University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Academic And Non-Academic Achievement Of Freshmen And Seniors At Azusa Pacific College

(USC Thesis Other)

Academic And Non-Academic Achievement Of Freshmen And Seniors At Azusa Pacific College

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 72-6071
JONES, Clinton William, 1919-
ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF
FRESHMEN AND SENIORS AT AZUSA PACIFIC COLLEGE.
[Pages 102-109, "Survey of Educational Status
and Progress", not microfilmed at request of
author. Available for consultation at the
University of Southern California Library].
University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1971
Education, higher
I University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Copyright by
CLINTON WILLIAM JONES
1971
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
OF FRESHMEN AND SENIORS AT
AZUSA PACIFIC COLLEGE
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Clinton William Jones
August 1971
This dissertation, w ritten under the direction
of the Chairm an of the candidate’s Guidance
Com m ittee and approved by a ll members of the
Com m ittee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
p artial fu lfillm e n t of the requirements fo r the
degree o f D octor of Education.
D a „ .............
Guidance Committee
/2U~X- B
Chairm an
T7. >71 < * A
PLEASE NOTE:
Some Pages have in d istin ct
p r in t. Filmed as received.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS
DEDICATION
This dissertation is lovingly dedicated to
June, my wife, companion, and helper; and to our three
children, Clint, Jr., Priscilla and Jeannine, who have
shared cheerfully in this experience.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication......................................... ii
List of Tables..................................... v
Chapter
I. THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY.......... 1
Introduction
Purpose
Statement of the Problem
Importance of the Study
Limitation of the Study
II„ REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................... 15
Background
Intellective Factors as Related to
College Achievement and Success
Non-Intellective Factors
Non-Intellective Factors Relating to
College Achievement
Assessment of the College
Environment and Student Characteristics
III. SOURCE OF DATA.............................. 53
Introduction
Setting
Method and Procedure
The Instrument Used
Statement of the Problem
Hypotheses
IV. FINDINGS..................................... 63
Introduction
Results
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................... 87
Summary
Conclusions
Re c ommen da t i on s
iii
REFERENCES .
APPENDICES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
64
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
78
80
LIST OF TABLES
Comparison of Female Freshmen and Senior
Students ...................................
Comparison of Male Freshmen and Senior
Students ...................................
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Leisure
Time Activities............................
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Leadership
Participation..............................
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Social
Participation..............................
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Art
Participation..............................
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Social
Service.....................................
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Humanistic
and Cultural Activities....................
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Religious
Service.................................. .
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Music . . .
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Writing . .
Frequency of Freshmen and Senior Speech
and Drama...................................
Mean Number of Positive Selections by
Area .....................................
Comparison of Azusa Pacific College
Characteristics............................
v
vi
Table Page
15. Analysis of Weighted Responses to
Experiences at Azusa Pacific College
Between Freshmen and Senior Students
by GPA Classification— Group I ............ 83
16. Analysis of Weighted Responses to
Experiences at Azusa Pacific College
Between Freshmen and Senior Students
by GPA Classification— Group II ..... 84
17. Analysis of Weighted Responses to
Experiences at Azusa Pacific College
Between Freshmen and Senior Students
by GPA Classification— Group III ..... 85
CHAPTER I
THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Higher education has been subjected to increased
scrutiny and criticism in the past decade and as a conse
quence the institutions themselves have been in the process
of examining the entire realm of academic and non-academic
achievement. Jencks and Reisman (1969) in their book The
Academic Revolution detailed this criticism and indicated
that "the public is growing more skeptical about educa
tors' claims for their institutions; money for higher
education is harder to raise and autonomy harder to main
tain." (p. ix Preface) Silberman (1970) in Crisis in the
Classroom presented a disturbing picture of current edu
cational practice and he suggested an imaginative overhall
of the entire educational system.
College students also have been highly critical of
their experiences in institutions of higher learning.
This has been the consensus of several authors: Keniston
(1965), Summerskill (1962), Bell (1966), Seligman (1969),
Drucker (1969).
As a result, psychologists and specialists in
2
higher education have joined to reform the process of
higher education and have provided impetus for fresh per
spectives and research. Jerome Bruner (1960) has been
one of the chief architects of curricular reform of edu
cation on all levels. The dominant theme of much of the
reform has been reflected by Bell (1966). He insisted
that the way to reconcile the old tradition of liberal
i
education and the new tradition of specialization is
through an emphasis on the means of communication and the
conduct and strategy of intellectual inquiry.
Increased interest has been manifested in student
growth and development which has resulted in the expansion
of emphasis on the emotional, social, and cultural factors
that influence achievement. Also, a wider view of the
educative process itself has been under investigation.
According to Heist and McConnell (1959):
All too little is known statistically or
experimentally about the relationship between
the personality characteristics students bring
to college and their academic achievement,
either in the conventional sense of grades and
persistence, or in the more subtle sense of
independent, critical, and creative intellectual
competence (which are seldom reflected in
academic marks). Even less is known about the
relationship between personality structure and
the attainment of personal maturity and effectiveness,
(pp. 441-452)
Traditionally, measures of academic potential were the
chief methods used to determine admission to college. If
3
we were only interested in the student who would perform
well in the classroom in college, this kind of emphasis on
academic potential would lead to the neglect of other areas
of the student's life which are equally important and
worthy of development. If selection were limited to
grades, we limit ourselves to the study of units rather
than to the observance of the college student and his
relationship to the configuration of his total experience
in higher education. Brown (1962) reflected this when he
said:
Education is not a disembodied process that can
be applied to an individual much as a bright
finish is sprayed on a new automobile at the
proper point in its development. Rather it is a
complex, dynamic, and poorly defined process . . .
which is continually going on as a part of the
total developmental history of the individual.
(pp. 536-562)
Other areas of values are important and certainly
social and human values are worth noting. Students who do
outstanding things outside of the classroom as well as
during later life should have opportunities for growth in
their specialties. This does not suggest that the non
classroom achievements in college are good predictors of
success in adult life, but they just might be.
Sanford (1962) seriously questioned the grade-point
average as a measure of college success:
Success in college is usually measured in terms
of grades in academic subjects--the academic
average. This is the criterion of success that
is almost always used by psychologists in their
efforts to develop tests that will predict success
in college. This is success from the view of the
college. But it may not be success from the point
of view of the student, or that of other interested
people, (pp. 74-192)
A similar feeling was expressed by Holland and
Richards (1965):
In the last five years, the study of effective
performance in schools and colleges, extra
curricular activities and vocations has pro
duced many findings which suggest that academic
success and measurements of academic potential
have little relationship to effective performance
outside the classroom. (PP« 165-174)
Educational goals have to do with academic develop
ments in the students, and frequently ignore the develop
ment of his personality. It is impossible to think of a
student's success solely in terms of his ability to master
specific courses or to attain adequate grades in a given
subject. In the perspective of personality, one question
is always asked: "What kinds of changes in students do
take place in college?" To be able to answer this, we
should know what the student is like when he first enters
college and we would have to consider him as a whole
person at a level in his development. The Jacobs (1957)
report assembled much evidence that colleges rarely suc
ceeded in bringing about changes of attitude in their
students and that one of the main contributions of a
college experience was to make students alike. According
to Riesman and Jenck (1962) investigations have been made
by psychologists generally concerned with the force of a
specific course, or the four-year sequence of courses on
the emotional and intellectual development of individual
students. This was to be expected, but it needed to be
supplemented by sociological field work that embraced not
only the students, but also the campus culture, including
the "faculty culture" as well as other sub-groups that
compose the college.
The Vassar (1957) study was concerned with the
effect of students1 educational experience on changes in
attitude, but studies like this are relatively few. As
late as 1959, Sprague, in a study of colleges in eleven
western states found that only four colleges were con
ducting studies of behavioral changes. Of the 600 insti
tutions involved, all were conducting research that dealt
with students but only 3 per cent included student
characteristics other than the degree of academic achieve
ment which related to a successful college experience.
Summerskill (1962) stated that students invariably
wondered if they would "fit" the program at a specific
college and if they would have a satisfactory experience.
Unfortunately, many young college students do not have a
satisfying experience and drop out of school before
finishing their courses. Statistical estimates for the
nation indicate that 60 per cent never finish their degree.
Dropping out has serious economic and administrative
repercussions as well as emotional traumas for the indi
vidual student. Studies have pinpointed many contributing
factors or reasons for dropping out such as finance, sex,
adjustment, vocational problems, et cetera, but as a sug
gestion for further research, Sanford (1962) contended that
environmental determinants of attrition "might obtain evi
dence that the phenomenon had less to do with factors in
the student than with a certain condition in the college
itself, and this condition might immediately assume greater
practical importance than withdrawal because it was not
perceived as something that affected all students." (pp. 74-
192) One of the fundamental problems in the understanding
of student development in the college years is to find what
the student "mix" should be for individual and collective
development. The answer is probably most complex and dif
ficult to determine and evaluate. Will students from
well-to-do families involve themselves in social life to
the extent their studies suffer, or will students from poor
families avoid social life and devote all their energies
to study to make up for their social inadequacies?
A great deal of information is available which
enables researchers to compare student bodies of differing
institutions of higher learning. Notable studies which
contributed much by Stern, Stein, Bloom (1956), and Stern
and Cope (1956) divided students into four categories.
7
Three of these groups were copiously spread on a variety of
campuses. He labeled these groups stereopaths (authori
tarians), non-stereopaths (anti-authoritarian^, rationals
and irrationals. Institutions differed in their repre
sentations of these groups. Irrationals were found in
limited numbers on campuses but on these same campuses
there were large numbers of stereopaths. Rationals
appeared to be randomly distributed among the campuses.
Another interesting study done by the Center for
the Study of Higher Education at Berkeley noted that col
lege students who differ in personality and motivation
were non-randomly distributed in colleges and universities.
No institution of higher learning can predict
whether or not a student will have a rewarding experience.
There are no expectancy tables to reflect this achievement.
Fishman (1962). Individual colleges offer their catalogues
and supplemental information in order to inform their
constituency of what their environment is, but this at
best is lifeless and unadorned so that the meat of the
college experience is missing.
The College Characteristic Index is a measure of
thirty kinds of press that may characterize the under
graduate experience. It has made a significant contri
bution to the analysis of the relationships between the
students1 needs and the press of the environment of the
college. Some findings worthy of note reflect the
8
character of higher education. Conformity and constraint
characterize the major share of the college environments
according to Pace and Stern (1958). There are exceptions
to this rule; notable the small but elite private colleges,
which seem to emphasize freedom and informality according
to Thistlewaite (1960).
The students who were tested in these colleges
described needs which were analogous to the environmental
press. Is this the result of the impact of the influential
areas of college?
Research studies by Seymour (1966) indicated that
students and adults perceived the college environments in
differing ways. Assuming this was correct, Ivey (1967)
said:
This suggests a need to consider each student's
perception of the environment in order to better
understand the individual's interaction with
various aspects of the environment. However, the
most important consideration may be the extent to
which each student perceives the environment as
possessing a greater or lesser degree of what he
feels the environmental characteristics should be.
(pp. 17-21)
The problem of "considering each student's
perception" in terms of "what he feels the environment
characteristics should be" relates to the measurement of
non-academic appraisals and makes educators aware of the
need for a gratifying college experience for students.
A series of studies emanating from the University
of California's Center for Higher Education
9
suggests the possibility that student's achieve
ments may bear direct relationship to the kind of
intellectual and social environment which they
encounter on a campus and their own personal per
ceptions of the congruence of such environments
with their own desires. Such relationships have
been found to be a factor in mortality rates and
perseverance. (Heist and Webster, 1960, pp. 91-106)
The faculty and administrators, then, must not be
distracted from the basic problems of defining the dimen
sions of college success arbitrarily because of their own
knowledge and ability but of necessity must evaluate the
experience as the student is aware of it. No doubt this
will lead them to act on the fact that there is not one
kind of excellence.
What are significant characteristics of an insti
tution which produces changes in values? What happens
when there is dissonance between the college's philosophy
and the student's perception? Are the expectations of a
freshman confirmed or disappointed as he progresses
through his years in college? How does undergraduate
instruction influence student accomplishment? Do high and
low achieving students differ in the way they perceive
their college experiences? The answer to these questions
becomes quite urgent when we consider the increasing
numbers of students attending college with their diverse
talents. It is the press of such problems that has led to
this present study.
10
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine whether
college freshmen and college seniors differed signifi
cantly in the way they "perceived” their college experi
ences. Since student concepts of the perception of the
college experience did not necessarily relate to objective
measurement, such as the college grade point average, some
other criterion was assumed to be more usable. The cri
terion in this study was taken to be the student's esti
mate of his own satisfaction to the various areas of the
standardized Survey of Education Status and Progress.
Description
Azusa Pacific College is an interdenominational
Christian college of the liberal arts and Bible. It is
located on two separate but adjacent campuses in the
southern California communities of Azusa and Glendora.
Azusa Pacific College has a spiritual heritage which is
footed deeply in the Christian tradition and which has
been transmitted through more than a half century of higher
education. In keeping with this heritage the college
seeks to provide, for those who choose this type of insti
tution, an opportunity to enjoy academic pursuits sur
rounded by an environment which is conducive to spiritual
growth. In addition APC attempts to deal with the
problems of the day. In classes, in chapel services, and
11
in faculty discussion groups with the students, open
discussion is permitted. Students are encouraged to par
ticipate in community activities and the cultural oppor
tunities of the area.
Azusa Pacific College is an accredited member of the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges and holds
membership in the Association of American Colleges, the
National Commission on Accrediting and the Association of
California Colleges and Universities.
Approximately a thousand students are currently
enrolled. The majority come from California but many
states and foreign countries are also represented in the
student body.
In addition to the high school record, each fresh
man must present scores from the American College Test
(ACT). If a student is marginal in his academic perfor
mance in high school then the student's ACT scores are
used for predicting or as an additional factor to determine
probable success in college. ACT profiles are used in
ascertaining students' interests, as a counseling tool,
and in providing financial assistance. The mean score for
freshmen is 19.5.
A secondary purpose of the study was to enable the
faculty and administration to evaluate the broad pattern
of relationships between the various kinds of students and
their behaviors in college, as well as to assist in the
12
task of providing a diverse program of academic and non-
academic experiences to fill the needs which are conscious
ly expressed by students.
Questions to be answered:
1. Is college satisfaction related to the college
grade point average?
2. Is college satisfaction related to one's
status in college? For example, do seniors view their
experience more favorably than do freshmen?
3. Is college satisfaction related to differences
in sex?
4. Do seniors participate more in non-academic
pursuits than do freshmen?
5. Are college freshmen who perceive themselves
as having certain kinds of values more apt to express
dissatisfaction with college characteristics than are
seniors?
Statement of the Problem
The study has attempted to determine the differ
ences in the way freshmen college students and senior
college students perceived their college environment. It
was hoped that student opinion would enable Azusa Pacific
College to see its services and programs more clearly, to
recognize its strengths, and to explore and assess its
weaknesses.
13
Also considered and examined were externally derived
data including college grade point average of freshmen and
seniors; sex and its relation to the students' experiences
in college.
Importance of the Study
This study resulted from the investigator's obser
vations that students regarded some non-academic achieve
ments as important as, or more important to them and their
total college experiences than were reflected by the grades
they earned. Many students felt that finding a measure of
independence, developing a set of friendships, and sharing
a room in the dorm were basic contributors to the success
ful four years they spent at a given institution. Achieve
ment varies among college students. With their individual
differences they are likely to benefit from higher educa
tion. By determining the nature of the differing areas of
emphasis selected by college students, it was felt our
understanding of the college student and the college
environment would be greatly enhanced.
There are many intriguing implications for the edu
cational psychologists in the fact that we ask the student
to evaluate his own feelings about the success of his
experience in college. For example, what are the impli
cations if students in freshman classes differ from
students in senior classes only in their attitudes or
14
behavioral relationships with teachers? Perhaps we need
to focus more of our attention on the ability of a college
to see itself through the eyes of its students in order
that their perceptions may be used to increase the quality
of education.
Limitation of the Study
The scope of this study is defined by the choice of
subjects and the selection of the instrument. The
subjects were freshmen and seniors enrolled at Azusa
Pacific College in the 1969 term; therefore, the results
can only be applied to that institution. The instrument
used was the Survey of Educational Status and Progress
(ACT 1967) plus an additional ten items, desighed by the
writer, which related to the students at Azusa Pacific
College.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Background
Two general approaches toward the evaluation of
college achievement are prevalent in the literature.
Fishman (1962) makes the distinction between "intellective"
and "non-intellective" and he feels that although the
distinction is not always demarcated it is useful con
ceptually. He defines "intellective" as a method of
measuring and evaluating intellectual products and levels
and not the intellective process which would consider
intellectuality as a personality component or as a value
component. The non-intellective variables referred to in
the literature related to the personality factors inherent
in the student or in the college environment. Probably
this is the most ambiguous area because it is much more
difficult to arrive at a consensus concerning non-
intellective criteria, for the non-intellective goals of
higher institutions are probably not those of the general
public. Stern (1963) preferred the term intellectualized
and less intellectualized for similar concepts.
The investigations of the intellective factors have
been most prolific primarily because these factors were
15
16
considered predictors of college success. So numerous are
these studies that one authority, Fishman (1962), has said,
"This research area is undoubtedly among those most inten
sively investigated in the entire field of educational
research.” (pp. 666-689)
The majority of studies aimed to predict student
achievement in college from the assessment of student
achievement and potential in high school; however, many
investigations were related to similar problems. Among
these were the problems of the relationship between creati
vity and academic potential, the prediction of aduljt
accomplishment, and the relation between GPA and the
attainment of a college degree.
Intellective Factors as Related to
College Achievement and Success
The omnipresent GPA was the criterion for college
achievement in the majority of studies and although tre
mendous effort and expense have gone into this problem of
prediction, there was a scarcity of studies devoted to the
meaning of grades according to Holland and Richards (1965),
a circumstance responsible, in part, for Fishman’s (1962)
recent plea for a moratorium on prediction.
The question sometimes asked, "What do college
grades predict?" The question is relevant because grades
are the chief method of evaluating the student’s college
17
performance. They also are important because they do
determine, in part, the degree and type of educational
institution available to the student. Practically all
colleges determine the major part of their probation and
dismissal policies by the academic record. Students who
fail to earn a prescribed grade point average may be denied
admission to graduate. If there are low grades, it is
sometimes difficult to transfer to other institutions or
at least to have the low grades transferred. The GPA is
generally used to limit the academic load a student may
take, to determine his eligibility to participate in
extra-curricular activities such as sports or music, or
even to recommend him for employment. To go to college is
to join what commencement orators call "the fellowship of
educated men" but what Vance Packard (1958) in The Status
Seekers, more skeptically dubbed "the diploma elite."
Criterion for college achievement is based on high
school grades and/or first semester or first year grade
point average. Schroeder and Sledge (1966) did a vast
number of studies including sixty recent first hand studies
and a review of 1,000 studies published in the past. They
found that intellective factors used to predict college
success were in the order of their importance: high achieve
ment, rank in class, subject matter test scores, and
measure of the student's mental ability. It is significant
18
to note that these research studies indicated that grades
in specific high school courses appeared to correlate more
highly with similar college courses than with overall col
lege grades.
Many of the prediction studies reported a fairly
consistent validity of certain prediction variables.
According to McCormick (1964) the correlation between high
school achievement and college grades was about .56;
between achievement scores and college freshman grades,
about .49; and between a measure of intelligence and col
lege freshman achievement, about .45. Munday (1965)
stated that the r's obtained at various institutions using
the above variables, varied greatly. In the distribution
of several hundred r's obtained from colleges and univer
sities in this country, the r's ranged from .29 through
.80. He felt the variability depended on one or more of
the following factors: from campus to campus--(l) the
criterion is different, (2) the sample is different, or
(3) the r's themselves unreliably represent the true
associations between predicators and criteria, due to
careless reporting, atypical student samples or other
unusual circumstances.
Seashore (1962) reported that academic achievement
was more predictable for girls than for boys. Lavin's
(1965) report proved that considerable literature existed
on academic studies.
19
Hoyt (1968) used two measures to predict grades— one
reflected the high school record and the other reflected
performance on a standardized test of academic potential.
The high school average (HSA) is the average of four self-
reported grades, and it was used with the American College
Test (ACT). Grades earned in the senior year were excluded
so that usually these grades reflected accomplishment in
the junior year. One finding indicated that the typical
girl had an HSA which was .33 higher than the typical boy,
and girls also had a college GPA that was .29 above that of
the males; however, the ACT scores for girls averaged .33
below that for boys. The study included a profile for
predicting achievement of students based on the above
criterion.
In other studies the criterion was the prediction of
adult achievement (vocational achievement). Relatively
little has been reported in terms of criteria which might
reflect other aspects of academic success such as community
leadership, intellectual activities, family life happiness I
or esthetic appreciation.
A total of 139 members of the University of Utah's
medical graduating class of 1955-1959 were included in a
study by Richards and Taylor (1965) on the relationship
between college grades and adult achievement. Officials
of the hospital had routinely written letters evaluating
the performance of these interns. Two judges independently
quantified the hospital evaluations in a five point
ranking scale. An objective measure was combined with
this rating to form a second criterion; presumably this
measure accounted for differences in hospitals. Four
academic measures were correlated with each criterion.
These included undergraduate GPA plus GPA for each of the
three years in medical school. Undergraduate GPA was
unrelated to either criterion (r's = .06 + .03). The
third year GPA was significantly related to both criterion ;
(r's = .33 + .45). Since the best predictions were made
from third year grades and since the third year emphasized
clinical work more than academic pursuits, the conclusions
indicated that academic performance and performance as a
medical intern were either unrelated or related only
slightly.
In the last few years the amount of literature con
cerned with the relationship between grade point averages
and college achievement has been waning. Probably two
reasons contribute to this decline. In the first place the
vast amount of literature indicates that this relationship
yields about the same predictive value of marks and test
scores, with a median coefficient of .55. The second
reason points to the fact that the academic success and
measures of academic potential have little relationship to
effective performance outside the classroom.
Holland and Richards (1965) stated that GPA as a
21
criterion neglected other important aspects of performance
which were related to non-academic successes. They used
ACT and GPA as .measures of academic achievement and the
American College Survey as a measure of students' non-
academic achievements in the realm of attitudes, interests,
aspirations, potentials, values and backgrounds. Seven
thousand two hundred sixty-two freshmen from thirty-one
institutions responded. Results revealed a low magnitude
of correlations between academic and non-academic perfor
mance. The highest correlation was .23 with a median of
only .04. Twenty-six per cent of the correlations were
negative. "If a sponsor is interested only in finding
students who will do well in the classroom in college,
then high school grades and tests of academic potential
are the best techniques available." On the other hand,
the authors were careful to conclude, "if academic talent
had a substantial relationship with vocational and other
non-classroom achievement then this intense pervasive
concern with academic achievement would be less dis
turbing." (pp. 165-174)
The criteria of academic achievement may have a
negative effect also in that its use alone may penalize
creativity. Getzels (1960) wrote that high scores on
tests and grades resulted more from a narrow and rigid
interpretation of the scores than they did from creative
or innovative behavior. "Creativity is penalized since
22
the creative student is apt to give a highly original
answer which may not score correctly or be appreciated.”
(pp. 21-28)
Brown (1962) noted that students obtain grades in
different ways. A brilliant, flexible, independent student
and a persistent, well-disciplined, well-organized student
may both earn the same grade. Intellectual predictors
alone do not throw light on the motivational problem.
Feder (1965) noted that high and low achievers with
relatively the same intellectual ability may exhibit very
different personality differences. Low achievers demon
strated a higher self-concept than did the high achievers.
His reason is couched in this statement of explanation:
They were more concerned with their relationship
as persons to a larger social group or even to a
larger social order .... Higher egocentrism
was correlated with higher achievement. Moreover,
using conventional terminology, one may say that
egocentrism was characteristic of the over-
achiever. (pp. 29-37)
In other studies the criterion has been persistent
towards a college degree with concomitant attention on the
problem of attention and even on under achievement as
related to this. Summerskill (1926) reviewed the litera
ture in thirty-five different studies, from 1913 to the
present and found that the median loss was 50 per cent,
and the median per cent graduating rates recorded in these
studies ranged from 12 per cent to 82 per cent. Forty per
cent of college students graduate after the standard four
23
years; however, approximately 20 per cent more graduate
eventually. Pitcher (1969) felt that with the college
drop out because of failure there was a low correlation
between grades received and amount learned. He found that
frequently with very average grades in high school the
bright under-achiever had retained more from high school
curriculum than half or three quarters of college students.
At the opposite end, there were students whose relative
position in the high school class placed them in the upper
third or one-half of the class, but whose retention of
high school content was very low in comparison to the
typical college student. The pattern of test scores fre
quently found with the non-typical student was the pattern
with significantly lower scores on the verbal sections of
the tests. For instance, a student might have had a
language I.Q. of 98 and a non.-language I.Q. of 116. Arti
ficial conditions might have distorted the normal develop
ment of verbal facility and as a result the verbal area
did not accurately reflect potential but did influence
one’s college attendance or perseverance in school.
In summary, the tremendous volume of research into
the predictive value of intellective criteria has been
useful in predicting college grades; however, there seems
to be a diminution of research interest in this area inas
much as the intellective criterion measures do not take
into consideration other areas of human talent and of
24
higher education. There also appears to be a scarcity of
studies devoted to the meaning of grades.
The Non-Intellective Factors
The non-intellective factors involved not only the
college student's motives, values, adjustments and per
sonality, but they also included the college environment
and the cluster of divisions that made for the milieu of
institutions of higher learning.
Colleges differ widely in numerous ways--in their
standards of work, level of entrance requirements,
atmosphere--as well as other relevant areas. A number of
research studies have documented this diversity in higher
education.
Heist and McConnell (1962) sampled 200 colleges and
found that the average score on the American Council on
Education Psychological Examination ranged from 37.5 to
142,2 with a mean score of 104.4. When converted to
percentiles the two extreme mean scores were equivalent to
the first and 92nd percentiles. Goldsen, et al0, (1960)
found similar diversification in their eleven college
study. They found, for example, that 80 per cent of the
students at Fisk University felt that vocational training
should be stressed, whereas only 30 per cent of Harvard
students selected this as an emphasis.
Pace (1960) found two factors which accounted for
25
the major diversities among college environments. He
classified these differences as intellectual and social.
The intellectual dimension ran from a high stress on
abstract, theoretical, scholarly understanding up to a
high stress on practical status-oriented concerns. The
social dimension ran from a high stress on groups welfare
to a rebellion against group life.
The college climate and its constituent elements of
classroom atmosphere, dormitory facilities, and campus
setting have been a source of much investigation. Compli
cated processes loom large in the corporate life of a
college and from the observations of these processes one
is able to make inferences concerning the general "climate1
which probably stamps its imprint on students who remain
there for four years. Knapp and Greenbaum (1952) put
more stress on the impact of the college and its students
than they did on the quality of the students0 More recent
studies have disagreed with their findings. Holland's
(1957) research substantiated this in that he emphasized
the importance of the quality of students.
Astin's (1968) startling study of undergraduate
achievement and institutional excellence did not confirm
Knapp and Greenbaum's statement. Astin attempted to test
empirically this assumption: "In the folklore of higher
education it is assumed that the student's learning and
intellectual development will be enhanced if he attends a
’high quality’ institution." (pp. 661-668) He sampled
669 freshmen from 248 accredited four-year colleges. The
study was longitudinal so the students were identified
during a four-year period. The institutions were measured
for quality by chiefly using two indices of institutional
quality namely: (1) selectivity of entering students; and
(2) per-student expenditures for education and general
purposes. The evidence did not support their hypothesis
that a student's achievement in various disciplines is
facilitated either by the intellectual level of his class
mates or the financial resources of the institution. In
addition to this result no evidence was found to support
the contention that the "bright" student profited more than
the average student in such "quality" institutions. There
was some evidence in the findings to indicate that student
achievement was affected by institutional characteristics
other than the measures of quality already stated;
however, these effects were relatively small.
Dissatisfaction with the climate of the college was
a strong contributor to attrition among undergraduate
students according to Baer (1968). The National Merit
Scholarship in 1965 contacted 60,078 students who had been
tested as freshmen. One half of the number of individuals
who had withdrawn from college reported they had done so
because of dissatisfaction with the college environment.
Colleges do not constitute a societal isolate in
27
the midst of a profoundly different culture. The mode of
living in a student culture is consistent with and rein
forced by the life styles of the larger culture of this
country. The accessibility of the outside environment to
the student is an important factor to be considered. What
students learn in college is influenced strongly by the
norms of the attitudes of the peer-groups to which the
individual student belongs. Newcomb (1962) felt that most
attitudes were anchored in group membership and the amount
of group influence varied with the size and homogeneity of
the group, its isolation from other groups having diver
gent norms. He argued that peer group influences and
educational objectives were not necessarily in conflict
with each other.
Matson (1963) was concerned with the influence of
the student sub-culture on academic achievement. Thirty
fraternities on the campus of the University of Indiana
were divided into groups of ten and labelled as having
high prestige, middle prestige and low prestige. Two other
groups were formed composed of men who lived off campus in
dormitories. All male students of the class of 1958 were
included and each one was placed in a category of high,
high-average, low average, or low academic potential level
according to five aspects of his high school academic
performance and three ability scores. Each student then
belonged to given housing groups and had a certain known
28
academic potential. Findings indicated substantially lower
drop-out rates among fraternity men than the other two
housing groups. Low prestige fraternities and off-campus
men earned lower grades than the other residence groups.
The conclusion indicated that the social context of the
fraternity with an average or better prestige and the
residence dormitory appeared to provide the best atmos
phere for academic achievement.
Stern (1963) undertook to analyze certain aspects
of the college environment and his summary was most
provocative. He stated, "the vast majority of institutions
examined thus far are characterized by environments that
emphasize some degree of conformity and constraint."
(pp. 5-41)
In summary, Summerskill (1962) reflected the con
clusion of the majority of researches in this paragraph:
Demographic factors and scholastic aptitude and
performance have been thoroughly investigated.
But college students are growing, striving,
feeling, thinking, aspiring individuals. In
much prior research 'the student is classified
rather than understood}1 future research might
well attempt insight into the frame of refer
ence of the student himself, (pp. 627-657)
Insight into the frame of reference of the student
requires additional understanding of the intellectual and
cultural renaissance among our young people, and environ
ment which investigators regard as a cultural mix composed
of cultural sub-groups and the ecological understanding of
29
the entire configuration of higher education. There has
been much lip service to non-intellective factors but the
criterion of academic achievement, or intellective concerns
has been far more predominant. There is much protest
against the criterion of academic competence and much
stirring among the researchers against the folklore of
higher education so that the expectancy of additional work
in the influence of the environment as perceived by the
student himself is refreshing.
Non-intellective Factors Relating to
College Achievement
Non-intellective factors were previously noted as
those factors which are inherent in both the student and
in the college environment. There are two positions from
which to approach these non-intellective factors in
achievement. One is to view the problem in terms of the
individual student--his motives, values, adjustments, and
reactions, and the other is to view the college environ
ment with its atmosphere, classroom climate, diversity,
culture, structure, and conformity.
Lewin's (1946) classic comparison of democratic,
autocratic, and laissez faire atmosphere have had a
lasting impression on education. The findings suggested
that the key to maximal learning lay in establishing
appropriate democratic classroom environments and this
conclusion is still supported today. Stern (1960)
30
surveyed seventeen studies and found only one which
actually demonstrated that a student-centered instruction
resulted in a greater mastery of the content of the subject
studied.
Stern, Stein, and Bloom (1956) with the use of a
modified version of the Inventory of Beliefs, a measure of
stereopathy authoritarianism, measured the relationship of
personality and the environmental situation. The purpose
of the scale was to identify the needs and values of
certain types of students which would lead to conflict and
the lessening of performance in a learning environment.
Four types of students were assumed: authoritarian, anti
authoritarian, rational, and irrational. Through the use
of the "Inventory" the researchers found relevant statis
tically significant differences between these groups. The
proportions of these "types" of students differing from
school and representation among the four types, was non-
random.
Stern and Cope (1956) attempted a similar study
through the use of three freshmen classes at Syracuse
University. Each class was composed of authoritarians,
anti-authoritarians, and rationals. The same instructor
taught the three classes unaware of the differences in
characteristics of the students. At the conclusion of the
first week he recognized differences in the composition of
the individual groups and he was able to describe them
group by group. His appraisal of the authoritarians did
not change throughout the rest of the semester, but his
reactions to the other two groups were reversed by the
third week and remained constant from that point on.
Initially, the anti-authoritarians were perceived as bar
gaining, critical, and hostile; by the end of the third
week they were seen as taking nothing for granted, yet
friendly in their criticism. The rationals were first per
ceived as future campus leaders but by the end of the
third week they had already gone to seed. The results
indicate that the authoritarians showed no gains, demon
strating a competence already enjoyed before they took the
course. The anti-authoritarians showed no genuine gains,
although their failure was not in the performance level
but in terms of the expectations of the set of the profes
sor. The rationals showed no gains but they remained
consistent.
It is not known what motivational forces are
actually predictive of college success and it is not known
how to assess with reliability such motives in college
students. College teachers have fairly fixed conceptions
of scholarly motivation based on academic performance, but
students have reported a wide variety of reasons for going
to college. The educational goals of college-bound youth
done by Baird (1967) were designed to gain information
about the characteristics, expectations, and plans of
32
students who approach college with divergent concerns.
Students were asked to choose their most important motive
for attending college from a list submitted to them by the
investigator. The respondents gave greatest importance to
two goals with 51 per cent having selected vocational or
professional training and 34 per cent having selected
mental improvement. Men desired a higher income and the
enjoyment of life as a goal while women were desirous of
becoming cultured as persons. It was interesting to note
in the findings that students who chose to improve their
minds had at least one achievement in leadership more than
the others. Students should have opportunities to review
their hopes and purposes for college. It is felt they
would profit from discussions regarding the kind of persons
they hope to become.
The literature reflects Summerskill•s (1962) con
clusions that the largest number of dropouts involved
motivational factors such as goals and satisfactions
related to a student's experience in the college classroom
and out of it. It would be a difficult proposition to
prove, but the assumption is sustained because the majority
of dropouts listed lack of interest in college, lack of
interest in studies, transferred, or got a job, as reasons
for their discontinuance. One researcher, Friedman (1956)
records:
33
A group . . . primarily socially oriented ....
They have come to college to make good marriages
or to acquire a smattering of a liberal educa
tion for its usefulness in social situations,
and they are quite resistive to real intellectual
development . . . find academic demands of the
college very onerous, and many are likely to
withdraw at the end of the sophomore year. . . .
(pp. 13-28)
Farnsworth, et al., (1955) stated: "This lack of
values for education associated with lack of motivation
was also a frequent cause of academic failure." (pp. 1-6)
The relationship between the perception of the
college experience and academic motivation was also a
target for investigation. Discussing the implications,
Grande (1967) said:
One implication of the study is that freshmen
perceive the college experience as increasingly
academic as they move from the various class
levels. . . . Another research possibility sug
gests that there is also a change from academic
involvement to the perception of some other
area. (pp. 65-67)
Bevan's (1965) remark on the importance of value and
the relationship between the value of students and their
performance in college is of interest:
I am convinced that for the individuals and
situations about which the educational adminis
trator is concerned, the disturbing factors are
not a question of 'gray matter1 but are of a
non-intellectual nature. In a word, they are
values. The large number of our students who
feel pressures do so, I think, not because they
have insufficient ability to meet the academic
requirements of our curriculums, but because they
are involved in a conflict of values, albeit, for
the most part, unclear and poorly understood.
(pp. 343-347)
34
Super (1967) felt that college should be a means of
defining the student's concept of himself. "College is a
means of self-actualization, a place in which one hopes to
be able to be what one is, a place in which one should be
able to become what one is capable of becoming." (pp. 89-99)
In a study Arsenian (1943) undertook, before the
war, conflicts over changes in attitudes about religion
were evidenced in the men at Springfield College. Using
the Allport Vernon Test, a decline, during college, of the
religious values mean score was noted. Students in some
majors (health and physical education) manifested a
greater change than those in others (social science). He
also reported that the change was away from a formal and
ritualistic dogma to a more humanistic and tolerant belief.
Three fourths of the students responding reported that
their attitudes on religion had changed during their col
lege experience; the remaining one fourth reported
unresolved religious conflicts.
The majority of researches on values undertaken
before the war evidenced a change in direction of religious
values and beliefs, changing in the direction of a greater
liberalism.
Probably the best known study on the changes in
attitudes and values during the college years has been the
survey by Jacob (1957). He reported that there was a set
of values held by 75 to 80 per cent of all college students
in this country. Students recognized a need for religion
but did not govern their decisions by religious mores;
rather, their decisions were socially determined. Jacob
stated that students by and large set great stock in
college in general, particularly their own, and they
regarded vocational skills and social preparation as the
greatest benefits of the college experience. The most
striking feature of this study and conveniently mouthed
even today, was the significant fact that there were few
changes in value during the college experience and among
the changes that could be noted were a few in the direc
tion of greater conformity.
Jacob has been subjected to a wide variety of
criticisms. However, the general effect of his work has
been valuable to research inasmuch as it has been the
prime mover to additional studies.
Traditionally, higher education has been said to
have, as one of its purposes, the transmission of the
cultural heritage and college students have been expected
to adjust to the culture. Cartwright (1963) identified
some of the non-intellective factors involved in the
successful or unsuccessful adjustment to the college
environment. He established an experimental group and a
control group; the first group consisted of students who
had sought help at the University Counseling Center and
36
the control group consisted of students matched to the
experimental group in age, sex, and year in school, but
who had not sought counseling assistance. Each student
made two sorts on the Butler and Haigh Q sort. On the
first sort, he was to describe himself currently on campus
and, on the second, to describe himself in his senior year
in high school.
His findings indicated that those who sought help
from counseling service differed from the control group in
that the former group perceived themselves as carrying
over poor adjustment from high school to college or as
having an image of t2iemselves as hard working students.
This was difficult to do on this particular campus as
adjustment appeared related to high social class and self-
control rather than to a strong drive for achievement.
The adjustment of college dropouts has been a very
difficult and perplexing problem. Summerskill (1962)
reviewed eleven studies involved with maladjustment and
found the percentage of dropouts with disturbances was in
the 4 per cent to 17 per cent range with the median value
at 10 per cent. Farnsworth (1955) stated:
No reliable statistics are available as to how
many of those who leave college do so because
of emotional conflicts. However, we have good
reason to believe that in some institutions the
proportion is considerably more than half. (pp. 1-6)
Beieiter and Friedman (1962) surveyed college
student attitudes over the past 30 years and found, with
37
some consistency, that students in certain fields of study
have tended toward positions commonly labeled as liberal,
whereas students in other disciplines have tended toward
conservative modes. Students in social science appeared as
the most liberal, while the natural science groups were the
most conservative. Literature, arts, and natural science
groups occupied middle ground between these two extremes.
Feldman (1970) stated that students do not have thei
same kinds of experiences within a college. He found that
a particularly important locus of differential experiences
was that of the activities connected with the students’
major field. His initial point of interest was to find
whether students enrolled in different major fields had
distinctive characteristics. A few examples of his
findings are worth noting. Students in engineering,
physical science, mathematics, pre-law or English--
compared with students in other academic majors--scored
higher on general intelligence tests. Students in biology,
pharmacy and applied medical fields were in the medium
range. Students in Business education, home economics and
agriculture were relatively low. On measure of authori
tarianism and prejudice, students in the humanities rarely
ranked high, whereas students in education, pharmacy,
engineering and other applied fields were unlikely to
rank low.
38
Summary
College students have different potentials and
temperaments. Their development can most meaningfully be
conceptualized from their individual frame of reference.
The need is not to lower standards but to individualize
them more and to encourage and stimulate development in
whatever dimension it is best expressed. The criteria of
non-academic accomplishment, in combination with college
grades, provide a brief set of socially relevant measures
which could serve as a more comprehensive criteria of
college success.
Assessment of the College Environment
Student Characteristics
There are at least three ways of characterizing
differences among environments of institutions of higher
learning. They are: (1) through the morphological dis
tinctions or structures of the institutions; (2) through
the use of narrative descriptions; and (3) through the
use of psychological instruments.
The Association of American Universities is one
source for a structural classification of American insti
tutions. This group and others like it, such as the
regional accrediting agencies, provide information about
colleges as to their size, situation, programs, degrees
offered, et cetera.
David Boroff's Campus U.S.A. (1962) is an example
39
of the second way of characterizing higher education. His
insights have gone beyond the silent words of catalogue
descriptions.
The third way to assess the college environment is
more meaningful to this paper and its purpose. Stern
(1965) wrote that the psychological significance of the
ecological relationship between the person and his environ
ment could be deduced from the behavior of the person. He
and his associates, used Henry A. Murray's (1938) system
for classifying the organizational tendencies that ap
peared to give unity and direction to personality. Murray
called these internal tendencies "needs" and the external
counterpart of the personality need was labeled "environ
mental press." The needs and presses both were derived
from inferred activities and events. Stern, the investi
gator, adapted thirty needs which composed The Activities
Index and its function was to provide a broad measure of
personality for use in educational prediction. The
College Characteristic Index measured thirty kinds of
press and was analogous to the need scales in The Activi
ties Index. Each of these indexes consisted of 300 items
(true or false) organized into thirty, ten-item, scales
with the scales on each test parallel to the other.
A considerable amount of information on these
scales was obtained from numerous studies. In filtering
40
the results of extensive revisions as recorded by Stern
(1962), the following appeared relevant to this discussion:
1. Descriptions of college environments based
solely on press profiles appear to be recognized
and confirmed by academic participants and ob
servers.
2. Students enrolled in the same institution
have needs scale scores more alike than students
at different institutions.
3. Although the relationship between needs
scores and press scores for the same students
from a variety of institutions is not much
higher than that obtained from samples located
within the same institution, suggesting that
perceptions of press are not projection of needs,
there is a decided relationship between the mean
need scores and mean press scores at 43 institu
tions. The average level of specific needs among
students at a given college tends to match the
average level of the corresponding press at the
same college, (pp. 690-730)
Although the responses of juniors were used in the
normative sample, Stern (1965) found reason to believe that
freshmen characteristics varied between institutions but
that freshmen were remarkably similar to upper classmen
within the same institution. He was also able to distin
guish characteristics between student bodies of different
kinds of institutions of higher learning.
Independent liberal arts involves intellectuality
and autonomy. Engineering is also associated with
personal independence but is otherwise more agres-
sive, thrill-seeking, and achievement-oriented.
The denominational subculture is group-centered,
as are university-affiliated liberal arts,
business administration, and teacher-training
colleges, but each of these differs in its focus.
. . . Denominational college life would appear to
be more purposive and goal-oriented, less playful
and convivial, than is the case suggested by these
41
data at the large universities. The business
administration atmosphere is the most decided by
anti-intellectual, but women students in teacher-
training also tend in this direction, (pp. 132-154)
McFee (1961) undertook to investigate some of the
relations between the college environment and other
factors including student needs. She found no strong rela
tion between students' needs and students' perception of
the press of the college environment. Interestingly, items
about behaviors which the student had not encountered
(low in exposure value) were much more influenced by the
students' needs and there was less student agreement on
them than were items about mutual and commonly shared
experiences.
Two studies by Thistlewaite (1960 and 1962) bear
directly on the practical outcomes of the environmental
press of the college. In his first study Thistlewaite
administered the CCI to National Merit Scholars at thirty-
six colleges and his conclusions indicated that college
environment was an important determinant of the student's
motivation to seek advanced training beyond his bacca
laureate degree. Some educational environments were more
effective in this regard than were others; however, no
attempt was made to explain why. In the second study he
attempted to discriminate changes in the study plans of
talented students. The students who had professors who
were perceived as warm and enthusiastic in their inter
relations were associated with more frequent change and
42
change was seen as seeking advanced degrees or training in
specific fields, i.e., arts, humanities, and the social
sciences. Traits attributed to faculty members who exer
cised the most influence varied from department to depart
ment. Those experiences which encouraged the student's
expectation of success were related to the stability of
his plans.
Pace (1963), who was an associate with Stern in the
development of the CCI, independently pursued, since 1959,
his own concepts in the study of the college environment,
and used divergent strategies of analysis which resulted
in different views about the nature of the CCI. He
assessed the college environment using a direct analysis
of environmental differences between institutions without
considering personality measures. "The focus is on
looking for patterns which best characterize environments,
and, for this purpose, the unit of analysis is the college,
not the individual." He devised the College and University
Environment Scales (Cues) to describe the climate of the
college. Using factor analysis of 150 statements he
defined five dimensions which could reflect the ways
institutions differed from each other. These dimensions
were:
(1) Scholarship: The degree to which competi
tively high academic achievement is evidenced.
43
(2) Practicality: The degree to which personal
status and practical benefit are emphasized in the
college environment.
(3) Awareness: The degree to which there is
a concern with self-understanding, reflectiveness,
and a search for personal meaning.
(4) Propriety: The degree to which politeness,
protocol, and conventionality are emphasized.
(5) Community: The degree to which the college
atmosphere is friendly, cohesive, and group-
oriented. (pp. 4-26)
This instrument has been widely used in the research
of higher education. Its purpose was quite diverse in
cluding distinguishing between the environments of col
leges, discriminating between the perceptions of freshmen
and other college classes and between faculty and stu
dents. However, Pace did advocate the selection of a
reasonable cross-section or sample of students when using
CUES.
Certain studies concluded that specific institutions
had common characteristics which differentiated them from
other colleges and universities.
Students with National Merit Scholarships, from
several colleges including Swarthmore, Oberlin and Reed,
the Carnegie Institute of Technology and the University of
Chicago, were surveyed through the use of the CCI.
The following three areas of similarity for these
colleges (yet differences from others) were postulated:
(1) freedom from administrative and conformity pressure;
(2) an atmosphere of intellectualisra; and (3) a disdain
for social mores which they considered unimportant. ;
44
In 1961 Astin and Holland devised a new and simple
method for measuring the college environment. Using
Holland's theory of vocational choice (1966), they stipu
lated that (1) the most important features of a campus
environment were those created by its students; (2) the
type of atmosphere created on a given campus would depend
on the proportions with which each of several types of
students were represented; and (3) that the presence of
important types of students could be inferred from
knowledge of the number of students graduating each year
in each of six areas of study. Holland classified these
areas of study as realistic, intellectual, social,
conventional, enterprising and artistic. The EAT,
(Environmental Assessment Technique), simply described
the percentages of graduates in each field. By simple
statistical manipulation these percentages were converted
to standard scores with a mean of 50 and a standard devi
ation of 10. Two other items were included on the EAT—
the size of the student body and the estimated selectivity
of the institution. A college with a high score on the
Artistic Orientation would award a major proportion of its
degrees in the humanities and arts. Astin and Holland
(1961) stated:
The college environment with a relatively high
artistic orientation is likely to emphasize
esthetic and humanistic pursuits and to de-
emphasize sports and similar activities that
require the use of gross physical skills, (pp. 3-15)
45
In other studies, Astin (1968) focused his
attention on the major dimensions of student character
istics which differentiate among institutions of higher
learning. He collected 52 items descriptive of student
characteristics at 248 colleges. From these he selected
six basic factors or dimensions upon which entering col
lege classes differed. These dimensions were:
Factor I Intellectualism
Factor II Estheticism
Factor III Status
Factor IV Leadership
Factor V Pragmatism
Factor VI Masculinity (pp. 661-668)
With the use of the EAT, Astin was able to supply
"college profiles" for over 1,000 accredited four-year
colleges.
One further consideration should be added to the
perspective provided by the preceding discussions. Aca
demic success represented only one type of achievement and
concentrating solely on academic success could have unin
tentionally suggested that academic success was a satis
factory indicator of other types of success.
Assessment of Student Characteristics
By the time a student enters college he has been
subjected to numerous measuring devices, all administered
with the purpose of understanding him. According to
Peterson (1965): "Typologies, while they must necessarily
oversimplify and perhaps in other ways mutilate human
46
reality, nevertheless represent contrivances that can often
lead to new and fruitful understandings of that same
reality." (pp. 2-18) These attempts at fruitful under
standing of college students have led to the pigeonholing
of every student who enters the halls of higher learning.
Chiefly these understandings were for the purpose of
placing students in colleges and majors in which they
could achieve some degree of academic success.
Astin (1965) found that college guides and cata
logues provided a great deal of information about the
college institution such as costs, dormitories, general
admission requirements, et cetera, but little if any
information about the students who enrolled. A student
knows very little about the students on the campus and yet
his experience with these students in a four-year en
counter may make a profound difference in the direction of
his life.
By the time a student reaches college much is known
about him, i.e., his high school grade point average, his
aptitude and achievement scores, his participation in
extra-curricular events and his recognitions in the forms
of awards. This information is augmented during regis
tration by the addition of information on the educational
status of his father, the socio-economic stance of his
parents, his dormitory preference, and his ownership of
47
such things as a television set if he brings one with him
to school.
In addition to these factual findings, colleges
seek to find personality measurements that will help them
to understand other aspects of students. The adminis
tration of such tests as the Taylor Johnson Temperament
Test, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, the
MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), the
EPPS (Edwards Personal Preference Schedule) (Bachman,
1964) and the CPI (California Psychological Inventory)
(Bruck, 1962) have been used to gain a deeper insight of
campus students. Webster, et al., (1962) wrote: "Perhaps
the major feature of recent and contemporary studies is
that they have been directed to more generalized tendencies
in the personality, tendencies conceived as underlying and
integrating particular attitudes and values,," (pp. 811-846)
Heist (1960) was interested in personality tenden
cies which caused students to choose between colleges high
in productivity and those of low productivity. Scores
were obtained from the Omnibus Personality Inventory and
the Study of Values of 900 Merit Scholarship winners and
almost winners. The majority of these students in the
high productive colleges had a different orientation and
motivation than students of the same ability who were in
the less productive institutions. More than twice as many
males and females who were at least one SD above the mean
48
on the two tests were found in the high productive schools
than were found in the low productive schools. Brown
(1962) found similar motivational differences.
Sternberg (1955) used men at one of the New York
municipal colleges and analyzed measures of interest and
the diagnostic scales on the MMPI. He assumed that these
male students would differ from the Vassar women students.
Conclusions demonstrated that the factor that came closest
to representing what is popularly meant by mental health
was the factor in which the two groups did not differ.
Psychological adjustment factors appeared to be related
more strongly also to certain college majors.
Abe and Holland (1965) attempted to obtain a repre
sentative picture of the American College using the
American College Survey in 1964. The survey was designed
to assess various student characteristics and it contained
1,004 items concerned with interests, attitudes and
potentials of college students. Freshmen numbering 2,432
at thirty-one institutions responded to it and it enabled
Abe and Holland to identify student characteristics which
were associated with vocational interests. Thirteen
vocational areas were listed including physical sciences,
biological sciences, humanities, social sciences, agri
culture, business and administration, education, political
science and law, health professions, engineering, creative
arts, vocational and trade, and military science. The
49
vocations with the highest and lowest means on each of 117
characteristics were identified and a summary of these was
prepared for each vocational choice.
The College Student Questionnaires(CSQ) were devised
to gain biographical and attitudinal data to describe
groups of college students. One research application was
the classification of students to a model proposed by
Trow (1962). The various forms of student subcultures on
college campuses were described: The Collegiate Culture
involved the world of sports, fraternities and sororities,
dates, cars and campus fun. This group was resistant to
serious demands for involvement with ideas and issues
other than those required to gain a degree. The Vocational
Culture revolved around courses leading to a degree and
better job than students could otherwise expect. These
students were also resistant to any intellectual demand
beyond what was required for a passing grade. The
Academic Culture identified with the intellectual concerns
of the faculty members. Those students worked beyond the
demands required for graduation and aligned themselves
with the college and its faculty. The Non-conformist
Culture included students who were involved with ideas and
who participated in off campus protest against the recog
nized college culture. They often displayed a detachment
from the college and its faculty.
50
Nadler and Krulee (1961) based their college
student typologies on Murray's (1938) work. They devised
four categories and predicted that significant numbers of
college students would fall into the two extraceptive
categories and very few into the two intraceptive cate
gories o They classified them:
1. Extraception-Exocathection: To adapt to
the world as it is. To be pragmatical, conserve
established values, and to work with mechanical
devices.
2. Introception-Exocathection: To dramatize
the self and to live imaginatively. To reform
and to speak against social wrongs; to seek
adventure.
3. Extraception-Endocathection: To be
interested in ideas and theories. To collect
data and think inductively. To reflect and
write about concerns.
4. Introception-Endocathection: To give
oneself to artistic or religious abstractions.
To dream and to introspect. To withdraw and
contemplate inner conflicts, (pp. 223-231)
The categories were obtained from responses to a
questionnaire which included items related to each of the
four divisions. Results indicated that out of four
hundred and thirty-two freshmen males at Case Institute of
Technology, 35 per cent could be classified as Extra
ceptive Exocathecting; 19 per cent as Extraceptive-
Endocathecting, and 3-4/10 per cent as Intraceptive-
Endocathecting.
Using the Mooney Problem Check List, De Sena (1966)
attempted to determine if differences in the number of
problems checked discriminated significantly among
51
consistent over-achievers, under-achievers and normal-
achievers. He selected three samples of forty-two con
sistent over-achievers, under-achievers and normal-
achievers from 1,061 male students in the science curricu
lum at Pennsylvania State University. These were matched
to control groups on the basis of age, sex, race, term in
college, courses taken, resident for first three terms in
the university housing and predicted GPA. The over
achievers, in contrast to the under-achievers, showed more
concern for finance, living conditions and employment.
They exhibted more problems than either the normal or
under-achievers. The under-achievers were freer to dis
cuss their problems with college personnel than were the
other two groups.
Summary
A review of the literature revealed a growing
interest in the assessment of the college environment by
the students who are the consumers. In the areas of both
college and student assessment, more recent attempts have
been made to identify the underlying values, attitudes,
and interests expressed by each, and to evaluate the
relationship between them.
A survey of the literature dealing with student
assessment revealed an interesting trend. Fewer studies
52
seem to correlate between personality variables and
achievement criteria; more studies appear to focus on
understanding the student and his subcultural identifi
cations.
CHAPTER III
SOURCE OF DATA
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present a
description of (1) the setting in which the study was con
ducted; (2) the method of procedure; (3) the instrument
used in this study; and (4) the methodology and statistical
design.
The Setting
Azusa Pacific College is an interdenominational
Christian college of the liberal arts and Bible. It is
located on two separate but adjacent campuses in the
southern California communities of Azusa and Glendora.
The location of the college permits students and faculty
access to the cultural and recreational facilities of
metropolitan Los Angeles and the surrounding resort areas.
In the spring of 196 5, two colleges merged to form
a new institution of higher learning. In this action,
Azusa College and Los Angeles Pacific College amalgamated
to become Azusa Pacific College.
In the spring of 1968 Arlington College, a four
year liberal arts college of Long Beach, California,
affiliated with Azusa Pacific College.
53
54
Azusa Pacific College seeks to explore new ideas
for the promotion of academic excellence, to create new
patterns for student involvement and to provide the very
best experience possible for spiritual growth.
Azusa Pacific College is an accredited member of
the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. It is
also an accredited member of the Accrediting Association
of Bible Colleges. Azusa Pacific College is approved by
the California State Board of Education for the training
of discharged service men and women. The college is
listed with the United States Department of Justice for
the training of students from foreign countries.
Azusa Pacific College holds membership in the
Association of American Colleges, the National Commission
on Accrediting, the Association of California Colleges and
Universities, the American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers, the Council for the
Advancement of Small Colleges, the Western College Associ
ation, the Evangelical Teacher Training Association, the
American College Public Relations Association, the
American Alumni Council and the American Library Associ
ation .
General qualifications.--The program at Azusa
Pacific College seeks to foster the growth of the student,
to expand and deepen his emotional and spiritual
55
sensitivity and to stimulate interest in significant
information and ideas. The objectives of a Christian col
lege of liberal arts and Bible establish both the goals of
learning as well as the quality and quantity of experience
essential to achieve those goals. The objectives also
determine the type of student who is admitted to the col
lege. Neither race nor color are factors in the admissions
process. In keeping with the objectives adopted by the
faculty of Azusa Pacific College and approved by the Board
of Trustees, the following admissions criteria assist in
determining who shall be admitted to Azusa Pacific College.
Academic achievement.--Grades of high school work
and all previous college work are important as an indicator
of a student’s ability to achieve success at Azusa Pacific
College. A minimum grade point average of 2.00 is required
for regular admission. Scores on the ACT are also required
for purposes of providing additional information for
counseling and guidance. These scores are important for
institutional study and research.
Creativity.--Azusa Pacific College believes that
education is a process which involves the total person.
The college seeks students who are potentially creative
and who display the interest and ability to develop their
talents.
The music department illustrates this point of view
56
in their search for creative talents which they reward
through the granting of scholarships. This information is
gathered from recommendations, personal interviews and
perf ormance.
Academic and vocational goal.--The curriculum at
Azusa Pacific College is select. Every effort is made to
achieve a high degree of excellence in the curricular and
extra-curricular experiences offered to the students. The
choice of acadeimic goal and the students' vocational goal
determine the kind of students who will most profit from
the college program.
Activities.--Azusa Pacific College believes that
involvement in student life is an important part of each
student's experience. The college is interested in appli
cants who have been actively involved in church, school
and community activities prior to their admission to col
lege. The college seeks to help students foster the
qualities of leadership and responsibility essential in a
modern, industrial society.
Personalized admissions.--Every applicant to Azusa
Pacific College is considered on his own individual merit.
In cases where an applicant fails to meet the standards
outlined in the admissions criteria, petition may be made
to the Committee on Admissions for review and special
57
consideration. This procedure generally requires the
applicant to appear for a personal interview with a member
of the Admissions Committee.
During the time in which the study was conducted,
the investigator was employed by Azusa Pacific College as
an associate professor of psychology.
Method of Procedure
In the first week of May, 1969, the investigator
met with all college seniors at Azusa Pacific College, in
the chapel, and administered the Survey. All but five
seniors were present and these were contacted and given
the Survey individually. Instructions for the Survey were
given orally and subsequent questions were answered.
The freshmen were surveyed in the second week of
May, 1969, and thirty-eight were not present at the first
administration. A special time was announced for a second
administration and twenty-nine freshmen responded to the
Survey on this date. The rest of the freshmen were con
tacted and tested individually except for three whom it
was impossible to include because of illness and emergency.
All freshmen were in their second semester of college.
The entire senior class was included comprising
ninety-eight seniors (100 per cent) while 207 freshmen
responded df 210 (98.5 per cent). Students of both classes
were cooperative with the experimenter.
58
The Instrument Used
The ACT Institutional Self-Study Survey coordinated
and developed by Donald P. Hoyt (1969), with his permis
sion, was the chief instrument used in the study. In
addition to the items on the Survey ten additional items
relating to the students of Azusa Pacific College were
included.
The Instructional Self-Study Survey (ISS) attempts
to assess student opinion about institutional policies,
facilities, faculty, services and other vital student
concerns. The Survey seeks to appraise student development
in non-academic areas and to supplement other evaluative
methods by asking those involved--the students.
The Survey is composed of 200 questions, including
the ten items submitted by this author, and the format
includes seven areas of student concern. A description of
these seven areas as found in the Manual, is condensed
somewhat in the following:
Goals.--The students indicate their field of study,
future occupation and selected vocational role and the
degree they expect to achieve. They rate their goals in
terms of "Not Important; Desirable; Very Important; and
Essential."
College policies, practices, facilities.-- This
area provides a means of assessing the general
59
instructional climate of the college, an evaluation of
student services, and the effectiveness of these services,
as well as measuring student reaction to college policies,
rules and facilities.
College services.--Certain services are frequently
provided by institutions of higher education. These
include financial assistance, counseling, which may be
academic as well as resolving personal problems, health
services, assistance in locating suitable residence and
educational services which offer improvement in various
skills such as reading, et cetera.
Personal and educational development.--This section
concerns itself with the possible outcomes of a college
education. The student records his degree of progress in
cultural achievements; personal development in terms of
understanding his abilities and limitations; his interests
and standards of behavior and his social development which
includes gaining experience and skill in relating to
others.
Quality of instruction.--The instructors of the
institution are characterized on the basis of classroom
management as well as out of class assignments.
Extra-curricular activities.--This section refers to
the student's use of leisure time while at college. The
60
material presented in the Survey has to do with activities
initiated by the student and not as a result of class
assignments, and his area of the Survey as well as the area
of Personal Accomplishment relate to non-academic achieve
ment .
Personal accomplishment.— Students report their
accomplishments in ten different areas. These ten lists
are out of class accomplishments and include social
participation, social service, scientific recognition, et
cetera.
In addition to the Survey, ten items were designed
and added which were relevant to the Azusa Pacific College
environment. The numbers, items and descriptions follow.
200. Chapel requirement— related to
compulsory chapel attendance.
201. Chapel services--offered an opportunity
to appraise the quality of the chapel
presentation.
202. Student opinions--determined whether
or not students had an opportunity to
express opinions.
203. Student decisions--related to student
decision making.
204. Christian service--determined the
reasonableness of required Christian
service.
205. Moral standards— determined if
standards were commensurate with
conduct.
206. Dating regulations--rated dating
requirements.
61
207. College life--determined if the college
experience were one of growth.
208. College culture— related the college
experience to refinement and courtesy.
209. Dress regulations--attempted to
evaluate dress requirements.
Statement of the Problem
This study has attempted to determine the differ
ences in the way a freshman college student perceives his
college environment and the way a senior perceives his
college environment.
It was hoped that student opinion and the above-
mentioned differences would enable Azusa Pacific College
to see its services and programs more clearly, to recog
nize its strengths and to explore and assess its weak
nesses.
Also considered and examined were externally de
rived data (college class and sex and their relation to
students' experience in college).
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were examined:
1. It is predicted that college satisfaction is
not related to one's status in college, i.e. freshmen
versus seniors.
2. It is predicted that satisfaction in college is
unrelated to the participation in non-academic pursuits
62
and whether the student is a freshman or senior.
3. It is predicted that satisfaction in college is
unrelated to characteristics in the Azusa Pacific College
environment.
Method of Treatment
Statistical procedures were performed at California
State College at Long Beach with the assistance of staff
programmers. The test of significance (t) between groups
was employed with hypothesis 1 and three chi square was
employed with hypothesis 2.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Introduction
The information that resulted from a study of three
correlates of non-academic achievement is presented in
this chapter.
The sample used in the study consisted of ninety-
eight seniors and 207 freshmen enrolled in Azusa Pacific
College in 1969.
The findings are described under the following
three major headings related to the hypothesis listed in
Chapter III: (1) College Satisfaction and Status in
College; (2) College Satisfaction and Non-academic Partici
pation; and (3) College Satisfaction and Azusa Pacific
College Characteristics.
College Satisfaction and
Status in College
The first hypothesis stated that college satis
faction was not related to one's status in college, i.e.,
freshmen males versus senior males. The comparison was
made in the following areas: goals, policies, services,
progress and instruction.
Tables 1 and 2 present findings related to these
63
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF FEMALE FRESHMEN AND
SENIOR STUDENTS
FRESHMAN SENIORS
Area X SD X SD t
Goals 22.68 4.88 21.82 6.68 .81
Policies 40.25 7.31 41.08 9.13 .56
Services 23.76 5.49 24.82 4.17 1.36
Progress 23.03 4.82 19.96 4.24 4.09**
Instruction 32.56 4.07 33.27 2.63 1.34
♦♦Statistically significant beyond the .01 level of confidence.
O'
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF MALE FRESHMEN AND SENIOR STUDENTS
FRESHMAN SENIORS
Area X SD X SD t
Goals 21.26 4.37 22.29 4.69 1.27
Policies 39.65 9.57 38.90 6.87 .54
Services 23.63 5.88 23.77 5.36 .13
Progress 21.56 5.28 20.62 4.18 1.16
Instruction 31.43 5.26 31.69 3.22 .36
O'
Ui
66
areas. Both of these tables indicate that there was no
significant difference between the way female freshmen and
female seniors responded to the items of these tables with
one exception. There was a significant difference between
female freshmen and female seniors in the area of progress.
Statistical significance at the .01 level of confidence
was reached on this item. Female freshmen viewed their
educational progress differently than did female seniors.
There was no significant difference between freshmen
males and senior males.
A comparison between female freshmen and senior
students and male freshmen and senior students in the
areas of goals, policies, services, progress and instruc
tion is shown in Tables 1 and 2.
College Satisfaction and Non-academic
Participation
The second hypothesis stated that satisfaction in
college would be unrelated to participation in non-
academic pursuits or to whether a student was a freshman
or a senior. The non-academic areas were: leisure-time
activities, leadership participation, social participation,
art participation, humanistic and cultural activities,
religious services, music, writing and speech and drama.
Tables 3 through 12 relate to non-academic partici
pation and show statistical significant differences at the
.01 level. Hypothesis (2) was not accepted on these items.
67
TABLE 3
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR
LEISURE TIME ACTIVITIES
Yes No Total
Freshman 2915 3030 5945
Senior 1758 1171 2929
Total 4673 4201 8874
chi-square = 95.02 Significant at .01 level of confi-
dence.
68
TABLE 4
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR
LEADERSHIP PARTICIPATION
- True None Total
Freshman 200 1850 2050
Senior 249 761 1010
Total 449 2611 3060
chi-square = 173.43
Significant at .01 level of confidence
69
TABLE 5
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR
SOCIAL PARTICIPATION
True None Total
Freshman 224 1826 2050
Senior 161 849 1010
Total 385 2675 3060
chi-square = 15.76
Significant at .01 level of confidence
70
TABLE 6
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR
ART PARTICIPATION
True None Total
Freshman 158 1892 2050
Senior 131 879 1010
Total 289 2771 3060
chi-square = 21.44
Significant at .01 level of confidence
71
TABLE 7
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR
SOCIAL SERVICE
True None Total
Freshman 277 1773 2050
Senior 209 801 1010
Total 486 2574 3060
chi-square = 26.85
Significant at .01 level of confidence
72
TABLE 8
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR
HUMANISTIC AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES
True None Total
Freshman 278 1812 2090
Senior 189 771 960
Total 467 2583 3050
chi-square = 20.82
Significant at .01 level of confidence
73
TABLE 9
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR
RELIGIOUS SERVICE
True None Total
Freshman 769 1321 2090
Senior 439 521 960
Total 1208 1842 3050
cihi-square = 21.63
Significant at .01 level of confidence
74
TABLE 10
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR
MUSIC PARTICIPATION
True None Total
Freshman 165 1925 2090
Senior 128 832 960
Total 293 2757 3050
chi-square = 22.69
Significant at .01 level of confidence
75
TABLE 11
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR WRITING
True None Total
Freshman 152 1938 2090
Senior 114 846 960
Total 266 2784 3050
chi-square = 17.24
Significant at .01 level of confidence
76
TABLE 12
FREQUENCY OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR
SPEECH AND DRAMA
True None Total
Freshman 98 1992 2090
Senior 102 758 960
Total 200 2750 3050
chi-square = 54.89
Significant at .01 level of confidence
77
In these tables, the evidence indicates that there
was more widely divergent participation in leisure time
activities and other non-academic activities between
freshmen and seniors than were attributable to sampling
fluctuations. The over-estimation of significance
resulted because of the disproportionality of the item
responses. If there are disproportionate cells the over-
estimation results from the computation of the expected
frequencies as is demonstrated by tables 3 through 12.
These tables show a comparison of freshmen and senior
students involved in areas of leisure-time activities,
leadership, social participation, art, social service,
humanistic-cultural activities, religious service, music,
writing, and speech and drama.
Table 13 lists the mean number of positive selec
tions of both freshmen and seniors in the area of non-
academic participation. It is to be noted that with the
exceptions of leisure-time activities and religious
services, participation in these areas is limited. Azusa
Pacific College students do not participate in these areas
or the college does not provide these experiences for the
students to participate in. Seniors have had four years
of accumulated experiences, but the chart indicates that
their participation was limited. Participation by both
groups was not as extensive as had been predicted.
78
TABLE 13
MEAN NUMBER OF POSITIVE SELECTIONS BY AREA
Area Freshmen Seniors
Leisure Time 14.22 17.40
Leadership .98 2.47
Social Participation 1.09 1.59
Art .77 1.30
Social Services 1.35 2.07
Humanistic-Cultural 1.33 1.97
Religious Service 3.68 4.57
Music .79 1.33
Writing .73 1.19
Speech and Drama .47 1.06
79
College Satisfaction and Azusa Pacific
College Characteristics
Table 14 relates to the characteristics in Azusa
Pacific College environment as perceived by freshmen and
seniors. These characteristics were designed by the in
vestigator and represent non-academic areas considered
important on the Azusa Pacific campus. Each statement has
been described in Chapter III, and is listed on the chart
in the following order:
Compulsory chapel
Profitable chapels
Student opinions
Student decisions
Christian service
Moral standards
Dating requirements
College life
College culture
Regulations
There was no significant difference on any of the
items between freshmen and seniors with the exception of
item 202 described as student opinion. On this item
statistical significance reached the .05 level of confi
dence. Of the freshmen 21 per cent agreed that there was
ample opportunity to express their opinion, 41 per cent
partly agreed and partly disagreed; 31 per cent disagreed;
and 7 per cent had no opinion. The seniors responded with
33 per cent in agreement; 34 per cent partly in agreement;
and partly in disagreement; 21 per cent in disagreement and
12 per cent with no opinion.
TABLE 14
COMPARISON OF AZUSA PACIFIC COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS
# Class
N1
%
N2
%
n3
% n4 % t
Compulsory
Chapel 200
Fr.
Sr.
120
60
58
59
43
27
21
27
32
9
15
9
12
5
6
5
1.03
Profitable
Chapels
201
Fr.
Sr.
46
16
22
16
132
69
64
68
18
11
9
11
11
5
5
5
---
1.55
Student
Opinions
202
Fr.
Sr.
43
33
21
33
84
34
41
34
64
21
31
21
16
13
7
12
---
2.55*
Student
Decisions
203
Fr.
Sr.
56
27
27
27
82
54
40
53
52
13
25
13
17
7
8
7
---
1.54
Christian
Service
204
Fr.
Sr.
113
53
55
52
38
26
18
26
42
14
20
14
14
8
7
8
---
.58
Moral
Standards
205
Fr.
Sr.
110
61
53
60
65
24
31
24
19
6
9
6
13
10
7
10
---
1.94
Dating
Requirements
206
Fr.
Sr.
91
38
44
37
49
35
25
35
34
4
16
4
15
24
7
24
---
1.54
College
Life
207
Fr.
Sr.
140
74
68
73
43
18
20
18
12
2
6
2
12
7
6
7
---
1.96
College
Culture
208
Fr.
Sr.
88
42
43
41
83
42
40
41
24
10
12
11
12
7
5
7
---
.28
Regulations
209
Fr.
Sr.
108
51
52
50
65
33
31
32
21
3
10
3
13
16
7
15
---
1.53
^Statistical significance beyond the .05 level of confidence
N 1 = Number of students who agreed
N 2 = Number of students who partly agreed and partly disagreed
N 3 = Number of students who disagreed
N 4 = Number of students who had no opinion on the matter oo
81
Although 58 per cent of the freshmen and 59 per
cent of the seniors agreed with the compulsory chapel,
only 22 per cent of the freshmen and 16 per cent of the
seniors agreed that the chapels were profitable and varied
Of the freshmen, 21 per cent partly agreed and partly dis
agreed with compulsory chapel, whereas 27 per cent of the
seniors responded in this category. Only 6 per cent of
the freshmen and 5 per cent of the seniors had no opinion
on the subject of compulsory chapel.
The highest per cent of freshmen (68) and seniors
(73) felt that college life provided an experience of
growth. Only 6 per cent of the freshmen and 2 per cent of
the seniors disagreed on this category. Six per cent of
the freshmen and 7 per cent of the seniors recorded no
opinion.
Twenty-seven per cent of the freshmen and 27 per
cent of the seniors felt they were encouraged to make
their own decisions, whereas 40 per cent of the freshmen
and 53 per cent of the seniors partly agreed and partly
disagreed. Twenty-five per cent of the freshmen and
13 per cent of the seniors disagreed.
Fifty-five per cent of the freshmen and 52 per cent
of the seniors agreed with the reasonableness of Christian
service; however, 20 per cent of the freshmen and 14 per
cent of the seniors disagreed. Seven per cent of the
freshmen and 8 per cent of the seniors had no opinion.
82
Fifty-three per cent of the freshmen and 60 per
cent of the seniors agreed that the moral standards were
designed to integrate conduct with a philosophy of life.
Only 9 per cent of the freshmen and 6 per cent of the
seniors disagreed.
Forty-four per cent of the freshmen and 37 per cent
of the seniors agreed with dating regulations, whereas
25 per cent of the freshmen and 35 per cent of the seniors
partly agreed and partly disagreed. Of the freshmen
7 per cent had no opinion on the matter, but 24 per cent
of the seniors had no opinion.
Forty-three per cent of the freshmen and 41 per
cent of the seniors agreed that college stimulated culture
and refinement. Forty per cent of the freshmen and 41 per
cent of the seniors disagreed. Five per cent of the
freshmen and 7 per cent of the seniors had no opinion8
Fifty-two per cent of the freshmen and 50 per cent
of the seniors agreed that the regulations for personal
appearance were appropriate. Only 20 per cent of the
freshmen and 3 per cent of the seniors disagreed. Seven
per cent of the freshmen and 15 per cent of the seniors
had no opinion.
Tables 15 through 17 amplify the information
relating to the characteristics in the Azusa Pacific
College environment. To indicate this, the responses to
these items were matched with grade point averages.
TABLE 15
ANALYSIS OF WEIGHTED RESPONSES TO EXPERIENCES AT AZUSA PACIFIC COLLEGE
BETWEEN FRESHMEN AND SENIOR STUDENTS BY GPA CLASSIFICATION
GROUP I
#
MEANS
Freshmen Seniors t
Compulsory Chapel 200 1.84 1.83 .13
Profitable Chapels 201 1.64 1.63 .05
Student Opinions 202 1.37 1.70 2.36*
Student Decisions 203 1.44 1.66 1.29
Christian Service 204 1.73 1.81 .89
Moral Standards 205 1.85 1.92 1.00
Dating Requirements 206 1.75 2.00 3.57**
College Life 207 1.88 1.96 1.60
College Culture 208 1.73 1.81 .62
Regulations 209 1.90 1.91 .17
GPA 3.01 to 4.00 *.05 level of confidence
**.01 level of confidence
TABLE 16
ANALYSIS OF WEIGHTED RESPONSES TO EXPERIENCES AT AZUSA PACIFIC COLLEGE
BETWEEN FRESHMEN AND SENIOR STUDENTS BY GPA CLASSIFICATION
GROUP II
#
MEANS
Freshmen Seniors t
Compulsory Chapel 200 1.75 1.84 1.12
Profitable Chapels 201 1.76 1.69 .44
Student Opinions 202 1.37 1.57 1.67
Student Decisions 203 1.45 1.70 2.08*
Christian Service 204 1.73 1.75 .20
Moral Standards 205 1.87 1.90 .43
Dating Requirements 206 1.70 1.70
College Life 207 1.93 2.00 2.33*
College Culture 208 1.83 1.83
Regulations 209 1.77 1.92 2.14*
GPA 2.51 to 3.00 *.05 level of confidence
o o
TABLE 17
ANALYSIS OF WEIGHTED RESPONSES TO EXPERIENCES AT AZUSA PACIFIC COLLEGE
BETWEEN FRESHMEN AND SENIOR STUDENTS BY GPA CLASSIFICATION
GROUP III
#
MEANS
Freshmen Seniors t
Compulsory Chapel 200 1.78 2.00 4.40**
Profitable Chapels 201 1.73 1.00 9.13**
Student Opinions 202 1.43 1.50 .37
Student Decisions 203 1.60 1.62
.11
Christian Service 204 1.72 1.83 .92
Moral Standards 205 1.83 1.88 .45
Dating Requirements 206 1.72 2.00 4.67**
College Life 207 1.93 1.92 .14
College Culture 208 1.78 1.75 .21
Regulations 209 1.84 2.00 4.00**
GPA 1.51 to 2.50 **.01 level of confidence
00
Ul
Three GPA divisions were selected (3.01 to 4.00; 2.51 to
3.00; 1.51 to 2.50). Each student's GPA determined his
division and responses were categorized on the basis of
grade point division. It is difficult to generalize from
this information, but it is possible to note differences
between these divisions on the various items. Freshmen
and seniors in the two highest GPA divisions (See Tables
15 and 16) did not register significant difference on
items listed as compulsory chapel and profitable chapel,
whereas freshmen and seniors in the lowest GPA category
differed significantly. Other areas of response are indi
cated on the tables.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
This study was undertaken to determine whether
college freshmen and seniors differed significantly in the
way they perceived their college experiences. A secondary
purpose related to the modification of certain experiences
in the college environment, provided there were signifi
cant differences between the way freshmen and seniors
viewed their non-academic experiences.
The Instructional Self-Study Survey was given to
the freshmen and seniors of Azusa Pacific College during
the second week of May, 1969. The significance of the
relationship of variables was examined by means of t tests
and chi-square tests programmed at California State Col
lege, Long Beach.
Three hypotheses were presented in Chapter III and
the findings that related to these hypotheses were as
follows:
Hypothesis number one predicted that college satis
faction was not related to one's status in college; i.e.,
freshmen females versus senior females and freshmen males
versus senior males. No significant differences were
88
found between male freshmen and male seniors in the areas
of goals, policies, services, progress, and instruction.
No significant differences were found between freshmen
females and senior females in the area of goals, policies,
services, and instruction.
Freshmen females and senior females differed
significantly in the area designated progress.
The second hypothesis predicted that satisfaction
in college was unrelated to the participation in non-
academic pursuits and to whether the student was a fresh
man or senior. The null hypothesis was rejected for the
following items: leisure time activities, leadership
participation, social participation, art participation,
social services, humanistic and cultural activities,
religious services, music, writing and speech and drama.
Hypothesis three predicted that satisfaction in
college is unrelated to characteristics in the Azusa
Pacific environment. No significant differences between
the way freshmen viewed their experiences and the way
seniors viewed their experiences, was demonstrated on any
of the items with one exception. The null hypothesis was
not supported for freshmen and seniors on the item listed
student opinion.
Conclusions
The findings of the study support the following
conclusions:
1, In the areas of services, goals, policies,
progress, little difference existed between the way fresh
men and seniors at Azusa Pacific College viewed their
experiences.
2, Seniors participated in more non-academic areas
than did freshmen at Azusa Pacific College, Both classes
had limited involvement in such areas as social partici
pation, humanistic and cultural service, religious service
art and music, writing, speech and drama,
3, The majority of freshmen and seniors agreed
with compulsory chapel requirement at Azusa Pacific Col
lege, but only 22 per cent of the freshmen and 16 per cent
of the seniors felt that the chapel services were profi
table .
4, Sixty-eight per cent of the freshmen and 73 per
cent of the seniors felt that their experiences at Azusa
Pacific College resulted in experiences of growth.
5, Fifty-three per cent of the freshmen and 60 per
cent of the seniors felt that the moral standards pre
scribed by Azusa Pacific College had integrated conduct
with an adequate philosophy of life,
6, Twenty-two per cent of the freshmen and 16 per
cent of the seniors felt that chapel services were
profitable.
7, Fifty-five per cent of the freshmen and 52 per
cent of the seniors felt that the Christian service
requirement was reasonable. j
i
Recommendations
i
1. On the basis of this study, the Survey of
Educational Status and Progress, along with the ten items ;
designed by the investigator, should be administered
routinely to freshmen and seniors at Azusa Pacific College,
Professors could use this information in counseling and in
class programming. It could be helpful to administrators
in planning for non-academic campus experiences. Also,
it would be helpful to present the results to high school
| counselors, as it could provide a useful frame of refer
ence in aiding high school seniors in the selection of a
college.
2. As students progress from the freshman through
the senior years, their perspectives and needs might vary
and change. Thus, different programs and facilities
might be required for underclassmen and upperclassmen.
Trend analysis would help college personnel to discover
areas where inadequacies were operating.
3. Inasmuch as accreditation teams from Western
Schools and Colleges periodically evaluate the college's
program, it would seem feasible to utilize the information
acquired in preparation for the evaluation. It would also
seem advisable to make the results of these Surveys
; available to the accreditation teams.
4. Additional research is needed to determine why
Azusa Pacific College students did not participate in more
non-academic areas. Efforts should be made by adminis
trators and professors to find ways in which student in
volvement in the non-academic areas could be substantially
increased in all ways in order to involve more individual
; students.
5. Academic administrators at Azusa Pacific
l
| College should continue to develop lines of communication
; with the students for the purpose of creating greater
i understanding of the configuration of academic and non-
I
; academic relationships.
6. As a private institution, Azusa Pacific College
should utilize her independence by striving to modify,
improve and create additional areas for non-academic
participation.
7. A study, similar to this present investigation,
could be carried out at similar institutions of higher
learning. This could provide a valuable amount of infor
mation and a comparison relative to the quality and
quantity of non-academic achievement.
8. A research plan should be devised to study
changing and developmental trends in non-academic programs
and to provide for wide dissemination of the findings to
involved personnel of Azusa Pacific College.
92
9. A final recommendation relates to the ten items
designed by the investigator. Several issues were raised j
by its use. Students agreed with the compulsory chapel
|
requirement, but registered disagreement with the content
of the chapels. The students should be sampled for their
preferences in chapel presentations. Another area of
concern was the no opinion responses to the items. This
lack of involvement would be an area for investigation,
and it would be advantageous to discover why students on
campus, exposed to college experiences, did not have
reactions.
REFERENCES
I
1
93
REFERENCES
Abe, C., and Holland, J.L. A description of college
freshman: students with difficult vocational choices,
Research Report Number 2, Iowa City: American College
Testing Program, 1965.
Arsenian, S. Changes in evaluative attitudes during four
years of college. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1943, 27, 338-349.
Astin, A.W. Who goes where to college. Chicago: SRA, Inc.,
1965.
. Undergraduate achievement and institutional
excellence. Reprinted from Science, August, 1968,
Vol. 161: 661-668.
Astin, A.W., and Holland, John L. Environmental assess
ment technique: a way to measure college environments.
Journal of Educational Psychology. LII (1961), 308-
316.
Baird, Leonard L. The educational goals of college-bound
youth. The American College Testing Program, Iowa
City, Iowa, April, 1967, No. 19.
Bell, Daniel. The Reforming of General Education? The
Columbia College Experience in its National Setting,
Columbia University Press, 1966.
Bereiter, Carl, and Friedman, Mervin B. Fields of study
and the people in them, in The American College,
Edited by Nevitt Sanford. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1862, 563-596.
Beven, William. The university climate and the problem of
student pressure. College Student Personnel, VI
(1965), 353-347.
Boroff, David. Campus U.S.A. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1962.
Brown, Donald. Personality college environments, and
academic productivity, in The American College,
edited by Nevitt Sanford. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1962, 536-562.
94
95
Bruner, Jerome S. The process of education. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1960.
Cartwright, Rosaline Dymond. Self-conception patterns of
college students and adjustment to college life.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, X (1963), 47-52*
Drucker, Peter F. The Age of Discontinuity. New York:
Harper & Row, 1969.
Farnsworth, D.S.; Funkenstein, D.; and Wedge, G. A study
of the social and emotional adjustment of early
admission. College Students (Mimeo) Report for the
Fund Advancement of Education, 1955.
Feder, D.D. Intriguing problems of design in predicting
college success. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 25 (Spring), 29-38, 1965.
Feldman, Kenneth A. Research strategies in studying
college impact. The American College Testing Program,
1970.
Fishman, Joshua A. Some social-psychological theory for
selecting and guiding college students, in The
American College, Nevitt Sanford, (Ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962, 666-689.
Friedman, M.B. The passage through college. Journal of
Social Issues, 1956, 12, 13-28.
Getzels, J.W. Non I.Q., intellectual and other factors
in college admission: the coming crisis in the
selecting of students for college entrance.
Washington: National Education Association, 1960,
21-28.
Goldsen, Ruth, et al. What college students think.
Princeton, N. J., Van Nostrand, 1960.
Grande, Peter P.; Simons, Joseph B.; and Pallone,
Nathaniel J. The perception of the college experi
ence and academic motivation. Journal of Educational
Research, LXI (1967), 65-67.
Heist, Paul. Diversity in college student characteristics.
Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXIII (1960),
279-291. '
96
Heist, Paul, and McConnell, T.R., Do students make the
college? College and University, XXXIV (1959), 441-
452.
Heist, Paul, and Webster, H. Differential characteristics
of student bodies--implications for selection and
study of undergraduates. In Selection and Educational
Differentiation. Berkeley, California: Center for "
the Study of Higher Education, 1960, 91-106.
Holland, J.W. The psychology of vocational choice.
Waltham, Massachusetts: Blaisdell, 1966.
Holland, J.L. Undergraduate origins of American scien
tists, Science, 1957, 126, 433-437.
Holland, J.L., and Richards, J.M. Academic and non-
academic— correlated or uncorrelated. Journal of
Educational Psychology, LVI (1965), 165-174.
Hoyt, Donald P. Forecasting academic success in specific
colleges. American College Testing Program Research
Report No. 27", August, 1968.
_______ . Institutional self-study survey. The American
College Testing Program, Iowa City, Iowa^ 1969.
Ivey, Allen E.; Miller, Dean C.; and Goldstein, Arnold D.
Differential perceptions of college environment:
student personnel staff and students. The Personnel
and Guidance Journal, XLVI (1967), 17-21.
Jacob, P.E. Changing values in college. New York: Harper
Bros., 1957.
Jencks, Christopher, and Reisman, David. The academic
revolution. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co.,
Inc., 1969.
Keniston, Kenneth. The uncommitted, alienated youth in
American society^ New York: Harcourt Brace, 1965.
Knapp, R.H., and Greenbaum, J.J. The younger American
scholar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
Lavin, D.E. The prediction of academic performance.
New York* Russell Sage Foundaile, 1965, p. 23.
97
Matson, Robert E. A study of the influence of fraternity,
residence hall, and off-campus living on students of
high, average and low-college potential, Journal of
National Association of Women Deans and Counselors,
XXVI (1963), 24-29. ”
McConnell, T.R., and Heist, P. Diverse college student
population, in The American College, Edited by Nevitt
Sanford. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962,
225-252.
McFee, Anne. Relation of student needs to their percep
tions of a college environment, Journal of Educational
Psychology, LIT (1961), 25-29.
Munday, Leo A. Factors influencing the predictability of
college grades. Unpublished Paper, The American
College Testing Program, Iowa City, Iowa.
Murray, Henry A. Explorations in personality. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1938.
Nadler, Eugene B., and Krulee, Gilbert K. Personality
factors among science and technology freshmen,
Journal of Educational Psychology, LII (1961), 223-
23T.
Newcomb, Theodore M. Student peer-group influence and
intellectual outcomes of college experience, in
Personality Factors on the College Campus, (Editors:
Robert L. Sutherland, Wayne H. Holtzman, Earl A.
Koile, and Bert Kruger Smith). Austin, Texas: The
Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, 1962, 69-91.
Pace, C. Robert. College and university environment
scales: preliminary technical manual. Princeton:
Educational Testing Service, 1963.
Five college environments, College Board Review,
XLI (1960), 24-28.
Pace, C. Robert, and Stern, George C. An approach to the
measurement of the psychological characteristics of
the college environment, Journal of Educational
Psychology, XLIX (1958), 269-577" .
Packard, Vance. The Status Seekers. New York: David
McKay, 1958.
98
Peterson, Richard E. On a typology of college students.
Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1965.
Pitcher, Robert. The diagnosis of underachievements
Notebook: Understanding the college years. Educa
tional Development Center, 23 Adelbert Street, Berea,
Ohio, 1969, p. 10A.
Richards, James M., Jr.; Rand, Leonard P.; and Rand,
Lorraine M. New way to measure environments. A
study of how junior colleges develop an institutional
profile, Junior College Journal, XXXVI (1966), 18-20.
Richards, James M., Jr.; Taylor, C.W.; Price, P.B.; and
Jacobsen, D.L. An investigation of the criterion
problem for one group of medical specialists.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 79-90.
Sanford, Nevitt. The American College. New York: John
Wiley & Son, 1962. (Condensed. Published as
College and Character, 1964).
Schrodder, W.L., and Sledge, G.W. Factors related to
collegiate academic success, Journal of College
Student Personnel. 7, 97-104, March, 1966.
Seashore, H.G. Women are more predictable than men.
Presidential Address, Division of Counseling
Psychology. The American Psychology Association,
September 1, 1961 and Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1962, 9, 261-270.
Seligman, Daniel. Youth in turmoil. New York: Time-Life
Books, 1969.
Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the classroom. New York:
Random House, 1970.
Sprague, H.T. Institutional research in the west.
Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education, 1959.
Stern, G.G. Characteristics of the intellectual climate
in college environment, Harvard Educational Review,
XXXIII (1963), 4-21.
Congruence and dissonance in the ecology of
college students. Student Medicine, 1960a, 8,
304-339.
99
Stern, G.G. Environments for learning., In The American
College, Nevitt Sanford (Ed.). New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1962, 690-730.
Student ecology and the college environment.
Journal of Medical Education. XL (1965), 132-154.
Stern, G.G., and Cope, A.H. Differences in educability
between stereopaths, nonstereopaths, and rationals.
Paper present at the American Psychological
Association Convention in Chicago, September, 1956.
Stern, G.G., Stein, M.I., and Bloom, B.S. Methods in
personality assessment. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press, 1956.
Sternberg, Carl. Personality trait patterns of college
students majoring in different fields. Psychological
Monographs, LXIX, No. I (1955), 1-21.
Summerskill, J. Dropouts from college. In The American
College, Nevitt Sanford (Ed.). New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1962, 627-657.
Super, Donald E. Self-concept and vocational-development
theories applied to college choice and planning. In
Preparing School Counselors in Educational Guidance.
New York: CEEB, 1967, 89-100.
Thistlethwaite, Donald L. College press and student
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, LI
(1960), 222-234.
_______ . Rival hypotheses for explaining effects of dif-
?ering learning environments. Journal of Educational
Psychology, LIII (1962), 310-315.
Trow, Martin. Student cultures and administrative action,
in R.L. Sutherland, et al., (Ed.), Personality
Factors on the College Campus, review of a Symposium.
Austin, Texas* The Hogg Foundation of Mental Health,
1962, 203-225.
Vassar College. Results of time survey. Poughkeepsie,
November 7, 1957. 4 pp.
Webster, Harold, Friedman, Mervin B., and Heist, Paul.
Personality change in college students. In The
American College, Nevitt Sanford (Ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962, 811-846.
APPENDICES
I
100
i
Permission has been granted by the
American College Testing Program, Inc., to
use the following SURVEY OF EDUCATIONAL
STATUS AND PROGRESS in the appendices of
this dissertation.
PLEASE NOTE:
Pages 102-109, "Survey of Educational
Status and Progress", copyright 1967
by the American College Testing Pro
gram, Inc., not microfilmed at re
quest of author. Available for con
sultation at the University of Sou
thern California Library.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS
110
Questions 200-209 deal with experiences you may have
had in Azusa Pacific College. Indicate your opinion of
these as they apply by using the collowing code:
Agree 1
Partly agree and partly disagree 2
Disagree 3
I have no opinion on the matter N
_____ 200. Compulsory chapel should be continued.
_____ 201. Chapel services are profitable and varied.
_____ 202. Students have ample opportunity to express
their opinions.
203. Students are encouraged to make their own
decisions.
204. The Christian Service requirement is
reasonable.
_____ 205. Moral standards are designed to integrade
conduct with an adequate philosophy of life.
_____ 206. Dating regulations are sensible.
_____ 207. College life provides an experience of growth.
_____ 208. College life stimulates cultural refinement
and courtesy.
_____ 209. Regulations for personal appearance are
appropriate.
b i b l i o g r a p h y
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
111
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abe, C. A factor analytic study of some non-intellectual
indices of academic achievement. Journal of Educa
tional Measurement, 1966, 3 (Spring), 39-44.
Abe, C., and Holland, J.L. A description of college
freshmen: students with difficult vocational choices.
Research Report Number 2, Iowa City: American College
Testing Program, 1965.
Adams, James F. Counseling and guidance, a summary view.
New York: Macmillan Company, 1965.
Alper, T.G. Task-orientation versus egoorientation in
learning and retention. American Journal of
Psychology, 1946, 59, 236-248.
Alpert, R., and Haber, R.N. Anxiety in academic achieve
ment situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1960, 61, 207-215.
Altus, W.D. A college achiever and non-achiever scale for
the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 32:385-397, 1948.
Anderson, T.B., and Olsen, L.C. Congruence of self and
ideal-self and occupational choices. The Personnel
and Guidance Journal, XLIV (1965), 171-176.
Armstrong, M.E. A comparison of the interests and social
adjustment of underachievers and normal achievers at
the secondary school level. Dissertation Abstracts
15 (12), 1349-1350, 1955.
Arsenian, S. Changes in evaluative attitudes during four
years of college. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1943, 27, 338-349.
Assum, A.L., and Levy, S.J. A comparative study of the
academic ability and achievement of two groups of
college students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
38, 307-310, 1947.
Astin, A.W. A note on the relationship between creative
and academic achievement. Evanston, Illinois:
National Merit Scholarship Corporation, 1962.
112
113
Astin, A.W. An empirical characterization of higher edu
cational institutions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, LIII (1962), 224-235.
. Classroom environment in different fields of
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, LVI (1965),
275-282.
Distribution of students among higher educational
institutions. Journal of Educational Psychology,LV
(1964), 276-287.
. Effect of different college environments on the
vocational choices of high aptitude students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, XII (1965), 28-34.
_______ , Personal and environmental factors associated
with college dropouts among high aptitude students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 219-227, 1964.
_______ . Some characteristics of student bodies entering
higher educational institutions. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, LV (1965), 267-275.
. Who goes where to college. Chicago: SRA, Inc.,
T965.
_______ . Undergraduate achievement institutional excel-
lence. Reprinted from Science, August, 1968,
Vol. 161, 661-668.
Astin, A.W., and Holland, John L. Environment assessment
technique: a way to measure college environments.
Journal of Educational Psychology, LII (1961), 308-
___
Atkinson, J.W. An introduction to motivation. Princeton:
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1966.
_______ . Motives in fantasy, action, and society: a
method- of assessment and study. New York: Van
Nostrand Company, Inc., 1958.
Atkinson, J.W., and Feather, N.T. A theory of achievement
motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.
Atkinson, J.W. The mainsprings of achievement-oriented
activity. In J. Krumboltz (Ed.), Learning and the
educational process. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.
114
Atkinson, J.W.; Bastian, J.R.; Earl, R.W.; and Litwin,
G.H. The achievement motive, goal-setting, and
probability preference. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1960, 60, 27-36.
Atkinson, J.W., and Litwin, G.H. Achievement motive and
test anxiety conceived as motive to approach success
and motive to avoid failure. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 1, 1960.
Atkinson, J.W., and Reitman, W.R. Performance as a
function of motive strength and expectancy of goal
attainment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
53, 361-366, 1956.
Atkinson, J.W. Studies in projective measurement of
achievement motivation. Unpublished doctoral dis
sertation, University of Michigan, 1950.
Bachman, J.G. Prediction of academic achievement using
the Edwards need achievement scale. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 48, 16-19, 1964.
Baer, Max F. (Ed.) Washington flashes. The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, XLVI (1968), 622-623.
Baird, Leonard L. The educational goals of college-bound
youth. American College Testing Program, Iowa City,
Iowa, April, 1967, No. 19.
Baker, R.W. Incidence of psychological disturbance in
college students. Journal of the American Health
Association, 13 (April), 532-540, 1965•
Barger, B., and Hall, E. The interaction of ability
levels and socioeconomic variables in the prediction
of college dropouts and grade achievement. Educa
tional and Psychological Measurement, 25, 501-508,
1965.
Baymur, F.B., and Patterson, C.H. A comparison of three
methods of assisting underachieving high school
students. Journal on Counseling Psychology, 7,
83-89, 1960“ :
Beach, L.R. Sociability and academic achievement in
various types of learning situations. Journal of
Educational Psychology, LI (1960), 208-212.
115
Beahan, L.T. Initial psychiatric interviews and the
dropout rate of college students. Journal of the
American College Health Association, 1966, 14
(April), 305-308.
Beall, Lynnette, and Bordin, Edward S. The development
and personality of engineers. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, XLIII (1964), 23-32.
Becker, Samuel L., Goodstein, Leonard D., and Mittman,
Arthur. Relationships between the Minnesota filulti-
phasic personality inventory and the college
characteristics index. Journal of College Student
Personnel, VI (1965), 219-223.
Bell, Daniel. The reforming of general education; The
Columbia college experience in its national setting.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1966.
Bendig, A.W. Comparison of the validity of two tempera
ment scales in predicting college achievement.
Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 51, 605-609,
1958.
Benson, Loren L. Students' problems in educational
planning and their need for assistance. In Preparing
School Counselors in Educational Guidance. New York:
CEEB, 1967, 51-66.
Bentley, Joseph C., and Salter, Sterling. College
freshmen view counselor help in college selection.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, XL.VI (1967), 178-183.
Berdie, Ralph F. College expectations, experiences and
perceptions. College Student Personnel, VII (1966)
336-344.
Bereiter, Carl, and Friedman, Mervin B. Fields of study
and the people in them. In The American College,
Nevitt Sanford (Ed.) New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1962, 563-596.
Berger, Arthur G. How the college admissions officer
views counselor recommendations. Vocational
Guidance Quarterly, IX (1961), 255-261.
116
Berger, I.L., and Sutker, A.R. The relationship of
emotional adjustment and intellectual capacity to
academic underachievement of college students.
New York: Mental Hygiene, 40, 65-77, 1956.
Bernstein, A. Social class and linguistic development.
In Anderson, A., Floud, J., and Halsey, H. Society,
Economy, and Education. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press, 1961.
Bertolaet, F. Promising practices from the projects for
the culturally deprived. Chicago: Research Council
of the Great Cities Program for School Improvement,
1964.
Best, Sheila Anne. The relationship between the college
characteristics index and other measures of the
college environment. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Syracuse University, 1962.
Bevan, William. The university climate and the problem of
student pressure. College Student Personnel, VI
(1965), 343-347.
Bloom, S. Stability and change in human characteristics.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965.
Blossom, Herbert Henry. Some factors influencing high
school graduates attendance at different types of
colleges. Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1966),
619-A.
Bolstad, Dennis Paul. An exploratory investigation of
some personal and academic correlates of freshman
persistence and attrition at Stout State University.
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1967), 879-A
Bond, P.J. The relationship between selected non-
intellective factors and 'concealed failure' among
college students of superior scholastic ability.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University,
Dissertation Abstracts, 21, p. 121, 1960.
Braiman, A. Therapeutic uses of the university. Journal
of the American College Health Association, 16,
60-68, 1967.
Bresee, C.W. Affective factors associated with academic
underachievement in high school students. Disserta
tion Abstracts, 14 (1), 90-91, 1957.
117
Broedel, J.; Ohlsen, M.; Proff, F.; and Southard, C. The
effects of group counseling on gifted underachieving
adolescents. Journal on Counseling Psychology,
7, 163-170.
Brookover, W. B. et al., Self-concept of ability and
school achievement. Paper read at Sixth World
Congress of International Sociological Association,
Evian, France, September, 1966.
Brown, D.R. Student stress and the institutional environ
ment. The Journal of Social Issues, 23 (July),
92-107, 1967.
Brown, Donald. Personality, college environments, and
academic productivity. In The American College,
Nevitt Sanford (Ed.) New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1962, 536-562.
Brown, F.G. Identifying college dropouts with the
Minnesota Counseling Inventory. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 39, 280-282, 1960.
Brown, H.S. An investigation of the validity of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for a
college population and the relationship of certain
personality traits to achievement. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1947.
Brown, J.S. Gradients of approach and avoidance responses
and their relation to level of motivation. Journal
of Comprehensive Physiological Psychology, 41,
450-465, 1948.
The motivation of behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1961.
Brown, Maurice Burton. Multiple discriminant analysis of
the EPPS and the study of values’ scores of achieving
and non-achieving low ability college freshmen.
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI (1966), 150'5.
Brown, W.F. Student-to-student counseling for academic
adjustment. The Personnel and Guidance Journal
(April), 811-817, 1965.
Brown, W., Abeles, N., and Iscoe, I. Motivational differ
ences between high and low scholarship college
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18,
181-182, 1962.
118
Broxton, June. Self concepts of freshmen women. Journal
of the National Association of Women Deans and
Counselors, XXVI (1963), 25-29.
Bruck, M., and Bodwin, R.F. The relationship between
self-concept and the presence and absence of scholas
tic underachievement. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
18, 181-182, 1962.
Bruner, Jerome S. The process of education. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1960.
Bullock, H.A. A comparison of the academic achievements
of white and negro high school graduates. Journal of
Educational Research, 44, 179-192.
Burck, H.D., and Cottingham, H.F. The effects of counse
ling low-ability, high-aspiring college freshmen.
The Journal of College Student Personnel, 6 (Sept.),
279-283, 1965.
Burgess, E. Personality factors in over and underachievers
in engineering. Dissertation Abstracts, Pennsylvania
State University, 16: 536-543, 1953.
Campbell, L.H., and Hahn, W. Readmission of former
students after absence from the Campus: problems arid
opportunities. College and University, Winter, 1962,
Carew, D.K. Comparison of activities, social acceptance
and scholastic achievements of men students.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVI (1957), 121-124.
Carlson, H»B. Psychiatric casualties in college. Educa
tional Administration and Supervision, Vol. 41,
p. 270, 1955.
Carmical, L. Character of achieving and underachieving
students at a large senior high school. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 43:390-395, No. 4, 1964.
Carrier, N.A., and Jewell, D.O. Efficiency in measuring
the effect of anxiety upon academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 1,
23-26, 1966.
Cartwright, Rosaline Dymond. Self-conception patterns of
college students and adjustment to college life.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, X (1963), 47-52.
119
Cattell, R.B. Personality and motivation; structure and
measurement. New York: World Book Company, 1957.
Centi, P. Personality factors related to college success.
Journal of Educational Research. L,V, 187-188, 1962.
Centra, John A. Student perceptions of total university
and major field environments. Dissertation Abstracts,
XXVII (1965), 664-A.
Chase, C.I. The university freshman dropout, Indiana
Studies in Prediction, No. 6, Bureau of Educational
Studies and Testing, Indiana University, 1965. 36 pp.
Chestnut, W.J. The effects of structured and unstructured
group counseling on male college students' under-
achievement. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12,
388-394, 1965.
Chickering, A.W. Institutional differences and student
characteristics. Paper read at meeting of the
American College Health Association, San Diego,
May, 1966.
Child, I.L. Personality correlates of esthetic judgment
in college students. Journal of Personality, XXXIII
(1965), 476-511.
Child, I.L., and Whiting, J. Determinants of level of
aspiration: evidence from everyday life. Journal of
Applied Psychology, XLIV (1949), 303-314.
Cicirelli, V. Go Form of the relationship between
creativity, I.Q., and academic achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 56, 303-308, 1965.
Clark, B.S., compiler. College student persistence and
admissions: Selected references. Washington: the
Office, Division of Educational Organization and
Administration, June, 1964.
Cole, David, and Fields, Beverly. Student perceptions of
varied campus climates. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, XXXIX (1961), 509-510.
Constantinople, Anne P. Some correlates of happiness and
unhappiness in college students. Dissertation
Abstracts, XXVII (1967), 250-A.
120
Coombs, R.H., and Davies, V. Self-conception and the
relationship between high school and college
scholastic achievement. Sociology and Social
Research, 50 (July), 460-469, 1966.
Darley, J.G. Promise and performance: a study of ability
and achievement in higher education. Berkeley:*" ”
University of California Center for the Study of
Higher Education, 1962.
Dave, R.H. The identification and measurement of environ
mental process variables that are related to educa
tional achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago, 196 3.
Davie, James S. Satisfaction and the college experience.
In Psycho-social Problems of College Men, Bryant M.
Wedge (Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958.
15-44.
Davis, J.A. Nonintellectual factors in college achieve
ment. From High School to College. New York:
College Entrance Examination Board, 1965.
de Hirsch, K. Two categories of learning difficulties in
adolescents. American Journal of Ortho, Vol. 33,
No. 1, 87-91, 1963.
Demos, G.D. Analysis of college dropouts--some manifest
and covert reasons. Personnel and Guidance Journal,
March, 1968.
Demos, G.D., and Spolyar, L.J. Academic achievement of
college freshmen in relation to the Edwards personal
preference schedule. Educational and Psychological
Measurement. Vol. XXI, No. 2, 473-479, 1961.
De Sena, P.A. Problems of consistent over-, under-, and
normal-achieving college students as identified by
the Mooney Problem Check List. The Journal of
Educational Research, 59 (April)*^ 351-355, 1966.
De Vesta, F.J., Woodruff, A.K., and Hertel, J.P. Moti
vation as a predictor of college success. Educa
tional and Psychological Measurement, IX (1949)',
339-348.
De Weese, H.L. The extent to which group counseling
influences the academic achievement of predicted low-
achieving first semester college freshmen. Disser-
tation Abstract^ 20, 3192 (Abstract), 1960.
121
Dickenson, W.A., and Truax, C.B. Group counseling with
college underachievers. The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 45, 243-247, 1966.
Diener, C. Similarities and differences between over
achieving and underachieving students. The Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 38, 396-400, 1960.
Donnan, H. Personality factors related to college
achievement and attrition. Journal of College
Student Personnel, Vol. 9, No. 2, March, 1968.
Drake, L.E., and Oetting, E.R. An MMPI pattern and a
suppressor variable predictive of academic achieve
ment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 4, 245-247,
1957.
Drasgow, J. Underachievers. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 4, 210-211, 1957.
Drews, E., and Teahan, J. Parental attitudes and academic
achievement. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13,
328-332, 1957.
Drucker, Peter F. The age of discontinuity. New York:
Harper and Row"^ 1969.
Duff, O.L., and Seigel, L, Biographical factors associated
with academic over- and under-achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 51, 43-46, 1960.
Dulles, R.J. Myth of underachievement. Journal of
Educational Sociology, 35, 121-122, 1961.
Dysinger, W.S., and Hackman, J.R. Attrition in the liberal
arts college. (Final Report Cooperative Research
Project 5-0882), U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare Offices of Education, Bureau of Research,
1966.
Eckland, B.K. Sources of error in college attrition
studies. Sociology of Education, 55, 219-227, 1964.
Edson, Kenneth Charles. Factors related to change in
environmental expectations of college freshmen.
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI (1965), 4441.
Ellis, R.A. The cognitive failure of the upwardly mobile.
Paper read at the 59th Annual Meeting, American
Sociological Association, Montreal, August, 1964.
122
Erb, E. Conformity and achievement in college. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 39, 361-366, 1961.
Expanding opportunity for higher education: A report of
the conference on problems of identification and
admission to college of culturally disadvantaged
youth. The University of the State of New York: The
State Department of Education, Division of Higher
Education, Albany, New York. 21 pp. May, 1965.
Extence, Dorothea. Non-intellective factors which may be
related to voluntary withdrawal of college freshmen.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1965.
Farnsworth, D. Some non-academic causes of success and
failure in college students. In College Admissions
(CEEB) Princeton: CEEB, 1955.
Farnsworth, D.S., Funkenstein, D., and Wedge, B. A study
of the social and emotional adjustment of early
admission college students (Mimeo). Report for the
Fund Advancement of Education, 1955.
Farquhar, W.W. Motivation factors related to academic
achievement. Cooperative Research Project 846 (J).
East Lansing: Office of Research and Publications,
College of Education, Michigan State University, 1963.
Farwell, Elwin D., Warren, Jonathan R., and McConnel, T.R.
Student personality characteristics associated with
groups of colleges and fields of study. College and
University, XXXVII (1962), 229-241.
Fay, P.P. The relationship of the E.P.P.S. Need for
achievement scale to performance. Unpublished
undergraduate dissertation, Colgate University, 1966.
Feather, N.T. Persistence in relation to achievement,
motivation, anxiety about failure, and task diffi
culty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Michigan, 1960.
_______ . The relationship of expectation of success to
need achievement and text anxiety. Journal of
Personal Social Psychology, 1, 118-126, 1965.
The study of persistence. Psychological Bul
letin, 59, 94-114, 1962.
123
Feder, D.D. Intriguing problems of design in predicting
college success. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 25 (Spring), 29-38, 1965.
Feld, S. Studies in the origins of achievement strivings.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Michigan, 1959.
Feldman, Kenneth A. Research strategies in studying
college impact. The American College Testing
Program, 1970.
Fine, B. Underachievers: how they can be helped. New
York: Dutton, 1967.
Finger, J.A., and Schlesser, G.E. Non-intellective
predictors of academic success in school and college.
The School Review, 73 (Spring), 14-29, 1965.
Fink, M.B. Self concept as it relates to academic under
achievement . California Journal of Educational
Research, 13, 57-62, 1962.
Fisher, M. Scott. The relationships of satisfaction,
achievement and attrition to anticipated environ
mental press. Unpublished Master's thesis, Provo,
Utah, Brigham Young University, 1961.
Fisher, Margaret, and Roth, R.M. Structure, an essential
framework for research. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, XXXIX (1961), 639-644.
Fishman, Joshua A. Some Social-Psychological theory for
selecting and guiding college students. In The
American College, Nevitt Sanford (Ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962, 666-689. \
Floyd, William A. A new approach to measuring the
developing personality configuration of college
students. Journal of College Student Personnel, V
(1963), 93-W.
Folsom, W.W., and Warren, R.J. Disqualification of fresh
men at the end of their first semester in college.
Paper read at Student Personnel Association of
California Colleges, San Luis Obispo, October, 1964.
Ford, D.H., and Urban, H.B. College dropouts: successes or
failures. Educational Record. 46, No. 2, 77-92,
1965.
124
Forrest, Aubrey. Counseling talented students on college
choice. Personnel and Guidance Journal, XL (1961)
42-47.
Frankel, E.A. A comparative study of achieving and under
achieving high school boys of high intellectual
ability. Journal of Educational Research, 53, 172-
179.
Friedman, N.B. The passage through college. Journal of
Social Issues, 1956, 12, 13-28.
French, E.G. Some characteristics of achievement moti
vation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50,
232-236, 1955.
French, E.G., and Lesser, G.S. Some characteristics of
the achievement motive in women. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 68, 119-128, 1964.
French, E.G., and Thomas, F.H. The relation of achieve
ment motivation to problem-solving effectiveness.
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 56, 45-48,
1958.
Gallant, Thomas F. Academic achievement of college fresh
men and its relation to selected aspects of student's
background. Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI (1966),
6468.
Gebhart, G., and Hoyt, D. Personality needs of under and
over-achieving freshmen. Journal of Applied
Psychology, XLII, 125-128, 1958.
Gelso, C.J., and Rowell, D. Academic adjustment and the
persistence of students with marginal academic
potential. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14,
(Sept.), 478-481, 1967.
Getzels, J.W. Non I.Q., intellectual and other factors in
college admission: the coming crisis in the selecting
of students for college entrance. Washington:
National Education Association, (1960), 21-28.
Gibbs, D.N. A cross-cultural comparison of needs and
achievement of university freshmen. The Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 44 (April), 813-816, 1966.
_______ . Student failure and social maladjustment. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 6 (Feb.), 580-585,
1965.
125
Gibson, R.L., Higgins, R., and Mitchell, M.H. The high
school dropout goes to college. The Personnel and
Guidance Journal. 45: 824-827, April, 1967.
Gilbreath, S.H. Group counseling with male underachieving
college volunteers. The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 45, 469-476, 1967.
_______ . Group counseling, dependence, and college male
underachievement. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
14 (September), 449-453, 1967.
Gillespie, Marcus. Rank in class. Washington, D.C.: The
Joint Committee on School-College Relations of
American Association of Secondary School Principals,
1962.
Gilliland, A., and Voas, W. Personality tests and scholas
tic achievement. Personnel Journal, 9, 305-308,
1930.
Gladys, M.G. The relationship between academic success
and five extrascholastic factors. Nashville: George |
Peabody College, 1941.
Goble, R.I. A study of the student dropout problem at
Miami University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University, 1956.
Goldman, Leo. Information and counseling: a dilemma.
The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLVI (1967),
42-46.
Goldsen, Ruth, et al. What college students think. ■
Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1960.
Goodstein, L.D. Five-year follow-up of counseling
effectiveness with probationary college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14 (September),
436-439, 1967.
Goodstein, L.D., and Heilbrun, Jr., A. Prediction of
college achievement from the Edwards personal
preference schedule at three levels of intellectual
ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI,
317-320, 1962.
Gough, Harrison G. The adjective check list as a person
ality assessment research technique. Psychological
Reports, VI (1960), 107-122.
!
126
Grande, Peter P.; Simons, Joseph B.j and Pallone,
Nathaniel J. The perception of the college experi
ence and academic motivation. Journal of Educational
Research, LXI (1967), 65-67.
Green, R.L., and Farquhar, W.W. Negro academic motivation
and scholastic achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 5, 241-243, 1965.
Grooms, R.R., and Endler, N.S. The effect of anxiety on
academic achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 51, 299-304, 1960.
Haber, R.N., and Alpert, R. The role of situation and
picture cues in projective measurement of the achieve
ment motive. In J.W. Atkinson, (Ed.) Motives in
Fantasy, Action, and Society. Princeton: D. Van
Nostrand Company, Inc., 1958.
Hackett, H. Use of MMPI items to predict college achieve
ment. The personnel and Guidance Journal, 39, 215-
217, 1960.
Hagstrom, David Alan. College image and organizational
character: differential perceptions of various groups
in junior college. Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII
(1966), 2026-A.
Hakel, M.D. Prediction of college achievement from the
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule using intellec
tual ability as a moderator. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 50 (August), 336-340, 1966.
Halfter, I.T. Demographic, personal, and intellective
characteristics of ’high risk’ students: An experi
ment to test the educational second-chance theory.
Paper read at American Personnel and Guidance Associ
ation, Minneapolis, April, 1965.
Hall, L.H. Academic performance of students of average
ability in a junior college, the state colleges, and
the University of California. Research Brief, No. 16,
California State Department of Education, 8 pp.,
January, 1967.
Hall, W.E., and Galdert, W. Social skills and their
relationships to scholastic achievement. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, XCVI (1960), 269-273.
127
Hammond, John S. III. Bringing order into the selection
of a college. The Personnel and Guidance Journal,
XLIII (1965), 654-660.
Hansmeier, T.W. Factors related to the success after
readmission of college students academically dis
missed. College and University, 40 (Winter), 194-
202, 1965.
Harris, I.D. Emotional blocks to learning. New York:
Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.
Hart, D.H. A study of the effects of two types of group
experience on the academic achievement of college
underachievers. Dissertation Abstracts, 25, 1003-
1004, 1964.
Heilbrun, Alfred B. Jr. Configural interpretation of the
Edwards personal preference schedule and prediction
of academic performance. The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 42, 264-268, 1963.
_______ . Personality factors in college dropout. Journal
o? Applied Psychology, XLIX (1965), 1-7.
Heist, Paul. Diversity in college student characteristics.
Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXIII (1960),
279-291.
Heist, Paul, and McConnell, T.R. Do students make the
college? College and University, XXXIV (1959), 441-
452.
Heist, Paul, and Webster, H. Differential characteristics
of student bodies--implications for selection and
study of undergraduates. In Selection and Educational
Differentiation. Berkeley, California: Center for "
the Study of Higher Education, 1960, 91-106.
Heller, H.L. Can underachieving college students be
helped? Educational Leadership, September, 1968.
Heller, H.L. Giving college students a second chance.
Ohio Schools, April, 1968.
Heller, H.L. Help for college underachievers. The
Educational Development Center: Educational Record,
Spring, 1968.
128
Heller, H.L. Strengthening character traits of college
underachievers. Liberal Education, 270-274, May,
1968.
HeIson, R. Personality of women with imaginative and
artistic interests; the role of masculinity,
originality, and other characteristics in their
creativity. Journal of Personality, XXXIV (1966),
1-25.
Hendriz, O.R. The effect of special advising on achieve
ment of freshmen with low predicted grades. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44 (October), 185-
188.
Herr, Edwin L. Guidance of the college bound. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLV (1966), 47-52.
. Student personality and college climate. In
Preparing School Counselors in Educational Guidance.
New York: CEEB, 1967. 23-40.
Hershenson, D.B. Some personal and social determinants of
occupational role-taking in college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, XII (1965), 206-208.
Hill, A.H. Motivation and academic counseling. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 13 (Winter), 447-453,
1966.
Hill, A.H., and Grieneeks, L. An evaluation of academic
counseling of under-and over-achievers. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 13 (Fall), 325-328, 1966.
Holder, Douglas Harold. A study of the information pat
terns of high school students in college-decision
making. Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI (1966), 5786.
Holland, John L. The prediction of college grades from
the California psychological inventory and the
scholastic-aptitude test. Journal of Educational
Psychology, L (1959), 135-142.
. Undergraduate origins of American scientists.
Science, 1957, 126, 433-437.
Holland, John L., and Richards, J.M. Academic and non
academic-correlated or uncorrelated. Journal of
Educational Psychology, LVI )1965), 165-174.
129
Hood, Albert B., and Berdie, Ralph F. The relationship of
ability to college attendance. College and Univer
sity. XXXIX (1964), 309-318.
Hogue, D.W. The academic effect of counseling a group of
underachieving college men. Dissertation Abstracts,
25, 5114-5115, 1965.
Houts, P.S., and Entwisle, D.R. Academic achievement
effort among females; achievement attitudes and sex-
role orientation. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
Vol. 15, No. 3, 284-286, 1968.
Howard, V., and Warrington, W. The inventory of beliefs:
changes in beliefs and attitudes and academic success
prediction. The Personnel and Guidance Journal,
XXXVII (1958), 299-302.
Hoyt, Donald P. Forecasting academic success in specific
colleges. American College Testing Program Research
Report. No. 27, August, 1968.
_______ . Institutional self-study survey. The American
College Testing Program, Iowa City, Iowa, 1969.
Iffert, R.E. Retention and withdrawal of college students.
Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing
Office, 1957.
Ikenberry, S.O. Factors in college persistence. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 8, 322-329, 1961.
Ivey, Allen E., Miller, Dean C., Goldstein, Arnold D.
Differential perceptions of college environment:
student, personnel, and staff. The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, XLVI (1967), 17-21.
Jacob, P.E. Changing values in college. New York:
Harper Bros., 1957.
Janowitz, J.F., and Allen, D.A. Withdrawal from college
for severe psychiatric disturbance. Journal of the
American College Health Association, 14 (April),
501-864, 1966.----------------------
Jax, E.B., and Merrill, R.M. Study in persistence: with
drawal and graduation rates at University of Utah.
The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44:475-480, 1966.
130
Jencks, Christopher, and Reisman, David. The academic
revolution. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co.,
Inc., 1969.
Jewett, A., Mersand, J., and Gunderson, D.V. Improving
English skills of culturally different youth.
Washington: The office, 1964.
Jones, M.R. (Ed.). Human motivation: A symposium.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965.
Katz, Irwin. Academic motivation and equal educational
opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 38,
No. 1 (Winter), 1968.
________. Review of evidence relating to effects of de
segregation on the intellectual performance of
negroes. American Psychologist, Vol. 19, No. 6,
June, 1964.
Katz, Irwin, and Greenbaum, C. Effects of anxiety, threat,
and racial environment on task performance of Negro
college students. Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 66, 562-567, 1963.
Kauffman, J. The meaning of work to this college gene
ration. Liberal Education, 15, 170-172, 1967.
Keniston, Kenneth. The uncommitted, alienated youth in
American society. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1965.
Kerns, B.L. A study of under-achieving and over-achieving
first-semester college freshmen as revealed by the
way in which they view the college situation and
themselves as college students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois, 1957. Disser
tation Abstracts, 17, p. 2500, 1958.
Kimball, B. Sentence-completion technique in a study of
scholastic underachievement. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 16, 353-358, 1952.
King, S.H. Emotional problems of college students: facts
and priorities. American Association of University
Professors Bulletin, Winter, 1964.
Kleinmuntz, B. Annotated bibliography of MMPI research
among college populations. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 9, 373-396, 1962.
131
Kleinmuntz, B. Identification of maladjusted college
students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 7,
209-211, 1960.
. MMPI decision rules for the identification of
college maladjustment: A digital computer approach.
Psychological Monographs General and Applied,
Vol. 77, No. 14, 1963.
Knapp, R.H., and Grienbaum, J.J. The younger American
scholar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
Knoell, D.M. Institutional research on retention and
withdrawal. In H.T. Sprague (Ed.), Research on
College Students. Berkeley, California: Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education and
Center for Higher Education, December, 1960, 41-65.
Koch, S. Behavior as 'instrinsically1 regulated: work
notes towards a pre-theory of phenomena called
•motivational.' In M.R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1956, 42-87.
Kohn, M., and Levenson, E.A. Differences between accepted
and rejected patients in a treatment project of
college dropouts. Journal of Psychology, 63, 143-
156, May, 1966.
_______ . Some characteristics of a group of bright,
emotionally disturbed college dropouts. Journal of
the American College Health Association, 14, 78-85,
December, 1965.
Kornrich, M. (Ed.). Underachievement. Springfield,
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1965.
Krug, R.E. Over-and underachievement and the Edwards
personal preference schedule. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 43, 133-136, 1959.
Lander, D., Ploski, H., and Brown, R.C., Jr. The relation'
ship of rigidity and authoritarianism to the achieve
ment of college students from disadvantaged
backgrounds. Paper read at a meeting of the Educa
tional Research Association of New York State, New
York, November, 1966.
132
Lang, G., Sferra, A.G., and Seymour, M. Psychological
needs of college freshmen and their academic achieve
ment. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 41:4,
359-360, 1962.
Lavin, D.E. The prediction of academic performance.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965. p. 23.
Lesser, G.S., Krawitz, R.N., and Packard, R. Experimental
arousal of achievement motivation in adolescent
girls. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
66, 59-66, 1963.
Levenson, E.W. Counseling the college dropout. The
Journal of the Association of College Admissions
Counselors, 12, No. 1, 6-9, 1967.
Lewin, K. Behavior and development as a function of the
total situation. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of
Child Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1946. 791-844.
Lum, M. A comparison of under- and overachieving female
college students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
51, 109-115, 1960.
MacKay, W.R. Interpersonal relationships, a factor in
academic success. California Journal of Educational
Research, 16, 189-196, September, 1965.
Magoon, T.M., and Maxwell, M.J. Demographic differences
between high and low achieving university students.
The Journal of College Student Personnel, 6, 367-373,
November, 1965.
Marsh, L.M. College dropouts--a review. The Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 44, 475-481, January, 1966.
Martire, J.G. Relationships between the self-concept and
differences in strength and generality of achievement
motive. Journal of Personality, 24, 364-375, 1956.
Marx, G.L. A comparison of the effectiveness of two
methods of counseling with academic underachievers.
Dissertation Abstract^ 20, 2144-2145, 1959.
Maslow, A.H. Deficiency motivation and growth motivation.
In M.R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation^
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1955. 1-30.
133
Maslow, A.H. Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper & Bros., 1954.
Matson, Robert E. A study of the influence of fraternity,
residence hall, and off-campus living on students of
high, average and low college potential. Journal of
National Association of Women Deans and Counselors,
XXVI (1963), 24-29.
McCammon, William Howard, JrQ The use of non-intellective
variables in predicting attrition of academically
capable students at the University of Tennessee.
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI (1966), 7158.
McClelland, D.C.; Atkinson, J.W.; Clark, R.A.; and Lowell,
E.L. The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-
Cen tury-Crofts, 1953.
McClelland, D.C. The achieving society. Princeton:
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1961.
_______ . (Ed.) Studies in motivation. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1955.
McConnell, T.R., and Heist, P. Diverse college student
population. In The American College, Nevitt Sanford
(Ed.). New York! John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962.
225-252.
McConnell, T.R. Do students make the college? College and
University, XXXIV (1959), 442-452.
McCormick, James H. and Asher, William. Aspects of the
high school record related to the first semester
college grade point average. The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, XLII (1964), 699-703.
McFee, Anne. Relation of student needs to their perceptions
of a college environment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, LII (1961), 25-29.
McKeachie , W.J. Anxiety in the college classroom. Journal
of Educational Research, Vol. XLV, No. 2, October,
T95T.-------------------
McKenzie, J.D., Jr. The dynamics of deviant achievers.
The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 42:683-686,
1964.
134
McNeeley, J.H. College student mortality. United States
Office of Education. Washington, D.C., United States
Government Printing Office, Bulletin, 1964, 1965.
Merbaum, A. Need for achievement in negro and white
children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer
sity of North Carolina, 1961.
Merrill, M., and Murphy, T. Personality factors and
academic achievement in college. Journal on Coun
seling Psychology, 6, 207-210, 1959.
Mezzano, J. Group counseling with low-motivated male high
school students--comparative effects of two uses of
counselor time. Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 61, No. 5, January, 1968.
Middleton, G., and Guthrie, G. Personality syndromes and
academic achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, L, 660-669, 1958.
Miller, L.M. Drop out selected references. United States
Office of Education. Washington, D.C.: United
States Government Printing Office, Bulletin 7, 1964,
1965.
______. (Ed.) Guidance for the underachiever with superior
ability. Washington, D.C.: United States Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, Bulletin 25, 1962.
Moch, W.L. Selected personality, intellective and com
munity characteristics as related to academic success
of University of Georgia students. Dissertation
Abstracts, XXII (1966), 961-A.
Montgomery, J. R. Proceedings of the research conference
on college dropouts. (Cooperative Research Project
No. F-065). Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1964.
Morgan, H.H. A psychometric comparison of achieving and
non-achieving college students of high ability.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 292-298, 1952.
Morrill, Weston Hoyt. Relationship of student personality,
area of concentration and college environment.
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1966), 961-A.
Moss, H.A., and Kagan, J„ Stability of achievement and
recognition seeking behavior from early childhood
through adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 52, 504-513.
135
Mowrer, O.H. Learning theory and behavior. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960.
. Motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 3,
3T9-438, 1952.
Munday, Leo. Factors influencing the predictability of
college grades. Unpublished paper, American College
Testing Program, Iowa City, Iowa.
Murphy, Lois B., and Raushenbush, Esther. Achievement in
the college years. New York: Harper Bros., 1960.
Murray, Henry A. Explorations in personality. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1938.
Nadler, Eugene B., and Krulee, Gilbert K. Personality
factors among science and technology freshmen.
Journal of Educational Psychology, LII (1961), 223-
231.
Nasetin, D. College dropouts. San Francisco: Jossey Boss
Publications, 1968.
Nasatir, David. A contextual analysis of academic failure.
School Review, LXXI (1963), 290-298.
Neugeboren, B. Clinical study of academic underachievers.
In Wedge, B.M. (Ed.), Psychosocial Problems of
College Men. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958,
29l pp.
Newcomb, Theodore M. Student peer-group influence and
intellectual outcomes of college experience. In
Personality Factors on the College Campus, (Editors:
Sutherland, Robert L., Holtzman, Wayne H., Koile,
Earl A., and Smith, Bert Kruger). Austin, Texas:
The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, 1962. 69-91.
Nichols, R.C. Non-intellective predictors of achievement
in college. Educational and Psychological Measure
ment, 26, 899-915, Winter, 1966.
Norfleet, M.W. Personality characteristics of achieving
and underachieving high ability senior women. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal. Vol. 46, No. 10,
June, 1968.
Nunnally, Jim C. Factored scales for measuring character
istics of college environments. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, XXIII (1963), 239-248.
136
Osepow, Samuel H ., Ashby, Jefferson D., and Wall, Harvey W.
Personality types and vocational choice--a test of
Holland's theory. The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, XLV (1966), 37-42.
Pace, C. Robert. College and university environment
scales: preliminary technical manual. Princeton:
Educational Testing Service, 1963.
Diversity of college environments. Journal of
National Association of Women Deans and Counselors,
XXV (1961), 21-26.
. Five college environments. College Board
Review, XLI (1960), 24-28.
_______ . Implications of differences in campus atmosphere
5or evaluation and planning of college programs. In
Personality Factors on the College Campus, Review of
a Symposium. (Editors: Sutherland, Robert L.,
Holtzman, Wayne H., Koile, Earl A., and Smith, Bert
Kruger), Austin, Texas: The Hogg Foundation for
Mental Health, 1962, 43-57.
Methods of describing college cultures. Teachers
College Record, LXIII (1962), 267-277.
_______ . The use of CUES in the college admission process.
Los Angeles: University of California, 1966.
_______ . When students judge their college. College
Board Review, No. 58, Winter 1965-66, 26-28.
Pace, C. Robert, and McFee, Anne. The college environment.
Review of Educational Research, XXX (1960), 311-320.
Pace, C. Robert, and Stern, George C. An approach to the
measurement of the psychological characteristics of
the college environment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, XLIX (1958), 269-277.
Packard, Vance. The status seekers. New York: David
McKay, 1958.
Parrish, J., and Rethlingshafer, D. A study of the need
to achieve in college achievers and nonachievers.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 50, 209-226, 1954.
137
Payne, D.A., and Farquhar, W.W. The dimensions of an
objective measure of academic self-concept. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 53, 187-192, 1962.
Pearson, Richard. Access to higher education: the impli
cations for planning. In Preparing School Counselors
in Educational Guidance. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board, 1967. 7-15.
Peck, Robert F. Student mental health: the range of
personality patterns in a college population. In
Personality Factors on the College Campus, (editors:
Sutherland, Robert L., Holtzman, Wayne H., Koile,
Earl A., and Smith, Bert Kruger). Austin, Texas:
The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, 1962. 161-199.
Pervin, L.A. The college dropout and the utilization of
talent. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1966.
_______ . Counseling the college dropout. Journal of
College Placement, 26, 31, October-November, 1965.
Peterson, Richard E. On a typology of college students.
Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1965.
Pierce, J.V., and Bowman, P.H. Motivation patterns of
superior high school students. In M. Kornrich (Ed.),
Underachievement. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C.
Thomas, 1965, 214-252.
Pitcher, Robert. The diagnosis of underachievement.
Notebook. Understanding the College Years.
Educational Development Center, Adelbert Street,
Berea, Ohio, 1969, p. 10A.
Powell, J., and Jourard, S. Some objective evidence of
immaturity in underachieving college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 10, 276-282, 1963.
Pottharst, B.C. The achievement motive and level of
aspiration after experimentally induced success and
failure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer
sity of Michigan, 1955.
Preus, J.B. The effect of four student personnel services
on the academic performance of underachieving arts
college freshmen. Dissertation Abstracts, 25,
4549-4550, 1965.
138
Rand, Leonard Peter. A study of the relationship between
the matching of student and institutional character
istics and institutional choice satisfaction.
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1967), 2832-A.
Reed, H.B. College students' motivations related to
voluntary dropout and under-over-achievement.
Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 61, No. 9,
May-June, 1968.
Rezler, A.G. Personal values and achievement in college.
The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXIX (1960),
137-143.
Richards, James M. Jr., Rand, Leonard P., and Rand,
Lorraine M. New way to measure environments. A
study of junior colleges indicates how to develop
an institutional profile. Junior College Journal,
XXXVI (1966), 18-20.
Richards, J.M., Jr.; Taylor, C.W.; Price, P.B.; and
Jacobsen, T.L. An investigation of the criterion
problem of one group of medical specialists. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 79-90.
Riesman, David, and Jenck, Christopher. The viability of
the American college. In The American College,
Nevitt Sanford (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1962. 74-192.
Roemmich, H., and Schmidt, J. Student perceptions of
assistance provided by counselors in college planning.
The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLI (1962),
157-158.
Rose, H.A. Prediction and prevention of freshman attrition.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12, 399-403, 1965.
_______ . The effect of the preadmission interview on
students of doubtful academic ability. College and
University, 41, 80-83, Fall, 1965.
Rosen, B.C. The achievement syndrome. The American
Sociology Review, 21, 203-211, 1956.
_______ . Race, ethnicity, and the achievement syndrome.
The American Sociology Review, 24, 47-60, 1959.
Rosen, B.C., and D'Andrade, R.C. The psychosocial origins
of achievement motivation. Sociometry, 22, 185-218,
1959.
139
Roth, M., and Meyersburg, H.A. The non-achievement
syndrome. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 41,
535-540, 1963.
Rotter, J.B. The role of the psychological situation in
determining the direction of human behavior. In
M.R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1955.
Rowe, Frederick B. Non-intellective factors affecting
student performance. In Research Related to College
Admissions, Kenneth M. Wilson, (Ed.). Atlanta,
Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board, 1963.
Sanford, Nevitt. The American college. New York: John
Wiley & Son, Inc., 1962. (Condensed and published
as College and character, 1964).
Sarnoff, I., and Raphael, T. Five failing college students.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 25,
p. 343, 1955.
Sattler, J.M., and Neuringer, C. Personality character
istics associated with over and under-achievers: a
review. The Journal of College Student Personnel,
6, 284-287, September, 1965.
Schroeder, W.L., and Sledge, G.W. Factors related to
collegiate academic success. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 7, 97-104, March, 1966.
Scott, J. To the class of 1971. New York Times Magazine,
November 20, 1966.
Seashore, H.G. Women are more predictable than men.
Presidential address, Division of Counseling
Psychology, The American Psychology Association,
September 1, 1961, and Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1962, 9, 261-270.
Seligman, Daniel. Youth in turmoil. New York: Time-Life
Books, 1969.
Seltzer, C.C. Academic success in college of public and
private school students: freshman year at Harvard.
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 25, p. 419, 1948.
Seymour, Warren Ralph. Perceptions of college environ
ments held by students and counselors. Dissertation
Abstracts, XXVI (1966), 5250.
140
Shaw, M., and Alves, G. The self-concept of bright
academic underachievers: continued. The Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 42, 401-403, 1963.
Shaw, M.C., and Brown, D„J. Scholastic underachievement
of bright college students. The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 36, 195-199, 1957.
Shaw, M. Need achievement scales as predictors of academic
success. Journal of Educative Psychology, 52:6,
282-285, 1961.
Siegel, L., and Siegel, Lila C. Educational set: a
determinant of acquisition. Journal of Educational
Psychology, LVI (1965), 1-12,
Smith, C.W., and Walsh, W.B. Effect of various institu
tional contacts upon the academic performance of the
underachiever. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
Vol. 15, No. 2, 190-193, 1968.
Smith, L. Significant differences between high-ability
achieving and non-achieving college freshmen as
revealed by interview data. Journal of Educational
Research, 59, 10-12, September, 1965.
Spanger, E. Types of men. Translated from 5th German
edition of Lebensformen by Paul J.W. Pigors. Halle:
Max Niemeyer Verlag. American agent, New York:
Stechert-Hafner, Inc.
Spielberger, C.D. The effects of manifest anxiety on the
academic achievement of college students. Mental
Hygiene, 46, 420-426, 1962.
Spielberger, C.D., and Weitz, H. Improving the academic
performance of anxious college freshmen0 Psychologi-
cal Monographs: General and Applied, Vol. 78, No. 13,
1964.
Spielberger, C.D., Weitz, H., and Denny, J.P. Group
counseling and the academic performance of anxious
college freshmen. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
9, 195-204, 1962.
Sprague, H.T. Institutional research in the west.
Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education, 1959.
141
Standing, Robert G., and Parker, Clyde A. The college
characteristics index as a measure of entering
students1 pre-conceptions of college life. Journal
of College Student Personnel, VI (1964), 2-6.
Stebbins, G. A four-year follow-up study of the fall,
1959, freshman class at California State College at
Los Angeles. Paper read at the Student Personnel
Association of California Colleges, San Luis Obispo,
October, 1964.
Stern, G0G. Characteristics of the intellectual climate
in college environment. Harvard Educational Review,
XXXIII (1963), 5-41.
. Congruence and dissonance in the ecology of
college students. Student Medicine, 1960a, 8, 304-
339.
.• Environments for learning. In The American
College, Nevitt Sanford (Ed.). New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1962. 690-730.
. Freshman myth. National Education Association
Journal, LV (1966), 41-43.
_______ . Student ecology and the college environment.
Journal of Medical Education, XL (1965), 132-154.
Stern, G.G., and Cope, A.H. Differences in educability
between stereopaths, nonstereopaths, and rationals.
(Paper presented at the American Psychological
Association Convention in Chicago, September, 1956).
Stern, G.G., Stein, M.S., and Bloom, B.S. Methods in
personality assessment. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press, 1956.
Sternberg, Carl. Personality trait patterns of college
students majoring in different fields. Psychological
Monographs, LXIX, No. I (1955), 1-231.
Stix, D.L. Discrepant achievement in college as a function
of anxiety and repression. The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, April, 1967.
Stone, Donald Bradford. Predicting student retention and
withdrawal in a selected state university college of
New York. Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI (1966), 5184.
142
Stripling, Robert O. Can counselors cope with the
dynamics of college choice? In Preparing School
Counselors in Educational Guidance, New York: CEEB,
1967, 16-22.
Summerskill, J. Dropouts from college. In The American
College, Nevitt Sanford (Ed.). New York: John Wiley
& Sons, 1962, 627-657.
Super, Donald E0 Self-concept and vocational-development
theories applied to college choice and planning. In
Preparing School Counselors in Educational Guidance,
New York: CEEB, 1967, 89-100.
Thistlethwaite, Donald L. College press and student
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
LI (I960), 222-234.
_______ . Rival hypotheses for explaining effects of
cITffering learning environments. Journal of Educa
tional Psychology, LIII (1962), 310-315.
Thorndike, R.L. The concepts of over-and under-achievement.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1963,
Tiedeman, David V. A summary of the discussions at the
invitational conference. In Preparing School
Counselors in Educational Guidance. New York: CEEB,
1967, 131-142.
Todd, F.J., Terrell, G., and Frank, C.E. Differences
between normal and underachievers of superior
ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 183-190,
1962.
Trow, Martin. Student cultures and administrative action.
In R.L. Sutherland, et al., (Eds.), Personality
Factors on the College Campus: Review of a Symposium.
Austin, Texas: The Hogg Foundation of Mental Health,
1962, 203-225.
Tukey, Ruth S. Intellectually-oriented and socially-
oriented superior college girls. Journal of the
National Association of Women Deans and Counselors,
XXVII (1964), 120-127.
Vacher, C.J.D. The self concept of underachieving freshmen
and upperclass women college students. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 5, 25-31, 1963.
143
Vaughan, R.P. Academic achievement, ability, and the
MMPI scales. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 46,
156-159, 1967.
. College dropouts: dismissed vs. withdrew.
The Personnel and Guidance Journal, March, 1968.
Waller, C. Research related to college persistence.
College and University, 39, 281-294, 1964.
Webster, Harold., Friedman, Mervin B., and Heist, Paul.
Personality change in college students. In The
American College, Nevitt Sanford (Ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962, 811-846.
Weitz, H., and Wilkinson, H.J. The relationship between
certain non-intellective factors and academic
success in college. Journal of Counseling Psychology
4, 54-60, 1957.
Wharton, W.P. In defense of dropping out. College Board
Review, 60, 19-20, Summer, 1966.
White, R. Motivation reconsidered: the concept of
competence. Psychological Review, 32, 3-38, 19620
Whiteis, U.E. Poor scholarship in college. Harvard
Educational Review, 32, 3-38, 1962.
Williams, Vernon. Difficulties in identifying relatively
permanent characteristics related to persistence in
college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, XIII
(1962), 108.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Historical Perspective Of Special Education In California. (Volumes I And Ii)

PDF

Prescriptive Teaching As A Supplement To Behavior Modification In The Remediation Of Learning Disorders

PDF

Value Orientations Of Parents Of Academically Successful And Unsuccessfulchildren

PDF

Development Of An Adapted Systems Model For Design Of College Level Instruction

PDF

Effects Of Associative And Category Cuing On Recall Of Items From Exhaustive And Nonexhaustive Lists

PDF

School Behavior And Attitudes Of Retarded And Average High School Boys Asconcomitants Of Intelligence And Socioeconomic Status

PDF

The Conditioning Of A Discriminative Stimulus Measured As An Orienting Reaction In Profoundly Retarded Blind Children

PDF

Development And Evaluation Of An Auto-Instructional Media Package For Teacher Education

PDF

Effects Of Preschool Enrollment And Parent Participation On Academic Growth

PDF

Maternal Child-Rearing Attitudes And Developmental Growth Of Rubella Deaf-Blind Children

PDF

Immediate Memory And Its Correlates With School Achievement

PDF

The Modification Of Maladaptive Behavior Of A Class Of Educationally Handicapped Children By Operant Conditioning Techniques

PDF

The Relative Efficiency Of Prompting And Confirmation Learning Paradigms

PDF

Acoustic And Associative Variables In The Retention Of Words By Children With Learning Disabilities

PDF

Concept Formation Ability Of 'Brain-Injured' Children Of Normal Intelligence

PDF

Demographic, Personal And Social System Variables In Labeling Children Aseducationally Handicapped

PDF

Delay Of Feedback And The Acquisition And Retention Of Verbal Material Inthe Classroom

PDF

The effect of noise on intellectual performance as related to personality and social factors in upper division high school students

PDF

Psycho-Dynamic Development Problems In The Congenitally Blind

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Effect On Babbling Of Visual Interaction Between Mother And Infant

Asset Metadata

Creator Jones, Clinton William (author)

Core Title Academic And Non-Academic Achievement Of Freshmen And Seniors At Azusa Pacific College

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Advisor McIntrye, Robert B. (committee chair), Magary, James F. (committee member), Meyers, Charles Edward (committee member), Wilbur, Leslie (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-551153

Unique identifier UC11362256

Identifier 7206071.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-551153 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7206071.pdf

Dmrecord 551153

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Jones, Clinton William

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA