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 N o r m a l C o l l e g e , 1956 M A. X a v i e r U n i v e r s i t y , 19 61 M. E d . , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d , 1962 0  }  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in  the F a c u l t y of Educa t i o n  We  accept  required  t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as c o n f o r m i n g standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA S e p t e m b e r , 1971  to the  In p r e s e n t i n g an  this  thesis  in partial  advanced degree at t h e U n i v e r s i t y  the  Library  I further for  shall  agree  make  i tfreely  that permission  h i s representatives.  of  this  written  thesis  of B r i t i s h  available  gain  I agree  copying o f t h i s  shall  that  n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  JAIME M. GELLOR  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a  Date  September  20,  Columbia  1971  thesis  copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n  permission.  Department o f Education  that  by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r  I t i s understood  f o r financial  Columbia,  f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y .  f o r extensive  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  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r  Chairman: Dr. Gellor,  J . M.  Student  perceptions  Myrne  o f campus  B.  Nevison  environment  ABSTRACT  The  problem of  relationship  of students'  campus e n v i r o n m e n t The  study  was  to a s c e r t a i n  differential  perception  entrance  scores,  The Kelly's  traits,  the of  a  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 .  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  personality  and  this  length of  stay  i n c o l l e g e , sex,  a c a d e m i c m a r k s , and  major c o n c e p t u a l  (1955) p s y c h o l o g y  considered:  leadership  framework o f  of personal  this  college  roles.  study  included  c o n s t r u c t s and  Combs' (1959) p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t  of  Snygg  behavior  pos t u l a t e . The enrolled the  subjects  at  the  school year The  Robert  Inventory study.  study  included  594  students during  1970-71. and  (1966) and  (1966) were  U n i v e r s i t y Environment Scales the the  In a d d i t i o n , the  students' Form.  this  Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , P h i l i p p i n e s ,  College  Pace  of  new two  class  leadership qualities  of  C.  in  the  Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y major  instruments  used  advisers evaluated using  the  Leadership  the Rating  Means, s t a n d a r d the  F  test  Test, were  and the  junior  of  d e v i a t i o n s , a n a l y s i s of  significance,  the  Pearson  statistical  Duncan's New  Product-Moment techniques  The  results  showed  that  and  senior  students  had  t h a t make up  the  found  the  perceivers  tended  negative  perceivers  some p a s s i v e  to r a t e  longer  i n the  the  campus e n v i r o n m e n t found  that  the  o f campus  students'  than  perception  and  leadership  was  while  to  have  students they  stayed  the  Furthermore,  academic  it  was  environment  performance  roles.  Implications faculty  improvement  tended  o f a campus  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  the  It  to r a t e  females.  was  counselors,  various  environment  l o w e r as  M a l e s were f o u n d  lower  the  In g e n e r a l ,  campus e n v i r o n m e n t  data.  sophomore,  environment.  o f campus e n v i r o n m e n t  campus.  Coefficient  personality traits,  personality traits.  tended  Comparison  a n a l y s i s of  freshmen,  school  to have some a g g r e s s i v e  positive  i n the  a consensus of  dimensions that  Multiple  Correlation  used the  variance,  from  the  f i n d i n g s were made f o r  members and  of v a r i o u s  school  educational  administrators programs a t  for  the  college. The in  the  major c o n c l u s i o n  of  c o l l e g e have a c o n s e n s u s  the  study  i s that  perception  of  the  students campus  environment  and  perceptions  o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s h a v e some  characteristics institutional  t h a t t h o s e w i t h p o s i t i v e and  related  image.  negative personality  t o t h e i r manner o f e v a l u a t i n g t h e  I.  THE PROBLEM  „ . . .  Definition II.  o f Terms  5^  THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE  LITERATURE  Perceptual Personal  7-7  Theory  7-  C o n s t r u c t s Theory  Bio-Physical  and S o c i a l  .  Personality  10^  Relative  12>  D e v i a n t Theory  Studies  13-:  Having G e n e r a l Relevance to  the P r o b l e m Studies Having P a r t i c u l a r to the Problem .  IV.  8*  Theory o f  Review o f the L i t e r a t u r e  III.  1'  15 " 1  Relevance 20*  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 Length of Stay i n College P e r c e p t i o n and S e x Grade-Point Average, College Entrance S c o r e s , and L e a d e r s h i p R o l e  2620 30.  Hypotheses  33J  DESIGN OF THE STUDY, PROCEDURES, INSTRUMENTS Design  3.1  AND 36 3%  Procedures  36'  Subjects Collection  36 37-  o f Data  Instruments  41  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 m e n t Scales The Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y . . . . N o n s t a n d a r d i z e d Measures Analysis  41 43 4.5"  o f Data  46  Scoring  4'6  Statistical V.  VI.  Analysis  48  RESULTS  50  Results  Relevant  to Hypothesis  I  Results Results Results Results  Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant  to to to to  II III IV V  Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis  SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND Statement  51 58 67 „7p .7,4 £0  IMPLICATIONS . . . .  o f the Problem  Theoretical  Framework  <80 80  s  Procedures  ,81  Findings  §>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 Perceptions 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 S e v e n D i m e n s i o n s o f C o l l e g e Campus 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 E n v i r o n m e n t and L e n g t h o f Stay i n College  £2  &86  ,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 M a l e and Female S t u d e n t s 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 E n v i r o n m e n t and S t u d e n t s ' Marks, C o l l e g e E n t r a n c e Scores, and L e a d e r s h i p R o l e s Limitations  o f the Study  Summary o f Recommendations  91  93 96  f o r Further  Research  97  Conclusions  99  REFERENCES  10.1  APPENDIX A.  Definition  APPENDIX B  College  0  Scales APPENDIX C.  o f t h e CUES  10.6,  and U n i v e r s i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Questionnaire  Description of Scales  108" Used  from the  Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y APPENDIX D.  S i x Scales Personality  APPENDIX E .  Leadership (For  Used  113;  f r o m t h e Edwards  Inventory Traits Rating  Class Advisers)  115 Form 120  L I S T OF TABLES  y  TABLE I.  II.  III.  IV.  V.  VI.  VII.  VIII. IX.  X.  XI.  PAGE Subjects Included by A c a d e m i c Y e a r  i n the Study  Categorized 3©  P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s Percentiles 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  ANOVA Summary o f S t u d e n t s ' Traits  5£  Personality  A C o m p a r i s o n o f Mean D i f f e r e n c e s o f Students' Personality T r a i t s Using Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range T e s t  5,6'.  P e r c e n t i l e s f o r 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 m e n t S c a l e s C a t e g o r i z e d by Academic Year ANOVA Summary o f CUES P e r c e n t i l e s o f F r e s h m e n , Sophomore, J u n i o r , and S e n i o r Students  61/  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 S u b g r o u p s U s i n g Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range T e s t  63-,  R a n k i n g o f CUES by A c a d e m i c Y e a r  69,,  A C o m p a r i s o n o f Mean D i f f e r e n c e s Between M a l e s ' and F e m a l e s ' P e r c e n t i l e S c o r e s on t h e C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Environment Scales  72  ANOVA Summary o f CUES S u b s c a l e s Sex an I n d e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e  7 5.--  :  with  R e l a t i o n s h i p o f S t u d e n t s ' Marks', C o l l e g e E n t r a n c e 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 t o CUES P e r c e n t i l e S c o r e s  77  L I S T OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.  2.  3.  PAGE Personality Traits Percentile Profiles o f N e g a t i v e , 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 E n v i r o n m e n t 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 S t u d e n t s C a t e g o r i z e d by A c a d e m i c Y e a r P r o f i l e C o m p a r i n g Mean P e r c e n t i l e D i f f e r e n c e s Between M a l e and Female S t u d e n t s on CUES  5^/  . . .  6<6;  73?  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  The folding this  writer  persons  wishes  to express  f o r t h e i r cooperation  who s e r v e d support  as a d v i s o r  and p a t i e n c e Special  Conry  for his  and p r o v i d e d  i n the development  sincere  help  i s also  the time,  o f the study.  given  as s t a t i s t i c a l  to thank Drs.  B. N e v i s o n ,  to Dr. Robert consultant.  J . D. F r i e s e n ,  and A. S h i r r a n  W.  Davis,  f o r s e r v i n g on  committee. writer  i s also  Ramos, Mr. V i c e n t e  coordinated students in  f o r the t h e s i s  M i t c h e l l , G. M. C h r o n i s t e r ,  The A.  and a s s i s t a n c e i n  i s due t o D r . Myrne  appreciation  I also wish  the  to the  study: M a j o r acknowledgment  V.  h i sgratitude  indebted  Galeza  the r e s e a r c h  to Superintendent  Pacifico  and Mr. L e o n a r d o E d u a v e , who  project  i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , and t h e  a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e  for participating  the study. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t e f u l t o t h e C a n a d i a n  International of for  Public  D e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y and t h e P h i l i p p i n e  Schools  my s t u d y  f o rproviding  a t the U n i v e r s i t y  Bureau  t h e a r r a n g e m e n t s and f u n d s of British  Columbia.  J.  M  0  G.  DEDICATION  This Jimmy had  dissertation  and I v o r , who w i l l  t o be away  f o r three  i s dedicated need more years.  t o my  time  children,  to understand  Karen, why  I  THE PROBLEM "A human being does not grow up i n a vacuum; his development i s determined not only by the physical environment as the b i o l o g i s t proved, and by the family environment as Freud proved, but by the massive data collected by the c u l t u r a l anthropologists showed by the larger s o c i e t a l and c u l t u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . . . Murray and Kluckhohn, 1956, p. 4 ) . n  Understanding  students' d i f f e r e n t i a l perceptions of  campus environment i s important  i n working with students,  and considerable attention has been given to the study of campus environment i s 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 charact e r i s t i c s , and no research has been done r e l a t i n g deviant perception of a campus to personality t r a i t s . probable  Yet i t i s  that students who deviate i n their perception of  the college also manifest personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are potentials f o r such educational i l l s as apathy, academic discontent, dropping out, underachievement, and student unrest.  This study attempts to i d e n t i f y personality  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of such deviant perceivers.  I t was  assumed  defined,  and i s b e s t  students  who  ment.  campus  that  among t h e s t u d e n t s  from  negatively  the g e n e r a l  in their  consensus  deviates  r e o r i e n t a t i o n from Kluckhohn  deviants  (1957) a c c e p t e d  as a k i n d  he w r o t e ,  "This  teachers  characteristics  identical.  There a r e d e v i a n t s  social  wrote,  deviant  t h a t would  counselors.  imply  o f such c u l t u r e when  t h a t the  o f t h e members o f any g r o u p a r e i n every  (1965) recommended  campus  "Distinctive  identify  study  s o c i e t y and i n  c l a s s w i t h i n a s o c i e t y (p. 152)."  Edwin L. Herr studying  deviates  i n this  the p r e s e n c e  does n o t , o f c o u r s e ,  or  that d i s t i n g u i s h e d  of personality i n a given  personality  every  these  perceptions and  who  positively  hypothesized  have u n r e a l i s t i c  o f the  be s t u d e n t s  either  and t h a t  environ-  g e n e r a l l y be  perception  t h e r e would  I t was  i n that  t h e r e would  i n their  perceptions  the m a j o r i t y .  these  require  may  period  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  them f r o m that  f u r t h e r assumed  c a n be  by t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e  the l o n g e s t  environment, but that  deviated  would  t h e c o l l e g e campus  described  have s t a y e d  I t was  a consensus  that  e n v i r o n m e n t p e r c e i v e r s when he  deviance  students  t h e need f o r  who  in perceptual  truly  responses  do n o t p e r c e i v e  . . .  environ-  mental demands upon them which seem to be strongly evident to the majority of the student population  (p. 588)."  A major j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the need of i d e n t i f y i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n of the students' ratings of campus environment with some selected personality t r a i t s i s Holland's (1959) theory that students' s a t i s f a c t i o n with college w i l l be greater i f his type i s congruent with his college environment.  He states that " . . .  generally congruent  person-environment interactions are conducive to greater s a t i s f a c t i o n (p. 73)."  In Holland's  (1968) study to  support his theory, he found that "students are  happier,  the more c l o s e l y they resemble the majority of the students  . . . (p. 5)."  The information from this i n v e s t i g a t i o n has p o t e n t i a l for a p p l i c a t i o n in the t o t a l educational program.  I t could  be u t i l i z e d by the college counselors, administrators, and f a c u l t y members i n the aspects of i n d i v i d u a l counseling; and could be used i n group guidance, o r i e n t a t i o n , formul a t i n g educational goals, faculty-student dialogue, curriculum r e v i s i o n , and the improvement of the school plant. Studying  the environmental press should suggest to  teachers and school counselors reasons for i n d i v i d u a l and  g r o u p p r o b l e m s on disoriented of  the  p e r c e p t i o n and  of relationship  environmental development or  to g u i d e in  the  and  students  may  see  students  more p r e d i c t i v e  than  any  to d e v e l o p  be  behavior  (p. 589)."  t h e much n e e d e d The  This  better able  effective  and  satisfying  institution. t h e ways  into  this  o f a campus e n v i r o n m e n t  personality  traits?  in college,  sex,  the  school.  student fully,  and  counselors  relationships. Are  deviant  t o some  following possible correlates  college  entrance  of  them o r  provide  related  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 stay  the kinds  motivation  helping  roles  adminis-  demands more  s t u d y was:  perceptions  The  with  understand  i n turn w i l l  b a s i c problem o f  i n which  i f different  their  in their  either  School  the aims o f  "when we  confidence  success,  be  adjusted  insights  and  may  o f e d u c a t i o n a l c l i m a t e and  h a v e added  of  total  Counselors  most e f f e c t i v e l y  (1965) c o n c l u d e d ,  will  single  traits  aspects  of  optimum i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h  Herr  with  for  aspect  thoroughly  p r o g r a m may  are  perceptions we  be  in finding  more  reasons  identification  between p e r s o n a l i t y  the e n v i r o n m e n t .  educational  As  change  suggest  I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the  environment of a given  trators  find  p r e s s may  I t may  poor  school environment.  pattern  person  adjustments.  traits, score,  length  academic  of of  m a r k s , and l e a d e r s h i p  roles. .  D E F I N I T I O N OF TERMS  The this  following  terms a r e d e f i n e d  study: Campus e n v i r o n m e n t :  that  includes  rules and  f o r the purpose o f  the f e a t u r e s  and r e g u l a t i o n s ,  examinations,  The a t m o s p h e r e  o f the  and f a c i l i t i e s  o f t h e campus,  faculty,  student  life,  curricula, and  college  instructions  extra-curricular  activities. Deviant (5%)  ratings  perceptions:  of students  campus e n v i r o n m e n t  based  Environment Scales Passive conformity,  on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on t h e C o l l e g e  Traits: Personality facing  individuals  Aggressive  o f the  University  as d e f i n e d  by  p r o b l e m s , and d e p e n d e n c y i n  vary.  Traits: Personality  by a f e e l i n g o f s u p e r i o r i t y ,  others,  and becoming a n g r y e a s i l y ,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as being  critical  i n which normal  of indivi-  vary. Leadership  of  and  traits  defined  duals  (5%) and t h e l o w e s t  scores.  avoiding  which normal  The h i g h e s t  student  q u a l i t i e s : The c l a s s  potential  and p e r f o r m a n c e  advisers'  i n such r o l e s  evaluation as: being  a good c o m m i t t e e c h a i r m a n , g i v i n g o r d e r s t o t h e g r o u p , i n f l u e n c i n g o t h e r s , and  that are  acceptable  being regarded  by  o t h e r s as a good l e a d e r . Leadership r o l e : the s t u d e n t s student  The  actual  leadership f u n c t i o n of  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 the p e r s o n a l data  indicated  s e c t i o n o f the answer  by  each  sheets.  THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  The  theoretical  phenomenological and  approach  the psychology  relate  the r o l e  traits,  Snygg  of this  thesis  o f Kluckhohn  problems  (1959) p o s t u l a t e d  basic  postulate  behavior, without and  pertinent  organism  and S e c h r e s t .  the s o - c a l l e d  e x c e p t i o n , i s completely determined  o f another  person  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 ; persons  appears  d i f f e r e n c e s , the to o t h e r s as  i t sometimes a p p e a r s  the phenomenological  is reality;  by,  o f the behaving  a r e incongruent w i t h our i d e a s ;  phenomenologists, individual  " p e r s o n a l " or  o f perceptual theory i s that: " a l l  t o , the p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d  field  b e h a v i o r , Combs  theory o f psychology.  ( p . 2 0 ) . " Because o f i n d i v i d u a l  perceptual  other  has n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e  of individual  "perceptual" or "phenomenological" The  To  Theory  To u n d e r s t a n d and  by K e l l y .  o f deviant p e r c e p t i o n to p e r s o n a l i t y  o f the t h e o r i e s  Perceptual  the p e r c e p t u a l or  t o p s y c h o l o g y o f Combs and S n y g g ,  of personal constructs  the development  inclusion  framework i n c l u d e s  field  i t i s the only r e a l i t y  that  but to the o f each he c a n know.  The  theory  much r e l e v a n c e  on p e r c e p t u a l a p p r o a c h  i n the e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g .  aims o f e d u c a t i o n as a  represented student's  teachers  by  Herr  by a d e q u a t e  appears  self-concept.  a s g i v e n by p e e r s ,  t o be s i g n i f i c a n t  process.  (1965) when he w r o t e  personality  The p e r c e p t i o n o f p a r e n t s and  i n the f o r m a t i o n  The same l i n e  has  One o f t h e m a j o r  i s the development o f adequate  potential  actualization  to psychology  o f the  o f t h i n k i n g was  shared  that:  . . . e d u c a t i o n a t a l l l e v e l s must o n c e a g a i n e x p e r i e n c e t h e i r b e h a v i o r and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward s t u d e n t s , n o t as c o n f o r m i n g v e s s e l s b u t 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 t h a n t h e y have been g i v e n e n c o u r a g e m e n t f o r p o s s e s s i n g (p. 589). It, behavior  t h e r e f o r e , appears  lies  explorations  Personal  by  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g  Constructs  The is:  i n l a r g e measure  i n the s k i l l  p o s t u l a t e a s s t a t e d by K e l l y  processes  person subject  theory  are psychologically  of personality  r a t h e r than a n y . p a r t o f psychology  ultimately  seeks  i n the  of perceptions.  t h e ways i n w h i c h he a n t i c i p a t e s This  developed  Theory  fundamental  "A p e r s o n ' s  t h a t the key t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g  events  considers  o f the person.  i s assumed  to a n t i c i p a t e  channelized  (p. 103)." the i n d i v i d u a l Part  t o be a p r o c e s s .  real  events.  (1955)  o f the Man  Anticipation  is  not merely c a r r i e d  so  that  future The  assume  t h a t man  together  into  formulates  hold  may  be  Kelly  and  this  People d i f f e r  o f events  anticipate,  but a l s o  . . through which  If by  and  t h e ways  he must c h o o s e anticipations. therefore,  been to approaches  (b) " C h o i c e that  alternative  the g r e a t e r  of h i s system  (p.  possibility 103)."  processes are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  i n a manner w h i c h The  construcdiffering  have  there are d i f f e r e n t  i n w h i c h he a n t i c i p a t e s  assumption  efforts.  postulate  s e e n as  t h e y have s o u g h t  for himself  man  "Individuality  t h e r e may  he a n t i c i p a t e s  definition  a person's  in his predicted  o f some e v e n t s ; and  C o r o l l a r y : A person chooses  things  c o n s t r u c t s which  P e o p l e c a n be  i n the events which  of extension  The  transparent  to put  o f the fundamental  differences  .  then attempts  not o n l y because  the a n t i c i p a t i o n  through  s t u d y a r e : (a)  because  on  h i s theory  from each o t h e r i n t h e i r  (p. 103)."  from each other,  to  constructs  realities.  the c o r o l l a r i e s  i t is carried  better represented.  i n t e n d e d t o a i d him  on  sake;  at h i s environment  creates,  bearing  Corollary: tion  looks he  f o r i t s own  by w h i c h  h i s own  are  Among which  reality  systems  patterns which  on  channeled  events, i t follows  i s predicted  o f the c h o i c e  that  by h i s corollary i s ,  t h a t whenever a p e r s o n 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 i n favor of the a l t e r n a t i v e which seems to provide the best basis for a n t i c i p a t i n g 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 i n turn may lead to threat i f not dealt with c o n s t r u c t i v e l y .  In researches i n s o c i a l  psychol-  ogy, Maddi (1961), and K a t s e l l (1968) have indicated that the expectations  an i n d i v i d u a l has of an environment does  a f f e c t the way i n which he w i l l cope with that environment. When applied to the present  study, i t appears K e l l y would  hold that those students whose view of the actual ment i s at variance  environ-  from their personal expectations  be most susceptible to threat.  would  In this study, i t was  anticipated that some students would drop out of the school to remove the threat, and others would behave a p a t h e t i c a l l y in their studies which r e s u l t s i n underachievement because of seeking d i r e c t means of removing the threat.  Bio-Physical and S o c i a l Theory of Personality The theory of personality by Henry A. Murray and Clyde Kluckhohn (1953) resulted from merging the findings of i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y f i e l d s .  In b r i e f , the theory  states  that  "the personality  inherited  dispositions  These e x p e r i e n c e s biological, modified  o f an i n d i v i d u a l  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l  occur w i t h i n the f i e l d  and s o c i a l  theory  o f h i s group  of biology.  I t accepts  of a science of behavior principles  analysis,  67)."  nor the p h y s i o - c h e m i c a l  may be i n c o n g r u e n t spheres.  that there are d i f f e r e n t  with  i s on a d i f f e r e n t  phenomena, and h e n c e s h o u l d i t s own r i g h t  without  to p r o v i d e a c o m p l e t e  and  level  from  following process;  be s t u d i e d and c o n c e p t u a l i z e d  w a i t i n g f o r more " b a s i c "  reduce  from  birth  to death.  i t s feelings  s u c c e s s i v e need  sciences  foundation.  functions of personality: to express  o f human  physiological  functional manifestation of organized  overt behavior  to the  " l e v e l s " of observation,  M u r r a y and K l u c k h o h n c o n s i d e r p e r s o n a l i t y continuous  f a c t s or"  But i t h o l d s  and f o r m u l a t i o n s , and t h a t t h e b e h a v i o r  personalities  in  (p.  t h e a x i o m t h a t no p o s t u l a t e  accredited i n other  proposition  of h i s physical,  o f M u r r a y and K l u c k h o h n does n o t deny t h e  b i o l o g i c a l , b a s i s o f human n a t u r e basis  experiences.  environment, a l l o f which are  by t h e c u l t u r e  The  i s the product of  tensions  M u r r a y and K l u c k h o h n ' s  as a processes  He c o n s i d e r s t h e  "to exercise i t s  and v a l u a t i o n s ; and t o (p.  theory  49)." i s very  closely  related that or the  t o Cohen's  "personality  (p. 43).". the  i s determined  circumstances, parents,  This  by some  . . . attitudes  early  interaction  members  (1966) p s y c h o - s o c i a l t h e o r y w h i c h s t a t e s  experiences,  theory  background  events  and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f  or s o c i a l  class  states that behavior  background  i s a result of  between p e r s o n a l i t y and s i t u a t i o n  by t h e  o f the system.  Relative  Deviant  To  P e r s o n a l i t y Theory  complete  the c o n c e p t u a l  model o f t h i s  theory of Sechrest  (1963) on r e l a t i v e  has  Actually,  been a d o p t e d .  deviant  Sechrest's  e x t e n s i o n o f Berg's  (1955) and J a c k s o n ' s  deviant  Berg's  responses.  hypothesis  statement  theory  study, the  personality i s o n l y an  (1963) t h e o r i e s on  o f the d e v i a t i o n  was:  D e v i a n t r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s t e n d t o be g e n e r a l ; hence those d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s w h i c h a r e 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 t h u s r e g a r d e d as symptoms a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o t h e r d e v i a n t response patterns which are i n n o n c r i t i c a l areas o f b e h a v i o r and w h i c h a r e n o t r e g a r d e d a s 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 as  alternative  a limitation  h y p o t h e s i s was made by J a c k s o n  on B e r g ' s  probably  more a c c u r a t e  "Deviant  response  statement  but l e s s  tendencies  which r e s u l t e d  interesting  form;  (1963)  in a namely,  a r e sometimes a s s o c i a t e d  (p.  35)." A further  deviation by are in the  hypothesis  Sechrest  limiting  c o n d i t i o n under w h i c h the  o f Jackson  (1963) who s t a t e d  m i g h t h o l d was p o s t u l a t e d  that "those  individuals  d e v i a n t on one m e a s u r e , o r i n one way, w i l l some o t h e r way relevance  stated  as t h o s e  be d e v i a n t  ( p . 2 6 ) . " When a p p l i e d t o t h i s  o f the r e l a t i v e individuals  campus e n v i r o n m e n t , w i l l  study,  deviation hypothesis i s  who a r e d e v i a n t  also  that  be d e v i a n t  i n r a t i n g the  i n some  personality  traits. Although comprehensive study,  taken  none o f t h e t h e o r i e s a s p r e s e n t e d i s  enough t o f o r m together  they  the c o n c e p t u a l model  can stand  f o r the  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 to  this  summary, t h e r e l e v a n c e  study  motivation approached, has  i s the p s y c h o l o g i c a l assumption  and b e h a v i o r then  personality  process  o f the t h e o r e t i c a l  their  of students  i s t o be  model  t h a t i f the functionally  p e r c e p t i o n o f the e n v i r o n m e n t a l  correlates  t h a t must be c o n s i d e r e d  press  i n the  o f 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 t h e  educational  program.  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  Various  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 e n v i r o n m e n t s questions  t h a t have g u i d e d  a p p r o a c h was  Who  the r e s e a r c h e r s .  Is i t p u b l i c  or poor? A second lives  or p r i v a t e ,  a p p r o a c h was  i n the environment?  The  s t u d e n t s make t h e c o l l e g e .  The  trated  do  by  the q u e s t i o n ,  environment? this  The  s t u d y , has  perceive  t o be  justification theoretical The gained  according  latest been  How  to a s k  the  or  urban,  question,  here  approach  approach which  i s that  is  illus-  has  been  adopted  o f the environment?  the l a s t  s u p p o r t w h i c h has  been  a p p r o a c h was  previously  s t u d y o f campus e n v i r o n m e n t i n the l a s t  the  alluded  personality  decade.  Murray's  characteristics.  were s e e n as h a v i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c relationship  personality.  o f t h e s e needs  The  interaction  e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s was The  various  between c o l l e g e  The strong to.  has c o m p a r a t i v e l y (1938)  t h e o r y on e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s p i o n e e r e d i n t h e f i e l d  and  in  t o a s k t h e q u e s t i o n , What do s t u d e n t s  for selecting  e n v i r o n m e n t a l and  of  s t u d e n t s behave' i n t h e  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  momentum o n l y  earliest  features  rural  assumption  third  to the  The  t o a s k , What a r e t h e d e m o g r a p h i c  the environment? rich  c a n be c l a s s i f i e d  needs,  and  of  Individuals the  strengths  were what c h a r a c t e r i z e d  between p e r s o n a l i t y  needs  the and  made a m o d e l f o r s t u d y i n g b e h a v i o r .  research  environments  done used  to d e s c r i b e  the  differences  the c o l l e c t i v e  perceptions  of student  s u b g r o u p s as  a basis  press.  can  i n the  only  a  As few  This  with  deviant  l a c k may  result  noted  population  perceptions  be  partly no  perception  prospects  perceptions  as  and  subject. studies  the  To  literature,  But  personality researches  deviant traits, are  the  and  no  consistent  total  (1965) f o u n d  separately  students'  he  has  and not  the  perception some o f  the  the  field  i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s to done any  research  on  absence of d i r e c t l y  following indirectly interest  to  the  the  related  o f campus e n v i r o n m e n t  the  of considerable  their  deviant  of h i s p o s t u l a t i n g of press  study  environment.  almost  between  Herr  of studying  However, d e s p i t e on  by  students'  o f a campus e n v i r o n m e n t and  a result  date,  institutional  relationship  differential  counseling.  of  explained  characteristics.  challenging  theory  of  personality characteristics  w h i c h found  personal  review  environmental  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were done c o m p a r i n g  perceptions made on  be  for defining  and related  research  investigation.  Studies  Having General S t e r n , S t e i n and  tigation of  at  the  situations,  Relevance Bloom  to  the  (1956) made the  U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o on p e r s o n a l i t y and  Problem first  inves-  the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  learning i n higher  education.  The  instruments  authoritarian, rationals. varied each  used  categorized students  anti-authoritarian,  Initial  results  o f person  environment alone, in aiding In edition and  at institutions  was  indicated  at different  the e a r l i e s t  experiences  college  of higher  important  function  the f i r s t  Index  to students  learning.  i n the i n s t i t u t i o n a l  a trend  The r e s u l t s climates  measured.  The  for cultures within  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  o f h i s s t u d y was  environment.  to environmental  (1958) a t Y a l e  o f the i n t e r a c t i o n  among  institutions.  in relation  t h a t done by D a v i e  result  measurement o f t h e c o l l e g e  and c o u l d be d i r e c t l y  also  bodies  assumption  which  the i n v e s t i -  p o p u l a t i o n t o be a s d i v e r s e as v a r i a b l e s  Among college  Although  i t served an extremely  t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s  student  institutions  proportions with  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  investigation  student  that  1957, P a c e and S t e r n a d m i n i s t e r e d  were s i g n i f i c a n t  a  than  groups:  future research.  faculty  showed  indicated  was r e p r e s e n t e d .  g a t i o n was much b r o a d e r  four  i r r a t i o n a l s , and  c o n s i d e r a b l y i n the r e l a t i v e  type  into  University.  that s a t i s f a c t i o n  process  between  is a  The direct  t h e s t u d e n t and  A major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  e n v i r o n m e n t was a r b i t r a t i l y  factors  o f the  d e f i n e d as a n y a t t r i b u t e  subscribed  to  the  satisfaction  perception  of Yale at entrance  money p e r month, with  girls,  (c) s t u d e n t  (e) g e t t i n g at Yale.  The  those  who  what  experienced who  found  of  A series 1963,  1967)  University findings  ( n e g a t i v e ) , (b)  employment,  found  they  the  (d) g e t t i n g  expected  expected  than  the  original  Environment S c a l e s  r e l e v a n t to t h i s  along  ( f ) ease  to  of  that  find,  d i d those  students  characteristics!  o f s t u d i e s were c o n d u c t e d  using  hazy  spending  g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n was  greater satisfaction  less  (a) a v e r y  a l o n g w i t h b o y s , and  making f r i e n d s students  measure on:  and  revised  (CUES).  Pace  (1960,  College  and  Among t h e c o n s i s t e n t  study were:  (a) s t u d e n t s  the  (b)  f r e s h m e n p e r c e p t i o n o f a campus e n v i r o n m e n t i s  more p o s i t i v e of  students  congruent (d)  than  students  the  by  practicality  subgroups r e g a r d i n g  press  i n education  s t u d i e s emphasized  social-cultural  them i n c o l l e g e  environmental  majoring  p e r c e n t i l e s i n the these  that of upperclassmen,  expressed  with  campus  have a  c o n s e n s u s on incoming  p e r c e p t i o n o f any  by  the  the  and  climate of  the  (c) the are  behavior  also generally  their  campus,  g e n e r a l l y get  opinion of  f e a t u r e s or  Burnett  All  student  intellectual-  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 ,  and  higher  propriety scales.  consensus  dominant  of  environment,  (1963)  attempted  a d e s c r i p t i v e study  Kansas S t a t e selected for  the  College  held  public high study,  by  of high  schools.  a self-made  Items were c l a s s i f i e d  the  image o f F o r t h  school  In g a t h e r i n g  sixty  item  into subject  body, p h y s i c a l p l a n t , s t u d e n t  related  matters.  drawn f r o m more t h a n  200  students,  dealing with  attending  public high  or responses not  areas.  became a b o u t In nature and  that  the  their City  accuracy  counselors  regarding  the the  and  four  measure  the  both  the D  factor  treated  statistics  score  lived  of  the  environment.  for similarity and  profile  means were t r e a t e d  was  subject to  other they  College.  (1965) s t u d i e d  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n d e x o f P a c e and  p r o f i l e s were  and  State  College  perception  patterns  more u n c e r t a i n  Seymour  schools  of  college  of c o l l e g e environment held high  were  freshmen  the  seniors  education,  of St. Louis,  i n nine  other  disadvantages  image o f  c l o s e r the  opinion  and  Inventory  w r i t t e n by  used.  with  V a r i a t i o n s i n the  the  forty  information  dealing  in a l l geographical  for higher  the  and  schools.  defined  In g e n e r a l ,  opportunities  essays  the  activity  i n the  a d v a n t a g e s and  suggested  equally well  included  in  i n v e n t o r y was  areas  student  Items  seniors  Hays  by  the  students  colleges.  S t e r n was The  used  to  resulting  (or d i f f e r e n c e )  correlations.  The  using  Individual  for differences using  the  jt  test. four  The f i n d i n g s were area  different college  colleges held from those  students'  that:  (a) the p e r c e p t i o n s  by t h e h i g h  of high  school  school  perception  seniors  counselors;  of their  o f the were  (b) u s i n g  own c o l l e g e  environ-  ment a s a m e a s u r e o f a c o l l e g e ' s " r e a l " e n v i r o n m e n t , t h e perceptions quite  o f t h e s e n i o r s and h i g h  inaccurate.  were s e r i o u s l y perceived that  Furthermore, high  considering attending  i tdifferently  college.  vocational  This  a t Colorado  o f students  statistically  each subgroup.  of  campus  Little  presents  i n the high  one o f t h e s e  who  colleges  a l o t o f i m p l i c a t i o n s to schools.  were  College.  belonging  the concern  i n Duling's t o 683  The a n a l y s i s o f  to v a r i o u s  I t was f o u n d seemed  subgroups  percep-  showed  that students'  t o change r e l a t i v e  when s t u d e n t s  or i n c o l l e g e c l a s s e s .  recommended  that  the  body t o d e t e r m i n e  were  that  scores  perceptions t o how much  i n t h e q u a r t e r when t h e measurement was  d i f f e r e n c e was f o u n d  student  seniors  t h e CUES was a d m i n i s t e r e d  State  environment  individually  school  t h e r e were many d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e mean  of  time e l a p s e d  counselors are  f r o m s e n i o r s who had n o t c o n s i d e r e d  perceptions  (1966) i n w h i c h  juniors tions  study  counselors  Differential study  school  taken.  tested  The r e s e a r c h e r  f u r t h e r s t u d i e s be made a t o t h e r i f the r e s u l t s  were  levels of charac-  teristic  o f a l l c l a s s e s or  The  that  in  fact the  this  j u n i o r l e v e l was McGibbeny  istics State  Index  (a)  the  the  State  (b)  the  was  The  C o l l e g e were  internal  when  should  expectations  information  as  have  the  i n the  of  and on  students was  and  done  universities  by  their  p u b l i c image o f a to t e s t  level  Character-  for  showed  that:  each other, not  guidance the  perceptions (public,  high  was  the  choice  to  the of  of  the  of  and communi-  directors.  It  of  the  freshman  and  viable.  absence  i n f l u e n c e the  (1968) on  been  improvement  still  freshmen's  i n three  i n the  and  with  study  degree of  Sinco  study.  College  made w i t h i n  are  the  the  those  n o n - i n t e l l e c t u a l images  Having P a r t i c u l a r Relevance A study  press  to  c h a n g e s among  c o l l e g e has  be  identified.  the  .05  incongruent the  be  a weakness o f  the  and  t h a t emphasis  limitation  directors  only  internal  students  significant  of  the  image o f  climate  the  as  could  a n a l y s i s of variance  to p r o s p e c t i v e  Studies  noted  public intellectual  intellectual year,  utilized  of d i f f e r e n c e a t  recommended  trend  (1967) a d m i n i s t e r e d  to measure  College.  significance  cated  study  i f a  A  of  guidance  the c o l l e g e .  Problem  p e r s o n a l i t y needs the  environmental  private, sectarian)  Philippines using  the  College  Charac-  teristics  Index  Activities findings  Index  showed  b e t w e e n the found  on  t o measure  the  eleven  of  tual  environmental  needs o f s t u d e n t s .  the  Stern The  significant differences sophomores w e r e  f a c t o r s and  However, t h e  twelve students  to have h i g h  personality factors: Applied  needs  Interests,  They showed  constraints  and  social  strongest press,  vocational of  t i o n was  students,  i n academic  organization.  Low  For  the  press  private  of environment  level,  i n student  perceived  and  dignity.  intellectual  i n the  c l i m a t e , and  was  achievement,  of vocational climate  p r e s s was  the  and  in a private nonsectarian  direction  in  expression-  c l i m a t e , academic  lowest  environment  i n the  aspirational  the  for  academic o r g a n i z a t i o n , group l i f e ,  c l i m a t e , and  the  needs  egoism-diffidence.  sectarian university found  low  from  Intellec-  Interest, Motivation, Orderliness, Closeness,  Submission.  press  no  f r e s h m e n and  p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y were f o u n d  following  and  personality factors.  that, i n general,  perceptions  personality the  t o measure p e r c e p t i o n s  The institu-  and  academic  factors of academic  climate. In a study congruency  designed  that exists  e n v i r o n m e n t , as  to d e t e r m i n e  among s t u d e n t s '  measured  by  the  the  relation  perceptions  CUES, and  the  or  of  openness  the and  22 22-  closedness  of their  belief  systems,  R o k e a c h Dogmatism S c a l e E, S h e a r e r d i f f e r e n c e s when t h e  freshmen  compared w i t h d a t a g a t h e r e d  at  concluded  that  perception, translated  most open  ment d i f f e r e n t l y  i t was  and  classmen's  Students  which f i t s  than  belief  rather  Students four  than  due  by  study  i n this  or  non-conformist;  of  S t u d e n t s ' S t a f f members and  Student  and  The  forty  their  to f a c t o r s  i s that  to  change.  i n the  o f Hersemann  from  (1969). into  vocational,  and/  academic,  S t a f f members  into  Dean  i n other  subjects consisting  of  the  242 CUES.  students generally perceived  in a similar  different  their  s t u d y were c l a s s i f i e d  manner.  by members o f t h e n o n - c o n f o r m i s t  were g e n e r a l l y  description.  s t a f f members a n s w e r e d  p e r s o n n e l w o r k e r s and  t h e campus e n v i r o n m e n t held  i n t o b e h a v i o r , do much t o  s t a f f members c l a s s i f i e d  offices. and  upper-  the R o k e a c h D o g m a t i s m S c a l e .  sub-cultures — collegiate,  upperclassmen  the  testing  the openness o f c l o s e d n e s s o f  pertinent  participating  administrative  significant  second  t h e s t u d e n t s most c l o s e d  systems, as m e a s u r e d Another  the  t o change d i d not p e r c e i v e the e n v i r o n -  Thus, s t u d e n t p e r c e p t i o n s are environment  (1969) f o u n d  the f i r s t  Furthermore,  environment  by  most o p e n t o c h a n g e were  sessions.  c r e a t e an  as m e a s u r e d  Perceptions  s u b c u l t u r e , however,  those of other s u b c u l t u r e s .  Non-conformists  saw l e s s  and  significantly  in  the environment.  s t a f f members tically  Hendrix  differences  scales, with  on t h e s c h o l a r s h i p  dimension  members and  offices  had  on t h e community and  the l a t t e r  perceiving greater  c o n v e n t i o n a t Las Vegas, Vernon L.  presented a r e s e a r c h paper and S t u d e n t  a different  on J u n i o r C o l l e g e  P r o g r a m Change M e c h a n i s m , w h i c h  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 p r e s e n t s t u d y .  concern  to i d e n t i f y  o f t h e s t u d y was  environmental selected  measurements  attitudes  i n s t r u m e n t s used (Conventional  The p r i m a r y  relationships  i n twenty-four  between  c o l l e g e s and  and b e h a v i o r s o f t h e new f r e s h m e n .  were s e l f - m a d e  Conformity,  Humanism), S u p e r ' s  Environmental  Internalization,  Work V a l u e s  Aptitude  T e s t B a t t e r y (GATB).  multiple  regression  along with  statis-  areas.  t h e 1969 APGA  Environments utilized  dimension  i n other administrative  i n these In  emphasis  on t h e a w a r e n e s s  Dean o f s t u d e n t s ' s t a f f  significant  scholarship stress  less  emphasis  Scales  M a t u r a t i o n , and  I n v e n t o r y , and t h e G e n e r a l The a n a l y s i s  utilized  e q u a t i o n f o r the e n v i r o n m e n t a l  the i n d i v i d u a l  correlation  the e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s instruments mentioned.  The  coefficients  the  variables, between  and t h e two s t a n d a r d i z e d  Because  of i t s large  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 s t a t i s t i c a l l y significantly related to students' beliefs in the extent to which they could succeed, participate in college a c t i v i t i e s , and had been encouraged or discouraged to pursue their education. Salzman (1970) made a study of an a l l female l i b e r a l 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 p o l i t e -  ness, fied and  c o n s i d e r a t i o n and students  manifested  be r e c o g n i z e d ,  o f v i e w , and routine.  academic greater  to c r i t i c i z e  to e x p e r i e n c e  p u r s u i t s ; and needs  t o be  and a t t a c k  novelty  and  (d)  successful  contrary  change  dissatis-  points  in daily  RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND  The  primary  purpose  HYPOTHESES  o f the p r e s e n t  s t u d y was  investigate  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  o f a campus  e n v i r o n m e n t and some p e r s o n a l i t y  tics.  The s t u d y  assumed t h a t a l t h o u g h  c o n s e n s u s among s t u d e n t s ment,  there w i l l  p e r c e p t i o n s who  between s t u d e n t s '  i n each aspect  be some s t u d e n t s w i t h will  manifest  distinct  be a environ-  differential personality  were h y p o t h e s i z e d :  personality  sex, g r a d e - p o i n t  characteris-  o f campus  the f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t e s  the c o l l e g e ,  perceptions  there w i l l  More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  traits,  to  traits.  to p e r c e p t i o n  length of stay i n  average,  college  entrance  on w h i c h  the hypotheses  s c o r e , and l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s . The this  research questions  s t u d y were b a s e d , were  Perception perception personality C. R.  the f o l l o w i n g :  and P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s : W i l l  o f a campus  environment  students'  correlate with  some  characteristics? Pace  (1966) f o u n d  t h a t what a s t u d e n t  to be t r u e a b o u t h i s e n v i r o n m e n t his  of  personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  reports  i s g e n e r a l l y u n r e l a t e d to  (p. 10)."  However,  Pace's  studies raters  d i d not c a t e g o r i z e  o f campus e n v i r o n m e n t  s t u d i e s were based a campus  on  that  dependent are able  of consensus  based  has made e x t e n s i v e on  "the character  to determine  of a s o c i a l  research  environment  the c u r r e n t  belief  individual  further  to l e a r n ,  these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  perceptions  that  that academic  capacity  ".  that  personality  i n t e r a c t i o n s when he w r o t e :  significant  implication  to use  research  to  the  perceptions-  "Perhaps  t h e most  research arising  from  measure  the i n t e r a c t i o n s  o f these  (p. 130)."  However, t h e r e have b e e n regarding  than  308)."  both p e r s o n a l i t y  e n v i r o n m e n t a l d i m e n s i o n s , and in future  as  (p.  r e s e a r c h on  for future  accept  i s more  as w e l l  the  creates  i t i s preferable  in detail  (1966) recommended  the s t u d y i s the impetus  group  achievement  . . .  i f we  make up  . . i f we  o f t h e s t u d e n t body as a w h o l e  Sidles  on  is  that  o f t h o s e who  s h o u l d know t h e c l i m a t e w h i c h A s t i n wrote  studies  of  students' characteristics,  the c h a r a c t e r  (p. 308)."  factors,  definition  upon t h e n a t u r e o f i t s members, and  g r o u p , we  and  high  i n h i s s t u d y , because h i s  the t o p i c  ( 1 9 6 5 ) , who  campus e n v i r o n m e n t stated  t h e low and  environment.  Astin  study  separately  conflicting  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  findings  on  the  of environmental percep-  tions  to p e r s o n a l i t y .  the  openness or  not  seem t o  tions  of  While  closedness  influence  the  perceptions  Shearer  of  the  students'  change  i n the  e n v i r o n m e n t , Hersemann held  were g e n e r a l l y  by  members o f  different  (1969) c o n c l u d e d  the  belief  systems  students'  did  percep-  (1969) f o u n d  that  non-conformist  from those  that  subculture  o f members o f  other  subcultures. Most  of  the  have a consensus their  a  few  are  However,  " d e v i a t e s " who  positively  as  related  this  study  would  having  Length of Stay the  not  or n e g a t i v e l y .  hypothesized  in  supported  College  the  fact  that  students  i n d e s c r i b i n g a campus e n v i r o n m e n t  perceptions  teristics.  studies  rate  assumes an  that  in College: the  charac-  there . w i l l  institution  Deviant perceivers  personality  r e l a t e to  to p e r s o n a l i t y  and  either are  be  very  being  traits, correlates.  Does  perception  the of  length  of  students  stay  on  the  campus? This similarity  question or  was  d i f f e r e n c e s of  s o p h o m o r e s , j u n i o r s , and e n v i r o n m e n t , as college.  specifically student  seniors)  categorized  by  concerned with subgroups'  ratings of  their  length  the  (freshmen,  college of  stay  in  the  Duling  (1966) f o u n d  campus e n v i r o n m e n t t i m e has taken.  elapsed The  environment longer  on  seemed  i n the  t o change r e l a t i v e  f o r the  rating  to become more n e g a t i v e campus.  study  by  Shemsky  least  dissatisfied the  The  as  with  the  of the  same r e s u l t s  (1966) w h i c h f o u n d  seniors  perceptions  of  t o how  the  the  was  college  students  were  stayed  found  in  freshmen group  S a i n t Joseph's  sharing  the  the  much  q u a r t e r when the measurement  t e n d e n c y was  the  ment, w i t h  that student  College  the the  environ-  g r e a t e s t amount  of  dissatisfaction. This  study  has  a l s o embraced  (1969) t h a t f r e s h m e n ' s p e r c e p t i o n s tary  to  the  university  upperclassmen's do  o f a campus  an  difference  study,  consistency  a r e much more  translated into  environment which  fits  Shearer  complimen-  upperclassmen's.  only  study  of  P h i l i p p i n e s (Sinco, i n the  perceptions  sophomore s t u d e n t s This  findings of  The  behavior, their  also  descrip-  environment.  However, t h e done i n t h e  the  perceptions,  much to c r e a t e  tion  than  the  using  the  t h e r e f o r e , has  1968)  campus found  environment no  between f r e s h m e n College  attempted  o f p e r c e p t i o n as  a P h i l i p p i n e campus  the  related  environment.  significant and  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Index. to shed  light  to l e n g t h o f  on  the  stay  in  Perception perceptions  in  the  of  the  and  e d u c a t i o n a l environment  female  o f an  students.  of  Herr  press  the H i g h S c h o o l  showed  that g i r l s  than  their  significantly The  of  the  Index,  Girls  than  the  i n which g i r l s  perceptions  intellec-  also  at  tended  than  In  .05  of Finley  phenomena o f s t u d e n t  scores  with  d i d boys.  (1967) a l s o c o n c l u d e d  i n f l u e n c e the  percep-  aggression.  study  to  f o r dominance,  ( c h i square  i n the  satisfaction  research of Abbott  differences  between  students  press  sexuality  experiences,  higher  d i d boys.  f o r p l a y and  were s u p p o r t e d  school  no d i f f e r e n c e  exception  school  their  students?  to p e r c e i v e more  significance  boys p e r c e i v e d more p r e s s  investigation  high  expression  n a r c i s i s m and  terms o f s t a t i s t i c a l  by  Characteristics  to p e r c e i v e more e m o t i o n a l  same r e s u l t s  be  (1965) t o o k  tended  dependency p r e s s  emotionality,  there w i l l  in  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  of environmental  and  with  from female  perceptions  results  his  differ  i s that  use  tual  male s t u d e n t s  campus e n v i r o n m e n t  Pace's assumption.  the  Do  Pace's assumption  male and  tions  Sex:  level), The  (1968) i n  satisfaction expressed did that  boys. sex  of a c o l l e g e environ-  ment. The  fact  that this  study  n o r m a l c o l l e g e i n the P h i l i p p i n e  i s being setting  done  in a public  presents  an  unpredictable about  r e s u l t when i t comes  one-fourth of  In  the P h i l i p p i n e s ,  to  l o o k upon  admission Colleges This  the  than  . . I t i s becoming  perceptions  entrance  (a) this  Do  school  year  since  the male  apparent  that  take  a  Heist  the  . . . condition  rate  the  M c C o n n e l and  College Entrance  leadership qualities  additional variables  based  potential.  the males w i l l  the g r a d e - p o i n t a v e r a g e ,  the g r a d e - p o i n t a v e r a g e study  rigid  i n f l u e n c e when he  of students  p e r c e p t i o n o f a campus  The  attitude  The  of  females  females.  increasingly  Average,  s c o r e s , and  students'  the  males.  wrote: social  their  19)."  Grade-Point Leadership Role:  the  Only  Teacher-Education  that  the c u l t u r a l  background (p.  than  are  function.  many male s t u d e n t s  lower  (1962) a b l y r e i n f o r c e d  cultural  study  i n g e n e r a l demands t h a t  more a g g r e s s i v e r o l e  and  feminine  therefore, hypothesized  culture  differences.  been a c u l t u r a l  i n the R e g i o n a l  t h e campus e n v i r o n m e n t  ".  always  t e a c h i n g as a  however, a t t r a c t  study,  Filipino  subjects i n this  i t has  requirements  to sex  on  1970-71,  their (b)  Scores, college  correlate  with  environment? included i n this  o f a l l the s t u d e n t s  first  and  semester  the r e s u l t s  of  ratings  study  are:  included i n during  the r e q u i r e d  the  college  entrance by  scores,  and ( c ) t h e l e a d e r s h i p  class advisers,  students  and l e a d e r s h i p  i n t h e answer  Among H e r r ' s school  students'  qualities  as r a t e d  r o l e s a s i n d i c a t e d by  sheets.  findings  (1965),  differential  i n h i s study  perception,  was  of high  that  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 o r who assumed  leadership  differently  f r o m t h o s e who d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y .  It  resulted  i n achievement  in  producing  did  scholastic to e n t e r cality,  (1969) r e p o r t e d aptitude  graduate community,  school  seniors  the environment  having a f a r heavier  d i f f e r e n t perceptions i n this  than  study).  scale  scores.  was r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y  and p r o p r i e t y scale.  role  p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  and s c h o l a r s h i p  school  the s c h o l a r s h i p  high  Dean  scale  (1966) f o u n d  students  and what  scores,  they  stated stated  Planning  to p r a c t i and p o s i t i v e l y  no r e l a t i o n s h i p  they expected  when  they a c t u a l l y found  f r e s h m e n a t t h e campus. This  ship to  level  the s i g n i f i c a n t l y  b e t w e e n g r a d e s and what  as  perceived  p a r t i c i p a t i o n (or leadership Pace  to  roles  s t u d y d i d n o t a n t i c i p a t e any p o s i t i v e  of school  marks,  the student's  a whole  entrance  perception  the s t u d e n t s w i l l  scores  relation-  and l e a d e r s h i p  roles  o f t h e campus e n v i r o n m e n t .  have a c o n s e n s u s  As  r a t i n g o f the  campus e n v i r o n m e n t a s i t a c t u a l l y of  impression  related  exists,  i s being hypothesized  to i n d i v i d u a l  and t h i s  unanimity  as n o t p o s i t i v e l y  performance.  HYPOTHESES  On t h e b a s i s o f t h e p r e c e d i n g following I.  hypotheses  questions, the  were made:  The s t u d e n t s ' d i f f e r e n t i a l  perceptions of a  campus e n v i r o n m e n t a r e r e l a t e d personality A.  traits.  The s t u d e n t s w i t h p o s i t i v e campus e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l percentile of  i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y  conformity,  aggressive superior, becoming  avoiding facing  personality being  i n the  of feeling  o f o t h e r s , and  angry. negative  campus e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l percentile  others,  traits  traits  problems, and  percentile  critical  The s t u d e n t s w i t h  traits  p e r c e p t i o n o f the  get a higher  dependency; and a lower  B.  t o some  perception of  get a higher  i n the aggressive  of feeling  personality  superior, being  and b e c o m i n g a n g r y ;  and a  critical lower  of  percentile  i n the p a s s i v e  of conformity,  avoiding  personality  traits  f a c i n g p r o b l e m s , and  dependency. C  0  The t y p i c a l  group's  environment  will  the  personality traits  passive  avoiding the  aggressive  becoming  rating  IV.  areas  by  propriety,  and q u a l i t y o f  perception  o f campus they  stay  environment i n the  campus. students'  environment females.  as d e f i n e d  environment.  be l o w e r , t h e l o n g e r  The male  senior  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  campus  college  of feeling  have a consensus i n  campus m o r a l e ,  The s t u d e n t s ' will  will  community, a w a r e n e s s ,  scholarship,  III.  or  o f o t h e r s , and  sophomore, j u n i o r and  perceptions  practicality,  the  critical  conformity,  and d e p e n d e n c y ,  personality traits  the seven major  teaching  of  angry.  The f r e s h m e n , students'  being  o f campus  n o t be r e l a t e d t o e i t h e r  f a c i n g problems,  superior,  II.  perception  will  perception  be l o w e r  o f the c o l l e g e  than that  o f the  The  students'  ment w i l l  o f t h e campus  n o t be p o s i t i v e l y  grade-point and  perception  average,  leadership  related  to t h e i r  c o l l e g e entrance  qualities.  environ  scores,  DESIGN OF THE STUDY, PROCEDURES, AND  INSTRUMENTS  DESIGN  To  investigate  the f i v e  students' perception, The  Relationships  The  them w e l l  class the  tested  students' their  would  advisers  scores,  these  used.  on t h e d e p e n d e n t  variable:  personality  and l e a d e r s h i p  dependent  personal  ratings  possible.  o f t h e campus  o f how o t h e r p e r s o n s who  them on some p e r s o n a l i t y  leadership  role,  o f the s t u d e n t s '  f o r measuring  qualities.  and i n d e p e n d e n t  f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e where  concept  rate  of actual  bases  d e s i g n was  o f the  i n t h e campus, s e x , g r a d e - p o i n t  entrance  between  were  environment,  writing  of stay  college  variables  correlates  and on t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s :  length  average,  the f o l l o w i n g  s t u d e n t s were m e a s u r e d  perception; traits,  possible  know  traits,  and t h e e v a l u a t i o n  leadership  qualities  their of were  t h e d e p e n d e n t and i n d e p e n d e n t  variables.  PROCEDURES  .  Subjects The  subjects  consisted  o f 594 s t u d e n t s w h i c h was  equivalent at  t o 92 p e r c e n t  o f the e n t i r e  student population  the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , P h i l i p p i n e s ,  school year  1970-71.  academic. y e a r The  Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e , founded  the seven  in  the country. thirteen  Mindanao. admitted  class;  public  the requirements  who b e l o n g  are:  i n the c o l l e g e  come  physical  f o r a p p l i c a n t s t o be  ( a ) t h e y must be  to the upper  50% o f the g r a d u a t i n g  and p e r s o n a l i t y  the entrance  A s t u d e n t who  secondary  the i n t e r v i e w d u r i n g which  condition,  ( c ) t h e y must p a s s  year  enrolled  institutions  s e r v i c e - a r e a p r o v i n c e s on t h e i s l a n d o f  to the c o l l e g e  annually.  i n 1924, i s one  teacher-training  The s t u d e n t s  (b) t h e y must p a s s  English, and  regional  Among  graduates  o f s u b j e c t s by  and by s e x i s shown on T a b l e I .  of  from  The d i s t r i b u t i o n  d u r i n g the  fails  i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y dropped  are appraised;  examination  i n three courses from  oral  the c o l l e g e  given d u r i n g the (BNC 1970-71  Brochure).  Collection The of  o f Data investigator  sent a l e t t e r  to the superintendent  t h e Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e r e q u e s t i n g t h e c o l l e g e  counselor, with undertake  the a s s i s t a n c e o f another  the f o l l o w i n g  functions:  i n s t r u c t o r , to  (a) r e c e i v i n g ,  reading,  SUBJECTS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY CATEGORIZED BY ACADEMIC  Curricular  Year  Male  Female  YEAR  Total  Freshmen  25  132  157  Sophomores  23  119  142  Juniors  25  115  140  Seniors  30  125  155  103  491  594  Total  and  i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e M a n u a l o f I n s t r u c t i o n s and  pertinent  literature  regarding  administration  o f t h e two m a j o r  ting  forrating  t h e forms  from c l a s s a d v i s e r s ; sheets  (b) s c h e d u l i n g t h e  questionnaires;  students'  (d) m a i l i n g  leadership  (c) c o l l e c qualities  the accomplished  answer  t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ; and ( e ) m a k i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s  the  registrar  the  grade  the  h i s t o r y o f the c o l l e g e .  i n gathering  of students,  The Before  the study;  other  answering  requested  to supply  c o l l e g e entrance  s c o r e s , and  various  school Oral  and s p e c i f i c  Since  were g i v e n .  the students data:  were name, s e x ,  leadership roles i n  Sufficient  the second  the schedule  A fifteen-minute  were a b s e n t was made.  was  f o r administering the i s l a n d  typhoon, a s p e c i a l  group'administration  t i m e was p r o v i d e d f o r  questionnaire  n a i r e s was done a week a f t e r destructive  groups.  i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r answering the  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . before  by c l a s s  such as  organizations.  and w r i t t e n  questionnaires  were a n s w e r e d  the f o l l o w i n g personal  classification,  provided  information  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,  section  answering  needed  questionnaires  other  with  schedule  b r e a k was  administered. the q u e s t i o n -  was v i s i t e d  by a  f o r i n d i v i d u a l and  o f the questionnaires  to students  who  naires  the  The  written directions  can  be r e f e r r e d  The  sixteen class  persons their  class  the  better  to g i v e  longer  on  the  the  students  requested  first  the  school year at  students  semester. figure  marking  mark.  A  ered  i n the  policy  and  first school regarding  advisers are g e n e r a l l y opportunity  to students  part of  as  to  the  provide students  time  and  take  system w i t h gets  and  may  the  submitted  s c h o o l uses a  s t u d e n t who  of  Except  on-  the  supplied  information  form.  average  1970-71.  "condidioned"  By  to r a t e  extra-curricular  the  as  grades  in general  The  D.  r e g a r d i n g l e a d e r s h i p r o l e was  themselves  the  question-  campus.  semester's  undergoing  in  of class  service  grade-point  the  students.  approach  i n the answer s h e e t  The  B and  g e n e r a l l y the  instructors  k n o w l e d g e and  Information  the  the  desire for participation  permanent  stay  of  would  Assignment  the  a d v i s e r s were r e q u e s t e d  a d v i s e r s are  students  activities.  by  to i n Appendixes  leadership qualities  tradition,  f o r answering  s t u d e n t s was i n December  f o r the  two  off-campus  2.5  practice  the  standard  a g r a d e o f 3.6 pass  or  fail  for  teaching,  courses  ( e x c e l l e n t ) to 5 as  19 70  on  senior classes  a load o f seven 1  based  each  (failure) for  t o 4.4 a course  average  is considafter  The  College  Entrance  S c o r e s used were  Competetive Entrance Examination admission  to r e g i o n a l  The  Entrance  and  Part  Tests  public  consists  I I : Questions  on  used  as  a  those  basis  teacher-training of  Part  English  I:  from a  for  institutions.  Intelligence  Usage and  Test,  General  Infor-  ma t i o n .  INSTRUMENTS  Two A  standardized  brief description  The  College  Revised,  the  measurement  University  or  scales.  Community, A w a r e n e s s , P r o p r i e t y , and  Quality  The  rationale  generally  of  T e a c h i n g and for  selecting  accepted  mixture of procedures,  to w h i c h  tools  study  follows:  Environment Scales  CUES p r o v i d e a m e a s u r e o f  seven dimensions  courses  in this  (R.  Pace,  1966).  The along  and  of  i n s t r u m e n t s were u s e d  of  that  features  and  the  the  campus  They a r e : P r a c t i c a l i t y , Scholarship,  Faculty-Student the  subscales  atmosphere  attitudes,  this  Campus  o f any  including:  among s t u d e n t s ,  i t is  campus rules  is a and  interests,  extra-curricular activities,  i s communicated  Morale  Relationships.  i s that  f a c u l t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , student study,  environment  the  extent  faculty  and  administration,  and t h e d e g r e e  o f awareness,  and  controversy.  the  p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e s t u d e n t s who  validity lies  The CUES d e f i n e s  a s c h o o l environment live  in it.  o f the s t u d e n t p e r c e p t i o n approach  i n the f o l l o w i n g  involvement, by  The assumed  o f Pace  (1963)  argument:  . . . Regardless o f i n d i v i d u a l behavior, or a s s o r t e d p h y s i c a l f a c t s s u c h as money o r s i z e , the e n v i r o n m e n t , i n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l s e n s e , i s what i t i s p e r c e i v e d t o be by t h e p e o p l e who l i v e i n i t . . . . Thus r e a l i s t i c a l l y , what p e o p l e t h i n k i s t r u e i s t r u e f o r them ( p . 7 ) . The  said  assumption  and  Kelly's  has been f u l l y  theories  and a d o p t e d  s u p p o r t e d by b o t h  as t h e c o n c e p t u a l  work o f t h e s t u d y . The which  CUES q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d  The i n v e s t i g a t o r  substituted  randomly  professionals  context,  such as, p r o f e s s o r  figures  beverages, local not  (shorts  t o answer e i t h e r distributed  t o be a b s e n t  to persons,  university  politics  allowed  o f 100 i t e m s i n true or  t h e i t e m s and  some words w h i c h were c o n s i d e r e d by a g r o u p o f  Filipino  derly,  frame^  t h e s t u d e n t s were r e q u e s t e d  false.  Combs'  t o engage  a r e never  used  to i n s t r u c t o r ; drinking  housing  to c i v i c  i n the s t u d e n t s ' c u l t u r a l  to d r i n k i n g  to c o l l e g e  organizations  in politics), i n school),  messy  to d i s o r alcoholic  boarding  houses,  ( f a c u l t y members a r e  bermuda pin-up  shorts  pictures  to jeans to sexy  pictures,  and  In of being thinks  this  to  of  each statement that  the way  mischiefs.  questionnaire,  a reporter  condition and  pranks  the  student  college  is generally  e x i s t s ; an  the  the  people  event  and  the  function  i n d i c a t e s whether  he  characteristic; a  that  generally  takes  occurs  act  or  o r may  feel  occur;  in a particular  environment. The ranging Alpha by  from  (Pace,  a good  ranging scales  The  CUES have a h i g h .89 1969,  deal  be  .94 p.  based  42).  to  60  found  (pp.  on  The  of concurrent  f r o m 40 can  to  degree  i n t e r n a l 'consistency  Cronbach's C o e f f i c i e n t instrument  validity, 53-54).  i n Appendix  Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y  of  is also  supported  with correlations  Description  of  the  five  A.  Inventory  ( A l l e n L.  Edwards,  New,  1966). The sources:  (a)  informally well  items  interviews  EPI  were d e v e l o p e d  i n which  from  biographies;  them; and  (c)  a given  Each of  (b)  the  published  biographies  statements w r i t t e n  personality sets  of  three  i n d i v i d u a l s were  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  known to  represent  i n the  major  asked  someone  and  auto-  specifically  to  trait.  s c a l e s were  intercorrelated  and  the  c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x was  principal each of The  components.  the  factors  i n s t r u m e n t has  using  the  s i x out  best  represent  items  Only  i n the  of  needed i n the  scales four  53  scales  the  passive  the  of  and  .71  internal  students  of  on  selected.  from  aggressive  method  loadings  to  .94  consistency.  were a d m i n i s t e r e d  for categorizing six scales  with high  ranging  Formula  the  by  a n a l y s e s were  a reliability  Kuder-Richardson  Only  traits  f a c t o r analyzed  because  they  personality  in  this study.  were r a n d o m l y d i s t r i b u t e d i n  The  the  questionnaire. The  EPI  personality vary.  The  tories.  was  designed  new  EPI  d i f f e r e d from o t h e r  instance,  examinees' r e l i g i o n , with  the  items about h i s nearly  large  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n which normal  For  relations  to measure a  family,  health  a l l items  political  that  or had  beliefs,  or  (Walsh, L a y t o n ,  1966)  college  regard such  t h e i r being asked  i t e m s as The  EPI  an  invasion  requested  to respond of the  "true"  privacy examinee  no  undesirable  ".  that  his  Furthermore,  because of  Kleiger,  the  T h e r e were  functions.  extreme s o c i a l l y  into  s c a l e v a l u e s were e l i m i n a t e d and  inven-  inquiring into  were e l i m i n a t e d . bodily  of  individuals  personality  almost a l l items  and  number  . . evidence  or  (Edwards,  students  "false" 1966,  to d e s c r i b e  to p.  himself  1)." as  he  believes others  based  who know h i m w e l l w o u l d  on t h e h y p o t h e s i s  o f many i n d i v i d u a l s believe  others  assumed  that  ". . . t h a t  are related  perceive  the d i r e c t  them  in  because  problems  t o t h e way i n w h i c h  they  a n s w e r i n g about one's b e h a v i o r i n i s anxiety  provoking  the respondents a r e l i k e l y  t o be  and l e s s defensive  the process. The  study  s i x passive  (from  IV-J), Avoids  Becomes A n g r y IV-B),  and a g g r e s s i v e  were: C o n f o r m i t y  (Booklet  Facing  (Booklet  Superior  Non-Standardized  Measures  The advisers their rating  I-A-H),  Problems  (Booklet  Rating  traits  Scale  used  rating  (Booklet of Others  II-B), (Booklet  III-H).  Form  requested  the c l a s s number o f  i n t h e (1 t o 5) c o n t i n u u m s c a l e , t h e m e a s u r e d  that best  describes  student.  observations  definition  Leadership  f o r the  Dependency  t o i n d i c a t e by a s s i g n i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e  individual actual  Leadership  Booklet  IV-E), C r i t i c a l  and F e e l s  the  the p e r s o n a l  It is  ( p . 2 ) . " The i n v e s t i g a t o r  a group a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s e t t i n g accurate  r a t e him.  the L e a d e r s h i p  o f the  Judgments o f i n s t r u c t o r s were b a s e d on and e x p e r i e n c e s  with  from t h e EPI (Edwards,  Rating  Qualities  Scale  the students  using  1966, p . 7 ) . The  Form c a n be f o u n d  i n Appendix E.  In  an  accompanying  keep  their  letter,  confidential.  signed  by  the to  the  A l l accomplished  Leadership Role,  importance  extra-curricular Leadership  of  as  Qualities  f o r m s were  s u p p l i e d by  r a t e d by the  the  student's  activities.  Q u a l i t y was  After  duly  The  the  students  investigator participation  in various  same c o n t i n u u m as  inability  (b)  the  the  of  the r e t u r n s o f  bases  the  as  of  the  incomplete  students  adviser refraining  l a c k of evidence  that  of  used.  examining  were d e l e t e d on  in  according  data,  594  s t u d e n t s were i n c l u d e d as -sample f o r t h e r e s e a r c h .  (a)  to  class advisers.  answer s h e e t , was the  i n s t r u c t o r s were r e q u e s t e d  evaluation of students' Leadership  highly  The  the  rating  i n the  ANALYSIS OF  said  basic  the  Subjects  r e t u r n due  to f o l l o w d i r e c t i o n s ,  from  suggested  data  of  student  to  and due  to  instructions.  DATA  Scoring Scoring  the  CUES  a consensus r a t i o n a l e a.  b.  (Pace,  and  1969,  obtained  pp.  12-13) i s b a s e d  as f o l l o w s :  Add the number o f i t e m s a n s w e r e d by 66 p e r c e n t o r more o f the s t u d e n t s i n t h e keyed d i r e c t i o n . S u b t r a c t the number o f i t e m s a n s w e r e d by 33 p e r c e n t o r f e w e r o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n t h e keyed d i r e c t i o n .  on  the  c.  Add 20 p o i n t s t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e , s o as t o e l i m i n a t e any p o s s i b i l i t y o f o b t a i n i n g a negative score.  The  manner  present  study  f o r s c o r i n g t h e CUES has b e e n m o d i f i e d i n i n order  Negative,  Typical,  student's  incorrect  correct  responses  p o i n t s were added scores.  to i d e n t i f y  and P o s i t i v e  based  on t h e k e y e d  then  using  equivalents  f o r CUES s c o r e s ,  United  with  considered avoid for  second  the .  and  20  negative  score  The p e r c e n t i l e  edition,  were b a s e d  g r o u p o f 100 c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s  s c o r i n g f o r the EPI c o n s i d e r e d complete responses.  distorted  results.  The raw s c o r e s  The k e y s  were c o n v e r t e d  36-44), which a r e based  sity  students. T h e r e were  on  i n the  the answer  mark was n o t  not scored  for scoring  to  responses  on t h e m a n u a l  (pp. 45-  into percentiles  on p e r c e n t i l e norms o f u n i v e r -  two m a j o r r e a s o n s  i n the a n a l y s i s .  only  A question  a r e s p o n s e and t h e r e f o r e , was  (pp.  score  t o raw  the t a b l e i n the manual.  t h e s c a l e s i n t h e E P I were b a s e d  48).  from  direction,  converted  individual  States. The  sheets  Every  to the d i f f e r e n c e to e l i m i n a t e  The s c o r e s were  reference  responses.  r e s p o n s e s were s u b t r a c t e d  percentiles  the  the i n d i v i d u a l  First,  f o r using  the p e r c e n t i l e  for comparability of results  since  both  instruments  percentiles; that in  recommend  and s e c o n d ,  because  " s i n c e t h e raw s c o r e s  items  with  of  Statistical All Columbia  sented  -3.699  a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f  the low, a v e r a g e ,  transformed  units.  (p. 5 ) . "  t o z^ s c o r e s .  Each  negative  £ s c o r e s were  z^ s c o r e s  students  .234 a s T y p i c a l R a t e r s ; t o 1.746  with  then  as P o s i t i v e R a t e r s .  sorted  z^ s c o r e  ranging  from  Raters;  z_ s c o r e s r a n g i n g  and t h e h i g h e s t  repre-  i n standard  to the h i g h e s t p o s i t i v e  5% r a t e r s w i t h  of  CUES  score  t o -1.969 were c a t e g o r i z e d as N e g a t i v e  the mid-average  British  and h i g h r a t e r s  the average o f i n d i v i d u a l  The i n d i v i d u a l  The l o w e s t  f r o m 1.330  by means  t h e 360/67 M o d e l C o m p u t e r .  environment,  from the lowest value.  In the EPI  be a c c o m p l i s h e d  t h e d e v i a t i o n f r o m t h e mean e x p r e s s e d  deviation  the s c o r e s  Analysis  identifying  s c o r e s were  scales,  f o r each o f the s c a l e s  d a t a were p r o c e s s e d  campus  statement  t h a t the " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f  norms p r e p a r e d  using  In the  i n the other  on t h e E P I o r d i n a r i l y w i l l  percentile  (1969)  to p e r c e n t i l e s (p. 2 7 ) . "  m a n u a l , Edwards a l s o w r o t e scores  o f Pace's  by means o f  on one s c a l e a r e n o t e q u i v a l e n t  t h e raw s c o r e s  have been c o n v e r t e d  interpretation  5% w i t h  from  5% o f  .131 t o  z^ s c o r e s  E a c h s u b g r o u p had  thirty three  students with a subgroups.  bution  that  negative  I t can  of  the  comparing  means i n H y p o t h e s e s applied For  be  of  ninety  noted  t h e r e were more c a s e s  raters  In  total  using  the  campus  from of  Range T e s t In  an  to  IV,  F ratio  1968,  determining  the  needed  decisions  technique level  was  set  of at  extreme p o s i t i v e  I  analysis  ( W a l k e r and  I  to p.  Lev,  1953,  among the  p.  131)  degree  was  also  was 25).  Multiple  applied.  o f r e l a t i o n s h i p among  C o e f f i c i e n t was  significance  between  means were  I I I , D u n c a n ' s New  (Runyon and  oC.05  than  of variance  to answer H y p o t h e s i s  P r o d u c t Moment C o r r e l a t i o n  The  distri-  significant differences  (Edwards,  statistical  score  the  possible  i n Hypotheses  eleven variables  the  for  environment.  determining which comparisons  significant  students  Haber, set  V,  employed 1967,  f o r making  f o r a l l the  the  p.  the  Pearson as  a  85).  statistical  hypotheses.  CHAPTER V  RESULTS  The accordance  results with  presentation,  o f the study w i l l  the hypotheses.  be p r e s e n t e d i n  F o r a more  the subhypotheses w i l l  be  meaningful  simultaneously  discussed.  Results Relevant Hypothesis of  a campus  t o Hypo the s i s I_ I:  The s t u d e n t s '  environment a r e r e l a t e d  differential t o some  perceptions  personality  tra i t s . Subhypothesis tion in  A:  The s t u d e n t s  o f t h e campus e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l  the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y  facing  critical  get a higher  of conformity,  o f campus  B:  percentile  of feeling  environment w i l l  percentile avoiding  percentile in superior,  negative  get a higher  traits  percep-  angry.  The s t u d e n t s w i t h  the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y being c r i t i c a l  traits  o f o t h e r s , and b e c o m i n g  Subhypothesis tion  positive  p r o b l e m s , and d e p e n d e n c y ; and a l o w e r  the a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y being  traits  with  percep-  percentile in  of feeling superior,  o f o t h e r s , and b e c o m i n g a n g r y ;  i n the p a s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y  traits  and a  lower  of conformity,  avoiding  f a c i n g p r o b l e m s , and  Subhypothesis  C:  The  campus e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l passive  personality  p r o b l e m s , and traits  of  becoming  feeling  of  superior,  and The  I was  i n the  subgroups,  Raters,  be  related  aggressive  being  critical  tested  by  personality  namely  the  facing  personality of  others,  Positive Raters personality  the  data  a higher  Avoids  Facing  categorized  as  and  traits  and  Becomes A n g r y ) .  the  Typical Raters  a  got  assumed trend  on  two  of  Negative,  at  students  percentile  inconsistent traits  categorized three  in a l l six personality  (Conforms,  the  Critical  the  In  perceivers  traits  a higher  least  II.  positive  aggressive  students  that  environment.  passive  Superior,  However, the  hypothesis  I t was  the  the  in  Typical  Dependent), while  (Feels  i n the  students  of  differences  shown i n T a b l e  for  Negative Raters  aggressive  follow  on  P r o b l e m s , and  the  the  trend  percentile  traits  percentile  general, to g e t  the  o f campus  traits  show a  comparing  Negative Raters,  P o s i t i v e Raters are  would  of  the  avoiding  the  and  raters.  perception  to e i t h e r  conformity,  Typical,  support  group's  angry.  percentiles  three  traits  typical  dependency, or  Hypothesis of  not  dependency.  of  Others,  result did as  in  for  not  average  subgroups  traits.  The  PERSONALITY TRAITS PERCENTILES OF NEGATIVE, TYPICAL AND POSITIVE RATERS OF CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT  Nega tive Raters  Average Raters  Positive Raters  Conforms  52.27  69.93  75.37  Avoids Facing Problems  50.77  65.50  82.63  Dependent  44.77  59.10  75.43  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  Personality T r a i t s  Passive T r a i t s  Aggressive Traits  n =  NR = 30 AR = 30 PR = 30  results tile and  showed  than  the T y p i c a l R a t e r s  the P o s i t i v e R a t e r s  a slightly  trait  that  higher score  of being c r i t i c a l  of student subgroups' Figure  i n the t r a i t  than  The  for obtaining  personality  significance  three subgroups'  aggressive  traits  i n the  profiles  c a n be compared i n  The  2.9271.  Negative  traits  i n the a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t  significant. and s e c o n d  the p a s s i v e t r a i t s  of  found  among  o f Becomes A n g r y T e s t was  subgroups,  (.03).  applied  which comparisons  The Duncan r a n g e s ,  and t h i r d  found  differences  and C r i t i c a l  M u l t i p l e Range  to determine  were  In the  d i f f e r e n c e was  A summary o f t h e f i n d i n g s In  i n Table I I I .  level.  o f F e e l s S u p e r i o r (.23)  t h e same v a r i a b l e s  first  i s shown  t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t  Duncan's New  means were  o f v a r i a n c e u s i n g the F  a t t h e .001  (.41), b u t a s i g n i f i c a n t  the s u b g r o u p s  to  among  as u s e d  between  a r e : 2.7836 and  i s shown  i n T a b l e IV.  o f a l l t h e s u b g r o u p s — Low o r  R a t e r s , A v e r a g e o r T y p i c a l R a t e r s , and H i g h o r  Positive Raters — pairings except  The p e r c e n t i l e  passive personality  different  traits,  the t r a i t s  Others  the  superiority  1.  significantly  in  of  percen-  the N e g a t i v e R a t e r s  of others.  A summary o f t h e a n a l y s i s ratio  got a lower  i n the comparison  High Raters  i n the t r a i t  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different,  between the Average R a t e r s of Conformity.  and t h e  In c o n t r a s t ,  no  U o  oo  c  •r-l  CO  fn co £ CO CU T J r-l  •ri ja o o > u  <S  P-i  o  CU CU  4-1  d cn  C cu  co  T3  C <u  cu cu  cu  Q  \  <  CO  CO CJ  CO  4-1  CU  •H  r-H  o-  bO C  M-1  5-1  o  u  5-1 4-> o o  cu  B o o  cu  PQ  i  /  \  «  V ' ^  ' • I  \ I V  Figure  Legend: Negative Raters Typical Raters ••• P o s i t i v e R a t e r s  1  Personality Traits Percentile Profiles o f N e g a t i v e , 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 E n v i r o n m e n t  ANOVA SUMMARY OF STUDENTS' PERSONALITY  Personality Trait  Sources of Variation  df  Sum o f Squares  TRAITS  Mean Square  Observed F  Conforms  Between Error Total  2 87 89  7957.10 29521.00 37478.00  3978.50 339.32  11.73***  Avoids Facing Problems  Between Error Total  2 87 89  15261.00 35744.00 51005.00  7630.50 410.85  18.57***  Dependent  Between Error Total  2 87 89  14127.00 30321.00 74282.00  7063.30 348.52  20.27***  Feels Superior  Between Error Total  2 87 89  2459.50 71823.00 74282.00  1229.70 825.55  1.49  Between Error Total  2 87 89  934.16 44842.00 45776.00  467.08 515.43  .91  Between Error Total  2 87 89  3692.30 46256.00 49948.00  1846.10 531.68  Critical Others  of  Becomes Angry  *p < ***p <  .05 .001  3.47*  A COMPARISON OF MEAN DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS' PERSONALITY TRAITS USING DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE T E S T  Personality  Passive  Traits  Perceptual Pairing  Difference  Statistical Conclusion  Traits  A.  Conforms  AR o v e r LR HR o v e r LR HR o v e r AR  16.67 22.10 5.43  Sig. Sig. Not s i g .  B.  Avoids Facing Problems  AR o v e r LR HR o v e r LR HR o v e r AR  4.73 21.82 17.13  Sig. Sig. Sig.  D.  Dependent  AR o v e r LR HR o v e r LR HR o v e r AR  14.33 30.67 16.33  Sig. Sig. Sig.  AR o v e r LR HR o v e r LR HR o v e r AR  12.40 8.97 3.43  Not s i g . Not s i g . Not s i g .  AR o v e r LR LR o v e r HR AR o v e r HR  1.13 6.77 8.90  Not s i g . Not s i g . Not s i g .  LR o v e r AR LR o v e r HR AR o v e r HR  10.97 15.20 4.23  Not s i g .  Aggressive  Traits  D.  Feels  E.  Critical  F.  Becomes  Legend:  Superior  of Others  Angry  Sig. Not s i g .  LR = Low R a t e r s o f campus e n v i r o n m e n t o r N e g a t i v e Raters AR = A v e r a g e R a t e r s o r T y p i c a l R a t e r s HR = H i g h R a t e r s o r P o s i t i v e R a t e r s  significant traits; Raters  difference  i n the p e r s o n a l i t y  It  traits  of Feels  significant.  got  a higher  Superior  percentile  traits.  The  results  support  get  a higher  and  a lower p e r c e n t i l e  percentile  Subhypothesis  students with negative get a higher  found  the subgroups,  B was  also  perceptions  group's  as b e l o n g i n g  Although  p e r c e n t i l e was  environment personality personality  the p e r c e p t i o n  to the t y p i c a l  the trend  traits  i n that  o f campus  the a g g r e s s i v e  will  personality  i n the passive  categorized  i n the  the students  personality  i n the a g g r e s s i v e  students  Raters  general,  than  that  supported  C, t h a t  in  environment  i n the aggressive  However, S u b h y p o t h e s i s  was n o t s u p p o r t e d .  traits  o f t h e campus  i n the p a s s i v e  to e i t h e r  o f O t h e r s , the  Subhypothesis A  percentile  i n the a g g r e s -  o f N e g a t i v e and P o s i t i v e  traits.  typical  and t h e H i g h  except  and C r i t i c a l  and a l o w e r p e r c e n t i l e  be r e l a t e d  that  i n the p a s s i v e  with positive perceptions  not  aggressive  o f Becomes A n g r y was  to note  In a d d i t i o n ,  aggressive  traits.  trait  b e t w e e n t h e means  was  traits  i n two  different.  i s of interest  difference  did  noted  h o w e v e r , t h e mean o f t h e Low R a t e r s  significantly  sive  i n means was  group  or passive shows  of will  traits,  that the  b e t w e e n t h e two e x t r e m e  subgroups  in  the  passive  traits,  slightly  lower p e r c e n t i l e  and  a  of  also  slightly  the  i n the  higher  Typical Raters  trait  percentile  of Feels i n the  got  a  Superior  trait  Critical  Others. In  summary, t h e  significant  differences  P o s i t i v e Raters hypothesized.  i n the The  showed  differences  of  hypothesis.  the  Raters  did  not  findings  showed  among the passive  Negative i n the  Negative,  personality  and  Typical, traits  P o s i t i v e Raters  aggressive  However,  statistically  the  traits  show a c o n s i s t e n t  trend  in  as  also  i n the  results for  the  the  and  direction  Typical  aggressive  traits.  Results  Relevant Hypothesis  and  senior  rating  the  to H y p o t h e s i s II:  The  II  freshmen,  students' perceptions s e v e n m a j o r a r e a s as  community, a w a r e n e s s , p r o p r i e t y , and  q u a l i t y of  the  campus  as  and  defined  by  consensus  in  practicality,  scholarship,  faculty-student  r e l a t i n g to H y p o t h e s i s  F r e s h m e n , Sophomore, J u n i o r , subjects  have a  junior  campus  morale,  relationship  of  environment.  Results 594  teaching  will  sophomore,  i n t h i s study.  The  and  II are Senior  number o f  based  on  students  subjects  in  the used each  s u b g r o u p can  be  Table V categorized The  shows  by  consensus  environment  referred  to  the  in Table  percentile  academic year perception  i s evident  not  only  but  Freshmen,  71.89; S o p h o m o r e s ,  As  summary o f  CUES c a t e g o r i z e d indicated,  comparing  the  the  Awareness  (c)  Campus M o r a l e other  (p<.26), tionship  i n the  following  the  subgroups  average  college.  of  r a t i n g of  the  campus  the  CUES  ratings:  71.80; J u n i o r s ,  the by  76.04;  of variance  and  academic year  i s shown  (ANOVA)  (p < .003) , (b) (p<.03),  Quality  (p<.19),  and  Scholarship  (p<.68),  T e a c h i n g and  (d)  The  Propriety  scales  on and  scores (b)  in  the  Community  Faculty-Student (p < .07)  VI.  by  (p<.03),  respectively.  Practicality of  the  on  i n Table  s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s were f o u n d  s c a l e s — (a) (c)  analysis  subgroups' d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h  (a)  four  scores  68.58.  The the  i n the  f o r CUES  four  33.  page  of attendance at the  subscales  Seniors,  also  of  I on  were  Rela-  not  significantly different. The  r e s u l t s of  Duncan's New VII.  The  Multiple  table  The  third  statistical  Comparison  presents  e n c e s among s t u d e n t reader.  the  Test  analysis  using  i s presented  only  the  s i g n i f i c a n t mean  subgroups  for  the  range  (3.0161) was  convenience added  in  Table  differof  in this  the specific  PERCENTILES FOR COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES SCORES CATEGORIZED BY ACADEMIC YEAR  Juniors  Seniors  Overall Mean  Rank  84.80  85 .44  84 .92  84.58  2  56.77  55 .63  52 .33  56.26  6  Freshmen  Sophomores  P r a c t i c a l i t y 83.18 Scholarship  Scale  60.29  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 Morale  90.09  90.10  90 .71  88 .35  89.81  1  Quality of 75.58 Teaching, and FcultyStudent Relationship  76.38  76 .04  74 .20  75.55  3  Average Percentile  71.80  71 .68  68 .58  70.99  71.89  n = Freshmen = Sophomores= Juniors = Seniors =  157 142 140 155  ANOVA  SUMMARY OF CUES SCORE PERCENTILES OF FRESHMEN, SOPHOMORE, JUNIOR, AND SENIOR STUDENTS  Personality Trait  Sources o f Varia tion  df  Sum o f Squares  Mean Square  Observed F  Practicality  Between Error Total  3 590 593  435.31 .16646 .16690  145.10 282.14  Scholarship  Between Error Total  3 590 593  5033.00 .32105 .32609  1677.70 544.16  Community  Between Error Total  3 590 593  2619.20 .38764 .39026  873.07 657.02  Awareness  Between Error Total  3 590 593  8141.10 .33763 .34577  2713.70 572.25  Propriety  Between Error Total  3 590 593  2023.80 .16998 .17200  674.59 288.09  2.34  Campus  Between Error Total  3 590 593  467.43 30312.00 30779.00  155.81 51.376  3.03*  Between Error Total  3 590 593  414.00 51376.00 51790.00  139.00 87.078  1.58  Morale  Quality of T e a c h i n g and Faculty-Student Relationship  * P < .05 * * p < .01  .51  3.08*  1.33  4.74**  analysis, since there are four subgroups being compared for s i g n i f i c a n t differences between means.  As stated e a r l i e r ,  the analysis of variance found that three of the seven College and University Environment Scales had differences among means.  significant  For this s p e c i f i c a n a l y s i s , each  scale w i l l be discussed separately below.  The seven scales  are: A.  Practicality:  The subgroups' mean p e r c e n t i l e  scores (Freshmen, 83.18; Sophomores, 84.80; Juniors, 85.44; and Seniors, 84.92) on this scale were found to be homogeneous . B.  Scholarship:  combinations was It was  Only one of the s i x pairwise  found to have a s i g n i f i c a n t mean d i f f e r e n c e .  the comparison between Freshmen and Senior  with a difference of C.  Community:  students,  7.96. This scale was  found to have  homogeneous subgroup mean percentile scores; that i s , no pairs d i f f e r e d by more than the shortest s i g n i f i c a n t range. D.  Awareness:  Half of the pairwise combinations  were found to have s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n 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  Practicality  No s i g n i f i c a n t  Scholarship  A.  Community  No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n  Awareness  A. B. C.  J u n i o r s over S e n i o r s Sophomores o v e r S e n i o r s Freshmen over S e n i o r s  Propriety  A. B.  Freshmen over S e n i o r s Sophomores o v e r S e n i o r s  4.37* 4.54*  Campus  A. B.  Freshmen over S e n i o r s Sophomores o v e r S e n i o r s J u n i o r s over S e n i o r s  2.74 2.75 2.36  Morale  c. Quality of T e a c h i n g and F a c u l t y - S tudent Relationship  No s i g n i f i c a n t  number o f p a i r s : t e s t e d  Total  number o f p a i r w i s e  Not s i g n i f i c a n t  Mean D i f f e r e n c e  d i f f e r e n c e s between  Freshmen over  Total  *  Subgroup  7.96  Seniors  for significance  a t c<.05 i n t h e F  found  test.  sig.  subgroups  6.15 6.45 10.07  d i f f e r e n c e s between  comparisons  subgroups  42 9  subgroups  E.  Propriety: Although in the analysis of variance  the F r a t i o of this scale between groups was  not considered  s i g n i f i c a n t (.07), the Duncan's New Multiple Comparison Test found two s i g n i f i c a n t differences. (1) Freshmen over Seniors, with 4.37; over Seniors, with F.  They were:  and  (2) Sophomores  4.54.  Campus Morale:  This scale was  found to have  three s i g n i f i c a n t l y heterogeneous groups.  They were:  (1) Freshmen over Seniors, with a mean difference of (2) Sophomores over Seniors, with 2.75; over Seniors, with  and  2.74;  (3) Juniors  2.36.  G. Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student Relationship:  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t 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. I t was apparent from the r e s u l t s that the student subgroups rated the campus environment very highly i n Campus Morale with a percentile of 90; high on P r a c t i c a l i t y (85); a s l i g h t l y elevated r a t i n g in the two scales, Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student Relationship (76), and Propriety (73) ; high average r a t i n g on Awareness (65)  and  Scholarship  percentile strong  profiles,  College  o f t h e campus  test  nine  significant  a t the Bukidnon The F r a t i o s  o f the f o r t y - t w o means.  study  subgroups,  their  which  combinations  A l l o f the nine  showed  perception  that  homogeneous.  paired  involved  that despite  t h e o v e r a l l means o f t h e F r e s h m e n was  other  of  indicated  mean d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e p a i r i n g s This  Normal  by t h e M u l t i p l e Range T e s t  different  students.  The  to t h e i r  scales are s i g n i f i c a n t l y  significantly  that  environment  f u r t h e r supported  that only  Senior  regards  (53).  2, i n d i c a t e t h e  i n the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  o f the seven  T h i s was  had  with  on t h e s e v e n s c a l e d i m e n s i o n s .  significance  found  i n Community  as i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e  consensus o f students  perception  four  (56) ; and a v e r a g e  could  the f a c t  higher  n o t be  than the  considered  unrealistic. The campus  r e l a t i o n s h i p of students'  e n v i r o n m e n t by a c a d e m i c y e a r  discussed  i n Hypothesis  I I I , which  perception will  o f the  be f u r t h e r  is closely  r e l a t e d to  Hypothesis I I . In  summary,  perception areas  will  I I that  have a c o n s e n s u s  o f t h e campus  C o l l e g e was  Hypothesis  the student  in rating  the seven  environment a t the Bukidnon  supported.  subgroups' major  Normal  The s u b g r o u p s ' CUES s c o r e s  on  00  •r-l c  4-1  ccu 3 4J CO  CD  •u  •r-l CO O O CO J-l  100  I—I  Cu  -r-t  cn  4-1  r-l  •rH  r-l  3  CO  C  o o  o o  C/l  CO CO  4J  c  •r-l  CO  o  >N  0)  cu dl  U CU r-l  Legend: Freshmen Sophomores ••• J u n i o r s === Seniors Figure  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 S t u d e n t s C a t e g o r i z e d by A c a d e m i c Y e a r  CO J-i O  S  CO  3 CU  e  CO  >^  M-1 4-> O r-l  ^  3  a  4-1 CO •r-l pH r-l CO TJ  3 G O" co  Practicality,  Community,  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 , and P r o p r i e t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y , were found  significantly  homogeneous  (with  the e x c e p t i o n  o f P r o p r i e t y ) , and a l s o by t h e M u l t i p l e  Range T e s t .  In general,  than n e g a t i v e  in rating  by t h e F t e s t  the s t u d e n t s  I n t h e ANOVA  were more p o s i t i v e  the seven major areas  o f t h e campus  environment.  Results  Relevant Hypothesis  environment w i l l college  III:  The s t u d e n t s '  be l o w e r ,  the l o n g e r  perception they  stay  hypothesis  i n Hypothesis  concerned w i t h  is closely  in  i n the  II.  r e l a t e d to the  Specifically,  this  the d i f f e r e n c e s o f s t u d e n t  environment as c a t e g o r i z e d  question  hypothesis  was  subgroups'  ( F r e s h m e n , S o p h o m o r e s , J u n i o r s , and S e n i o r s ) college  o f campus  campus. This  raised  to Hypothesis I I I  by t h e i r  r a t i n g s o f the length  of stay  the c o l l e g e . In  as much a s t h e d a t a  were p a r t l y delete trate  discussed  of student  i n Hypothesis  duplication of information on p r e s e n t i n g  according  to l e n g t h  subgroups'  I I , the d i s c u s s i o n  and w i l l  instead  t h e s u b g r o u p s ' mean d i f f e r e n c e s of stay  responses  i n the C o l l e g e .  will  concen-  Table VIII academic y e a r . according  The t a b l e  to length  Freshmen: (highest ness) . third  presents  gives  of stay  This  i n Campus M o r a l e ,  highest  rank of 1  and A w a r e -  mean i n P r o p r i e t y ,  ranked  o f T e a c h i n g and F a c u l t y -  and t h e l o w e s t mean  ( r a n k 4) i n  and Community.  of Scholarship,  Faculty-Student  r a n k o f 2 i n t h e CUES  Community, A w a r e n e s s , and Campus  Relationship;  group d i d not d e v i a t e  expected  (Scholarship  and Q u a l i t y  Morale; rank 1 i n Propriety,  The  information  in college:  S o p h o m o r e s : They assumed subscales  the f o l l o w i n g  two s c a l e s  I t g o t the second  Student R e l a t i o n s h i p ,  o f CUES means by-  subgroup got the expected  mean) i n o n l y  Practicality  the r a n k i n g  Quality  o f T e a c h i n g and  and r a n k 3 i n P r a c t i c a l i t y .  more t h a n one r a n k f r o m i t s  p o s i t i o n i n e a c h d i m e n s i o n o f t h e campus  environ-  ment. Juniors: in  Scholarship,  the  Quality  scale;  mean p e r c e n t i l e  Community, and Campus The s e n i o r s  rank o f 3  a rank of 2 i n  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  Seniors: five  subgroup g o t i t s expected  A w a r e n e s s , and P r o p r i e t y ;  and t h e h i g h e s t  Practicality,  in  This  Relationship  i n the dimensions o f  Morale.  g o t the lowest r a n k as e x p e c t e d  s c a l e s , b u t g o t the r a n k o f 3 i n t h e a s p e c t  of  RANKING OF CUES BY ACADEMIC YEAR  Scale  Freshmen Mean Rank  Sophomores Mean Rank  Juniors Mean Rank  Seniors Mean Rank  Practicality  83.18  4  84.80  3  85. 44  1  84 .92  2  Scholarship  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  Propriety  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  Quality of 75.58 T e a c h i n g and Faculty-Student Relationship  3  76.38  1  76. 04  2  74 .20  4  70 to  Community, assumed the  and  that  campus It  and  rank of 2 i n P r a c t i c a l i t y .  seniors  can  be  noted  A w a r e n e s s , were  finding  i f the  The  supported  by  most r e a l i s t i c  that  the  the  only  trend  two  ones  study  perception  the  high  subscales,  that  in ranking  level  fully  of  found  supported  two  in  subscales  Duncan's New  the A w a r e n e s s and  and  was  further  F  Campus M o r a l e  ratio  .003,  M u l t i p l e Comparison  the  of  the  of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the .02  the  basis  of stay  a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , w h i c h were The  Scholarship  i s made the  to l e n g t h  d i f f e r e n c e s i n these  respectively. also  the  differences according  college.  the  have  This  environment.  hypothesis,  of  the  Test  scales  not  homogeneous. It  can,  perception supported  of the  institutional T h i s was  the  stated  that  of stay  criteria  image when c a t e g o r i z e d i n the  and  the  campus e n v i r o n m e n t o n l y  length  shown  of Variance Range  t h e r e f o r e , be  results  corroborated  of  i n the  partially  in evaluating by  the  students'  F  CUES test  the  subscales. i n the  Duncan's New  Analysis  Multiple  Tests.  Results  Relevant Hypothesis  to H y p o t h e s i s IV:  campus e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l  The be  IV  male s t u d e n t s ' lower  than  perception  that of  the  of  the  females.  71 if  The the  seven  results  dimensions  ment S c a l e s . to '491  sex c a t e g o r y .  in  o f s u b j e c t s were u n e q u a l  T h e r e were o n l y  females Table  IX shows  IX and i n F i g u r e 3, b o t h press  t h e CUES.  in practically means t h a n  T h e r e were  the area  scale with  probability  However,  Environas  regards  As  indicated  p e r c e i v e d the  t h e same manner; however,  the females  i n which  i n a l l dimensions  i n w h i c h the  t h e mean  o f .54; t h e s e c o n d  o f .68; and t h e t h i r d  was  o f 1.09  The f i r s t  was  i n the  and a  i n the S c h o l a r s h i p  o f 3.57 and a p r o b a b i l i t y  a t cy.05; and Q u a l i t y o f T e a c h i n g  Faculty-Student Relationship, with 3.45, was  highly significant  o f the a n a l y s i s  subscales with  o f .07. o f 6.61,  and  a mean d i f f e r e n c e o f  a t t h e .0007 l e v e l .  o f v a r i a n c e on CUES t o t a l  s e x as a n i n d e p e n d e n t  was  difference  t h e s c a l e s on Community, w i t h a d i f f e r e n c e  significant  summary  sexes  a mean d i f f e r e n c e  scale with a difference  was  on  between m a l e s  t o be s i g n i f i c a n t .  of Practicality,  1.16 and a p r o b a b i l i t y  Awareness  scores.  three subscales  d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t f o u n d  was  based  103 m a l e s a s compared t o  t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e s  on t h e CUES p e r c e n t i l e  the males g o t lower  in  were a g a i n  females.  environmental  of  hypothesis  o f t h e C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y  The number  Table and  of this  variable  The and  i s shown i n  A COMPARISON OF MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES' AND FEMALES' PERCENTILE SCORES ON COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES  Scale  Mean f o r Males  Mean f o r Females  Difference  Practicality  83.60  84.75  1.15  Scholarship  53.50  57.07  3.57  Community  47.92  54.08  6.61*  Awareness  63.62  64.71  1.09  Propriety  69.94  73.70  3.76*  Campus M o r a l e  88.21  90.12  1.91**  Q u a l i t y of Teaching and F a c u l t y - S t u d e n t Relationship  72.67  76.12  3.45***  *p s i g n i f i c a n t a t oc .05 **p s i g n i f i c a n t a t oc .01 ***p s i g n i f i c a n t a t oc .001 n  f o r M a l e s = 103; F e m a l e s  = 491  C  4-i G  Si  TJ  bO  •rH  CU  >> 4->  •iH rH  co  o  •iH  rH CO •rH  JG CO J-l CO r-l  4-> O CO  si  SH PH  CJ CO  o  >> 4-J •r-l  C 3  o u  O CO CU  7,3 H  u  CO CO  4-1  0) G cu  CU  U  }H  u  CO  a o  co &  PH  O  a e  o  70  60  Legend: Males Females  40  3  C o m p a r i n g Mean P e r c e n t i l e D i f f e r e n c e s M a l e a n d F e m a l e S t u d e n t s on CUES  ,G  CO  C  ' H 4J CO r H CU  3 G C co pd,  80  Profile  r H  >> o o  90  Figure  Cu  4-1 CO •H fe rH CO T J  100  50  3  4-J CO I >>"H J->  3  s  co 3  •rH  MH  o  CU  Between  The the  overall F ratio  difference  nificant  at  f e m a l e s was  between s e x e s  the  students w i l l  of  .02  rate  level. the  supported  5.62 on  indicated  hypothesis,  campus e n v i r o n m e n t by  the  having  females  the  differences  Results  i n four  Relevant  of  point  average,  not  The be  college  by  lower  was  sig-  that  male  than  the  mean  that  were  than  the  significant.  V  students'  perception  positively related entrance  a whole  l o w e r means  fact  seven s c a l e s  to H y p o t h e s i s  H y p o t h e s i s V: environment w i l l  the  and  then,  d i r e c t i o n of  d i f f e r e n c e s , w h i c h showed m a l e s as i n a l l CUES s c o r e s ,  as  a l l CUES s u b s c a l e s  The  i n part  that  scores,  and  to  of  the  their  campus  grade-  leadership  qualities. In as  one  this  for  the  hypothesis,  the  594  purpose of a n a l y s i s .  subjects As  were  in a l l  previous  discussions  of  f i n d i n g s , the  dependent v a r i a b l e ,  as  by  CUES, was  basis  measured  independent v a r i a b l e s entrance As the  scores, seen  and  the  i n Table XI,  four v a r i a b l e s with  the  the  perception,  for correlating  of grade-point average, leadership  considered  the  college  roles. negative  CUES s c a l e s  correlations i s very  of  apparent.  ANOVA SUMMARY OF CUES SUBSCALES WITH SEX AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLE  Personality Trait  Sources o f Variation  df  Sum o f Squares  Mean Square  Observed F  Practicality  Between Error Total  1 592 593  115.23 .16678 .16690  115.23 281.73  .41  Scholarship  Between Error Total  1 592 593  1792.90 .32429 .32609  1792.90 547.79  3.27  Community  Between Error Total  1 592 593  3256.00 .38700 .39026  3256.00 653.72  4.98*.  Awareness  Between Error Total  1 592 593  102.83 .34567 .34577  102.83 583.89  Propriety  Between Error Total  1 592 593  1212.70 . .17079 .17200  1212.70 288.49  Campus  Between Error Total  1 592 593  311.27 30468.00 30779.00  311.27 51.466  Quality of T e a c h i n g and Faculty-Student Relationship  Between Error Total  1 592 593  1022.00 50768.00 51790  1022.00 85.757  Overall  Between Error Total  1 592 593  Morale  *p ^ .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001  5.5771 587.66 593.23  .18  4.20*  6.05**  11.92***  5.62* 5.5771 .99266  The  negative r e l a t i o n s h i p  seven  CUES s u b s c a l e s  can  between be  the v a r i a b l e s w i t h  summarized  as f o l l o w s :  1.  GPA,  with  rj_s f r o m  -.23  to  -.07  2.  CES,  w i t h r_[s_ f r o m  -.22  to  -.10  3.  RL,  w i t h r_[_s f r o m  -.12  to  -.05  4.  LR,  with  -.11  to  -.02  The  date  on  CUES and  rj_s f r o m Table  XII  Grade-Point  gives  the  Average:  following information: Four  ( S c h o l a r s h i p , A w a r e n e s s , P r o p r i e t y , and found  t o be  significantly  P o i n t Average a t  oC.01.  s c a l e s on  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 with Grade-Point  Average a t  Practicality  a low  Grade-Point  had  t o be  Entrance  degree  CUES  Campus M o r a l e ) were with  Community  Gradeand  negatively related  Only  of n e g a t i v e  College Entrance  significantly  Scores.  significant  oi.05.  the  the  scale  on  relationship  with  average.  CUES and found  of  negatively related The  the  at  The  o(.05,  A l l s c a l e s were  negatively related  scale and  Scores :  on  the  Campus M o r a l e  with was  College found  six scales significant  at  °C .01. CUES and of  Rated  Leadership:  the campus e n v i r o n m e n t was  Rated  Leadership  i n the  The  students'  perception  highly negatively related  dimension  o f Awareness;  to  significantly  RELATIONSHIP OF STUDENTS* MARKS, COLLEGE ENTRANCE SCORES, AND LEADERSHIP QUALITIES TO CUES PERCENTILE SCORES  Personal Qualities and Academic Performance  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 m e n t S c a l e s Prac. Scho. Com. Aware. Prop. C„M. Q T. & F-S R. Q  Grade-Point Average  -.07  College Entrance Score  -.13** -.16** -.18** -.22**  Rated Leadership  -.10*  -.06  -.08*  -.12**  -.03  -.10*  -.02  - . 1 1 * * -.09*  Leadership Role  n =  -.17** -.09*  594  *p s i g n i f i c a n t **p s i g n i f i c a n t  a t cx .05 a t oc.01  -.23** -.19**  -.14**  -.10*  -.13**  -.10*  -.12**  -.09*  -.06  -.05  -.09*  -.07  negatively  related  i n the dimensions  of Practicality,  Community,  and P r o p r i e t y ; b u t n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  negatively  related  i n t h e s c a l e s o f S c h o l a r s h i p , Campus M o r a l e ,  Quality  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 : was a g a i n  found  Campus M o r a l e However, of  The s c a l e  to  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  were n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d  t h e s c a l e s on P r a c t i c a l i t y ,  Teaching  on A w a r e n e s s  t o be h i g h l y n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d  Leadership Role.  and  to Leadership Community,  and Q u a l i t y  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  h a v e a low d e g r e e o f n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h  Role.  found  to  Leadership  Role. Added hypothesis  information of interest  was  instructors'  the i n s i g n i f i c a n t  rating  actual Leadership selves the  ( r .07).  class  detail  as i n d i c a t e d  This discrepancy  will  be d i s c u s s e d i n  The  correlations  negative  College Entrance with  and U n i v e r s i t y  Scores,  the seven  them-  between the p e r c e p t i o n o f  f o r the study.  mostly  Q u a l i t y and t h e  by t h e s t u d e n t s  i n the i m p l i c a t i o n s  Leadership Role  College  on s t u d e n t s ' L e a d e r s h i p  Role  specific  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the  a d v i s e r s and t h e s t u d e n t s  P o i n t Average, and  to t h i s  between the GradeLeadership Quality,  dimensions  Environment S c a l e s  o f the  s u p p o r t the  research hypothesis the  that  students' perception  positively roles  related  inverse  o f t h e campus  to academic  in extra-curricular  consistent  i n the Bukidnon  relationships.  qualities  gave  t h e campus  and  indicated and w i t h  i s not  leadership  The r e s u l t s  These  performance  College,  environment  performance  activities.  s t u d e n t s w i t h h i g h academic  Normal  showed that  leadersh  e n v i r o n m e n t a low r a t i n g .  SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  The  problem o f t h i s  relationship  of students'  s t u d y was t o a s c e r t a i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f a campus  t o 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 . underlying  t h e s t u d y was: t h e s t u d e n t s '  perceptions  o f t h e campus e n v i r o n m e n t  personality  traits.  were c o n s i d e r e d : college,  personality traits,  the  major c o n c e p t u a l  postulate of Kelly's  constructs gically events  without  are related  t o some  length of stay i n  s c o r e s , a c a d e m i c m a r k s , and  FRAMEWORK  framework o f t h i s  (1955) p s y c h o l o g y  t h a t ". . . a p e r s o n ' s  channelized (p. 46),"  determinant  differential  roles.  THEORETICAL  The  hypothesis  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  sex, c o l l e g e entrance  leadership  The g e n e r a l  environment  by t h e ways  and Combs'  o f behavior  exception,  processes  included  o f personal are psycholo-  i n w h i c h he a n t i c i p a t e s  (1959)  postulate  i s completely  study  phenomenological that " . . . a l l behavior,  determined  by, and p e r t i -  si nent (p.  t o , the p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d 2 9 ) . " These  importance that  o f the behaving  t h e o r i e s were c o n b i n e d  of considering individual  affects  a person's  behavior  organism  to support the  p e r c e p t i o n as a  i n a campus  reality  environment.  PROCEDURES  The enrolled the  subjects of this  The  o f 1970-71.  C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y  C. R o b e r t  Pace  Inventory  (1966) were  (1966),  In a d d i t i o n ,  leadership  the F t e s t  were on  use  and t h e new Edwards  the c l a s s  Personality  instruments  used  advisers evaluated  i n the  students'  qualities. deviations,  of significance,  and t h e P e a r s o n the s t a t i s t i c a l  Product  o f a 360/67 M o d e l  of variance,  Moment C o r r e l a t i o n  techniques  a t the U n i v e r s i t y  analysis  Duncan's New M u l t i p l e  t h e d e p e n d e n t and i n d e p e n d e n t  processed  Environment S c a l e s o f  t h e two m a j o r  Means, s t a n d a r d  Test,  i n c l u d e d 594 s t u d e n t s  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  school year  study.  study  used  Coefficient  i n the a n a l y s i s  variables.  of British  Computer.  Comparison  A l l data  Columbia  o f data were  w i t h the  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 The  presence  evaluation  of differential  o f campus  negative  would  traits,  while  r a t e r s ) would traits,  students  as  o f campus  students  environment)  perceptions  percentile  (high  i n passive personality  low r a t e r s .  Typical,  significant and P o s i t i v e  The N e g a t i v e  Raters  and  a l s o showed d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e a g g r e s s i v e  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, t h e  g r o u p d i d n o t h a v e a c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d as h y p o t h e and  In  as  positive  personality traits.  t h e r e f o r e made t h e r e s u l t s  the a g g r e s s i v e  from  that  the  i n aggressive personality  among t h e N e g a t i v e ,  P o s i t i v e Raters  sized,  with  get a higher  the p a s s i v e  typical  hypothesized  f i n d i n g s showed s t a t i s t i c a l l y  differences  traits  percentile  i n the  assumed b e f o r e  (low r a t e r s  i n comparison w i t h The  in  I t was  perceptions  get a higher  perceptions  e n v i r o n m e n t was  i n v e s t i g a t i o n was made. with  Perceptions  summary,  the r e s u l t s  related 1.  traits  i n c o n c l u s i v e as f a r  f o r the t y p i c a l  three general  group  is  c o n c l u s i o n s c a n be drawn  o f the a n a l y s i s o f d i f f e r e n t i a l  to p e r s o n a l i t y Differential  concerned.  perception  traits:  perceptions  exist  with  some  students  in  the  B u k i d n o n N o r m a l C o l l e g e , as  institutional 2. traits is  A  campus  of Feels present  distinct  A  Facing  a v e r a g e , and  passive personality-  P r o b l e m s , and  Dependency  high raters of  as  d i f f e r e n c e i n the  Critical  between h i g h  students  and  average  the  on  the of  raters,  but  Becomes A n g r y  not  for  the  deviant  responses  press  demands upon  may  by  some o f  suggest  poor  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with  the  schoolmates,  school  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and  e v e n on  Deviant  perceptions  factors, I t could  s u c h as be  any  may  out  campus u n r e s t  than  environment.  Because o f  the  t h a t the  congruence between i n d i v i d u a l pressures  could  be  total  this,  and  the  even  of e i t h e r  school  a of  of  the  more p r e d i c t i v e o f  aspect  courses  background  pattern  expectations  o f s c h o o l , and  single  the  p o s s i b l y be  cultural  the  distorted  institution.  achievement, dropping  is  students  the  of other  environmental  and  traits  them by  offered.  subjects.  low  institutional the  suggest  instructors,  of Others,  aggressive  raters.  analysis of  perceptions  the  Avoids  distinct  Superior,  The  result  d i f f e r e n c e i n the  among low,  categorized  being  the  environment. 3.  I t may  rating  image i s c o n c e r n e d .  of Conformity,  present  f a r as  perceived academic  initiating person  should  or  capitalize  upon  i t sa b i l i t y  especially students'  to o f f e r  to d e v i a n t  they  many s t u d e n t s ing about  feel  relationship  i s needed  caused  i s a concrete  t h e campus  i n this  differences  f o r better  aggressive  year  1970-71 a l o n e ,  College  t h e r e were  i n the c l o s i n g o f the s c h o o l  two  on M a r c h 30  research  might  determine whether the  perception  among  students  represents  of personality characteristics  traits  interesting  problem  The  true  fact  the s t u d e n t  as compared  from v a r i o u s holds  typical,  age when  student-faculty  i n the Bukidnon Normal  lower p e r c e n t i l e t h a t  finding  of  a t t e n t i o n , and a d u l t  from the f a m i l y h i s t o r y or a c q u i r e d  subjects  source  The  1, 1971.  differential  an  environment.  by f a c u l t y - s t u d e n t m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t h e  resulting  Further  The  about  concern  i n the s c h o o l  incidents  traced  o f campus  the l a c k o f i n d i v i d u a l This  to A p r i l  perceivers  counseling,  i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s and e l s e w h e r e a r e c o m p l a i n -  domination.  latter  individualized  e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e campus  k n o w i n g how  because  more  t h a t c a n be while  f o r f u r t h e r study  f o r students  on campus.  subgroups got i n the  to the p a s s i v e  faculties  actual  with  traits  provides  the use o f  to e s t a b l i s h whether the from other  that a l l the three  and p o s i t i v e p e r c e i v e r s )  disciplines.  subgroups  (negative,  got the lowest  percentile  (41) for  in  the  trait  study.  School  of  Feels  It raises  students  than o t h e r s ? ; incorrect?;  these  believe  Do  they  Does  the  Superior  t h e i r chances o f  acceptance  of  The the  personality  presents  an  positive  raters  face  i t , then, the  such behavior apathy  off  the  in solving his  P o s i t i v e Raters bilities  are  the  the  since  the  can  student  things  better  are and  and  Positive Raters  in  investigation.  If  last  not  anxiety  make use forms  got  Problems  the  of  minute, by  not  this  habit  to of  do  thinking modify using  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can  between N e g a t i v e , Among  the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  that  should  CUES and  have n o t  EPI  be  for  been v a l i d a t e d  and  possimasculinity,  investigated  items  be  Typical,  i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n , maturation,  the  instruments  Facing  the  campus e n v i r o n m e n t .  personality  of  until  personality  Another angle  verification  Normal  problems.  p r a g m a t i s m , dogmatism, humanism.  do  i n studies  future  r i d of  differences  of  the  for  get  counselor  before  t o compare  not  of Avoids  things  Maybe some o t h e r chosen  that  trait  problems r e a d i l y , or  about  Filipino  focus  their self-concept  success  interesting topic put  a  career?  high percentile  passive  be  their opinions  affect  ultimately  life's  t h e y can  that  trait  also  q u e s t i o n s : Do  that  feel  could  and is  relevance, for cultural  d ifferences. Before  guidance  administrators studies, in the  a  can  caution  stereotype  i s needed  this  diversifications  for  study  must be  counselors  apply  the  need  results  counselor  to o t h e r as  members o f  catalytic  press  educational  i n the  the  of  continuous  Sensitization the  but  the  school  As  staff,  interests, press  how  staff  The  hypothesis  be  only  policies. the  concern  members.  on  Seven  Campus was  that  the  used  academic  R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g to S t u d e n t S u b g r o u p s ' P e r c e p t i o n Dimensions of C o l l e g e  will  perceivers  i t can  school  i s not  a l s o o f a l l the  and  the  opportunities  and  and  that  extra-curricular  problems of d e v i a n t  to d i f f e r e n t i a l  counselor  The  demands  program.  curriculum,  school  student  useful  outlets for  roles.  g u i d e l i n e s i n s u c h e d u c a t i o n a l m a t t e r s as  responsibilities,  of  to p r o v i d e  the  the  Instead,  more c r e a t i v e and  to a p p r a i s e  to p r e s e n t  conform  goals.  among s t u d e n t s  the  proposed  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  in their  participates  f o r him  the  perceptions  to  school  making s t u d e n t s  educational  suggest  The  and  findings of  to a v o i d  or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e committees, arise  teachers  encouraged  differences.  of deviant  the  to a t t a i n  college counselors  presence the  implement  manner  f i n d i n g s of  individual  counselors,  freshmen,  sophomore,  junior, sus as  and s e n i o r  defined  by P r a c t i c a l i t y , Campus M o r a l e ,  Faculty-Student In  Test.  M u l t i p l e Range  entire  aspects whole,  o f T e a c h i n g and  were  Test.  quite  of Teaching  significantly  and a l s o  by t h e  evaluation  scales  perception  rated  e a c h s c a l e were a s f o l l o w s :  (b)  P r a c t i c a l i t y — 85%; ( c ) Q u a l i t y  Student R e l a t i o n s h i p — 7 6 % ;  cast  o f the  doubt about the  regarding  the  intellectual  institution.  The a v e r a g e  for  t h e r e was a  i n the p e r c e n t i l e s f o r  the Bukidnon Normal  positively.  pairwise  different in  Although  i n the e d u c a t i o n a l  the students  found  t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the l a c k o f homogeneity  as o f f e r e d  by a l l  and Q u a l i t y  i n the s t u d e n t s '  of students'  Environment  Propriety,  O n l y n i n e o f the f o r t y - t w o  the A w a r e n e s s and S c h o l a r s h i p unanimity  environment  supported  of variance  Comparison  o f trend  CUES,  I I was  Relationship  c o m b i n a t i o n s were f o u n d  consensus  and Q u a l i t y  Propriety,  i n the a n a l y s i s  M u l t i p l e Range  o f a campus  consen-  The s u b g r o u p s ' CUES p e r c e n t i l e i n  Community,  Faculty-Student  homogeneous  have a  Community, A w a r e n e s s ,  Hypothesis  analysis.  Practicality,  would  Relationship.  general,  statistical  the  perception  i n r a t i n g the seven major a r e a s  Scholarship,  and  students'  As a  College  percentile rating  (a) Campus M o r a l e — 90%; o f T e a c h i n g and  (d) P r o p r i e t y — 7 3 % ;  Faculty-  (e) A w a r e -  n e s s — 65%;  ( f ) S c h o l a r s h i p — 56%;  Although of  the  given  t o the  school  Some o f  rating  should  of  students  college quite  tion.  and  the  sharing  the be  the  a community  Community—  examined  i n these  (3)  students,  (b)  the  as  needs  the  further  image (53%)  verifica-  for i t s  low  areas:  (a)  helpfulness  loyalties  and  friendliness  presence  they  53%.  average r a t i n g  f o l l o w i n g p o s s i b l e reasons  among s t u d e n t s ,  and  (g)  a whole p e r c e i v e d  positively, as  s c h o o l m a t e s , and  faculty  as  and  are  of  "dialogue"  matters  between  r e q u i r i n g mutual  evaluation. T h e r e must be objectives merge  the  and two  i d e a l i s m and in  goals  and To  evoking the  a c t u a l happening  by  the  of  deny  the  of  the  In a d d i t i o n , there of  a conscious  attempt  the  the  The  important  that  of  the  students'  differ-  be  i n modifying  of students'  to be  a serious  Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e i s a need  students,  of  the  institution.  importance prove  to  ingredient  campus e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l  the  educational  combination  college administrators  change c o u l d  analysis  of  i s the  I t i s hoped  operations  part  and  examination  i n a f u n c t i o n a l way.  perception  considered  on  actualization,  d e c i s i o n making.  ential  a continuing  for a  faculty,  full and  perceptions  in  lack of f o r e s i g h t administrators.  scale  institutional  parental  perceptions  of  the  school  beginning part  of  campus.  This  Relating  Length of Stay I t was  the  only  serve  in  on  the  o f Campus E n v i r o n m e n t  and  hypothesized  the  be  that  the  l o w e r as  means o f  the  students'  perception  they  longer  four  stay  Seniors  only  Awareness  subscales the  direction  of  that  the  of Scholarship  hypothesis. the  However, t h e  hypothesis.  students'  and  The  perception  of  in  that  fully in  the  means i n d i c a t e d  campus e n v i r o n m e n t  becoming l e s s  p o s i t i v e as  they  expected,  F r e s h m e n as  a group r a t e d  the  campus  of Scholarship  and  Awareness,  the  ment h i g h e s t w h i c h was countries. dimension  i n the  also  the  The  selors,  longer  findings i n previous  fact  on  the  Freshmen ranked  of P r a c t i c a l i t y  and  Community  This  teachers,  are  finding  presents and  adjustment  several  school  campus.  studies  that  incoming students situation.  area  stay  showed  t r e n d was  overall the  of  subgroups c o n s i s t i n g  o f F r e s h m e n , Sophomores, J u n i o r s , and  supported  a  College  Ranking  the  as  institution.  to P e r c e p t i o n  campus e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l college.  can  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  of a l l concerned with  Results  study  As  environ-  i n western  lowest  suggests  in  the  that  problems  implications for  administrators  was  i n the  in a  new  counaspects  of  orientation  ship, can  and  the  avoid  part  of  first  t o campus feeling  life,  year  college l i f e .  an  The  relevance  i n f l u e n c e on  M o r a l e and  the  Among further to  low  of  the  make t h e  the  during  given  Freshmen the  early in  the  difference in dropping  above r e a s o n s  rating  by  out  may  from  a l s o have  F r e s h m e n f o r Campus  R e l a t i o n s h i p i n comparison  i s s u e s found  investigation  i s why  i n the the  f o r three years  campus e n v i r o n m e n t h i g h e r in  may  that  to  ratings.  the  have s t a y e d  so  f o r adjustment  i n preventing  Faculty-Student  upperclassmen's  to e n h a n c e f e l l o w -  frustrations T h i s need  of college l i f e  a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t and college.  need  of belongingness,  undue a n x i e t y and  the  the  dimensions  than  study  that requires  J u n i o r s , who  in college, the  of P r a c t i c a l i t y ,  are  supposed  perceived  F r e s h m e n and  the  Sophomores  Community, and  Campus  Morale. A  f o l l o w up  students  (except  perceive  the  undertaking students  study  f o r the  to f i n d  out  S e n i o r s who  institutional  the  are  graduating)  image a y e a r  t o a s c e r t a i n the  in a longitudinal  how  same g r o u p  f r o m now,  will  i s worth  d i f f e r e n c e s of perception way.  of  of  Results  Relating  M a l e and  Female  The of  both  that  environment  t r e n d o f mean  at  the  The  females  at  and  S c h o l a r s h i p b o r d e r i n g the  the  study w i t h  and  Awareness got these  cC.06.  (103)  and  Although  The  earlier, females  females  will  s p e c u l a t e about anticipate  and  the  be  s u b j e c t s used t h e r e was  The  an  differof  significant  Campus M o r a l e  and  at  subscales of difference,  than  that  of  c<.03; set for  Practicality the  the  exercised i n are  the  i n the  of s i g n i f i c a n c e  a non-significant  male  females.  interpreting  education students  unequal  number o f m a l e s  (491).  Maybe a d i r e c t and  also  i n both Q u a l i t y  level  However, c a u t i o n s h o u l d  stated  and  of  supported  c<.02; P r o p r i e t y  s c a l e s were l o w e r  these r e s u l t s .  that  CUES s u b s c a l e s .  s u b s c a l e s on  Community were s i g n i f i c a n t  as  than  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  .0007 l e v e l .  means on  lower  been c o n s i s t e n t l y  of v a r i a n c e f o r each  and  be  differences  e n c e b e t w e e n the m a l e s and Teaching  the male s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n  will  T h i s h y p o t h e s i s has  i n the  analysis  Students  h y p o t h e s i s was  the c o l l e g e  females.  t o 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  lead  look at students  the r e a s o n s raise  the r e s p o n s e s and  between males  s t a f f members  f o r responses  q u e s t i o n s about  they  the e x t e n t  to  did  not  to which  and  responses  are  objectives students  i n harmony w i t h  and  the  really  administrators The females  kind  desire  of  or  contrary  environment  to have.  This  i n making r e a s o n a b l e  highly  i n the  F a c u l t y - S ;:udent R e l a t i o n s h i p ,  for  consideration and  for  college  the  among s e x e s  consistent  r e s u l t s on  questions  possible  perception  on  Relationship dedicated college  to be  well  as  personal  will  greatly  various  guide  changes  in  The  also  other  be  Are  instructors  In  helpful? and  of academic  counselors  further  campus.  the  and  Teaching problem adminisof with  the  this the  relevant  difference  in  Faculty-Student  thorough  teachers  p r o b l e m s by  Satisfaction with  and  students,  show i n t e r e s t i n  personal  going  do  both out  instructors,  of as  s e c u r i t y from i n s t r u c t o r s ,  functioning  pursuits  d i s c i p l i n e s and  Among  T e a c h i n g and  emotional the  of  urgent  their relationship with  students'  the  incorporated  of  the  the  implication  subscales.  female  between males  p o s e s an  Quality  enhance  Possibly,  will  to r a i s e r e g a r d i n g  scholars?  female  way  matters  are:  can  i n s t r u c t o r s and  m a l e and their  the  male or  f a c u l t y members, s c h o o l  counselors.  difference  college  f o r measuring Q u a l i t y  and  trators  the  significant difference  subscale  to  and  research equating  as  of an  the  in  i n d i v i d u a l person.  involving the  students  students  relationship  of  from  perceptions such and  as  offer  the  females  personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  socio-economic  will on  between m a l e s and  to p e r t i n e n t v a r i a b l e  parental values,  s t a t u s , c a r e e r p l a n s , and  a more r e l i a b l e  masculinity  i n f o r m a t i o n o f sex  p e r c e p t i o n o f campus  attitude  differences  environment.  R e s u l t s R e l a t i n g t o P e r c e p t i o n o f Campus E n v i r o n m e n t Students  Marks. C o l l e g e Entrance  1  Scores,  and  and  Leadership  Roles Hypothesis  V 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  campus e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l grade-point  average,  qualities.  To  find  Pearson  Product  All  correlations  the  not  be  college  positively  entrance  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  Moment C o r r e l a t i o n  related  s c o r e s , and  to  leadershi  the  four variables with  CUES were n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d  and  the  GPA,  RL,  of and  the h y p o t h e s i s . LR  had  P o i n t A v e r a g e and Role  and  The  r's ranging  Awareness)  to  t r e n d was  independent  from  -.23  -.02  (between  the  used.  between  direction  their  between v a r i a b l e s ,  C o e f f i c i e n t was  of  the  i n the variables  of  (between G r a d e Leadership  Community).  The  consistent results  between  the  CUES and  College  Entrance  of negative  the v a r i a b l e s  S c o r e s , Rated  relationship  of Grade-Point  Leadership,  and  Average,  Leadership  Role and  indicate  that  leadership  environment Pace  students with high  qualities  a low  his  college  personal cant  "What a  environment  This  rejection,  This between  the  .00 and  despite  an  study  found  obvious.  also  the  an  I t appears  very  advisory  close  to be  found  true to  about  his  a non-signifi-  867o o f h i s  among  findings  CUES and  specific  not  of  no  individual  contacts  for  are  the  better  potential for leadership  case  in  the  Leadership class  and  advisers,  with students not  case.  relationship  capable  in  their  of i d e n t i f y i n g  qualities.  above a s s u m p t i o n s  identification and  this  relationship in this  of Rated  leadership  implications  the  insignificant  that  sections,  It requires  He  the  characteris-  unrelated  Pace's  inverse  related variables  students with The  campus  However, P a c e ' s d i r e c t i o n o f  r e s u l t was  their  respective  the  personal  +.29  r e l a t i o n s h i p was  Leadership Role.  the  10)."  supported  qualities. o f no  The  gave  student reports  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  performance  study.  study  by  is generally  c o r r e l a t i o n between  positive  with  influenced  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (p.  subjects.  college  (1966) f o u n d t h a t i n g e n e r a l , r e s p o n s e s to  students.  o  the  performance  rating.  CUES i t e m s were n o t t i c s of  at  academic  means o f  of  are  students  providing  the  necessary  encouragement f o r the students  ship r o l e s . activities  The c l a s s a d v i s e r s that w i l l  potentials,  this  i n t e r e s t students  activities  perceive  happen  leadership  how r e w a r d i n g starting  leadership  i f students  with  initiate  leadership The v a r i e d  potentials.  leadership  r o l e s as a r e w a r d i n g  leadership  point  Possibly,  with  to  leader-  i n t h e campus c a n c e r t a i n l y  o u t l e t s f o r t h e dormant  can o n l y  qualities  experience.  r o l e s a r e i n t h e campus  for evaluation  But  Just  i s a good  by i n s t r u c t o r s and  students.  some c h a n g e s i n o b j e c t i v e s , management and  activities  of school  between s t u d e n t issue  c a n do much  and t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  extra-curricular provide  t o assume  organizations  c a n make a d i f f e r e n c e  i n v o l v e m e n t and g e n e r a l  apathy.  This  c a n make a d i f f e r e n c e between a happy and d u l l  same campus  environment. While available limited bility  f a c i l i t i e s are  a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e ,  they a r e q u i t e  i n f u n c t i o n and c a n n o t assume t h e e n t i r e o f enhancing  guidance must  professional counseling  also  leadership  and p e r s o n a l be s h a r e d  roles.  Therefore,  attention received  by t h e c l a s s  by t h e  advisers.  responsithe  students  Limitations The study  are  of  the  two not  Study  major  instruments  "culture free"  (CUES and  assessment  EPI)  tools.  used  in  Pace  reports  of highly consistent results  i n s t u d i e s made u s i n g  and  Edwards a l s o m e n t i o n s  the  the  EPI.  in  the  However,  specific  some words and conditions, be  safely  in  the  the  said  setting phrases  of  study  but  general  instruments the  present  have n o t study.  as  an  accurate  norm f o r  of used  Although  to meet  for interpreting  been  local  scores  to measure d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e not  CUES,  applicability  have b e e n c h a n g e d  t h e norms u s e d  applied  of  the  the  can  only  subgroups  Filipino  s tudents. Being  an  e x p l o r a t o r y study  a campus e n v i r o n m e n t , studies  The an  fore, from  framework,  the  be  exercised  students female  of  previous the  procedures. and  there  students.  was  There-  i n making g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s  results.  Different students,  i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n s , and  p r o p o r t i o n o f male and  caution should  perception  o f weaknesses r e g a r d i n g  s u b j e c t s were e d u c a t i o n  unequal  deviant  i t l a c k s g u i d e l i n e s from  f o r p o s s i b l e avoidance  theoretical  on  and  differences  class  advisers rated  therefore, a certain  i n the manner o f r a t i n g  different  degree may  of  groups  of  individual  have a f f e c t e d  the  ratings  on  students'  leadership qualities  Summary o f Recommendations This regarding  study  on  i n an  through  students'  students  encountered  the p r o b l e m o f s t u d e n t  environment evidence  has  for Further  and  Asian  perceptions  living."  i s not worth  topics  Institutional  1.  The  relationship  attitude,  personal  said,  "a  provide to  the  life  unexamined  between d e v i a n t  attrition,  may  not  also be  the f o l l o w i n g  perceptions  of  underachievement,  most e s p e c i a l l y  family values  and  history.  2.. broader  and  can  approach  r e s e a r c h on  t h e r e f o r e recommended:  radical  campus  I t seems a p p r o p r i a t e  are  a campus e n v i r o n m e n t and  and  one  educational setting  in.  of  questions  Scientific investigations  a more r e a l i s t i c  unexamined  worth l i v i n g  perceptions  of educational press  Socrates  t h a t an  Research  s e t t i n g , w h i c h r e q u i r e s more  problems o f e d u c a t i o n .  to say  subgroups.  many unanswered  further studies.  educators  among  The  relationship  between p e r c e p t i o n and  personality characteristics  self 3.  such  as  other  cultural  interest  understanding. An  investigation  between F i l i p i n o  male and  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  female  students.  4. ' The c a u s e s the  intellectual 5.  advisers the  The e f f e c t s  o f a campus  o f the d i f f e r e n t i a l  attention  by  class  perception of a  students,  faculty,  adminis-  parents,  A survey  7.  environment.  press.  A study  and  regarding  t o s t u d e n t s ' manner o f e v a l u a t i n g  e n v i r o n m e n t by F i l i p i n o  tration,  perceptions  of individualized  and c o u n s e l o r s  6.  in  dimensions  institutional  campus  of d i f f e r e n t i a l  o f the adjustment  teacher-education  c o l l e g e s coming  problems o f freshmen from  u r b a n and  rural  communities. 8.  A study  university students  campus e n v i r o n m e n t  from v a r i o u s  9. potential curricular 10.  A survey and a c t u a l  11.  found  i n perceptions of a  i n the P h i l i p p i n e s  involving  faculties.  o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p leadership role  between l e a d e r s h i p  i n various extra-  activities. The p r o b l e m o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s  between F i l i p i n o  tions  of differences  students  A longitudinal  o f campus  and a d u l t s i n a s c h o o l study  on t h e c h a n g e s o f  e n v i r o n m e n t by s t u d e n t of values  system. percep-  subgroups.  12.  An a n a l y s i s  and a t t i t u d e s  with  d e v i a n t p e r c e p t i o n s o f campus  of students  environment.  CONCLUSIONS  The was  perceptions  studied  clear:  o f s t u d e n t s on a campus  and t h e m a j o r  conclusion  s t u d e n t s have a c o n s e n s u s  environment  o f the study i s q u i t e  o f the v a r i o u s  dimensions  t h a t make up t h e s c h o o l  environment.  I t was  that  o f t h e campus  environment m a n i f e s t  deviant  perceivers  some p e r s o n a l i t y  traits  manner o f e v a l u a t i n g  which are b a s i c a l l y  an i n s t i t u t i o n .  established  related  However, t h e c a s e o f  t h e T y p i c a l R a t e r s o f t h e campus e n v i r o n m e n t sive.  In general,  s t u d e n t s have  campus  environment  l o w e r as t h e y s t a y  Males were a l s o than females. perception to The  found  to r a t e  Furthermore,  academic  implications  r e s e a r c h was  longer  t h e campus found  o f campus e n v i r o n m e n t was  individual  performance  o f the f i n d i n g s  is inconclu-  the tendency  i t was  to t h e i r  to r a t e the i n t h e campus.  environment that  the s t u d e n t s '  not p o s i t i v e l y  and l e a d e r s h i p  and t h e need  simultaneously discussed  lower  related  roles.  for further  f o r suggested  implementations. The  encouragement  for  identifying  has  been  needs  greatly  deviant  g i v e n by H e r r perceivers  justified  t o be r e p l i c a t e d  i n this  to t e s t  (1966) on t h e need  o f campus study.  environment  But the r e s e a r c h  the c o n s i s t e n c y  of r e s u l t s .  The  results  environment 1966)  (1963,  into  certain  s u b g r o u p s and w i t h  groupings. behavior  m o d e l as d e t e r m i n e d  has been c o n s i d e r e d  by t h e p e r c e p t u a l  psychologically channelized  anticipates a  t h e f i n d i n g s o f Pace  on c o n s e n s u s p e r c e p t i o n , b u t n o t when  were c a t e g o r i z e d  Since  and  p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e campus  g e n e r a l l y supported  and o t h e r s  results sex  o f the s t u d e n t s '  events,  l o t of challenge  administrators quest  the r e s u l t s  field  by t h e ways of this  to counselors,  o f the organism, i n w h i c h he  investigation  faculty  education.  With regard  to the s e a r c h  institutions,  ACE J o u r n a l s e r v e s  pose  members, and  a t the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e  for a quality  educational  i n the t h e o r e t i c a l  i n their  for excellence i n  the f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n  as a n a p p r o p r i a t e  from the  c o n c l u s i o n to t h i s  thesis: . . . P a r t o f an e d u c a t o r ' s t a s k i s t o p r o v i d e an e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h y o u n g p e o p l e may become more s e n s i t i v e t o t r u t h s and b e a u t y . . . . The i n s t r u m e n t o f k n o w l e d g e 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 c o m b i n a t i o n , g i v i n g s t u d e n t s p e r s p e c t i v e i n t h e i r v i e w o f t h e m s e l v e s and o f the w o r l d . When t h e 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 a r e i d e n t i f i e d or t r a n s l a t e d i n such t e r m s , t h e r e c a n be r e a s o n a b l e a s s u m p t i o n s o f 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 o f t h e c o l l e g e e n v i r o n mental perceptions 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 t h e c h o i c e o f a c o l l e g e o r university. (Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n ) . M i c h i g a n 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. W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: American P s y c h o l o g i c a l Association, 1967. Astin,  A l e x a n d e r W. Who goes where Science Research Associates,  to c o l l e g e ? 1965.  Chicago:  Astin,  A l e x a n d e r W., and H o l l a n d , J . L . The environmental a s s e s s m e n t t e c h n i q u e : A way t o m e a s u r e c o l l e g e environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, 52., 308-316.  A s s o c i a t i o n of College Educators. The s e a r c h f o r e x c e l l e n c e in higher education. J o u r n a l of C o l l e g e Educators, 1966, 23, 5-11. Berg,  I . A. R e s p o n s e 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 hypothesis. J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1955, 40., 60-71.  Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e  School  Calendar,  1970-71.  Burnett, Richard Elmer. A d e s c r i p t i v e s t u d y o f the image o f F o r t Hays K a n s a s S t a t e C o l l e g e h e l d by h i g h school s e n i o r s i n s e l e c t e d p u b l i c schools 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. C a m p b e l l , 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: Houghton-Mifflin, 1969. Cohen, A l b e r t . D e v i a n c e and H a l l Inc., 1966.  control.  New  Jersey:  Prentice-  Combs, A. W., and S n y g g , D. Individual behavior: A p e r c e p t u a l approach to b e h a v i o r . New Y o r k : H a r p e r and B r o t h e r s , 1959.  Crowley, Joseph R. An exploratory study of student body and i n s t i t u t i o n a l uniqueness as perceived by prospective teachers within the University of Montana. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , University of Montana, 1963. Davie, James S. S a t i s f a c t i o n 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 expectations for college environment i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to high school scholastic achievement and i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y and as a predictor of college success and satisfaction. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , University of C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angeles, 1966. De Mars, Mary R i t a . How students see their colleges: A descriptive analysis of selected i n s t i t u t i o n a l climates through student perceptions. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , University of Notre Dame, 1963. Duling, John A. College environment as perceived by selected students' subgroups. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , Colorado State University, 1966. Edwards, A l l e n L. Edwards Personality Inventory. Science Research Associates, 1966. Edwards, A l l e n L. S t a t i s t i c a l analysis. Rinehart, and Winston, 1968.  Chicago:  New York: Holt,  Finley, Robert E. Environmental and e x p e r i e n t i a l character' i s t i c s of students and attitudes toward school. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , Purdue Univers i t y , 1968. Hagstrom, David A l l e n . College image and organizational character: D i f f e r e n t i a t e d perceptions of various groups i n a junior college. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , Northwestern University, 1969. Hendrix, Vernon L. Junior college environments and student program change mechanism. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , University of Minnesota, 1970.  Hersemann, D a r y l l Dwayne. A college environment as perceived by campus cultures and the students. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , University of I l l i n o i s , 1969. Herr, Edwin L. F i e l d theory and d i f f e r e n t i a l press: Implications to counseling. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1965, 43, 586-590. Herr, Edwin L. D i f f e r e n t i a l 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. K a t z e l l , M. E. Expectations and dropouts in schools of nursing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52; 154-157. K e l l y , 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. York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Kingsley, Howard L., and Gary, Ralph. The nature conditions of learning. Englewood C l i f f s , Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1957. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental behavioral sciences. Cole Company, 1968.  New  and New  design: Procedures for the Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks-  Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Murray, Henry A. Personality i n nature, society and c u l t u r e . New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1953. Maddi, S. A f f e c t i v e tone during environmental regulations and change. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1961, 68, 338-343.  M c C o n n e l l , 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 population. In Sanford N e v i t t ( E d . ) , American C o l l e g e . New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1962. M c G i b b e n y , H e r b e r t 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 t o c e r t a i n p u b l i c images o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n . (Unpublished Doctoral 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. M u r r a y , H. M. Explor-itions i n personality. O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1938. Five c o l l e g e environments. P a c e , C. R o b e r t . R e v i e w , 1960, 4 1 , 24-28.  New  York:  College  Board  C o m p a r i s o n s o f CUES r e s u l t s f r o m d i f f e r e n t P a c e , C. R o b e r t . groups o f 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 : 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 , 1967. CUES: T e c h n i c a l m a n u a l . P r i n c e t o n , New P a c e , C. R o b e r t . 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. An a p p r o a c h t o t h e P a c e , C. R o b e r t , and S t e r n , G e o r g e G. measurement o f 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 o f c o l l e g e and e n v i r o n m e n t s . Journal of Educational P s y c h o l o g y , 1958, 49, 269-277, P a t e , R o b e r t H. A study of e n t e r i n g u n i v e r s i t y students: E n v i r o n m e n t e x p e c t e d and l a t e r p e r c e i v e d . (Unpubl i s h e d Doctoral 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 C h a p e l H i l l , 1968. R u n y o n , R i c h a r d P., and H a b e r , A u d r e y . Fundamentals o f behavioral s t a t i s t i c s . Reading, Massachussetts: A d d i s o n - W e s l e y 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 a s r e l a t e d t o e x p r e s s e d satisfaction. (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 N o t r e Dame, 1970; S c h o e n , W a l t e r T. The campus c l i m a t e : S t u d e n t 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 o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1966, 60_, 3-7.  Sechrest, Lee, and Jackson, Douglas N. Deviant response tendencies: Their measurement and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Educational and Psychological Measurements, 1963, 23, 33-53. Seymour, Warren Ralph. Perceptions of college environments by students and counselors. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , University of Missouri, 1965. Shearer, Robert Arthur. Perceptions of the environment at Florence State University as perceived by upperclass and beginning students. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , East Texas State University, 1969. Shemky, Robert W. A study of the environment at Saint Joseph College as perceived by administrators, f a c u l t y , and students and as anticipated by entering freshmen. (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , Indiana University, 1966. S i d l e s , Craig William. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of changes i n freshmen perceptions of campus environments to college achievements and a t t r i t i o n . (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , University of Iowa, 1968. Sinco, Edelmira D. Student needs and college environments of selected 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 . (Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) , Michigan State University, 1968. Snedecor, George W., and Cochran, William G. Statistical methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowas State University Press, 1967. Stern, G. George, Stein, Morris L., and Bloom, Benjamin S. Methods i n 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 New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953.  Inference.  D E F I N I T I O N OF THE CUES  S c a l e I_. P r a c t i c a l i t y . The 20 i t e m s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o the s c o r e f o r t h i s s c a l e d e s c r i b e a n e n v i r o n m e n t 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 social activities. T h e r e a r e 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 evident i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and t h e c l a s s w o r k . As i n many o r g a n i z e d s o c i e t i e s t h e r e 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 t o be o b t a i n e d by o p e r a t i n g i n t h e s y s t e r n — k n o w i n g the r i g h t p e o p l e , b e i n g i n t h e r i g h t c l u b s , b e c o m i n g 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 n o t r e p r e s s i v e because i t r e s p o n d s t o 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 f u n and s c h o o l s p i r i t . S c a l e 2. Community. The i t e m s 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 , cohesive, group-oriented campus. There i s a f e e l i n g o f g r o u p w e l f a r e and g r o u p l o y a l t y t h a t e n c o m p a s s e s the c o l l e g e a s a w h o l e . The a t m o s p h e r e i s c o n g e n i a l ; t h e campus i s a community. F a c u l t y members know t h e s t u d e n t s , a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r p r o b l e m s , and go o u t o f t h e i r way t o be h e l p f u l . S t u d e n t 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 n e s s and s h a r i n g r a t h e r t h a n by p r i v a c y and c o o l d e t a c h m e n t , S c a l e 3_. A w a r e n e s s . The i t e m s i n t h i s s c a l e seem t o r e f l e c t a c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e e m p h a s i s upon t h r e e s o r t s o f 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 . A n e m p h a s i s 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 s u g g e s t s the s e a r c h f o r p e r s o n a l m e a n i n g . A wide range o f opport 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 t o p a i n t i n g , m u s i c , drama, p o e t r y , s c u l p t u r e , a r c h i t e c t u r e , and t h e l i k e s u g g e s t t h e s e a r c h f o r p o e t i c m e a n i n g . A concern about events around the w o r l d , the w e l f a r e o f m a n k i n d , and t h e p r e s e n t and f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n o f man s u g g e s t s t h e s e a r c h f o r p o l i t i c a l m e a n i n g and i d e a l i s t i c commitment. What seems t o be e v i d e n t i n t h i s s o r t o f e n v i r o n m e n t i s a s t r e s s on a w a r e n e s s , a n a w a r e n e s s o f s e l f , o f s o c i e t y , and o f a e s t h e t i c s t i m u l i . A l o n g w i t h t h i s push toward e x p a n s i o n , and p e r h a p s a s a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n f o r  i t , t h e r e i s an e n c o u r a g e m e n t 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 i t e m s d e s c r i b e a n e n v i r o n m e n t 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 are 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 , argumentative, risk-taking activities. I n g e n e r a l , t h e campus a t m o s p h e r e i s m a n n e r l y , c o n s i d e r a t e , p r o p e r , and c o n v e n tional. S c a l e 5_. S c h o l a r s h i p . The i t e m s i n t h i s s c a l e d e s c r i b e a n e n v i r o n m e n t 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 a n d s c h o l a s t i c discipline. The e m p h a s i s i s on c o m p e t i t i v e l y h i g h a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t 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 . Intel-' 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 h e s e a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the environment. Campus M o r a l e . The i t e m s i n t h i s s c a l e d e s c r i b e a n 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 n o r m s , g r o u p 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 , a n d , a t t h e same t i m e , a commitment t o 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 goals are exemplified and w i d e l y s h a r e d i n an a t m o s p h e r e 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 . This 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 t h e same t i m e 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 t o w a r d s t u d e n t . (C. R o b e r t Pace, 1967, p. 1 1 ) .  COLLEGE AND  QUESTIONNAIRE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES  The p u r p o s e o f t h i s i n s t r u m e n t i s t o d e s c r i b e the g e n e r a l atmosphere o f the Bukidnon Normal C o l l e g e . You a r e a s k e d t o be a r e p o r t e r o f the s c h o o l b e c a u s e y o u have l i v e d i n i t s e n v i r o n m e n t 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 . T h e r e a r e 100 s t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s b o o k l e t . You a r e t o a n s w e r T i f t r u e o r F i f f a l s e , u s i n g P a r t I o f t h e Answer S h e e t . You a r e a s k e d w h e t h e r the s t a t e m e n t 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 o f a c o n d i t i o n or event. T h i s i s n o t a_ t e s t i n w h i c h t h e r e a r e r i g h t o r w r o n g a n s w e r s ; i t i s an o p i n i o n p o l l t o f i n d how much a g r e e m e n t t h e r e i s a b o u t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e campus e n v i r o n m e n t . The p u r p o s e o f t h i s , i s t o h e l p y o u as s t u d e n t s . Please f e e l f r e e t o answer t h e s t a t e m e n t s as h o n e s t l y as y o u c a n . The r e s p o n s e s w i l l be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l . Thanks f o r y o u r c o o p eration.  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  8. 9. 10.  S t u d e n t s a l m o s t a l w a y s w a i t t o be c a l l e d on b e f o r e speaking in c l a s s . The b i g c o l l e g e e v e n t s draw a l o t o f s t u d e n t e n t h u s i s a m and s u p p o r t . T h e r e i s a r e c o g n i z e d g r o u p o f s t u d e n t l e a d e r s on t h i s campus. F r e q u e n t t e s t s a r e g i v e n i n most c o u r s e s . S t u d e n t s 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. E d u c a t i o n h e r e t e n d s t o make s t u d e n t s more p r a c t i c a l and r e s l i s t i c . The i n s t r u c t o r s r e g u l a r l y c h e c k up on t h e s t u d e n t s t o make s u r e t h a t a s s i g n m e n t s a r e b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t p r o p e r l y and on t i m e . I t ' s i m p o r t a n t s o c i a l l y h e r e t o be i h the r i g h t c l u b o r group. S t u d e n t r a l l i e s , p a r a d e s , dances o r d e m o n s t r a t i o n s o c c u r very rarely. Anyone who knows the r i g h t p e o p l e i n t h e f a c u l t y o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n can g e t a b e t t e r treatment h e r e .  The i n s t r u c t o r s r e a l l y p u s h 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 o f the i n s t r u c t o r s a r e d e d i c a t e d s c h o l a r s i n t h e i r fields. M o s t c o u r s e s r e q u i r e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y and p r e p a r a t i o n out of c l a s s . S t u d e n t s s e t h i g h s t a n d a r d s o f a c h i e v e m e n t f o r themselves . Class d i s c u s s i o n s are t y p i c a l l y intense or "heated" discussions. A l e c t u r e by an o u t s t a n d i n g s p e a k e r w o u l d 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 a r e v a l u e d 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 e a s y t o p a s s most c o u r s e s w i t h o u t w o r k i n g very hard. The s c h o o l i s o u t s t a n d i n g f o r t h e e m p h a s i s and support i t g i v e s to p u r e 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 . S t a n d a r d s s e t by the i n s t r u c t o r s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t hard to a c h i e v e . I t i s e a s y t o t a k e c l e a r n o t e s i n most c o u r s e s . The s c h o o l h e l p s e v e r y o n e g e t a c q u a i n t e d . S t u d e n t s o f t e n r u n e r r a n d s o r do o t h e r 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 a r e s t r o n g l y emphasized. The i n s t r u c t o r s go o u t o f t h e i r way t o h e l p y o u . T h e r e i s a g r e a t d e a l o f b o r r o w i n g and s h a r i n g among the s t u d e n t s . When s t u d e n t s r u n a p r o j e c t o r p u t on a show e v e r y b o d y knows a b o u t i t . Many u p p e r c l a s s m e n 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 s t u d e n t s a d j u s t to campus l i f e . S t u d e n t s 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 a n o t h e r to l i v e up to the e x p e c t e d c o d e s o f c o n d u c t . G r a d u a t i o n i s an u n e m o t i o n a l and o r d i n a r y e v e n t . 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 . S t u d e n t s a r e e n c o u r a g e d t o t a k e 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. S t u d e n t s a r e a c t i v e l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t n a t i o n a l and international affairs. T h e r e a r e 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 p e r s o n s 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 v a l u e s y s t e m s and t h e r e l a t i v i t y ethics.  36. 37.  P u b l i c debates a r e h e l d f r e q u e n t l y . 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 o f s t u d e n t discussion. T h e r e a r e 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 dual creative a c t i v i t y . There i s a l o t o f i n t e r e s t here i n p o e t r y , music, p a i n t i n g and l i t e r a t u r e . C o n c e r t s and a r t e x h i b i t s a l w a y s draw b i g crowds o f s tudents. S t u d e n t s a s k p e r m i s s i o n b e f o r e d e v i a t i n g f r o m common policies or p r a c t i c e s . M o s t s t u d e n t s ' rooms a r e d i s o r d e r l y . P e o p l e h e r e a r e a l w a y s t r y i n g t o w i n an a r g u m e n t . D r i n k i n g a l c o h o l i c b e v e r a g e s and l a t e p a r t i e s a r e generally tolerated, despite regulations. S t u d e n t s 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 o r rebellion. Many s t u d e n t s d r i v e m o t o r b i k e s . S t u d e n t s f r e q u e n t l y do t h i n g s i n t h e s p u r o f t h e moment. 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 institutions. The p e r s o n who i s a l w a y s t r y i n g t o " h e l p o u t " i s l i k e l y to be r e g a r d e d a s a n u i s a n c e . S t u d e n t s a r e c o n s c i e n t i o u s a b o u t t a k i n g good c a r e o f school property. The i m p o r t a n t p e o p l e a t t h i s s c h o o l e x p e c t o t h e r s t o show p r o p e r r e s p e c t f o r them. 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 . Everyone has a l o t o f f u n i n t h i s s c h o o l . I n many c l a s s e s s t u d e n t s have a n a s s i g n e d s e a t . S t u d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e c l o s e l y s u p e r v i s e d to guard against mistakes. Many s t u d e n t s t r y t o p a t t e r n t h e m s e l v e s a f t e r p e o p l e they admire. New f a d s and p h r a s e s a r e 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 . S t u d e n t s must h a v e a w r i t t e n e x c u s e f o r a b s e n c e f r o m class. 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 c o u r s e s s u c h as g a r d e n i n g and c o o k i n g .  38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.  i n the a n a l y s i s o f o f s o c i e t i e s and  iia 60.  61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.  S t u d e n t rooms a r e more l i k e l y t o be d e c o r a t e d w i t h p e n n a n t s and m a g a z i n e p i c t u r e s t h a n w i t h p a i n t i n g s and carvings. M o s t o f t h e i n s t r u c t o r s a r e v e r y t h o r o u g h t e a c h e r s and r e a l l y probe i n t o the fundamentals o f t h e i r s u b j e c t s . Most c o u r s e s a r e 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 . S t u d e n t s p u t a l o t o f e n e r g y i n t o e v e r y t h i n g t h e y do i n and o u t o f c l a s s . C o u r s e 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 sciences are outstanding. C o u r s e s , e x a m i n a t i o n s , and r e a d i n g s a r e f r e q u e n t l y revised. P e r s o n a l i t y , p u l l , and b l u f f g e t s t u d e n t s t h r o u g h many courses. T h e r e i s v e r y l i t t l e s t u d y i n g h e r e b e f o r e and a f t e r classes. T h e r e i s a l o t o f i n t e r e s t i n t h e p h i l o s o p h y and methods of science. P e o p l e a r o u n d h e r e seem t o t h r i v e on d i f f i c u l t y - t h e t o u g h e r t h i n g s g e t , t h e h a r d e r t h e y work. S t u d e n t s a r e v e r y s e r i o u s and p u r p o s e f u l a b o u t t h e i r work. ' 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 b e i n g v e r y f r i e n d l y . A l l s t u d e n t s must l i v e i n c o l l e g e a p p r o v e d b o a r d i n g houses. 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 t h e g o a l s and p u r p o s e s o f their courses. S t u d e n t s h a v e many o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o d e v e l o p 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 t h e w o r k o f o t h e r s . Most o f the f a c u l t y a r e n o t 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. S t u d e n t s q u i c k l y l e a r n what i s done and n o t done on t h i s campus. I t i s e a s y t o g e t a g r o u p t o g e t h e r f o r i n d o o r games, p i c n i c s , s i n g i n g and e t c . Students mostly share t h e i r problems. F a c u l t y members r a r e l y o r n e v e r c a l l s t u d e n t s by t h e i r f i r s t name. There i s a l o t o f group s p i r i t . Students a r e 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 . • 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 o r c o n v i c t i o n i s p r e t t y r a r e around h e r e . Many s t u d e n t s h e r e d e v e l o p a s t r o n g s e n s e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a b o u t t h e i r r o l e i n c o m t e m p o r a r y s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l life.  84.  85. 86. 87. 88.  89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.  T h e r e a r e a number o f p r o m i n e n t 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 tions . T h e r e w o u l d be a c a p a c i t y a u d i e n c e f o r a l e c t u r e by an outstanding speaker. C o u r s e o f f e r i n g s and f a c u l t y i n t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s a r e outstanding. Many famous p e o p l e a r e b r o u g h t t o t h e campus f o r l e c t u r e s , concerts, etc. 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 s t u d e n t s t o u n d e r s t a n d and c r i t i c i z e i m p o r t a n t works o f a r t , m u s i c , and drama. S p e c i a l museums o r c o l l e c t i o n s a r e i m p o r t a n t p o s s e s s i o n s of the c o l l e g e . Modern a r t and m u s i c g e t l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n h e r e . S t u d e n t s a r e e x p e c t e d t o r e p o r t any v i o l a t i o n o f r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . S t u d e n t p a r t i e s a r e c o l o r f u l and l i v e l y . T h e r e a l w a y s seem t o be a l o t o f l i t t l e q u a r r e l s g o i n g on. S t u d e n t s r a r e l y g e t d r u n k and d i s o r d e r l y . M o s t s t u d e n t s 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 control in their behavior. J e a n s and s e x y p i c t u r e s a r e common on t h i s campus. S t u d e n t s p l a y l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . C l a s s r o o m r a i d s , w a t e r f i g h t s , and o t h e r s t u d e n t m i s c h i e f s w o u l d be u n t h i n k a b l e . Many s t u d e n t s seem t o e x p e c t o t h e r p e o p l e t o a d a p t t o them r a t h e r t h a n t r y i n g t o a d a p t t h e m s e l v e s t o o t h e r s . B a l l games and o t h e r s p o r t s a r e a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f intramural a t h l e t i c s .  113 il'}  DESCRIPTION OF SCALES USED FROM THE EDWARDS PERSONALITY INVENTORY  Conforms. He a v o i d s d o i n g t h i n g s t h a t o t h e r p e o p l e mayr e g a r d as u n c o n v e n t i o n a l ; o b e y s r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s ; s e l d o m c r i t i c i z e s anyone i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y ; i s u n c o m f o r t a b l e i n the s i t u a t i o n s where he does n o t know what i s e x p e c t e d ; c o n f o r m s t o c u s t o m ; does n o t d i s l i k e b e i n g t o l d what to do; does n o t have t h e r e p u t a t i o n o f b e i n g a non-conformist; does n o t have a s t r o n g need to be independent of o t h e r s . Avoids F a c i n g Problems. He t e n d s t o p u t 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 m i n u t e ; f o r g e t s a n y t h i n g unpleasant t h a t h a p p e n s to him; i s d i s t r a c t e d f r o m any j o b he does n o t l i k e d o i n g ; p u t s o f f t h i n g s u n t i l t h e l a s t m i n u t e ; has t o be r e m i n d e d more t h a n o n c e a b o u t d o i n g an u n p l e a s a n t talk; does n o t f a c e p r o b l e m s r e a d i l y ; g e t s r i d o f a n x i e t y a b o u t s o m e t h i n g by n o t t h i n k i n g a b o u t i t . Dependent. He i s d e p e n d e n t upon o t h e r s f o r t h e s o l u t i o n o f h i s p r o b l e m s ; t u r n s t o 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 ; a s k s o t h e r s a b o u t s u g g e s t i o n s a b o u t p r o b l e m s he h a s ; tells o t h e r s a b o u t h i s p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s ; l i k e s to have o t h e r s 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 n o t h a v e d i f f i c u l t y a s k i n g o t h e r s f o r h e l p . Feels Superior. He b e l i e v e s he i s a b l e t o do t h i n g s 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 m i s t a k e s ; 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 t h e s t a t e m e n t s and o p i n i o n s o f o t h e r s ; sometimes g i v e s the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t he knows t h e a n s w e r t o e v e r y t h i n g ; i s c o n v i n c e d t h a t h i s o p i n i o n s a r e c o r r e c t ; goes h i s own way r e g a r d l e s s o f the d e c i s i o n o f the g r o u p . C r i t i c a l of Others. He i s s a r c a s t i c ; s a y s t h i n g s t h a t i r r i t a t e o t h e r s ; p o i n t s o u t m i s t a k e s 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 p e o p l e know where t h e y s t a n d ; l e t s o t h e r s know i f he d i s l i k e s them; i s b l u n t and o u t s p o k e n ; 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 with others.  Becomes A n g r y . He g e t s a n g r y 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 a n g r y g e t s a n g r y when someone t r i e s t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f h i m ; g e t s a n g r y when he c a n ' t f i n d what he i s l o o k i n g f o r ; becomes a n g r y when he has t o w a i t f o r o t h e r s ; does n o t g e t o v e r an a n g r y s p e l l q u i c k l y . (A. E d w a r d s , 1966, pp. 7-10)  QUESTIONNAIRE EDWARDS PERSONALITY INVENTORY  Dear F e l l o w S t u d e n t s : T h i s i n v e n t o r y c o n t a i n s a number o f s t a t e m e n t s t h a t o t h e r p e o p l e may u s e i n d e s c r i b i n g y o u . P r e s u m a b l y , anyone who h a s o b s e r v e d y o u o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d o f t i m e w o u l d be i n a p o s i t i o n t o j u d g e w h i c h o f t h e 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 y o u . Y o u r t a s k i s t o p r e d i c t f r a n k l y how t h e p e o p l e who know y o u w e l l ( p a r e n t o r f r i e n d e t c . ) w o u l d mark e a c h s t a t e m e n t . Use T f o r t r u e and F f o r false. I f y o u a r e i n d o u b t a b o u t how t h e p e r s o n who knows y o u w e l l w o u l d mark a s t a t e m e n t , p u t a q u e s t i o n mark ( ? ) b e s i d e y o u r answer. T h i s i s n o t a t e s t and t h e d a t a w i l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l . T h e r e i s no r i g h t o r wrong a n s w e r and t h e 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 h o n e s t y o u a r e i n a n s w e r i n g the s t a t e m e n t s . K i n d l y use the P a r t I I o f y o u r answer s h e e t . Thanks a g a i n .  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.  He p l a y s a n y game s t r i c t l y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e r u l e s . He t r i e s t o r e t r e a t f r o m a p r o b l e m r a t h e r t h a n f a c e up to i t . He d o e s n ' t b o t h e r o t h e r s w i t h h i s p r o b l e m s u n l e s s he find i t absolutely necessary. He sometimes g i v e s o t h e r s a n i m p r e s s i o n he knows t h e answer t o e v e r y t h i n g . He i s b l u n t and o u t s p o k e n . 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 a n g e r when someone h u r t s him. He i s i n c l i n e d t o f o l l o w h i s own i d e a s r a t h e r t h a n t o do what i s e x p e c t e d o f h i m . He h a s t r o u b l e f o r g e t t i n g a b o u t t h i n g s t h a t a r e p a s t and o v e r and t h a t c a n n o t be c h a n g e d . He i s v e r y d e p e n d e n t on o t h e r s f o r s o l u t i o n s t o h i s problems. He o f t e n d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t s and i d e a s e x p r e s s e d by h i s a s s o c i a t e s . He i s s a r c a s t i c a b o u t h i s comments a b o u t o t h e r s . He becomes a n g r y when he s e e s someone b e i n g m i s t r e a t e d . He w o u l d h e s i t a t e t o do a n y t h i n g t h a t o t h e r s might c o n s i d e r wrong.  14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.  He has been known t o f o r g e t a b o u t a p p o i n t m e n t s he d i d n ' t want t o k e e p . He s e l d o m t e l l s o t h e r s when he i s n o t f e e l i n g w e l l . He s e l d o m d i s c u s s e s any m i s t a k e s he has made. He has no h e s i t a t i o n i n t e l l i n g p e o p l e what he t h i n k s o f them. He i s the s o r t o f p e r s o n who i s n o t d i f f i c u l t t o make angry. He f e e l s u n c o m f o r t a b l e i f he i s a s k e d t o do s o m e t h i n g he has n e v e r done b e f o r e . He i s e a s i l y d i s t r a c t e d f r o m some j o b he has t o do b u t doesn't l i k e doing. He depends on h i s f r i e n d s t o h e l p h i m w i t h h i s p r o b l e m s . He i s w e l l i n f o r m e d a b o u t most t h i n g s . He i s o v e r l y f r a n k i n h i s comments a b o u t o t h e r s . He becomes so a n g r y t h a t he f e e l s l i k e t h r o w i n g o r breaking things. He does h i s b e s t t o p r e v e n t a n y o n e f r o m d o m i n a t i n g him. He t e n d s t o p u t 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 t h e v e r y l a s t moment. He t u r n s t o 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 . He s t i c k s t o a d e c i s i o n o n c e he has made i t . He s a y s t h i n g s t h a t i r r i t a t e o t h e r s . He g e t s a n g r y 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 . He o b e y s w i t h o u t 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 . He t e n d s t o f o r g e t a n y t h i n g u n p l e a s a n t t h a t h a p p e n s t o him. He k e e p s h i s t r o u b l e s t o h i m s e l f . He b e l i e v e s he knows more t h a n o t h e r s do a b o u t most things. He has a d i r e c t way o f s p e a k i n g t h a t c a n e a s i l y antagonize people. He r a i s e s h i s v o i c e when he g e t s a n g r y . He does n o t l i k e t o be t o l d what t o do. He f i n d s t h a t he c a n g e t r i d o f w o r r y o r a n x i e t y most e a s i l y by s i m p l y r e f u s i n g to t h i n k a b o u t i t . He t r i e s t o h a n d l e a l l o f h i s ' p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s by himself. He i s a good c r i t i c o f the p l a n s s u g g e s t e d by o t h e r s . He i s i n c l i n e d t o be c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r s . He s e l d o m g e t s a n g r y a b o u t a n y t h i n g . He c a n a l w a y s f i n d some r e a s o n f o r d o i n g what he wants t o do.  44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.  He has to be r e m i n d e d more t h a n once a b o u t d o i n g an unpleasant task. He goes t o o t h e r s f o r h e l p w h e n e v e r he has a p e r s o n a l problem. He r e s e n t s i t when o l d e r p e r s o n s t e l l h i m t h a t t h e y have had more e x p e r i e n c e than he h a s . He t e n d s t o 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 others. He g e t s a n g r y e a s i l y b u t g e t s o v e r i t q u i c k l y . He does t h i n g s t h a t o t h e r s r e g a r d as u n u s u a l . He e a s i l y f o r g e t s a b o u t t h e u n p l e a s a n t t h i n g s t h a t h a v e happened t o h i m . He l i k e s t o have o t h e r s h e l p him w i t h h i s p r o b l e m s . He has a g r e a t d e a l o f d r i v e t o g e t ahead i n t h e w o r l d . He o f t e n has c a u s e t o r e g r e t the t h i n g s he s a y s t o others. He g e t s a n g r y w i t h a n y o n e who t r i e s to r e s t r i c t h i s f r e e d o m t o do what he w a n t s . He r e s e n t s h a v i n g t o c o n f o r m t o t h e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e g r o u p he b e l o n g s t o . He p u t s t h i n g s o f f u n t i l t h e l a s t m i n u t e . He a l w a y s a s k s f o r s u g g e s t i o n s f r o m o t h e r s a b o u t any p r o b l e m he h a s . He i s a h a r d p e r s o n t o g e t t o c h a n g e h i s o p i n i o n s . He c r i t i c i z e s p e o p l e p u b l i c l y i f he f e e l s t h e y d e s e r v e it. He s e l d o m g e t s a n g r y w i t h o t h e r s . He has a t r a i t o f n o n - c o n f o r m i t y i n h i m . He does n o t r u n away when f a c e d w i t h a p r o b l e m . He t u r n s t o h i s f r i e n d s f o r sympathy when he i s d e p r e s s e d . He i s u s u a l l y c o n v i n c e d t h a t h i s o p i n i o n s a r e r i g h t and those o f o t h e r s a r e wrong. He d o e s n ' t h e s i t a t e t o c r i t i c i z e h i s s u p e r i o r s . He g e t s o v e r an a n g r y s p e l l q u i c k l y . He u s u a l l y manages t o do what he wants t o do. He has d i f f i c u l t y f o r g e t t i n g a b o u t t h e embarrassing t h i n g s t h a t have happened t o him. He d o e s n ' t b u r d e n o t h e r s w i t h h i s p r o b l e m s . He goes h i s own way r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e group. He i s v e r y c a n d i d and b l u n t i n t h e t h i n g s he s a y s t o others. He g e t s a n g r y when he c a n ' t f i n d s o m e t h i n g he i s l o o k i n g for.  He a v o i d s d o i n g unconventional.  things  that other  people  might  consider  He p u t s o f f u n p l e a s a n t t a s k s and a s s i g n m e n t s f o r as l o n g as p o s s i b l e . He d o e s n ' t l i k e t o be h e l p e d when he i s i n t r o u b l e . He i s o b s e s s e d when he f i n d s t h a t o t h e r s know more a b o u t s o m e t h i n g t h a n he d o e s . 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 a n g r y when he has t o 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 n o t f a c e p r o b l e m s r e a d i l y . He r e a d i l y t e l l s o t h e r s a b o u t h i s p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s . 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 o t h e r s w h i c h he disagrees with. He has d i f f i c u l t y i n n o t b e i n g r u d e t o someone he dislikes. He g e t s a n g r y i f h i s b e l o n g i n g s a r e 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 n o n - c o n f o r m i s t . He does h i s b e s t to f o r g e t about any o f h i s p a s t failures. He h e s i t a t e s t o a s k o t h e r s f o r h e l p . He h a s d i f f i c u l t y a c c e p t i n g g r o u p d e c i s i o n s i f he does n o t a g r e e w i t h them. He l e t s p e o p l e know where t h e y s t a n d w i t h h i m . He g e t s a n g r y i f someone t r i e s t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f h i s friendship. He has a c c e p t e d most o f t h e b e l i e f s and v a l u e s o f h i s parents. He t r i e s t o r e l i e v e t h e a n x i e t y c a u s e d by a d i f f i c u l t p r o b l e m by p u t t i n g o f f h a v i n g t o f a c e i t . He r e f u s e s t o l e t o t h e r s h e l p h i m when he has a p e r s o n a l problem. He s e l d o m a d m i t s he i s w r o n g . He h a s d i f f i c u l t y b e i n g f r a n k w i t h o t h e r s when he f e e l s t h e y w i l l n o t l i k e what he h a s t o s a y t o them. He c o n f o r m s t o c u s t o m . He a v o i d s f a c i n g a p r o b l e m as l o n g as he p o s s i b l y c a n . He has a s t r o n g need t o be d e p e n d e n t on o t h e r s . He r e g a r d s h i s own o p i n i o n as more l i k e l y t o be r i g h t than those o f o t h e r s . He h a s a d i r e c t way o f s p e a k i n g t h a t tends to a n t a g o n i z e some p e o p l e . He i s a v e r y u n u s u a l p e r s o n . He c a n h a n d l e any p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m w i t h o u t a s s i s t a n c e from o t h e r s .  103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125.  He b e l i e v e s t h a t he i s a b l e t o do most t h i n g s b e t t e r than other people c a n . He has a t e n d e n c y t o s a y s a r c a s t i c t h i n g s . He h a s a s t r o n g need t o be i n d e p e n d e n t o f o t h e r s . He t e l l s o t h e r s a b o u t h i s p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s and difficulties. He s t r o n g l y d e f e n d s h i s o p i n i o n s when d i s c u s s i n g them with others. He s e l d o m l e t s o t h e r s know how he f e e l s a b o u t them. He i s u n c o m f o r t a b l e i n a n y s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h he does n o t know c l e a r l y what i s e x p e c t e d o f h i m . He has d i f f i c u l t i e s a s k i n g o t h e r s f o r h e l p . He l i k e s t o t r y t o show o t h e r p e o p l e t h a t t h e y a r e w r o n g and he i s r i g h t . He s a y s t h i n g s t h a t o t h e r s r e s e n t . He s e l d o m 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 . He d o e s n ' t want o t h e r s t o e x p r e s s a n y sympathy t o h i m at a l l . He h a s 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 . He b e l i e v e s i n b e i n g f r a n k w i t h o t h e r s , e v e n when he knows t h a t what he s a y s may h u r t t h e i r f e e l i n g s . He f i n d s i t v e r y e a s y t o p o i n t o u t t h e f a u l t s i n o t h e r s . He t e n d s t o be c r i t i c a l o f t h e m i s t a k e s o f o t h e r s . He d o e s n ' t h e s i t a t e t o g i v e some s i g n o f h i s f e e l i n g s i f he d i s l i k e s someone. He d o e s n ' t h e s i t a t e t o p o i n t o u t m i s t a k e s by o t h e r s . He f i n d s f a u l t s w i t h o t h e r s . He i s c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r people. He has an a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y . He d o e s n ' t h e s i t a t e t o c r i t i c i z e someone who i s i n a position of authority. He keeps h i s o p i n i o n s a b o u t o t h e r s t o h i m s e l f .  LEADERSHIP TRAITS RATING FORM (FOR CLASS ADVISERS) Confidential  Date  Direction for r a t i n g : Please read very c a r e f u l l y the description of leadership t r a i t s and numerical values of ratings below. Although the leadership behavior of students may vary from day to day, i t i s usually possible to select from the range of behavior the one that i s generally c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the student. Kindly indicate by assigning the appropriate number of your r a t i n g in the continuum which best describes the i n d i v i d u a l student concerned. Is a leader. He i s regarded as a good committee chairman; can be counted upon to bring a group discussion to some form of common agreement; l i k e s to t e l l others how a job should be done; i s able to give orders to others i n a way that makes others w i l l i n g to accept them; i s regarded by others as a good leader; l i k e s to be i n a position where he can influence others; i s able to get others to support his decision; l i k e s to make the decisions for the group. (A. Edwards, 1966, p. 7). Scale Rating Equivalent: Numerical Rating of: Value d e f i n i t i o n of numeral r a t i n g continuum 1 displays t r a i t i n a high degree 2 displays t r a i t i n a marked degree 3 displays t r a i t i n a moderate degree 4 displays very l i t t l e of the t r a i t 5 does not display the t r a i t at a l l Name of student (Family name f i r s t , Males followed by Females) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  ; ;  Evaluation of Leadership Traits (Encircle appropriate number) 1 1 1 1 1 1  2' 2 2 2 2 2  3 3 3 3 3 3  4 4 4 4 4 4  5 5 5 5 5 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