r s of campus environment. The p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s p e r c e n t i l e of Negative, T y p i c a l , and P o s i t i v e R a t e r s are shown i n Table I I . In g e n e r a l , the data show a trend f o r the p o s i t i v e p e r c e i v e r s to get a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e on the p a s s i v e t r a i t s (Conforms, Avoids F a c i n g Problems, and Dependent), w h i l e the students c a t e g o r i z e d as Negative R a t e r s got a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s ( F e e l s S u p e r i o r , C r i t i c a l o f Others, and Becomes Angry). However, the i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t f o r the T y p i c a l Raters i n the two a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s d i d not support the h y p o t h e s i s on students c a t e g o r i z e d as average r a t e r s . I t was assumed that a t l e a s t the three subgroups would f o l l o w a trend i n a l l s i x p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . The PERSONALITY TRAITS PERCENTILES OF NEGATIVE, TYPICAL AND POSITIVE RATERS OF CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT Personality Traits Nega tive Raters Average Raters Positive Raters Passive Traits Conforms 52.27 69.93 75.37 Avoids Facing Problems 50.77 65.50 82.63 Dependent 44.77 59.10 75.43 Aggressive Traits Feels Superior 46.60 34.20 37.63 C r i t i c a l of Others 56.87 57.00 50.10 Becomes Angry 73.43 62.47 58.23 n = NR = 30 AR = 30 PR = 30 r e s u l t s showed that the T y p i c a l R a t e r s got a lower percen-t i l e than the P o s i t i v e Raters i n the t r a i t o f s u p e r i o r i t y and a s l i g h t l y h i g h e r score than the Negative R a t e r s i n the t r a i t o f being c r i t i c a l of o t h e r s . The p e r c e n t i l e p r o f i l e s o f student subgroups' p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s can be compared i n F i g u r e 1. A summary of the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e u s i n g the F r a t i o f o r o b t a i n i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e i s shown i n Table I I I . The three subgroups' p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s were found s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t the .001 l e v e l . In the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s , t h ere 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 t r a i t s o f F e e l s S u p e r i o r (.23) and C r i t i c a l o f Others (.41), but a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found among the subgroups i n the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t o f Becomes Angry (.03). The Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range Test was a p p l i e d to the same v a r i a b l e s to determine which comparisons among means were s i g n i f i c a n t . The Duncan ranges, as used between the f i r s t and second and t h i r d subgroups, a r e : 2.7836 and 2.9271. A summary of the f i n d i n g s i s shown i n Table IV. In the p a s s i v e t r a i t s o f a l l the subgroups — Low or Negative R a t e r s , Average or T y p i c a l R a t e r s , and High or P o s i t i v e Raters — p a i r i n g s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , except i n the comparison between the Average R a t e r s and the High R a t e r s i n the t r a i t o f Conformity. In c o n t r a s t , no oo c o CO 4-1 fn co C £ cu CO CU T3 T J r-l C •ri ja <u o o o-> u cu <S P-i Q U o • r - l 5-1 CU CU d cn co r-H cu cu M-1 o CO CJ CO • H u 4- 1 CU 5- 1 4-> o o bO C < CO cu B o o cu PQ \ i / \ « V ' ' ^ • I \ I V Legend: Negative R a t e r s T y p i c a l R a t e r s ••• P o s i t i v e R a t e r s F i g u r e 1 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s P e r c e n t i l e P r o f i l e s of Negative, T y p i c a l , and P o s i t i v e R a t e r s of Campus Environment ANOVA SUMMARY OF STUDENTS' PERSONALITY TRAITS P e r s o n a l i t y Sources of df Sum of Mean Observed T r a i t V a r i a t i o n Squares Square F Conforms Between 2 7957.10 3978.50 11.73*** E r r o r 87 29521.00 339.32 T o t a l 89 37478.00 Avoids F a c i n g Between 2 15261.00 7630.50 18.57*** Problems E r r o r 87 35744.00 410.85 T o t a l 89 51005.00 Dependent Between 2 14127.00 7063.30 20.27*** E r r o r 87 30321.00 348.52 T o t a l 89 74282.00 F e e l s Between 2 2459.50 1229.70 1.49 S u p e r i o r E r r o r 87 71823.00 825.55 T o t a l 89 74282.00 C r i t i c a l o f Between 2 934.16 467.08 .91 Others E r r o r 87 44842.00 515.43 T o t a l 89 45776.00 Becomes Between 2 3692.30 1846.10 3.47* Angry E r r o r 87 46256.00 531.68 T o t a l 89 49948.00 *p < .05 ***p < .001 A COMPARISON OF MEAN DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS' PERSONALITY TRAITS USING DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s P e r c e p t u a l D i f f e r e n c e S t a t i s t i c a l P a i r i n g C o n c l u s i o n P a s s i v e T r a i t s A. Conforms AR over LR 16.67 S i g . HR over LR 22.10 S i g . HR over AR 5.43 Not s i g . B. Avoids F a c i n g AR over LR 4.73 S i g . Problems HR over LR 21.82 S i g . HR over AR 17.13 S i g . D. Dependent AR over LR 14.33 S i g . HR over LR 30.67 S i g . HR over AR 16.33 S i g . A g g r e s s i v e T r a i t s D. F e e l s S u p e r i o r AR over LR 12.40 Not s i g . HR over LR 8.97 Not s i g . HR over AR 3.43 Not s i g . E. C r i t i c a l of Others AR over LR 1.13 Not s i g . LR over HR 6.77 Not s i g . AR over HR 8.90 Not s i g . F. Becomes Angry LR over AR 10.97 Not s i g . LR over HR 15.20 S i g . AR over HR 4.23 Not s i g . Legend: LR = Low Rater s o f campus environment or Negative R a t e r s AR = Average Ra t e r s or T y p i c a l R a t e r s HR = High Raters or P o s i t i v e R a t e r s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n means was noted i n two a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s ; however, the mean o f the Low Rate r s and the High Raters i n the p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t o f Becomes Angry was found s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . I t i s of i n t e r e s t to note that except i n the aggres-s i v e t r a i t s o f F e e l s S u p e r i o r and C r i t i c a l o f Others, the d i f f e r e n c e between the means of Negative and P o s i t i v e R a t e r s was s i g n i f i c a n t . In a d d i t i o n , the subgroups, i n g e n e r a l , got a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n the p a s s i v e t r a i t s than i n the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s . The r e s u l t s support Subhypothesis A t h a t the students w i t h p o s i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s o f the campus environment w i l l get a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and a lower p e r c e n t i l e i n the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . Subhypothesis B was a l s o supported i n t h a t students w i t h n e g a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s o f campus environment d i d get a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and a lower p e r c e n t i l e i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . However, Subhypothesis C, that the p e r c e p t i o n o f students c a t e g o r i z e d as b e l o n g i n g to the t y p i c a l group w i l l not be r e l a t e d to e i t h e r the a g g r e s s i v e or p a s s i v e t r a i t s , was not supported. Although the trend shows that the t y p i c a l group's p e r c e n t i l e was between the two extreme subgroups i n the p a s s i v e t r a i t s , the T y p i c a l Raters got a s l i g h t l y lower p e r c e n t i l e i n the t r a i t o f F e e l s S u p e r i o r and a l s o a s l i g h t l y h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n the t r a i t C r i t i c a l of O t h ers. In summary, the f i n d i n g s showed 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 among the Negative, T y p i c a l , and P o s i t i v e Raters i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s as h y p o t h e s i z e d . The Negative and P o s i t i v e R a t e r s a l s o showed d i f f e r e n c e s i n the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s i n the d i r e c t i o n of the h y p o t h e s i s . However, the r e s u l t s f o r the T y p i c a l R a t e r s d i d not show a c o n s i s t e n t trend i n the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s . R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypothesis I I Hypothesis I I : The freshmen, sophomore, j u n i o r and s e n i o r s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s w i l l have a consensus i n r a t i n g the seven major areas as d e f i n e d by p r a c t i c a l i t y , community, awareness, p r o p r i e t y , s c h o l a r s h i p , campus morale, and q u a l i t y of t e a c h i n g and f a c u l t y - s t u d e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p of the campus environment. R e s u l t s r e l a t i n g to Hypothesis I I are based on the 5 9 4 Freshmen, Sophomore, J u n i o r , and S e n i o r students used as s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study. The number of s u b j e c t s i n each subgroup can be r e f e r r e d to i n Table I on page 33. Table V shows the p e r c e n t i l e f o r CUES scores c a t e g o r i z e d by academic year of attendance a t the c o l l e g e . The consensus p e r c e p t i o n of the four subgroups of the campus environment i s e v i d e n t not o n l y i n the r a t i n g o f the CUES su b s c a l e s but a l s o i n the f o l l o w i n g average r a t i n g s : Freshmen, 71.89; Sophomores, 71.80; J u n i o r s , 76.04; and S e n i o r s , 68.58. The summary of the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) on the CUES c a t e g o r i z e d by academic year i s shown i n Table VI. As i n d i c a t e d , the s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s were found by comparing the subgroups' d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h the s c a l e s on (a) Awareness (p < .003) , (b) S c h o l a r s h i p ( p < . 0 3 ) , and (c) Campus Morale ( p < . 0 3 ) , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The scores i n the f o u r other s c a l e s — (a) P r a c t i c a l i t y ( p < . 6 8 ) , (b) Community ( p < . 2 6 ) , (c) Q u a l i t y of Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a -t i o n s h i p ( p < . 1 9 ) , and (d) P r o p r i e t y (p < .07) were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . The r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s u s i n g Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Comparison T e s t i s presented i n Table V I I . The t a b l e presents o n l y the s i g n i f i c a n t mean d i f f e r -ences among student subgroups f o r the convenience of the r e a d e r . The t h i r d range (3.0161) was added i n t h i s s p e c i f i c PERCENTILES FOR COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES SCORES CATEGORIZED BY ACADEMIC YEAR Scale Fresh-men Sopho-mores Juniors Seniors Overall Mean Rank Practicality 83.18 84.80 85 .44 84 .92 84.58 2 Scholarship 60.29 56.77 55 .63 52 .33 56.26 6 C ommu n i ty 50.76 54.63 55 .71 51 .35 53.11 7 Awareness 68.90 65.30 65 .09 58 .85 64.54 5 Propriety 74.45 74.61 73 .16. 70 .08 73.09 4 Campus 90.09 Morale 90.10 90 .71 88 .35 89.81 1 Quality of 75.58 Teaching, and Fculty-Student Relationship 76.38 76 .04 74 .20 75.55 3 Average 71.89 Percentile 71.80 71 .68 68 .58 70.99 n = Freshmen = 157 Sophomores= 142 Juniors = 140 Seniors = 155 ANOVA SUMMARY OF CUES SCORE PERCENTILES OF FRESHMEN, SOPHOMORE, JUNIOR, AND SENIOR STUDENTS P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t Sources of V a r i a t i o n df Sum of Squares Mean Square Observed F P r a c t i c a l i t y Between E r r o r T o t a l 3 590 593 435.31 .16646 .16690 145.10 282.14 .51 S c h o l a r s h i p Between E r r o r T o t a l 3 590 593 5033.00 .32105 .32609 1677.70 544.16 3.08* Community Between E r r o r T o t a l 3 590 593 2619.20 .38764 .39026 873.07 657.02 1.33 Awareness Between E r r o r T o t a l 3 590 593 8141.10 .33763 .34577 2713.70 572.25 4.74** P r o p r i e t y Between E r r o r T o t a l 3 590 593 2023.80 .16998 .17200 674.59 288.09 2.34 Campus Morale Between E r r o r T o t a l 3 590 593 467.43 30312.00 30779.00 155.81 51.376 3.03* Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p Between E r r o r T o t a l 3 590 593 414.00 51376.00 51790.00 139.00 87.078 1.58 *P< .05 **p< .01 analysis, since there are four subgroups being compared for significant differences between means. As stated earlier, the analysis of variance found that three of the seven College and University Environment Scales had significant differences among means. For this specific analysis, each scale w i l l be discussed separately below. The seven scales are: A. Practicality: The subgroups' mean percentile scores (Freshmen, 83.18; Sophomores, 84.80; Juniors, 85.44; and Seniors, 84.92) on this scale were found to be homo-geneous . B. Scholarship: Only one of the six pairwise combinations was found to have a significant mean difference. It was the comparison between Freshmen and Senior students, with a difference of 7.96. C. Community: This scale was found to have homogeneous subgroup mean percentile scores; that i s , no pairs differed by more than the shortest significant range. D. Awareness: Half of the pairwise combinations were found to have significant differences in means. They were: (1) Juniors over Seniors, with a'mean difference of 6.15; (2) Sophomores over Seniors with 6.45; and (3) Freshmen over Seniors, with the biggest mean difference of SIGNIFICANT CUES MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUBGROUPS USING DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST CUES S c a l e Non-Homogeneous Subgroup Mean D i f f e r e n c e P r a c t i c a l i t y No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between subgroups S c h o l a r s h i p A. Freshmen over S e n i o r s 7.96 Community No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between subgroups Awareness A. J u n i o r s over S e n i o r s 6.15 B. Sophomores over S e n i o r s 6.45 C. Freshmen over S e n i o r s 10.07 P r o p r i e t y A. Freshmen over S e n i o r s 4.37* B. Sophomores over S e n i o r s 4.54* Campus Morale A. Freshmen over S e n i o r s 2.74 B. Sophomores over S e n i o r s 2.75 c. J u n i o r s over S e n i o r s 2.36 Q u a l i t y o f No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between subgroups Teaching and F a c u l t y - S tudent R e l a t i o n s h i p T o t a l number o f p a i r s : t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e 42 T o t a l number of p a i r w i s e comparisons found s i g . 9 * Not s i g n i f i c a n t a t c<.05 i n the F t e s t . E. Propriety: Although in the analysis of variance the F ratio of this scale between groups was not considered significant (.07), the Duncan's New Multiple Comparison Test found two significant differences. They were: (1) Freshmen over Seniors, with 4.37; and (2) Sophomores over Seniors, with 4.54. F. Campus Morale: This scale was found to have three significantly heterogeneous groups. They were: (1) Freshmen over Seniors, with a mean difference of 2.74; (2) Sophomores over Seniors, with 2.75; and (3) Juniors over Seniors, with 2.36. G. Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student Relationship: There were no significant differences between subgroups in this scale. The means of 75.58 for Freshmen, 76.38 for Sophomores, 76.04 for Juniors, and 74.20 for the Seniors were considered homogeneous. It was apparent from the results that the student subgroups rated the campus environment very highly in Campus Morale with a percentile of 90; high on Practicality (85); a slightly elevated rating in the two scales, Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student Relationship (76), and Propriety (73) ; high average rating on Awareness (65) and S c h o l a r s h i p (56) ; and average i n Community (53). The p e r c e n t i l e p r o f i l e s , as i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 2, i n d i c a t e the s t r o n g consensus o f students w i t h regards to t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus environment a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e on the seven s c a l e dimensions. The F r a t i o s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t i n the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t f o u r of the seven s c a l e s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y homogeneous. Th i s was f u r t h e r supported by the M u l t i p l e Range T e s t which found t h a t o n l y nine of the fo r t y - t w o p a i r e d combinations had s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t means. A l l of the nine s i g n i f i c a n t mean d i f f e r e n c e s among the p a i r i n g s i n v o l v e d S e n i o r s t u d e n t s . T h i s study showed that d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the o v e r a l l means o f the Freshmen was h i g h e r than the othe r subgroups, t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n c o u l d not be c o n s i d e r e d u n r e a l i s t i c . The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus environment by academic year w i l l be f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d i n Hypothesis I I I , which i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to Hypothesis I I . In summary, Hypothesis I I t h a t the student subgroups' p e r c e p t i o n w i l l have a consensus i n r a t i n g the seven major areas of the campus environment a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e was supported. The subgroups' CUES scores on •u •r-l CO O O CO J-l Cu -r-t cn r-l CO r - l o o C/l 4-1 •rH C 3 o o CO CO cu c dl CO >N 4J 0) •r-l U CU o r-l CD I—I CO J-i O S CO 3 CU e CO •r-l 00 4-1 c c cu 3 4J CO M-1 O >^  4-> r - l 3 ^ a 4-1 CO •r-l pH r-l CO TJ 3 G O" co 100 Legend: Freshmen Sophomores ••• J u n i o r s === S e n i o r s F i g u r e 2 I l l u s t r a t i v e CUES P e r c e n t i l e P r o f i l e s o f Students C a t e g o r i z e d by Academic Year P r a c t i c a l i t y , Community, Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y -Student R e l a t i o n s h i p , and P r o p r i e t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y , were found s i g n i f i c a n t l y homogeneous by the F t e s t In the ANOVA (with the e x c e p t i o n of P r o p r i e t y ) , and a l s o by the M u l t i p l e Range T e s t . In g e n e r a l , the students were more p o s i t i v e than n e g a t i v e i n r a t i n g the seven major areas of the campus environment. R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypothesis I I I Hypothesis I I I : The s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f campus environment w i l l be lower, the lon g e r they s t a y i n the c o l l e g e campus. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the q u e s t i o n r a i s e d i n Hypothesis I I . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s h y p o t h e s i s was concerned w i t h the d i f f e r e n c e s of student subgroups' (Freshmen, Sophomores, J u n i o r s , and S e n i o r s ) r a t i n g s o f the c o l l e g e environment as c a t e g o r i z e d by t h e i r l e n g t h o f s t a y i n the c o l l e g e . In as much as the data of student subgroups' responses were p a r t l y d i s c u s s e d i n Hypothesis I I , the d i s c u s s i o n w i l l d e l e t e d u p l i c a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n and w i l l i n s t e a d concen-t r a t e on p r e s e n t i n g the subgroups' mean d i f f e r e n c e s a c c o r d i n g to l e n g t h o f s t a y i n the C o l l e g e . Table V I I I presents the r a n k i n g o f CUES means by-academic y e a r . The t a b l e g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a c c o r d i n g to l e n g t h o f s t a y i n c o l l e g e : Freshmen: This subgroup got the expected rank of 1 ( h i g h e s t mean) i n o n l y two s c a l e s ( S c h o l a r s h i p and Aware-ness) . I t got the second h i g h e s t mean i n P r o p r i e t y , ranked t h i r d i n Campus Morale, and Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y -Student R e l a t i o n s h i p , and the lowest mean (rank 4) i n P r a c t i c a l i t y and Community. Sophomores: They assumed rank o f 2 i n the CUES su b s c a l e s of S c h o l a r s h i p , Community, Awareness, and Campus Morale; rank 1 i n P r o p r i e t y , Q u a l i t y of Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p ; and rank 3 i n P r a c t i c a l i t y . The group d i d not d e v i a t e more than one rank from i t s expected p o s i t i o n i n each dimension o f the campus e n v i r o n -ment. J u n i o r s : This subgroup got i t s expected rank o f 3 i n S c h o l a r s h i p , Awareness, and P r o p r i e t y ; a rank of 2 i n the Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p s c a l e ; and the h i g h e s t mean p e r c e n t i l e i n the dimensions o f P r a c t i c a l i t y , Community, and Campus Morale. S e n i o r s : The s e n i o r s got the lowest rank as expected i n f i v e s c a l e s , but got the rank of 3 i n the as p e c t o f RANKING OF CUES BY ACADEMIC YEAR Freshmen Sophomores J u n i o r s S e n i o r s S c a l e Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank P r a c t i c a l i t y 83.18 4 84.80 3 85. 44 1 84 .92 2 S c h o l a r s h i p 60.29 1 56.77 2 55. 63 3 52 .33 4 Community 50.76 4 54.63 2 55. 71 1 51 .35 3 Awareness 68.90 1 65.30 2 65. 09 3 58 .85 . 4 P r o p r i e t y 74.45 2 74.61 1 73. 16 3 70 .08 4 Campus Morale 90.09 3 90.10 2 90. 71 1 88 .35 4 Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and 75.58 3 76.38 1 76. 04 2 74 .20 4 F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p 70 to Community, and the rank of 2 i n P r a c t i c a l i t y . This study assumed that s e n i o r s have the most r e a l i s t i c p e r c e p t i o n of the campus environment. I t can be noted that the two s u b s c a l e s , S c h o l a r s h i p and Awareness, were the o n l y ones that f u l l y supported the h y p o t h e s i s , i f the t r e n d i n r a n k i n g i s made the b a s i s of f i n d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s a c c o r d i n g to l e n g t h of s t a y i n the c o l l e g e . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n these two s u b s c a l e s was f u r t h e r supported by the h i g h l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the F r a t i o o f the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , which were .02 and .003, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Comparison Test a l s o found the Awareness and the Campus Morale s c a l e s not homogeneous. I t can, t h e r e f o r e , be s t a t e d t h a t the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of the campus environment o n l y p a r t i a l l y supported the l e n g t h of s t a y c r i t e r i a i n e v a l u a t i n g the i n s t i t u t i o n a l image when c a t e g o r i z e d by CUES s u b s c a l e s . T h i s was shown i n the r e s u l t s of the F t e s t i n the A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e and c o r r o b o r a t e d i n the Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range T e s t s . R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypothesis IV Hypothesis IV: The male s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus environment w i l l be lower than t h a t of the females. 71 if The r e s u l t s o f t h i s h y p o thesis were again based on the seven dimensions of the C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y E n v i r o n -ment S c a l e s . The number o f s u b j e c t s were unequal as regards to sex ca t e g o r y . There were o n l y 103 males as compared to '491 females. Table IX shows the mean d i f f e r e n c e s between males and females on the CUES p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e s . As i n d i c a t e d i n Table IX and i n F i g u r e 3, both sexes p e r c e i v e d the environmental press i n p r a c t i c a l l y the same manner; however, the males got lower means than the females i n a l l dimensions o f the CUES. There were three s u b s c a l e s i n which the d i f f e r e n c e s were not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t . The f i r s t was i n the area o f P r a c t i c a l i t y , i n which the mean d i f f e r e n c e was 1.16 and a p r o b a b i l i t y o f .54; the second was i n the Awareness s c a l e w i t h a mean d i f f e r e n c e o f 1.09 and a p r o b a b i l i t y o f .68; and the t h i r d was i n the S c h o l a r s h i p s c a l e w i t h a d i f f e r e n c e o f 3.57 and a p r o b a b i l i t y o f .07. However, the s c a l e s on Community, w i t h a d i f f e r e n c e o f 6.61, was s i g n i f i c a n t a t cy.05; and Q u a l i t y of Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p , w i t h a mean d i f f e r e n c e o f 3.45, was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .0007 l e v e l . The summary o f the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on CUES t o t a l and su b s c a l e s w i t h sex as an independent v a r i a b l e i s shown i n A COMPARISON OF MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES' AND FEMALES' PERCENTILE SCORES ON COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES S c a l e Mean f o r Males Mean f o r Females D i f f e r e n c e P r a c t i c a l i t y 83.60 84.75 1.15 S c h o l a r s h i p 53.50 57.07 3.57 Community 47.92 54.08 6.61* Awareness 63.62 64.71 1.09 P r o p r i e t y 69.94 73.70 3.76* Campus Morale 88.21 90.12 1.91** Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p 72.67 76.12 3.45*** *p s i g n i f i c a n t a t **p s i g n i f i c a n t a t ***p s i g n i f i c a n t a t oc .05 oc .01 oc .001 n f o r Males = 103; Females = 491 >> 4-> • iH r H co o • i H 4-> O CO SH PH • r H JG CO J-l CO r - l o si C J C O >> 4-J • r - l C 3 o u CO CO 0) G cu U co & 4-1 CU •rH }H a o u PH CU r H CO u o s co 3 a e CO o 7,3 b O 4-i C G • r H CU Si T J O 3 CO 4-J CU C O H I Cu > > " H M H J-> ,G O r H CO 3 C >> o o 4-1 CO ' H • H fe 4 J r H CO CO T J r H 3 G CU C co pd, 100 90 80 70 60 50 Legend: Males Females 40 F i g u r e 3 P r o f i l e Comparing Mean P e r c e n t i l e D i f f e r e n c e s Between Male and Female S t u d e n t s on CUES The o v e r a l l F r a t i o of 5.62 i n d i c a t e d t h a t as a whole the d i f f e r e n c e between sexes on a l l CUES su b s c a l e s was s i g -n i f i c a n t a t the .02 l e v e l . The h y p o t h e s i s , then, t h a t male students w i l l r a t e the campus environment lower than the females was supported i n p a r t by the d i r e c t i o n o f mean d i f f e r e n c e s , which showed males as having lower means than females i n a l l CUES s c o r e s , and by the f a c t t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s i n f o u r of the seven s c a l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t . R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t to Hypothesis V Hypothesis V: The s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus environment w i l l not be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to t h e i r grade-p o i n t average, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e s , and l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s . In t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , the 594 s u b j e c t s were c o n s i d e r e d as one f o r the purpose o f a n a l y s i s . As i n a l l p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s of f i n d i n g s , the dependent v a r i a b l e , p e r c e p t i o n , as measured by CUES, was the b a s i s f o r c o r r e l a t i n g the independent v a r i a b l e s of g r a d e - p o i n t average, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e s , and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s . As seen i n Table XI, the n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s of the four v a r i a b l e s w i t h the CUES s c a l e s i s v e r y apparent. ANOVA SUMMARY OF CUES SUBSCALES WITH SEX AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLE P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t Sources o f V a r i a t i o n d f Sum o f Squares Mean Square Observed F P r a c t i c a l i t y Between E r r o r T o t a l 1 592 593 115.23 .16678 .16690 115.23 281.73 .41 S c h o l a r s h i p Between E r r o r T o t a l 1 592 593 1792.90 .32429 .32609 1792.90 547.79 3.27 Community Between E r r o r T o t a l 1 592 593 3256.00 .38700 .39026 3256.00 653.72 4.98*. Awareness Between E r r o r T o t a l 1 592 593 102.83 .34567 .34577 102.83 583.89 .18 P r o p r i e t y Between E r r o r T o t a l 1 592 593 1212.70 . .17079 .17200 1212.70 288.49 4.20* Campus Morale Between E r r o r T o t a l 1 592 593 311.27 30468.00 30779.00 311.27 51.466 6.05** Q u a l i t y o f Between Teaching and E r r o r F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t T o t a l R e l a t i o n s h i p 1 592 593 1022.00 50768.00 51790 1022.00 85.757 11.92*** O v e r a l l Between E r r o r T o t a l 1 592 593 5.5771 587.66 593.23 5.5771 .99266 5.62* *p ^ .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 The n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the v a r i a b l e s w i t h the seven CUES subscales can be summarized as f o l l o w s : 1. GPA, w i t h rj_s from -.23 to -.07 2. CES, w i t h r_[s_ from -.22 to -.10 3. RL, w i t h r_[_s from -.12 to -.05 4. LR, w i t h rj_s from -.11 to -.02 The date on Table XII g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : CUES and Grade-Point Average: Four of the CUES ( S c h o l a r s h i p , Awareness, P r o p r i e t y , and Campus Morale) were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d w i t h Grade-P o i n t Average a t oC.01. The s c a l e s on Community and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p were a l s o n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d w i t h Grade-Point Average a t oi.05. Only the s c a l e on P r a c t i c a l i t y had a low degree of n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Grade-Point average. CUES and C o l l e g e Entrance Scores : A l l s c a l e s were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d w i t h C o l l e g e Entrance Scores. The s c a l e on Campus Morale was found s i g n i f i c a n t a t o(.05, and the s i x s c a l e s s i g n i f i c a n t a t °C .01. CUES and Rated L e a d e r s h i p : The s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of the campus environment was h i g h l y n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to Rated L e a d e r s h i p i n the dimension o f Awareness; s i g n i f i c a n t l y RELATIONSHIP OF STUDENTS* MARKS, COLLEGE ENTRANCE SCORES, AND LEADERSHIP QUALITIES TO CUES PERCENTILE SCORES Pe r s o n a l C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s Q u a l i t i e s Prac. Scho. Com. Aware. Prop. C„M. Q QT. & and F-S R. Academic Performance Grade-Point -.07 -.17** -.09* -.23** -.19** -.14** -.10* Average C o l l e g e -.13** -.16** -.18** -.22** -.13** -.10* -.12** Entrance Score Rated -.10* -.06 -.08* -.12** -.09* -.06 -.05 L e a d e r s h i p L e a d e r s h i p Role -.03 -.10* -.02 -.11** -.09* -.09* -.07 n = 594 *p s i g n i f i c a n t a t cx .05 **p s i g n i f i c a n t a t oc.01 n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d i n the dimensions o f P r a c t i c a l i t y , Community, and P r o p r i e t y ; but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d i n the s c a l e s of S c h o l a r s h i p , Campus Morale, and Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p . CUES and L e a d e r s h i p R o l e : The s c a l e on Awareness was a g a i n found to be h i g h l y n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to L e a d e r s h i p R o l e . The s c a l e s on S c h o l a r s h i p , P r o p r i e t y , and Campus Morale were n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to L e a d e r s h i p R o l e . However, the s c a l e s on P r a c t i c a l i t y , Community, and Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p were found to have a low degree o f ne g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h L e a d e r s h i p R o l e . Added i n f o r m a t i o n of i n t e r e s t to t h i s s p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s i s was the i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the i n s t r u c t o r s ' r a t i n g on s t u d e n t s ' L e a d e r s h i p Q u a l i t y and the a c t u a l L e a d e r s h i p Role as i n d i c a t e d by the students them-s e l v e s (r .07). This d i s c r e p a n c y between the p e r c e p t i o n o f the c l a s s a d v i s e r s and the students w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the study. The mostly n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the Grade-P o i n t Average, C o l l e g e Entrance Scores, L e a d e r s h i p Q u a l i t y , and L e a d e r s h i p Role w i t h the seven dimensions o f the C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s support the r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s i s that i n the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of the campus environment i s not p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to academic performance and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s i n e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . The r e s u l t s showed c o n s i s t e n t i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . These i n d i c a t e d t h a t students w i t h h i g h academic performance and w i t h l e a d e r s h q u a l i t i e s gave the campus environment a low r a t i n g . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The problem o f t h i s study was to a s c e r t a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p of s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f a campus environment to some p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s i s u n d e r l y i n g the study was: the st u d e n t s ' d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f the campus environment are r e l a t e d to some p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . The f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t e s o f p e r c e p t i o n were c o n s i d e r e d : p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , l e n g t h of s t a y i n c o l l e g e , sex, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e s , academic marks, and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s . THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The major c o n c e p t u a l framework o f t h i s study i n c l u d e d the p o s t u l a t e o f K e l l y ' s (1955) psychology o f p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s t hat ". . . a person's processes are p s y c h o l o -g i c a l l y c h a n n e l i z e d by the ways i n which he a n t i c i p a t e s events (p. 46)," and Combs' (1959) phenomenological determinant o f behavior p o s t u l a t e that " . . . a l l b e h a v i o r , w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , i s completely determined by, and p e r t i -s i nent to, the p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d of the behaving organism (p. 29)." These t h e o r i e s were conbined to support the importance of c o n s i d e r i n g i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t i o n as a r e a l i t y t h a t a f f e c t s a person's behavior i n a campus environment. PROCEDURES The s u b j e c t s o f t h i s study i n c l u d e d 594 students e n r o l l e d a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , P h i l i p p i n e s , f o r the s c h o o l year o f 1970-71. The C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment S c a l e s o f C. Robert Pace (1966), and the new Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (1966) were the two major instruments used i n the study. In a d d i t i o n , the c l a s s a d v i s e r s e v a l u a t e d s t u d e n t s ' l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s . Means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , the F t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Comparison T e s t , and the Pearson Product Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t were the s t a t i s t i c a l techniques used i n the a n a l y s i s o f data on the dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s . A l l data were processed a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia w i t h the use o f a 360/67 Model Computer. R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to D i f f e r e n t i a l P e r c e p t i o n s The presence o f d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s i n the e v a l u a t i o n o f campus environment was assumed before the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was made. I t was hypothesized t h a t students w i t h n e g a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s (low r a t e r s o f campus environment) would get a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , w h i l e students w i t h p o s i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s ( h i g h r a t e r s ) would get a h i g h e r p e r c e n t i l e i n p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , i n comparison w i t h low r a t e r s . The f i n d i n g s showed 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 among the Negative, T y p i c a l , and P o s i t i v e R a t e r s i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . The Negative and P o s i t i v e Raters a l s o showed d i f f e r e n c e s i n the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s i n the d i r e c t i o n o f the h y p o t h e s i s . However, the t y p i c a l group d i d not have a c o n s i s t e n t trend as hypothe-s i z e d , and t h e r e f o r e made the r e s u l t s i n c o n c l u s i v e as f a r as the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s f o r the t y p i c a l group i s concerned. In summary, three g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn from the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s o f d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n as r e l a t e d to p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s : 1. D i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s e x i s t w i t h some students i n the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , as f a r as r a t i n g the i n s t i t u t i o n a l image i s concerned. 2. A d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y -t r a i t s of Conformity, Avoids F a c i n g Problems, and Dependency i s p r e s e n t among low, average, and h i g h r a t e r s o f the campus environment. 3. A d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e i n the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s o f F e e l s S u p e r i o r , C r i t i c a l of Others, and Becomes Angry i s pr e s e n t between h i g h and low r a t e r s , but not f o r students c a t e g o r i z e d as average r a t e r s . The a n a l y s i s o f the d e v i a n t responses by some o f the students on the i n s t i t u t i o n a l press may suggest d i s t o r t e d p e r c e p t i o n s of the demands upon them by the i n s t i t u t i o n . I t may suggest poor i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the schoolmates, i n s t r u c t o r s , s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and even on the courses being o f f e r e d . Deviant p e r c e p t i o n s c o u l d p o s s i b l y be a r e s u l t of other f a c t o r s , such as the c u l t u r a l background of the s u b j e c t s . I t could be t h a t the t o t a l p a t t e r n o f congruence between i n d i v i d u a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and the p e r c e i v e d environmental p r e s s u r e s may be more p r e d i c t i v e of academic achievement, dropping out o f s c h o o l , and even i n i t i a t i n g campus u n r e s t than any s i n g l e a s p e c t of e i t h e r person or environment. Because of t h i s , the s c h o o l should c a p i t a l i z e upon i t s a b i l i t y to o f f e r more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d c o u n s e l i n g , e s p e c i a l l y to d e v i a n t p e r c e i v e r s of campus environment. The st u d e n t s ' e v a l u a t i o n o f the campus i s a c o n c r e t e source o f knowing how they f e e l about the campus i n t h i s age when many students i n the P h i l i p p i n e s and elsewhere are complain-in g about the l a c k o f i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n , and a d u l t domination. This concern f o r b e t t e r s t u d e n t - f a c u l t y r e l a t i o n s h i p i s needed i n the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e because i n the s c h o o l year 1970-71 a l o n e , there were two i n c i d e n t s caused by f a c u l t y - s t u d e n t misunderstanding, the l a t t e r r e s u l t i n g i n the c l o s i n g o f the s c h o o l on March 30 to A p r i l 1, 1971. F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h might determine whether the d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n among students r e p r e s e n t s a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s of p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h at can be tr a c e d from the f a m i l y h i s t o r y or a c q u i r e d w h i l e on campus. The lower p e r c e n t i l e that the student subgroups got i n the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t s as compared to the p a s s i v e t r a i t s p r o v i d e s an i n t e r e s t i n g problem f o r f u r t h e r study w i t h the use o f s u b j e c t s from v a r i o u s f a c u l t i e s to e s t a b l i s h whether the f i n d i n g holds true f o r students from other d i s c i p l i n e s . The f a c t t h a t a l l the three subgroups ( n e g a t i v e , t y p i c a l , and p o s i t i v e p e r c e i v e r s ) got the lowest p e r c e n t i l e (41) i n the t r a i t of F e e l s S u p e r i o r could a l s o be a focus f o r study. I t r a i s e s these q u e s t i o n s : Do F i l i p i n o Normal School students b e l i e v e t h a t they can not do things b e t t e r than o t h e r s ? ; Do they f e e l t h a t t h e i r o p i n i o n s are i n c o r r e c t ? ; Does the t r a i t a f f e c t t h e i r s e l f - c o n c e p t and u l t i m a t e l y t h e i r chances o f success i n s t u d i e s and acceptance of l i f e ' s c a r e e r ? The h i g h p e r c e n t i l e that the P o s i t i v e R a t e r s got i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t of Avoids F a c i n g Problems prese n t s an i n t e r e s t i n g t o p i c f o r f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I f p o s i t i v e r a t e r s put o f f things u n t i l the l a s t minute, do not face problems r e a d i l y , or get r i d o f a n x i e t y by not t h i n k i n g about i t , then, the c o u n s e l o r can make use of t h i s to modify such behavior before the student forms the h a b i t of u s i n g apathy i n s o l v i n g h i s problems. Maybe some other p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can be chosen to compare d i f f e r e n c e s between Negative, T y p i c a l , and P o s i t i v e Raters of campus environment. Among the p o s s i -b i l i t i e s are the p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of m a s c u l i n i t y , pragmatism, dogmatism, i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n , m a t u r a t i o n , and humanism. Another angle that should be i n v e s t i g a t e d i s the v e r i f i c a t i o n o f the CUES and EPI items f o r r e l e v a n c e , s i n c e the instruments have not been v a l i d a t e d f o r c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Before guidance c o u n s e l o r s , teachers and s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s can implement the f i n d i n g s of the proposed s t u d i e s , c a u t i o n i s needed to a v o i d making students conform i n a s t e r e o t y p e manner to a t t a i n e d u c a t i o n a l g o a l s . I n s t e a d , the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study suggest more c r e a t i v e and u s e f u l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n s must be encouraged to p r o v i d e o u t l e t s f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . The f i n d i n g s a l s o have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c o l l e g e c o u n s e l o r s i n t h e i r c a t a l y t i c r o l e s . The presence of d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n s among students demands t h a t the c o u n s e l o r s need to a p p r a i s e the press of the s c h o o l and apply the r e s u l t s to the e d u c a t i o n a l program. As the c o u n s e l o r p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the c u r r i c u l u m , e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e committees, continuous o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i l l a r i s e f o r him to present the problems of d e v i a n t p e r c e i v e r s to other members of the s c h o o l s t a f f , and how i t can be used as g u i d e l i n e s i n such e d u c a t i o n a l matters as academic r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , student i n t e r e s t s , and s c h o o l p o l i c i e s . S e n s i t i z a t i o n to d i f f e r e n t i a l press i s not o n l y the concern of the c o u n s e l o r but a l s o o f a l l the s t a f f members. R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to Student Subgroups' P e r c e p t i o n on Seven  Dimensions o f C o l l e g e Campus The h y p o t h e s i s was that the freshmen, sophomore, j u n i o r , and s e n i o r s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n would have a consen-sus i n r a t i n g the seven major areas of a campus environment as d e f i n e d by P r a c t i c a l i t y , Community, Awareness, P r o p r i e t y , S c h o l a r s h i p , Campus Morale, and Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p . In g e n e r a l , Hypothesis I I was supported by a l l s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . The subgroups' CUES p e r c e n t i l e i n P r a c t i c a l i t y , Community, P r o p r i e t y , and Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p were found s i g n i f i c a n t l y homogeneous i n the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e and a l s o by the M u l t i p l e Range Te s t . Only nine of the for t y - t w o p a i r w i s e combinations were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n the M u l t i p l e Range Comparison T e s t . Although there was a consensus o f trend i n the s t u d e n t s ' e v a l u a t i o n o f the e n t i r e CUES, the l a c k o f homogeneity i n the p e r c e n t i l e s f o r the Awareness and S c h o l a r s h i p s c a l e s c a s t doubt about the unanimity of s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n r e g a r d i n g the i n t e l l e c t u a l a s p e c t s as o f f e r e d i n the e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n . As a whole, the students r a t e d the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e Environment q u i t e p o s i t i v e l y . The average p e r c e n t i l e r a t i n g f o r each s c a l e were as f o l l o w s : (a) Campus M o r a l e — 90%; (b) P r a c t i c a l i t y — 85%; (c) Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y -Student R e l a t i o n s h i p — 7 6 % ; (d) P r o p r i e t y — 7 3 % ; (e) Aware-n e s s — 65%; ( f ) S c h o l a r s h i p — 56%; and (g) Community— 53%. A l though the students as a whole p e r c e i v e d the image of the c o l l e g e q u i t e p o s i t i v e l y , the average r a t i n g (53%) g i v e n to the s c h o o l as a community needs f u r t h e r v e r i f i c a -t i o n . Some of the f o l l o w i n g p o s s i b l e reasons f o r i t s low r a t i n g should be examined i n these a r e a s : (a) h e l p f u l n e s s and s h a r i n g among s t u d e n t s , (b) l o y a l t i e s and f r i e n d l i n e s s of schoolmates, and (3) the presence of " d i a l o g u e " between f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s , as they are matters r e q u i r i n g mutual e v a l u a t i o n . There must be a c o n t i n u i n g examination of e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and a c t u a l i z a t i o n , and a c o n s c i o u s attempt to merge the two i n a f u n c t i o n a l way. The combination of i d e a l i s m and a c t u a l happening i s the important i n g r e d i e n t i n d e c i s i o n making. I t i s hoped that the s t u d e n t s ' d i f f e r -e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus environment w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d by the c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n m o d i f y i n g the goals and o p e r a t i o n s o f the i n s t i t u t i o n . To deny the importance of s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s i n evoking change could prove to be a s e r i o u s l a c k o f f o r e s i g h t on the p a r t of the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . In a d d i t i o n , there i s a need f o r a f u l l s c a l e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of the s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y , and p a r e n t a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f the s c h o o l campus. T h i s study can o n l y serve as a b e g i n n i n g of i n q u i r y r e q u i r i n g much p a r t i c i p a t i o n on the p a r t of a l l concerned w i t h the i n s t i t u t i o n . R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to P e r c e p t i o n of Campus Environment and  Length of Stay i n C o l l e g e I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d that the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f campus environment w i l l be lower as they s t a y longer i n c o l l e g e . Ranking the means o f the f o u r subgroups c o n s i s t i n g of Freshmen, Sophomores, J u n i o r s , and S e n i o r s showed t h a t o n l y the s u b s c a l e s of S c h o l a r s h i p and Awareness f u l l y supported the h y p o t h e s i s . However, the trend was i n the d i r e c t i o n of the h y p o t h e s i s . The o v e r a l l means i n d i c a t e d t h a t the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of the campus environment was becoming l e s s p o s i t i v e as they s t a y longer on campus. As expected, the Freshmen as a group r a t e d the campus e n v i r o n -ment h i g h e s t i n the area of S c h o l a r s h i p and Awareness, which was a l s o the f i n d i n g s i n previous s t u d i e s i n western c o u n t r i e s . The f a c t t h a t the Freshmen ranked lowest i n the dimension of P r a c t i c a l i t y and Community suggests that incoming students are f i n d i n g adjustment problems i n a new s i t u a t i o n . T h i s presents s e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r coun-s e l o r s , t e a c h e r s , and s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n the aspects o f o r i e n t a t i o n to campus l i f e , the need to enhance f e l l o w -s h i p , and the f e e l i n g of belongingness, so t h a t Freshmen can a v o i d undue a n x i e t y and f r u s t r a t i o n s d u r i n g the e a r l y p a r t of the c o l l e g e l i f e . T h i s need f o r adjustment i n the f i r s t y ear o f c o l l e g e l i f e may make the d i f f e r e n c e i n academic achievement and i n p r e v e n t i n g dropping out from c o l l e g e . The r e l e v a n c e of the above reasons may a l s o have an i n f l u e n c e on the low r a t i n g given by Freshmen f o r Campus Morale and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p i n comparison to upperclassmen's r a t i n g s . Among the i s s u e s found i n the study t h a t r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s why the J u n i o r s , who are supposed to have stayed f o r three years i n c o l l e g e , p e r c e i v e d the campus environment h i g h e r than the Freshmen and Sophomores i n the dimensions of P r a c t i c a l i t y , Community, and Campus Morale. A f o l l o w up study to f i n d out how the same group of students (except f o r the S e n i o r s who are graduating) w i l l p e r c e i v e the i n s t i t u t i o n a l image a year from now, i s worth u n d e r t a k i n g to a s c e r t a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s of p e r c e p t i o n of students i n a l o n g i t u d i n a l way. R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to the D i f f e r e n c e s i n P e r c e p t i o n Between  Male and Female Students The hypothesis was that the male s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f the c o l l e g e environment w i l l be lower than t h a t of the females. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s has been c o n s i s t e n t l y supported both i n the trend of mean d i f f e r e n c e s and a l s o i n the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r each CUES s u b s c a l e s . The d i f f e r -ence between the males and females i n both Q u a l i t y of Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p was s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .0007 l e v e l . The s u b s c a l e s on Campus Morale and Community were s i g n i f i c a n t a t c<.02; P r o p r i e t y a t c<.03; and S c h o l a r s h i p b o r d e r i n g the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e s e t f o r the study w i t h cC.06. Although the s u b s c a l e s of P r a c t i c a l i t y and Awareness got a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , the male means on these s c a l e s were lower than t h a t of the females. However, c a u t i o n should be e x e r c i s e d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g these r e s u l t s . The s u b j e c t s used are e d u c a t i o n students and as s t a t e d e a r l i e r , there was an unequal number o f males (103) and females (491). Maybe a d i r e c t l o o k a t the responses between males and females w i l l l e a d students and s t a f f members to s p e c u l a t e about the reasons f o r responses they d i d not a n t i c i p a t e and r a i s e q uestions about the e x t e n t to which responses are i n harmony w i t h or c o n t r a r y to c o l l e g e o b j e c t i v e s and the kind of environment the male or female students r e a l l y d e s i r e to have. This w i l l guide the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n making reasonable changes i n the campus. The h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between males and females i n the s u b s c a l e f o r measuring Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S ;:udent R e l a t i o n s h i p , poses an urgent problem f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r the f a c u l t y members, s c h o o l adminis-t r a t o r s and c o l l e g e c o u n s e l o r s . The i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e among sexes can a l s o be i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h the c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s on o t h e r s u b s c a l e s . Among the r e l e v a n t q uestions p o s s i b l e to r a i s e r e g a r d i n g the d i f f e r e n c e i n p e r c e p t i o n on the Q u a l i t y o f Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p a r e : Are the i n s t r u c t o r s thorough teachers and d e d i c a t e d s c h o l a r s ? In t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h s t u d e n t s , do c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t o r s and c o u n s e l o r s show i n t e r e s t i n both male and female s t u d e n t s ' p e r s o n a l problems by going out of t h e i r way to be h e l p f u l ? S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h i n s t r u c t o r s , as w e l l as p e r s o n a l and emotional s e c u r i t y from i n s t r u c t o r s , w i l l g r e a t l y enhance the f u n c t i o n i n g of the students i n matters of academic p u r s u i t s and as an i n d i v i d u a l person. P o s s i b l y , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n v o l v i n g students from v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s and e q u a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p of p e r c e p t i o n s between males and females to p e r t i n e n t v a r i a b l e such as p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , p a r e n t a l v a l u e s , a t t i t u d e and socio-economic s t a t u s , c a r e e r p l a n s , and m a s c u l i n i t y w i l l o f f e r a more r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n o f sex d i f f e r e n c e s on the p e r c e p t i o n o f campus environment. R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to P e r c e p t i o n of Campus Environment and  S t u d e n t s 1 Marks. C o l l e g e Entrance Scores, and L e a d e r s h i p  Roles Hypothesis V s t a t e d that the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f campus environment w i l l not be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to t h e i r g r a d e - p o i n t average, c o l l e g e entrance s c o r e s , and l e a d e r s h i q u a l i t i e s . To f i n d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between v a r i a b l e s , the Pearson Product Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t was used. A l l the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the f o u r v a r i a b l e s w i t h the CUES were n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d and the trend was i n the d i r e c t i o n o f the h y p o t h e s i s . The independent v a r i a b l e s of GPA, RL, and LR had r ' s r a n g i n g from -.23 (between Grade-P o i n t Average and Awareness) to -.02 (between L e a d e r s h i p Role and Community). The c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s of negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between the CUES and the v a r i a b l e s of Grade-Point Average, C o l l e g e Entrance Scores, Rated L e a d e r s h i p , and L e a d e r s h i p Role i n d i c a t e that students w i t h h i g h academic performance and l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s a t the c o l l e g e gave the campus environment a low r a t i n g . Pace (1966) found that i n g e n e r a l , responses to the CUES items were not i n f l u e n c e d by the p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s o o f s t u d e n t s . "What a student r e p o r t s to be true about h i s c o l l e g e environment i s g e n e r a l l y u n r e l a t e d to h i s p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (p. 10)." He found a n o n - s i g n i f i -cant c o r r e l a t i o n between .00 and +.29 among 867o of h i s s u b j e c t s . This study supported Pace's f i n d i n g s o f no p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the CUES and i n d i v i d u a l performance q u a l i t i e s . However, Pace's d i r e c t i o n of r e j e c t i o n , of no r e l a t i o n s h i p was not the case i n t h i s study. The r e s u l t was an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t h i s case. T h i s study a l s o found an i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s of Rated L e a d e r s h i p and L e a d e r s h i p R o l e . I t appears that the c l a s s a d v i s e r s , d e s p i t e t h e i r v e r y c l o s e c o n t a c t s w i t h students i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a d v i s o r y s e c t i o n s , are not capable of i d e n t i f y i n g students w i t h s p e c i f i c l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s . The i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the above assumptions are o bvious. I t r e q u i r e s b e t t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of students w i t h p o t e n t i a l f o r l e a d e r s h i p and means o f p r o v i d i n g the necessary encouragement f o r the students to assume l e a d e r -s h i p r o l e s . The c l a s s a d v i s e r s can do much to i n i t i a t e a c t i v i t i e s that w i l l i n t e r e s t students w i t h l e a d e r s h i p p o t e n t i a l s , and to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The v a r i e d e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s i n the campus can c e r t a i n l y p r o v i d e o u t l e t s f o r the dormant l e a d e r s h i p p o t e n t i a l s . But t h i s can o n l y happen i f students w i t h l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s p e r c e i v e l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s as a rewarding e x p e r i e n c e . J u s t how rewarding l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s are i n the campus i s a good s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r e v a l u a t i o n by i n s t r u c t o r s and s t u d e n t s . P o s s i b l y , some changes i n o b j e c t i v e s , management and a c t i v i t i e s o f s c h o o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s can make a d i f f e r e n c e between student involvement and g e n e r a l apathy. This same i s s u e can make a d i f f e r e n c e between a happy and d u l l campus environment. While p r o f e s s i o n a l c o u n s e l i n g f a c i l i t i e s are a v a i l a b l e a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , they are q u i t e l i m i t e d i n f u n c t i o n and can not assume the e n t i r e r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y o f enhancing l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s . T h e r e f o r e , the guidance and p e r s o n a l a t t e n t i o n r e c e i v e d by the students must a l s o be shared by the c l a s s a d v i s e r s . L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study The two major instruments (CUES and EPI) used i n the study are not " c u l t u r e f r e e " assessment t o o l s . Pace r e p o r t s o f h i g h l y c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s i n s t u d i e s made u s i n g the CUES, and Edwards a l s o mentions of the g e n e r a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the EPI. However, the s a i d instruments have not been used i n the s p e c i f i c s e t t i n g of the p r e s e n t study. A l t h o u g h some words and phrases have been changed to meet l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s , the norms used f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g s cores can o n l y be s a f e l y a p p l i e d to measure d i f f e r e n c e s among the subgroups i n the study but not as an a c c u r a t e norm f o r F i l i p i n o s tudents. Being an e x p l o r a t o r y study on d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n o f a campus environment, i t l a c k s g u i d e l i n e s from p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s f o r p o s s i b l e avoidance of weaknesses r e g a r d i n g the t h e o r e t i c a l framework, i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n s , and procedures. The s u b j e c t s were e d u c a t i o n students and there was an unequal p r o p o r t i o n of male and female s t u d e n t s . There-f o r e , c a u t i o n should be e x e r c i s e d i n making g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from the r e s u l t s . D i f f e r e n t c l a s s a d v i s e r s r a t e d d i f f e r e n t groups of s t u d e n t s , and t h e r e f o r e , a c e r t a i n degree of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the manner of r a t i n g may have a f f e c t e d the r a t i n g s on s t u d e n t s ' l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s among subgroups. Summary of Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research This study has encountered many unanswered questions r e g a r d i n g the problem of student p e r c e p t i o n s of campus environment i n an A s i a n s e t t i n g , which r e q u i r e s more evidence through f u r t h e r s t u d i e s . S c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of e d u c a t i o n a l press can p r o v i d e students and educators a more r e a l i s t i c approach to the problems o f e d u c a t i o n . Socrates one s a i d , "a l i f e unexamined i s not worth l i v i n g . " I t seems a p p r o p r i a t e a l s o to say t h a t an e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g unexamined may not be worth l i v i n g i n . I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s e a r c h on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c s are t h e r e f o r e recommended: 1. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n s o f a campus environment and a t t r i t i o n , underachievement, r a d i c a l a t t i t u d e , and most e s p e c i a l l y f a m i l y v a l u e s and p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y . 2.. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r c e p t i o n and other broader p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t and s e l f u n d e r s t a n d i n g . 3. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t d i f f e r e n c e s between F i l i p i n o male and female s t u d e n t s . 4. ' The causes of d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the i n t e l l e c t u a l dimensions of a campus environment. 5. The e f f e c t s o f i n d i v i d u a l i z e d a t t e n t i o n by c l a s s a d v i s e r s and c o u n s e l o r s to s t u d e n t s ' manner of e v a l u a t i n g the i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r e s s . 6. A study of the d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n o f a campus environment by F i l i p i n o s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y , adminis-t r a t i o n , and pare n t s , 7. A survey of the adjustment problems o f freshmen i n t e a c h e r - e d u c a t i o n c o l l e g e s coming from urban and r u r a l communities. 8. A study of d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s of a u n i v e r s i t y campus environment i n the P h i l i p p i n e s i n v o l v i n g students from v a r i o u s f a c u l t i e s . 9. A survey of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h i p p o t e n t i a l and a c t u a l l e a d e r s h i p r o l e i n v a r i o u s e x t r a -c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . 10. The problem of i n t e r p e r s o n a l communications between F i l i p i n o students and a d u l t s i n a s c h o o l system. 11. A l o n g i t u d i n a l study on the changes o f percep-t i o n s o f campus environment by student subgroups. 12. An a n a l y s i s o f v a l u e s and a t t i t u d e s o f students found w i t h d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n s of campus environment. CONCLUSIONS The p e r c e p t i o n s of students on a campus environment was s t u d i e d and the major c o n c l u s i o n o f the study i s q u i t e c l e a r : students have a consensus of the v a r i o u s dimensions that make up the s c h o o l environment. I t was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t d e v i a n t p e r c e i v e r s o f the campus environment m a n i f e s t some p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s which are b a s i c a l l y r e l a t e d to t h e i r manner of e v a l u a t i n g an i n s t i t u t i o n . However, the case of the T y p i c a l Raters o f the campus environment i s i n c o n c l u -s i v e . In g e n e r a l , students have the tendency to r a t e the campus environment lower as they s t a y longer i n the campus. Males were a l s o found to r a t e the campus environment lower than females. Furthermore, i t was found that the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f campus environment was not p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n d i v i d u a l academic performance and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s . The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the f i n d i n g s and the need f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h was s i m u l t a n e o u s l y d i s c u s s e d f o r suggested implementations. The encouragement g i v e n by Herr (1966) on the need f o r i d e n t i f y i n g d e v i a n t p e r c e i v e r s o f campus environment has been g r e a t l y j u s t i f i e d i n t h i s study. But the r e s e a r c h needs to be r e p l i c a t e d to t e s t the c o n s i s t e n c y of r e s u l t s . The r e s u l t s of the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f the campus environment g e n e r a l l y supported the f i n d i n g s o f Pace (1963, 1966) and others on consensus p e r c e p t i o n , but not when r e s u l t s were c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o c e r t a i n subgroups and w i t h sex groupings. S i n c e behavior has been c o n s i d e r e d i n the t h e o r e t i c a l model as determined by the p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d of the organism, and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y c h a n n e l i z e d by the ways i n which he a n t i c i p a t e s events, the r e s u l t s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n pose a l o t of c h a l l e n g e to c o u n s e l o r s , f a c u l t y members, and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e i n t h e i r quest f o r a q u a l i t y e d u c a t i o n . With regard to the s e a r c h f o r e x c e l l e n c e i n e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , the f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n from the ACE J o u r n a l serves as an a p p r o p r i a t e c o n c l u s i o n to t h i s t h e s i s : . . . P a r t o f an educator's task i s to p r o v i d e an environment i n which young people may become more s e n s i t i v e to t r u t h s and beauty. . . . The instrument of knowledge must have a t i m e l e s s n e s s and t i m e l i n e s s i n combination, g i v i n g s tudents p e r s p e c t i v e i n t h e i r view of themselves and of the w o r l d . When the t o t a l a t t r i b u t e s o f e d u c a t i o n are i d e n t i f i e d or t r a n s l a t e d i n such terms, there can be reas o n a b l e assumptions of q u a l i t y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s (ACE, 1960, p. 5). Abbott, C h a r l e s F. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the c o l l e g e e n v i r o n -mental p e r c e p t i o n s of p r o s p e c t i v e c o l l e g e freshmen and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the c h o i c e of a c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y . (Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n ) . Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1967. American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . P u b l i c a t i o n manual. Washington, D.C.: American P s y c h o l o g i c a l Asso-c i a t i o n , 1967. A s t i n , Alexander W. Who goes where to c o l l e g e ? Chicago: S c i e n c e Research A s s o c i a t e s , 1965. A s t i n , Alexander W., and H o l l a n d , J . L. The environmental assessment technique: A way to measure c o l l e g e environment. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1961, 52., 308-316. A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g e E d u c a t o r s . The s e a r c h f o r e x c e l l e n c e i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of C o l l e g e E d u c a t o r s , 1966, 23, 5-11. Berg, I. A. Response b i a s and p e r s o n a l i t y : The d e v i a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s . J o u r n a l of Psychology, 1955, 40., 60-71. Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e School Calendar, 1970-71. Burnett, R i c h a r d Elmer. A d e s c r i p t i v e study o f the image of F o r t Hays Kansas S t a t e C o l l e g e h e l d by h i g h s c h o o l s e n i o r s i n s e l e c t e d p u b l i c s c h o o l s i n Kansas, (Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado, 1963. Campbell, W i l l i a m G. Form and s t y l e i n t h e s i s w r i t i n g . Boston: H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , 1969. Cohen, A l b e r t . Deviance and c o n t r o l . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e -H a l l Inc., 1966. Combs, A. W., and Snygg, D. I n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r : A p e r c e p t u a l approach to b e h a v i o r . New York: Harper and B r o t h e r s , 1959. Crowley, Joseph R. An exploratory study of student body and institutional uniqueness as perceived by prospective teachers within the University of Montana. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of Montana, 1963. Davie, James S. Satisfaction and the college experience. Psychological problems of college men, B. M. Wedge (Ed.). Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1958. Dean, Gary. High school seniors' preferences and expec-tations for college environment in relationship to high school scholastic achievement and intellectual a b i l i t y and as a predictor of college success and satisfaction. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of California, Los Angeles, 1966. De Mars, Mary Rita. How students see their colleges: A descriptive analysis of selected institutional climates through student perceptions. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of Notre Dame, 1963. Duling, John A. College environment as perceived by selected students' subgroups. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Colorado State University, 1966. Edwards, Allen L. Edwards Personality Inventory. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1966. Edwards, Allen L. S t a t i s t i c a l analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. Finley, Robert E. Environmental and experiential character' i s t i c s of students and attitudes toward school. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Purdue Univer-sity, 1968. Hagstrom, David Allen. College image and organizational character: Differentiated perceptions of various groups in a junior college. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Northwestern University, 1969. Hendrix, Vernon L. Junior college environments and student program change mechanism. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of Minnesota, 1970. Hersemann, Daryll Dwayne. A college environment as perceived by campus cultures and the students. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of I l l i n o i s , 1969. Herr, Edwin L. Field theory and differential press: Implications to counseling. Personnel and Guidance  Journal. 1965, 43, 586-590. Herr, Edwin L. Differential perceptions of "environmental press" by high school students. Personnel and  Guidance Journal, 1965, 43, 678-686. Holland, John. Explorations of a theory of vocational choice. Journal of Applied Psychology (Monograph Supplement), 1968, 52, 1-7. Katzell, M. E. Expectations and dropouts in schools of nursing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52; 154-157. Kelly, George A. The psychology of personal constructs: A theory of personality, Vol. I. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1955. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Kingsley, Howard L., and Gary, Ralph. The nature and  conditions of learning. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1957. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks-Cole Company, 1968. Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Murray, Henry A. Personality in nature, society and culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953. Maddi, S. Affective tone during environmental regulations and change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol-ogy, 1961, 68, 338-343. McConnell, Thomas R., and H e i s t , P a u l . The d i v e r s e c o l l e g e student p o p u l a t i o n . In Sanford N e v i t t ( E d . ) , American C o l l e g e . New York: Wi l e y , 1962. McGibbeny, Herbert G. The i n t e r n a l images o f a s t a t e c o l l e g e and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to c e r t a i n p u b l i c images of the i n s t i t u t i o n . (Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g , 1967. Murray, H. M. E x p l o r - i t i o n s i n p e r s o n a l i t y . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1938. C. Robert. F i v e c o l l e g e environments. C o l l e g e Board  Review, 1960, 41, 24-28. C. Robert. Comparisons of CUES r e s u l t s from d i f f e r e n t  groups of r e p o r t e r s . P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y : Educa-t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , 1967. C. Robert. CUES: T e c h n i c a l manual. P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y : E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , Second E d i t i o n , 1969. C. Robert, and S t e r n , George G. An approach to the measurement of p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c o l l e g e and environments. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Psychology, 1958, 49, 269-277, Robert H. A study of e n t e r i n g u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s : Environment expected and l a t e r p e r c e i v e d . (Unpub-l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , U n i v e r s i t y o f North C a r o l i n a a t Chapel H i l l , 1968. Runyon, R i c h a r d P., and Haber, Audrey. Fundamentals o f  b e h a v i o r a l s t a t i s t i c s . Reading, M a s s a c h u s s e t t s : Addison-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1967. Salzman, Murray. P e r c e p t i o n s o f the c o l l e g e environment and need d e p r i v a t i o n s as r e l a t e d to expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n . (Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , U n i v e r s i t y o f Notre Dame, 1970; Schoen, Walter T. The campus c l i m a t e : Student p e r c e p t i o n and f a c u l t y i d e a l i s m . The J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Research, 1966, 60_, 3-7. Pace, Pace, Pace, Pace, Pate, Sechrest, Lee, and Jackson, Douglas N. Deviant response tendencies: Their measurement and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 1963, 23, 33-53. Seymour, Warren Ralph. Perceptions of college environments by students and counselors. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of Missouri, 1965. Shearer, Robert Arthur. Perceptions of the environment at Florence State University as perceived by upperclass and beginning students. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), East Texas State University, 1969. Shemky, Robert W. A study of the environment at Saint Joseph College as perceived by administrators, faculty, and students and as anticipated by entering freshmen. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Indiana University, 1966. Sidles, Craig William. The relationship of changes in freshmen perceptions of campus environments to college achievements and a t t r i t i o n . (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of Iowa, 1968. Sinco, Edelmira D. Student needs and college environments of selected universities in the Philippines. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Michigan State University, 1968. Snedecor, George W., and Cochran, William G. S t a t i s t i c a l  methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowas State University Press, 1967. Stern, G. George, Stein, Morris L., and Bloom, Benjamin S. Methods in personality assessment. I l l i n o i s : The Free Press, 1956. Walker, Helen Mary, and Lev, Joseph. S t a t i s t i c a l Inference. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953. DEFINITION OF THE CUES S c a l e I_. P r a c t i c a l i t y . The 20 items that c o n t r i b u t e to the score f o r t h i s s c a l e d e s c r i b e an environment c h a r a c -t e r i z e d by e n t e r p r i s e , o r g a n i z a t i o n , m a t e r i a l b e n e f i t s , and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . There are both v o c a t i o n a l and c o l l e -g i a t e emphases. A kind o f o r d e r l y s u p e r v i s i o n i s e v i d e n t i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the classwork. As i n many org a n i z e d s o c i e t i e s there i s a l s o some p e r s o n a l b e n e f i t and p r e s t i g e to be obtained by o p e r a t i n g i n the systern— knowing the r i g h t people, being i n the r i g h t c l u b s , becoming a l e a d e r , r e s p e c t i n g one's s u p e r i o r s , and so f o r t h . The environment, though s t r u c t u r e d , i s not r e p r e s s i v e because i t responds to e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l a c t i v i t i e s and i s g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by good fun and s c h o o l s p i r i t . S c a l e 2. Community. The items i n t h i s s c a l e d e s c r i b e a f r i e n d l y , c o h e s i v e , g r o u p - o r i e n t e d campus. There i s a f e e l i n g o f group w e l f a r e and group l o y a l t y t h a t encompasses the c o l l e g e as a whole. The atmosphere i s c o n g e n i a l ; the campus i s a community. F a c u l t y members know the s t u d e n t s , are i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r problems, and go out of t h e i r way to be h e l p f u l . Student l i f e i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t o g e t h e r -ness and s h a r i n g r a t h e r than by p r i v a c y and c o o l detachment, S c a l e 3_. Awareness. The items i n t h i s s c a l e seem to r e f l e c t a concern about the emphasis upon three s o r t s of m e a n i n g — p e r s o n a l , p e o t i c , and p o l i t i c a l . An emphasis upon s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g , r e f l e c t i v e n e s s , and i d e n t i t y suggests the s e a r c h f o r p e r s o n a l meaning. A wide range of oppor-t u n i t i e s f o r c r e a t i v e and a p p r e c i a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s to p a i n t i n g , music, drama, poetry, s c u l p t u r e , a r c h i t e c t u r e , and the l i k e suggest the s e a r c h f o r p o e t i c meaning. A concern about events around the world, the w e l f a r e o f mankind, and the presen t and f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n o f man suggests the se a r c h f o r p o l i t i c a l meaning and i d e a l i s t i c commitment. What seems to be e v i d e n t i n t h i s s o r t o f environment i s a s t r e s s on awareness, an awareness o f s e l f , of s o c i e t y , and of a e s t h e t i c s t i m u l i . Along w i t h t h i s push toward expansion, and perhaps as a necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r i t , t h e r e i s an encouragement o f q u e s t i o n i n g and d i s s e n t and a t o l e r a n c e o f n o n c o n f o r m i t y and p e r s o n a l e x p r e s s i v e -ness . S c a l e 4. P r o p r i e t y . These items d e s c r i b e an environment t h a t i s p o l i t e and c o n s i d e r a t e . C a u t i o n and t h o u g h t f u l n e s s a r e e v i d e n t . Group s t a n d a r d s o f decorum a r e i m p o r t a n t . There i s an absence o f d e m o n s t r a t i v e , a s s e r t i v e , argumenta-t i v e , r i s k - t a k i n g a c t i v i t i e s . I n g e n e r a l , the campus atmosphere i s mannerly, c o n s i d e r a t e , p r o p e r , and conven-t i o n a l . S c a l e 5_. S c h o l a r s h i p . The items i n t h i s s c a l e d e s c r i b e an environment c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n t e l l e c t u a l i t y and s c h o l a s t i c d i s c i p l i n e . The emphasis i s on c o m p e t i t i v e l y h i g h academic achievement and a s e r i o u s i n t e r e s t i n s c h o l a r s h i p . The p u r s u i t o f knowledge and t h e o r i e s , s c i e n t i f i c o r p h i l o s o -p h i c a l , i s c a r r i e d on r i g o r o u s l y and v i g o r o u s l y . I n t e l - ' l e c t u a l s p e c u l a t i o n , an i n t e r e s t i n i d e a s , knowledge f o r i t s own s a k e , and i n t e l l e c t u a l d i s c i p l i n e — a l l t hese a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the en v i r o n m e n t . Campus M o r a l e . The items i n t h i s s c a l e d e s c r i b e an e n v i r o n -ment c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a c c e p t a n c e o f s o c i a l norms, group c o h e s i v e n e s s , f r i e n d l y a s s i m i l a t i o n i n t o campus l i f e , and, a t the same t i m e , a commitment to i n t e l l e c t u a l p u r s u i t s and freedom o f e x p r e s s i o n . I n t e l l e c t u a l g o a l s a r e e x e m p l i f i e d and w i d e l y shared i n an atmosphere o f p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t a r e b o t h s u p p o r t i v e and s p i r i t e d . Q u a l i t y o f T e a c h i n g and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h i s s c a l e d e f i n e s an atmosphere i n w h i c h p r o f e s s o r s a r e p e r c e i v e d t o be s c h o l a r l y , t o s e t h i g h s t a n d a r d s , t o be c l e a r , a d a p t i v e , and f l e x i b l e . A t the same time t h i s academic q u a l i t y o f t e a c h i n g i s i n f u s e d w i t h warmth, i n t e r e s t , and h e l p f u l n e s s toward s t u d e n t . (C. R o b e r t Pace, 1967, p. 1 1 ) . QUESTIONNAIRE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES The purpose of t h i s instrument i s to d e s c r i b e the g e n e r a l atmosphere of the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e . You are asked to be a r e p o r t e r of the s c h o o l because you have l i v e d i n i t s environment and p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i t s a c t i v i t i e s . There are 100 statements i n t h i s b o o k l e t . You are to answer T i f true or F i f f a l s e , u s i n g P a r t I o f the Answer Sheet. You are asked whether the statement i s g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c or not c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a c o n d i t i o n or event. T h i s i s not a_ t e s t i n which there are r i g h t or wrong answers; i t i s an o p i n i o n p o l l to f i n d how much agreement there i s about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the campus environment. The purpose o f t h i s , i s to h e l p you as s t u d e n t s . Please f e e l f r e e to answer the statements as h o n e s t l y as you can. The responses w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l . Thanks f o r your coop-e r a t i o n . 1. Students almost always w a i t to be c a l l e d on before speaking i n c l a s s . 2. The b i g c o l l e g e events draw a l o t of student enthusisam and support. 3. There i s a r e c o g n i z e d group of student l e a d e r s on t h i s campus. 4. Frequent t e s t s are g i v e n i n most co u r s e s . 5. Students take a g r e a t d e a l o f p r i d e i n t h e i r p e r s o n a l appearance. 6. E d u c a t i o n here tends to make students more p r a c t i c a l and r e s l i s t i c . 7. The i n s t r u c t o r s r e g u l a r l y check up on the students to make sure t h a t assignments are being c a r r i e d out p r o p e r l y and on time. 8. I t ' s important s o c i a l l y here to be i h the r i g h t c l u b or group. 9. Student r a l l i e s , parades, dances or demonstrations occur v e r y r a r e l y . 10. Anyone who knows the r i g h t people i n the f a c u l t y or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n can get a b e t t e r treatment here. The i n s t r u c t o r s r e a l l y push the s t u d e n t s ' c a p a c i t i e s to the l i m i t . Most of the i n s t r u c t o r s are d e d i c a t e d s c h o l a r s i n t h e i r f i e l d s . Most courses r e q u i r e i n t e n s i v e study and p r e p a r a t i o n out of c l a s s . Students s e t h i g h standards of achievement f o r them-s e l v e s . C l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s are t y p i c a l l y i n t e n s e or "heated" d i s c u s s i o n s . A l e c t u r e by an o u t s t a n d i n g speaker would be p o o r l y attended. C a r e f u l r e a s o n i n g and c l e a r l o g i c are valued most h i g h l y i n g r a d i n g student papers, r e p o r t s , or d i s c u s s i o n s . I t i s f a i r l y easy to pass most courses w i t h o u t working v e r y hard. The s c h o o l i s o u t s t a n d i n g f o r the emphasis and support i t g i v e s to pure s c h o l a r s h i p and b a s i c r e s e a r c h . Standards s e t by the i n s t r u c t o r s are p a r t i c u l a r l y not hard to a c h i e v e . I t i s easy to take c l e a r notes i n most c o u r s e s . The s c h o o l helps everyone get a c q u a i n t e d . Students o f t e n run errands or do other p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s f o r the f a c u l t y . The h i s t o r y and t r a d i t i o n s o f the c o l l e g e are s t r o n g l y emphasized. The i n s t r u c t o r s go out of t h e i r way to h e l p you. There i s a g r e a t d e a l of borrowing and s h a r i n g among the s t u d e n t s . When students run a p r o j e c t or put on a show everybody knows about i t . Many upperclassmen p l a y an a c t i v e r o l e i n h e l p i n g new students a d j u s t to campus l i f e . Students e x e r t c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e s s u r e on one another to l i v e up to the expected codes of conduct. G r a d u a t i o n i s an unemotional and o r d i n a r y event. Channels f o r e x p r e s s i n g s t u d e n t s ' complaints are r e a d i l y access i b l e . Students are encouraged to take an a c t i v e p a r t i n s o c i a l reforms or p o l i t i c a l programs. Students are a c t i v e l y concerned about n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f a i r s . There are a good many c o l o r f u l and c o n t r o v e r s i a l persons i n the f a c u l t y . 35. There i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t i n the a n a l y s i s of va l u e systems and the r e l a t i v i t y of s o c i e t i e s and e t h i c s . 36. P u b l i c debates are h e l d f r e q u e n t l y . 37. A c o n t r o v e r s i a l speaker always s t i r s a l o t of student d i s c u s s i o n . 38. There are many f a c i l i t i e s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n d i v i -d ual c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y . 39. There i s a l o t of i n t e r e s t here i n po e t r y , music, p a i n t i n g and l i t e r a t u r e . 40. Concerts and a r t e x h i b i t s always draw b i g crowds of s tudents. 41. Students ask p e r m i s s i o n before d e v i a t i n g from common poli c i e s or p r a c t i c e s . 42. Most s t u d e n t s ' rooms are d i s o r d e r l y . 43. People here are always t r y i n g to win an argument. 44. D r i n k i n g a l c o h o l i c beverages and l a t e p a r t i e s are g e n e r a l l y t o l e r a t e d , d e s p i t e r e g u l a t i o n s . 45. Students o c c a s i o n a l l y p l o t some s o r t o f r e s i s t a n c e or r e b e l l i o n . 46. Many students d r i v e motorbikes. 47. Students f r e q u e n t l y do things i n the spur o f the moment. 48. Student p u b l i c a t i o n never s t r i k e d i g n i f i e d people or i n s t i t u t i o n s . 49. The person who i s always t r y i n g to " h e l p o u t " i s l i k e l y to be regarded as a nuis a n c e . 50. Students are c o n s c i e n t i o u s about t a k i n g good care o f sc h o o l p r o p e r t y . 51. The important people a t t h i s s c h o o l expect others to show proper r e s p e c t f o r them. 52. Student e l e c t i o n s generate a l o t o f i n t e n s e campaigning and s t r o n g f e e l i n g . 53. Everyone has a l o t o f fun i n t h i s s c h o o l . 54. In many c l a s s e s students have an assig n e d s e a t . 55. Student o r g a n i z a t i o n s are c l o s e l y s u p e r v i s e d to guard a g a i n s t mistakes. 56. Many students t r y to p a t t e r n themselves a f t e r people they admire. 57. New fads and phrases are c o n t i n u a l l y s p r i n g i n g up among the s t u d e n t s . 58. Students must have a w r i t t e n excuse f o r absence from c l a s s . 59. The c o l l e g e o f f e r s many r e a l l y p r a c t i c a l courses such as gardening and cooking. i i a 60. Student rooms are more l i k e l y to be decorated w i t h pennants and magazine p i c t u r e s than w i t h p a i n t i n g s and c a r v i n g s . 61. Most of the i n s t r u c t o r s are v e r y thorough teachers and r e a l l y probe i n t o the fundamentals of t h e i r s u b j e c t s . 62. Most courses are a r e a l i n t e l l e c t u a l c h a l l e n g e . 63. Students put a l o t of energy i n t o e v e r y t h i n g they do i n and out of c l a s s . 64. Course o f f e r i n g s and f a c u l t y i n p h y s i c a l and n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s are o u t s t a n d i n g . 65. Courses, examinations, and readings are f r e q u e n t l y r e v i s e d . 66. P e r s o n a l i t y , p u l l , and b l u f f get students through many co u r s e s . 67. There i s v e r y l i t t l e s t u d y i n g here b e f o r e and a f t e r c l a s s e s . 68. There i s a l o t of i n t e r e s t i n the p h i l o s o p h y and methods of s c i e n c e . 69. People around here seem to t h r i v e on d i f f i c u l t y - the tougher things get, the harder they work. 70. Students are v e r y s e r i o u s and p u r p o s e f u l about t h e i r work. ' 71. T h i s s c h o o l has a r e p u t a t i o n f o r being v e r y f r i e n d l y . 72. A l l students must l i v e i n c o l l e g e approved boarding houses. 73. I n s t r u c t o r s c l e a r l y e x p l a i n the goals and purposes o f t h e i r c o u r s e s . 74. Students have many o p p o r t u n i t i e s to develop s k i l l i n o r g a n i z i n g and d i r e c t i n g the work of o t h e r s . 75. Most of the f a c u l t y are not i n t e r e s t e d i n s t u d e n t s ' p e r s o n a l problems. 76. Students q u i c k l y l e a r n what i s done and not done on t h i s campus. 77. I t i s easy to get a group together f o r indoor games, p i c n i c s , s i n g i n g and e t c . 78. Students mostly share t h e i r problems. 79. F a c u l t y members r a r e l y or never c a l l students by t h e i r f i r s t name. 80. There i s a l o t of group s p i r i t . 81. Students are encouraged to c r i t i c i z e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c i e s and t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e s . • 82. The e x p r e s s i o n o f s t r o n g p e r s o n a l b e l i e f or c o n v i c t i o n i s p r e t t y r a r e around here. 83. Many students here develop a s t r o n g sense o f r e s p o n s i b i l -i t y about t h e i r r o l e i n comtemporary s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l l i f e . 84. There are a number of prominent f a c u l t y members who p l a y s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e s i n n a t i o n a l or l o c a l c i v i c o r g a n i z a -t i o n s . 85. There would be a c a p a c i t y audience f o r a l e c t u r e by an o u t s t a n d i n g speaker. 86. Course o f f e r i n g s and f a c u l t y i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s are o u t s t a n d i n g . 87. Many famous people are brought to the campus f o r l e c t u r e s , c o n c e r t s , e t c . 88. The s c h o o l o f f e r s many o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r students to understand and c r i t i c i z e important works o f a r t , music, and drama. 89. S p e c i a l museums or c o l l e c t i o n s are important p o s s e s s i o n s of the c o l l e g e . 90. Modern a r t and music get l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n here. 91. Students are expected to r e p o r t any v i o l a t i o n of r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . 92. Student p a r t i e s are c o l o r f u l and l i v e l y . 93. There always seem to be a l o t of l i t t l e q u a r r e l s going on. 94. Students r a r e l y get drunk and d i s o r d e r l y . 95. Most students show a g r e a t d e a l o f c a u t i o n and s e l f c o n t r o l i n t h e i r b e h a v i o r . 96. Jeans and sexy p i c t u r e s are common on t h i s campus. 97. Students p l a y l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . 98. Classroom r a i d s , water f i g h t s , and other student m i s c h i e f s would be u n t h i n k a b l e . 99. Many students seem to expect other people to adapt to them r a t h e r than t r y i n g to adapt themselves to o t h e r s . 100. B a l l games and other s p o r t s are an important p a r t o f i n t r a m u r a l a t h l e t i c s . 113 il'} DESCRIPTION OF SCALES USED FROM THE EDWARDS PERSONALITY INVENTORY Conforms. He avoids doing things that other people may-r e g a r d as u n c o n v e n t i o n a l ; obeys r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s ; seldom c r i t i c i z e s anyone i n the p o s i t i o n of a u t h o r i t y ; i s uncomfortable i n the s i t u a t i o n s where he does not know what i s expected; conforms to custom; does not d i s l i k e b e i n g t o l d what to do; does not have the r e p u t a t i o n of b e i n g a non-conformist; does not have a s t r o n g need to be indepen-dent of o t h e r s . Avoids F a c i n g Problems. He tends to put o f f d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s u n t i l the l a s t minute; f o r g e t s a n y t h i n g unpleasant that happens to him; i s d i s t r a c t e d from any job he does not l i k e doing; puts o f f things u n t i l the l a s t minute; has to be reminded more than once about doing an unpleasant t a l k ; does not face problems r e a d i l y ; gets r i d of a n x i e t y about something by not t h i n k i n g about i t . Dependent. He i s dependent upon others f o r the s o l u t i o n of h i s problems; turns to h i s f r i e n d f o r h e l p when d i s c o u r a g e d ; asks others about suggestions about problems he has; t e l l s o t h e rs about h i s p e r s o n a l problems; l i k e s to have others h e l p him w i t h h i s d i f f i c u l t i e s ; needs a s s i s t a n c e from o t h e r s ; does not have d i f f i c u l t y a s k i n g others f o r h e l p . F e e l s S u p e r i o r . He b e l i e v e s he i s a b l e to do things b e t t e r than o t h e r s ; seldom d i s c u s s e s h i s mistakes; s t i c k s to a d e c i s i o n once he has made i t ; o f t e n d i s a g r e e s w i t h the statements and o p i n i o n s o f o t h e r s ; sometimes g i v e s the impression that he knows the answer to e v e r y t h i n g ; i s convinced that h i s o p i n i o n s are c o r r e c t ; goes h i s own way r e g a r d l e s s of the d e c i s i o n of the group. C r i t i c a l o f Others. He i s s a r c a s t i c ; says things t h a t i r r i t a t e o t h e r s ; p o i n t s out mistakes made by o t h e r s ; i s c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r s ; l e t s people know where they stand; l e t s o t h e rs know i f he d i s l i k e s them; i s b l u n t and outspoken; f i n d s i t easy to p o i n t out the f a u l t s i n o t h e r s ; c r i t i c i z e s those i n a p o s i t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y ; i s a g g r e s s i v e i n r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s . Becomes Angry. He gets angry i f he f e e l s someone i s b l o c k i n g h i s p l a n s ; r a i s e s h i s v o i c e when he becomes angry gets angry when someone t r i e s to take advantage of him; gets angry when he can't f i n d what he i s l o o k i n g f o r ; becomes angry when he has to wait f o r o t h e r s ; does not get over an angry s p e l l q u i c k l y . (A. Edwards, 1966, pp. 7-10) QUESTIONNAIRE EDWARDS PERSONALITY INVENTORY Dear F e l l o w Students: This i n v e n t o r y c o n t a i n s a number o f statements that other people may use i n d e s c r i b i n g you. Presumably, anyone who has observed you over a long p e r i o d of time would be i n a p o s i t i o n to judge which of the s t a t e -ments a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e s you. Your task i s to p r e d i c t f r a n k l y how the people who know you w e l l (parent or f r i e n d e t c . ) would mark each statement. Use T f o r true and F f o r f a l s e . I f you are i n doubt about how the person who knows you w e l l would mark a statement, put a qu e s t i o n mark (?) beside your answer. This i s not a t e s t and the data w i l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l . There i s no r i g h t or wrong answer and the v a l u e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l depend upon how honest you are i n answering the statements. K i n d l y use the P a r t I I of your answer sheet. Thanks a g a i n . 1. He p l a y s any game s t r i c t l y a c c o r d i n g to the r u l e s . 2. He t r i e s to r e t r e a t from a problem r a t h e r than face up to i t . 3. He doesn't bother others w i t h h i s problems u n l e s s he f i n d i t a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y . 4. He sometimes g i v e s others an imp r e s s i o n he knows the answer to e v e r y t h i n g . 5. He i s b l u n t and outspoken. 6. He has d i f f i c u l t y c o n t r o l l i n g h i s anger when someone hu r t s him. 7. He i s i n c l i n e d to f o l l o w h i s own ideas r a t h e r than to do what i s expected o f him. 8. He has t r o u b l e f o r g e t t i n g about things t h a t are past and over and that cannot be changed. 9. He i s ve r y dependent on others f o r s o l u t i o n s to h i s problems. 10. He o f t e n d i s a g r e e s w i t h the statements and ideas expressed by h i s a s s o c i a t e s . 11. He i s s a r c a s t i c about h i s comments about o t h e r s . 12. He becomes angry when he sees someone being m i s t r e a t e d . 13. He would h e s i t a t e to do a n y t h i n g t h a t others might c o n s i d e r wrong. 14. He has been known to f o r g e t about appointments he d i d n ' t want to keep. 15. He seldom t e l l s others when he i s not f e e l i n g w e l l . 16. He seldom d i s c u s s e s any mistakes he has made. 17. He has no h e s i t a t i o n i n t e l l i n g people what he t h i n k s o f them. 18. He i s the s o r t of person who i s not d i f f i c u l t to make angry. 19. He f e e l s uncomfortable i f he i s asked to do something he has never done b e f o r e . 20. He i s e a s i l y d i s t r a c t e d from some job he has to do but doesn't l i k e d o ing. 21. He depends on h i s f r i e n d s to h e l p him w i t h h i s problems. 22. He i s w e l l informed about most t h i n g s . 23. He i s o v e r l y f r a n k i n h i s comments about o t h e r s . 24. He becomes so angry t h a t he f e e l s l i k e throwing or b r e a k i n g t h i n g s . 25. He does h i s best to prevent anyone from dominating him. 26. He tends to put o f f d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s u n t i l the v e r y l a s t moment. 27. He turns to h i s f r i e n d s f o r h e l p when he i s d i s c o u r a g e d . 28. He s t i c k s to a d e c i s i o n once he has made i t . 29. He says things t h a t i r r i t a t e o t h e r s . 30. He gets angry i f he f e e l s someone i s b l o c k i n g h i s p l a n s . 31. He obeys without q u e s t i o n r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s s e t by those i n p o s i t i o n s of a u t h o r i t y . 32. He tends to f o r g e t a n y t h i n g unpleasant t h a t happens to him. 33. He keeps h i s t r o u b l e s to h i m s e l f . 34. He b e l i e v e s he knows more than others do about most t h i n g s . 35. He has a d i r e c t way of speaking t h a t can e a s i l y antagonize people. 36. He r a i s e s h i s v o i c e when he gets angry. 37. He does not l i k e to be t o l d what to do. 38. He f i n d s t h a t he can get r i d of worry or a n x i e t y most e a s i l y by simply r e f u s i n g to t h i n k about i t . 39. He t r i e s to handle a l l of his' p e r s o n a l problems by h i m s e l f . 40. He i s a good c r i t i c o f the plans suggested by o t h e r s . 41. He i s i n c l i n e d to be c r i t i c a l of o t h e r s . 42. He seldom gets angry about a n y t h i n g . 43. He can always f i n d some reason f o r doing what he wants to do. 44. He has to be reminded more than once about doing an unpleasant task. 45. He goes to others f o r h e l p whenever he has a p e r s o n a l problem. 46. He r e s e n t s i t when o l d e r persons t e l l him that they have had more experi e n c e than he has. 47. He tends to be somewhat b l u n t i n h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s . 48. He gets angry e a s i l y but gets over i t q u i c k l y . 49. He does things that others r e g a r d as unusual. 50. He e a s i l y f o r g e t s about the unpleasant things t h a t have happened to him. 51. He l i k e s to have others h e l p him w i t h h i s problems. 52. He has a g r e a t d e a l of d r i v e to get ahead i n the w o r l d . 53. He o f t e n has cause to r e g r e t the things he says to o t h e r s . 54. He gets angry w i t h anyone who t r i e s to r e s t r i c t h i s freedom to do what he wants. 55. He r e s e n t s having to conform to the r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s of the group he belongs t o . 56. He puts things o f f u n t i l the l a s t minute. 57. He always asks f o r suggestions from o t h e r s about any problem he has. 58. He i s a hard person to get to change h i s o p i n i o n s . 59. He c r i t i c i z e s people p u b l i c l y i f he f e e l s they deserve i t . 60. He seldom gets angry w i t h o t h e r s . 61. He has a t r a i t of non-conformity i n him. 62. He does not run away when faced w i t h a problem. 63. He turns to h i s f r i e n d s f o r sympathy when he i s depressed. 64. He i s u s u a l l y convinced t h a t h i s o p i n i o n s are r i g h t and those of others are wrong. 65. He doesn't h e s i t a t e to c r i t i c i z e h i s s u p e r i o r s . 66. He gets over an angry s p e l l q u i c k l y . 67. He u s u a l l y manages to do what he wants to do. 68. He has d i f f i c u l t y f o r g e t t i n g about the embarrassing things t hat have happened to him. 69. He doesn't burden others w i t h h i s problems. 70. He goes h i s own way r e g a r d l e s s of the d e c i s i o n s of the group. 71. He i s v e r y candid and b l u n t i n the t h i n g s he says to o t h e r s . 72. He gets angry when he can't f i n d something he i s l o o k i n g f o r . He avoids doing things that other people might c o n s i d e r u n c o n v e n t i o n a l . He puts o f f unpleasant tasks and assignments f o r as long as p o s s i b l e . He doesn't l i k e to be helped when he i s i n t r o u b l e . He i s obsessed when he f i n d s that others know more about something than he does. He i s a g g r e s s i v e i n h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s . He becomes angry when he has to w a i t f o r o t h e r s . He r e s e n t s r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . He does not face problems r e a d i l y . He r e a d i l y t e l l s o t h ers about h i s p e r s o n a l problems. He i s i n t o l e r a n t o f any b e l i e f s o f others which he d i s a g r e e s w i t h . He has d i f f i c u l t y i n not being rude to someone he d i s l i k e s . He gets angry i f h i s belongings are d i s t u r b e d by someone. He has a r e p u t a t i o n f o r b e i n g a non-conformist. He does h i s best to f o r g e t about any of h i s past f a i l u r e s . He h e s i t a t e s to ask o t h e r s f o r h e l p . He has d i f f i c u l t y a c c e p t i n g group d e c i s i o n s i f he does not agree w i t h them. He l e t s people know where they stand w i t h him. He gets angry i f someone t r i e s to take advantage of h i s f r i e n d s h i p . He has accepted most of the b e l i e f s and v a l u e s o f h i s p a r e n t s . He t r i e s to r e l i e v e the a n x i e t y caused by a d i f f i c u l t problem by p u t t i n g o f f having to face i t . He r e f u s e s to l e t others h e l p him when he has a p e r s o n a l problem. He seldom admits he i s wrong. He has d i f f i c u l t y b e i n g f r a n k w i t h others when he f e e l s they w i l l not l i k e what he has to say to them. He conforms to custom. He avoids f a c i n g a problem as long as he p o s s i b l y can. He has a s t r o n g need to be dependent on o t h e r s . He regards h i s own o p i n i o n as more l i k e l y to be r i g h t than those of o t h e r s . He has a d i r e c t way of speaking t h a t tends to antago-n i z e some people. He i s a very unusual person. He can handle any p e r s o n a l problem without a s s i s t a n c e from o t h e r s . 103. He b e l i e v e s that he i s a b l e to do most th i n g s b e t t e r than other people can. 104. He has a tendency to say s a r c a s t i c t h i n g s . 105. He has a s t r o n g need to be independent of o t h e r s . 106. He t e l l s others about h i s pe r s o n a l problems and d i f f i c u l t i e s . 107. He s t r o n g l y defends h i s o p i n i o n s when d i s c u s s i n g them w i t h o t h e r s . 108. He seldom l e t s o t h ers know how he f e e l s about them. 109. He i s uncomfortable i n any s i t u a t i o n i n which he does not know c l e a r l y what i s expected o f him. 110. He has d i f f i c u l t i e s a s k i n g others f o r h e l p . 111. He l i k e s to t r y to show other people t h a t they are wrong and he i s r i g h t . 112. He says things t h a t others r e s e n t . 113. He seldom c r i t i c i z e s anyone i n a p o s i t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y . 114. He doesn't want others to express any sympathy to him a t a l l . 115. He has r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e c o n f i d e n c e i n h i s o p i n i o n s . 116. He b e l i e v e s i n being f r a n k w i t h o t h e r s , even when he knows that what he says may h u r t t h e i r f e e l i n g s . 117. He f i n d s i t ve r y easy to p o i n t out the f a u l t s i n o t h e r s . 118. He tends to be c r i t i c a l o f the mistakes o f o t h e r s . 119. He doesn't h e s i t a t e to g i v e some s i g n of h i s f e e l i n g s i f he d i s l i k e s someone. 120. He doesn't h e s i t a t e to p o i n t out mistakes by o t h e r s . 121. He f i n d s f a u l t s w i t h o t h e r s . 122. He i s c r i t i c a l o f other people. 123. He has an a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y . 124. He doesn't h e s i t a t e to c r i t i c i z e someone who i s i n a p o s i t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y . 125. He keeps h i s o p i n i o n s about o t h e r s to h i m s e l f . LEADERSHIP TRAITS RATING FORM (FOR CLASS ADVISERS) Confidential Date Direction for rating: Please read very carefully the description of leadership traits and numerical values of ratings below. Although the leadership behavior of students may vary from day to day, i t is usually possible to select from the range of behavior the one that is generally characteristic of the student. Kindly indicate by assigning the appropriate number of your rating in the continuum which best describes the individual student concerned. Is a leader. He is regarded as a good committee chairman; can be counted upon to bring a group discussion to some form of common agreement; likes to t e l l others how a job should be done; is able to give orders to others in a way that makes others willing to accept them; is regarded by others as a good leader; likes to be in a position where he can influence others; is able to get others to support his decision; likes to make the decisions for the group. (A. Edwards, 1966, p. 7). Scale Rating Equivalent: Numerical Rating of: Value definition of numeral rating continuum 1 displays t r a i t in a high degree 2 displays t r a i t in a marked degree 3 displays t r a i t in a moderate degree 4 displays very l i t t l e of the tr a i t 5 does not display the tr a i t at a l l Name of student (Family Evaluation of Leadership Traits name f i r s t , Males followed (Encircle appropriate number) by Females)  1. ; 1 2' 3 4 5 2. 1 2 3 4 5 3. ; 1 2 3 4 5 4. 1 2 3 4 5 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 2 3 4 5 

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.831.1-0101888/manifest

Comment

Related Items