CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
SURVEY OF GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
NORTHRIDGE CONCERNING THEIR PERSONAL INVOLVE:'·1ENT
AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS DEPARTMENT OBJECTIVES,
GOALS AND INSTRUCTION
A thesis submitted i~ partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Education
Education~l
Psychology
Counseling and Guidanee
by
Gary L. /Rissman
June, 1979
The Thesis of Gary L. Rissman is approved:
Dr. Adele E. Gottfried
Dr. Dea~McCafferty, Chairman
California State University, Northridge
ii
· ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project would not have been possible without
the support, encouragement and guidance of many people.
I am grateful for this opportunity to express my thanks
to the following people:
Dr. Janet Reynolds, Professor, Ann Britt and Cathy
Teegarten, students who were the other members of the
Student Involvement Committee, Educational Psychology,
California State University, Northridge;
Dr. Dean McCafferty, Committee Chairman, Dr.
Adele Gottfried and Dr. Janet Reynolds, Committee members;
I
Bob Jones, Student worker at the University
Computer Center;
Elyse Olsen, manuscript preparation;
My family and friends, with their love, support,
humor and patience this report was conducted and completed.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
.... ..
LIST OF TABLES • . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABSTRACT . . . • • •
.........
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS •
iii
vi
viii
Chapter
I.
...
INTRODUCTION
. . .. . . . .
1
.....
s,ta tement of the Problem
Purpose and Rationale of
Study
• • • • . • • • • •
II.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
•
••
•
3
5
•
Definition and Background of Test
variables •
• •
• • • • •
.........
Questionnair-e •
........
Question Construction • . . . . . .
Attitude
III.
2
..
5
6
6
8
Background of Statistical Approaches
to Survey Data • • • • • • • • •
11
Review of Previous Attitude
Studies • • • • • • • • • • • • •
12
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Development of Study
...
...
..
..
....
of Sample • . . . . . .
. . . . . ·• . • • • . .
21
21
Development of Instrument •
23
Descriptive
29
Limitations
iv
32
Page
Chapter
IV.
.....
34
• • • • • •
35
RESULTS OF THE STUDY • • • •
Descriptive Information
Results of Personal Criteria
Questions • • • • • • • •
Open-Ended Question
....
......
Results of Program Criteria
Questions • • • • • • • • • • •
Results of the Analysis of
Variance • • • • • • • •
Chi-Square • • •
v.
43
~
. ••
..........
.
•
.. .
..................
FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH • • • • •
REFERENCES
37
48
58
62
65
70
Appendices
1.
QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN STUDY
2.
COVER LETTER •
• • • • • • •
Instructions for Student Survey
v
• • • • •
72
73
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
1.
Descriptive statistics, Total Sample • • •
36
2.
Personal Criteria, Total Sample,
Question #1
•
• •
•
•
39
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
. .. . . .• • •
Personal Criteria, Total Sample,
Question /12 . • • . • . • . . . . . . •
Personal Criteria, Total Sample,
Question #3 . • . . . • . • • . • . . •
Personal Criteria, Total Sample,
Question 114
. . . . . . . . " . •· .
Personal Criteria, Open-Ended Question
Question #5
• • . • • . . • • • . •
Program Criteria, Total Sample,
Question #1a . • . . . . . • . . . • . .
Program Criteria, Total Sample,
Question #·1 b . . . • . . . . • . . . • .
Program Criteria, Total Sample,
Question #2a . • . • . . . . . . • . • .
Program Criteria, Total Sample,
Question #2b . . . . • • . . . .. . . • .
Program Criteria, Total Sample,
Question #2c . . . • . . • • . . . • . •
Personal Criteria, Total Sample,
Question #3 . • . • . . . • . • • . . •
Program Criteria, Total Sample,
Question 114 . • . . . . • . . • • . • •
Program Criteria, Total Sample,
Question /15 . . . . • . . . . • . . . •
40
41
42
9
vi
45
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Page
Table
15.
16.
17.
Analysis of Variance by Program Status,
Personal Criteria, Question #2 • • • • • •
59
Analysis of Variance by Program Status,
Program Criteria, Question #1b • • • •
60
Analysis of Variance by Program Status,
Program Criteria, Question #2a • • • •
vii
..
..
61
ABSTRACT
SURVEY OF GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
NORTHRIDGE CONCERNING THEIR PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT
AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS DEPARTMENT OBJECTIVES,
GOALS AND INSTRUCTION
by
Gary Rissman
I
Master of Arts in Education
Educational Psychology
Counseling and Guidance
June, 1979
This study was undertaken to ascertain, describe
and evaluate the graduate students' attitudes toward
their own involvement and their evaluation of Departmental
Instruction in the Graduate Program of Educational
Psychology at California State university, Northridge.
A questionnaire was distributed to 207 randomly
selected sample of graduate students from the program.
The data was coded and placed on a computer program.
viii
--·
- ---
~---
--·
--~
-
---~
i
The data was tabulated for descriptive information of the
sample and responses to all questions on the questionnaire.
Among the major findings of the study were the
following indications.
More students rated clarity of departmental goals
and objectives lower than high.
Furthermore, involved
students rated these areas lower than students just taking
courses in the department.
Many more students indicated growth in understanding of a counselor's professional role and responsibilities as a result of the program.
The students rated
suggested outside reading and research twice as high than
low.
students
per~~nal
indicat~d
th~y
were receiving inter-
growth as a resuit of the program more than any
other benefit.
The next highest benefit mentioned was
intellectual growth.
The graduate students saw themselves involved in
the program.
The results seem to indicate that the
students see a need for improvement of intellectual instruction in theory and methods.
Overall, the students
rated themselves and the program in a positive manner
except for departmental goals and•objectives.
ix
'
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
It has b~en generally expressed by both faculty
and graduate students in the Department of Educational
Psychology at California State University, Northridge
(CSUN) that they do not have a
cl~ar
understanding of what
each other are feeling or thinking, with respect to certain important issues which face the Department.
In the
late fall of 1977, through faculty initiation, a graduate
student Involvement Committee was organized for the purpose of involving students in departmental functioning.
This study and thesis was generated from the work of the
Graduate Student Committee for Student Involvement.
The thesis format includes (a) the background and
development of the Graduate Student Committee; (b) the
identification of issues; (c) the development and implementation of a plan to survey the issues; {d) the development of the research design; (e) the methodology employed
and (f) the results and conclusions of the study.
It is
intended that the results and conclusions presented will
be of benefit to the faculty, students and the Department.
Of utmost importance is the central problem.
1
2
--
- - ----·-------- ---1
stated earlier in this introduction was the expressed
difficu1ty of faculty and students in having a clear
understanding of what each other were feeling and thinking
with respect to important issues confronting the Educational Psychology Graduate Department.
The next section
of this chapter presents this problem.
Statement of the Problem
Presented next is the problem of the study.
It
is commonly thought that by involving students in the
goals and function of a department of instruction that
the departmental program will become more relevant for
the student consumers and conversely, when suc!1 involvement is lacking, program relevancy proportionally decreases (Schmuck, 1979).
In support of this theory the
faculty of the Educational Psychology Department at CSUN
began initial efforts to form a Graduate student Involvement Committee, in the late fall of 1977.
During the
first few meetings of the Graduate Student Committee,
several critical departmental issues began to emerge.
The
first issue to be considered revolved around the degree
of involvement of the graduate students in the functions
of Educati6nal Psychology Department.
A second issue of
interest was to idenfify how the students perceive the
Educational Psychology Department's goals, objectives and
instructional quality.
3
Four students along with one faculty advisor
became the central task force working toward the goal of
determining a plan to survey, collect, evaluate and
optimally, to ascertain some answers to issues pertinent
to student involvement and student attitudes toward ,
departmental goals, objectives and instruction.
A series
of meetings of the Graduate student Committee followed
in which the members worked together to develop a survey
questionnaire to gather prevailing student attitudes with
respect to these issues.
The planning stages and de-
velopment of a written questionnaire began in the winter
and early ~pring of 1978.
In summary, the problem is to bring the students
into involvement of the departmental functioning and
process in order to facilitate increased relevancy for
the students in their educational process.
The purpose
and rationale of the study will be discussed in the next
section of the report.
Purpose and
R~onale
of study
The purpose of the survey study was to gather
descriptive and evaluative data, analyze that data, and
to develop conclusions about how the graduate students
in Educational P~ychology at CSUN perceive their personel
involvement in the program and how
~hey
perceive and
evaluate the Department's goals, objectives and instruc-
4
tional quality.
Further, the survey questionnaire was to contribute
to the mutual faculty-student development of program
goals.
It was conducted at an especially opportune time,
because the faculty was in the process of redefining
departmental goals, and was actively seeking student
input in its self evaluative process.
This survey repre-
sents a concerted effort by students in the Department
of Educationai Psychology to give input and offer information to improve program communication.
Presented here is the problem of student involvement in the function and process of departmental goals
and objectives, and the direction the Department has
taken to promote this process.
In the next chapter a
discussion of the search of the
literat~re
pertaining to
the key variables of a survey questionnaire will be
pr~serited.
This will focus on the theoretical components
of a survey, definitions, formation and design and
approaches to survey data analysis.
CHAPTER·!!
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review of the literature was conducted in two
major areas.
The first area of inquiry searched the
literature with respect to methods, theory, definition
and procedures of preparing, ad~inistering, analyzing
and writing the results of questionnaires.
The second
area of research focused on studies employing previous
questionnaires developed to measure attitudes of graduate
students in Educational Psychology Grlliduate Programs.
The search of the literature revealed several
major problems that needed to be sorted out and organized.
such problems were the large amount of literature in the
area of definition of pertinent terms; second, the
eriormous amount of literature treating survey designs,
questionnaires and
qu~stion
construction, and third, the
large number of theories and methods of attitud~ measurement.
In this chapter selected key variables of the
study will be presented and discussed.
Definition and Bacl<.ground of Te_st
Vari~_bles
In the following paragraphs selected aspects of
the study's key variables will be considered--they are
5
6
definition and formation of attitudes; definition of
questionnaires; the structure and design of survey
I
questions and the background of statistical approach to
survey data analysis.
Attitude
In the process of defining attitude, several
authorities are seen to have settled on some common concepts or elements.
Following is a composite definition
prepared for use in this study.
An attitude is the in-
dividual's organization of psychological processes, as inferred from their behavior, with respect to some aspect of
the world which they distinguish from other aspects.
It
represents the residue of their previous experience with
which they approach any subsequent
situation~
This may
include their beliefs, biases, doctrine, faith, ideologies, judgments, opinions and values.
This system pre-
disposes them to the attitude object in a manner consistent with that system.
Attitudes may be enduring in the
sense that if they are carried over to new situations,
but they change insofar as new residues are acquired
through experience in new situations (Campbell, 1963;
Cooper & McGaugh, 1966; Krech, 1962; Newcomb, 1964}.
Questionnaire
Following the definition of attitude, it is im-
7
-··-···------ ------ .
-~-i
portant to have a working definition of questionnaire
used for this study.
The literature indicates that a
survey questionnaire is a form of planned collection of
information for the purpose of description.
A prediction,
as a guide to action or for the purpose of analyzing the
relationships between certain variables (Anastasi, 1968;
Berdie & Anderson, 1974; Dawes, 1972; Fox, 1969;
Oppenheim, 1966; Shaw & wright, 1967).
Information can be obtained in either of two ways
in the survey method.
It can be received personally
through an interview or through the pencil-and-paper
approach in the form of a questionnaire.
In this study
I
the pencil-and-paper approach was
u~ed.
The use of questionnaires in research is based on
one basic underlying assumption: The respondent will give
truthful answers
{~erdie
&
And~rson,
1974).
More than
40 years ago the psychologist Floyd Allport noticed that
if we wanted to know what someone thought, the best way
to find out is to ask him.
In terms of the approach, the questioning method
is most effectively used in the survey approach.
For the
descriptive survey, it is the most appropriate method for
obtaining specific information about the research situation, and the respondents in the situation (Anastasi,
1968; Dawes, 1972; Fox, 1969; Oppenheim, 1968).
The success of any questionnaire depends on how
8
---------------:
i
effectively it can motivate the respondents into disclosing the desired
info~mation.
The respondent should
feel he has something to gain by compleiing a questionnaire (Berdie & Anderson, 1974; Fox, 1969; Kazarian,
Ricketts, Schaffer & Zandan, 1913).
tn summary, the
surv~y qu~stionnaire
used in this
study was planned to collect data concerning graduate
students in Educational Psychology at CSUN.
It was pre-
sented in written form asking questions of interest to
the students.
In the next section the important aspects
of question construction will be discussed.
Such aspects
of question construction are important, in that certain
levels of emotional response were requested from the
students.
Question Construction
As previously stated above, an aspect of the survey
questionnaire was to gather factual information.
Some
of the questions developed for this study were factual
and descriptive in nature (Appendix I, see left and upper
right corners).
Secondly, the structured questions and
open-ended question seek evaluation, reaction and emotional response.
It is at this level where the researcher
attempts to learn information as profound as the respondent is capable of consciously communicating.
This level
is called conscious depth level, the respondent is con-
9
- --- ----------- --1
scious in that he knows the response desired and is
capable of responding {Anastasi, 1968; Fox, 1969;
Oppenheim, 1966).
The evaluative aspects of the survey
questionnaire allow the researcher to gather information
as to how the graduate students evaluate and judge their
personal involvement and to respond and judge the instructional quality of the graduate program.
The
literatur~
indicates that it is perfectly
possible to combine several types of survey approaches
within one study {Fox, 1969; Oppenheim, 1966).
This
approach calls for more scope and significance which will
be discussed in the next paragraph.
T~e
researcher has
taken this multi-faceted approach in order to gain factual
information concerning graduate student PROGRAM SPECIALIZATION and PROGRAM STATUS; and to gain student judgments
pertaining to their personal and instructional experience.
The choice to combine several survey types,
facilitatin~ d~scriptive as well·as attitudinal
responses,
raises key issues of actual question construction.
questions are the backbone of the survey study.
The
Secondly,
because this is a self-administered questionnaire, the
importance of having question construction criteria was
critical.
Through the search of the literature a selec-
tion of criteria was developed and used as the theoretical base for construction of the questions.
The following
10
---
-------------~--
·-------1
'
list is the set of criteria used for this purpose:
1.
The questions should be of some depth to avoid
superficial replies.
2.
The questions should be precise, clear and without
hidden purposes.
3.
The choice of questions should not be suggestive or
unstimulating.
4.
The questions should be relevant to the respondent.
5.
The wording should be understandable and familiar.
6.
That the descriptive questions be aimed at gathering
factual data -- that evaluative questions elicit
attitudes, judgments and evaluations.
7.
That each question contain only one idea to guarantee
correct interpretation of the response (Fox, 1969;
Kazarian, et al., 1973; Oppenheim, 1966).
A full description of the methods and procedures
of question design and construction will be presented in
the chapter covering Method and Procedures.
It was
important at this time to discuss the need, as indicated
in the literature, to approach question construction
deliberately and scientifically.
so far in this chapter the definitions of attitude
and questionnaire have been discussed.
The type of
questionnaire used, the subject of question construction
and the criteria used for construction have been presented.
The next key variable that will be discussed in this
chapter is the background of statistical approaches to
survey data gathered in this study.
11
Background of Statistical Approaches
to survey Data
A review of the literature indicated that the use
of computer tabulation of information gathered, for
organization and storing of information, and tabulation
for various types of statistical analysis is successful
in obtaining critical and useful results (Morstain, 1977;
Oppenheim, 1966; Tziver, 1977).
Based on this informa-
tion the information gathered was programmed for the
SPSS (Statistical Package for Social sciences) computer
program.
The SPSS computer program was used to tabulate
descriptive information, and to obtain any significant
differences between correlations and to gain general
compara~ive
device is
results.
~ppropriate
The literature states that this
and useful in survey research
(Berdie & Anderson, 1974; Fox, 1969; Morstain, 1977;
Oppenheim, 1966; Tziver, 1977).
An analysis of variance was calculated on responses
to all structured attitude questions and open-ended
question in two modes; first by Program Specialization
and by Program Status.
A Chi-square calculation measuring
significant variation was also performed on all questions.
Further details of procedures will be discussed in the
chapters on Methods and Procedures.
The results of
calculations will be presented in the chapter on results
12
of the questionnaire.
To this point, the key variable issues pertaining
to attitude, attitude formation, questionnaire, question
construction, and background of statistical approaches
have been defined and discussed.
The literature has in-
dicated the appropriate use of the variables in questionnaire design and preparation of a survey study.
The
final section of this chapter will discuss the specific
literature pertaining to actual attitudinal studies of
graduate students in psychology.
Review of Previous Attitude studies
Review of the previous
attitud~
questionnaires
pertaining to graduate students in Educational Psychology
was important in order to find some indications and outcomes that would be significant to this survey.
The
researcher will discuss these previous studies indicating
how they have implication for this questionnaire study
and how their processes were used in the development of
this study.
The researcher's problem in this present study was
to be able to gather and understand the attitudes of
graduate students in Educational Psychology at CSUN.
In
order to do this the researcher needed to search the
literature to see if others have been successful in accomplishing this process in previous questionnaire studies.
13
Initially the researcher reviewed the literature
in order to discover if attitudes can be measured.
Crespi (1977) reported that attitude measures can be
developed to measure attitude and predict behavior.
He
stated that measurements must be highly particular and
specific in their attitudinal and behavioral referents.
A study by Costin, Greenough, & Myer (1975) indicated that the use of a custom made questionnaire and
rating scale that reflects the important aspects of
teaching that is to be used, rather than a "standard"
questionnaire, would be more useful in measuring the
attitude of students.
Costin also found that faculty
viewed custom made questionnaires as more useful.
This information supported the researcher's goal
of measuring the graduate students attitudes towards
their involvement in the Educational Psychology program
and their evaluation of the departmental instruction.
A search of the literatur~ followed to discover
any information that would indicate if survey questionnaires could measure attitudes of students; how the data
was gathered; how it was measured and what kind of results
were found.
The researcher did not have any assumptions
as to how the students would respond other than the
assumption that, under a certain carefully planned survey
approach, students would respond and attitudes could be
14
--·-. --· - - - - ------- · - - - - - · - · ·--·-"f
measured.
The researcher has found several attitudinal
studies pertaining to graduate students, which appear
to reflect their opinions, beliefs and biases.
These
studies seem to indicate that attitudes can be obtained
and measured to some degree.
several of these studies
will be presented in this section of the chapter.
Review of the literature indicates that there have
been similar questionnaire studies done in Educational
Psychology Departments at other universities (Curl, 1974;
Hester, Weitz, Anchor, & Roback, 1976; Rice, 1977).
The
studies reviewed pertained to the same issues that this
study has undertaken.
Many of the questions and concerns
involved in the previous studies correspond to the same
problems and questions asked on the present questionnaire.
The purpose of a study done at the University of
Pittsburgh in 1977 by James F. Curl was to investigate
the students' perceptions of the counselor training design
utilized at the university in the Counseling and Guidance
Institute.
A questionnaire was designed in which the
respondents could react to the training experience on the
basis of their perceptions.
Curl used 14 structured
questions and one open-ended question.
The project was
successful in gathering information concerning student
attitudes about their training experience.
This study indicates that graduate students'
i
15
opinions concerning their educational experience can be
gathered.
Curl, through this study, was able to measure
the degree of positive to negative opinions of the
graduate students by using a five choice response to the
structured questions (i.e., strongly agree, agree, not
a value, disagree or strongly disagree).
These responses
were to questions pertaining to a variety of training
values.
From this information Curl was able to under-
stand how the students perceived these instructional
values.
This study implied that a questionnaire survey
could be appropriate in gathering similar type information from students in Educational Psychology at CSUN.
Results indicated that the majority of the students
agreed to the 14 structured questions in the same fashion.
As an example, on positive training value questions, the
majority of the students agreed.
On negative training
value questions, the majority also agreed that they were
negative.
In the open-ended response 70% of the respondents
dealt with three major themes:
(1) the relationship in
training between content and process;
(2) the relationship
between personal development and professional growth;
and (3) evaluation of this training design as opposed to
traditional designs.
Of further interest is that this
previous study surveyed very similar types of issues that
16
the present study has done.
The responses from this
study suggest that students are concerned with their
educational experience, that personai growth, professional
growth and the relationship between course content and
the experiential process.
A somewhat different study was done by Hester,
Weitz, Anchor and Robach at vanderbilt University in 1976.
This group was studying the reasons why graduate students
in Psychology chose a certain field work supervisor.
This was a laboratory study in which the students were
administered a 12-item attitude scale, the items of which
were chosen on the basis of their relevance to supervisee
judgments about a potential counseling supervisor.
Results indicated that students have criteria for
supervisor selection, and that the students will disclose
those reasons if asked to do so.
Results of this study
indicated students• selection on the basis of attractiveness of supervisor, and in the
m~jority
based on supervisor skillfulness.
of cases, was
The study did not show
that similarity of philosophical attitude of studentsupervisor caused supervisor attractiveness.
It was con-
eluded by the researchers that supervisor skillfulness
was a primary determinant of attraction.
For the present study, this previous study was
useful in discovering that graduate students are willing
17
to· disclose this kind of information.
It was indicated
that the students surveyed in this study may be willing
to disclose their feelings about faculty, instruction and
their experience in Educational Psychology at CSUN.
Each
of these previous studies touch on issues incorporated in
the present study.
Curl's study relates to student
evaluation of instructional quality.
Hester's research
talks about the issue of student selection of supervisors.
In the study at hand the attitudes of students pertaining
to quality of instruction, experential and field work
experience, among others, are issues that will be gathered
and measured.
A further study was done by Jo~ R. Rice at the
University of Wisconsin in 1977.
This study surveyed
the perceptions of males and females concerning their
graduate education experience in Counseling.
A question-
naire was sent to 94 subjects who were drawn from the
uni~ersity.
The majority of the questions were phrased
in dictotomous form with space provided for comments or
explanations.
Students were asked if they were treated
differently by the faculty because of factors of age, sex
or color; if they had been informed by faculty of available
grants, fellowships or scholarships during their graduate
studies; if they had been encouraged by faculty to pursue
doctoral study; and if they were satisfied with the
18
variety of faculty role models for their profession.
In addition, both structured and open-ended
questions concerning desire for additional services,
suggestions for enriching the graduate program, and
experiences during employment were included.
A final
question asked whether the student would begin graduate
school again if given the opportunity.
The data was tested for Chi-square and Fisher
Exact Probability Tests (F Test) to determine the significance of the relationship of sample.
Results indicated
that women were generally more positive in their comments
about their overall graduate experience in Counseling and
Guidance than were men.
women in this study report less
access to information and encouragement from faculty than
do men.
Although the question variables are somewhat
different, the important indicator from this previous
study suggests that through the use of variance tests and
analysis of differences, important information is found
(i.e., the difference of attitudes between women and men
indicated from this study).
The researcher believed that
through this kind of statistical approach similarities
or differences of students' attitudes would be derived
from the present study.
Looking back through this chapter on Review of the
Literature, the researcher is suggesting that the graduate
19
students' attitudes can be
gather~d
with a written
questionnaire and that these attitudes can be measured to
some degree.
Through variance tests and analysis,
similarities and significant differences if they exist,
can be obtained.
That graduate students do respond to
questionnaires and appear to be interested in their educational experience has been established.
It is now known that attitude studies cannot perfectly measure attitudes of a given population.
At best
attitude studies can give indications and clues to how
students feel in a sample population.
Suggested in this chapter is that through research
the investigator can gain information concerning student
involvement in their instructional process.
Through this
research the Educational Psychology Graduate Department
can develop programs that are not only professional in
scope but relevant to the students.
The research of the
literature suggests that this present study can afford
this kind of information.
These previous studies indicate that through careful preparation, proper methods, and unbiased interpretation, information can be gathered measuring to some degree
the attitudes of graduate students concerning their involvement in a graduate program for Educational Psychology.
In this and previous chapters the statement of the
20
problem, rationale of the study, definition of variables,
background of statistical approach and review of previous
studies have been presented.
In the next chapter,
descriptions of the methods and procedures used in the
study will be discussed to further illuminate development
of the study, design, methods, procedures, collection of
data, sample information, and treatment of the data.
... ---- - ----1
!
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Presented in this chapter is a description of
the methods and procedures followed in this study.
It
includes an account of how this study was initiated, the
method in development of the questionnaire, description
of the sample and the methods of treatment of the data.
In the late fall of 1977 a student committee was
organized under the sponsorship of one of the Professors
of the Educational Psychology Department at CSUN.
The
concept of a student committee was faculty initiated.
The faculty was interested in the issues that the students
were facing while graduate students in Educational
Psychology.
Development of
Stud~
·A group of four students under the sponsorship
of one faculty member continued to meet throughout the
fall of 1977, spring and early summer of 1978.
At the
first several meetings, some basic issues developed.
First, the problem of student attitudes and involvement
in the graduate program.
Second, developing communication
between students and professors.
21
Third, methods for
22
ascertaining student evaluations of departmental instruction.
The student committee decided to prepare a
questionnaire that would gather information concerning
these issues.
In terms of the approach, the questioning method
is most effectively used in the survey approach.
For
the descriptive survey, it is the most appropriate method
for obtaining specific information about the research
situation, and the respondents in the situation
(Oppenheim, 1968}.
The success of any questionnaire depends on how
effectively it can motivate the respondents into disclosing the desired information.
The respondent should
feel he has something to gain by completing a questionnaire (Berdie & Anderson, 1974).
As discussed in the introduction the problem of
study was to ascertain graduate students' attitudes concerning their instruction,
invol~ing
them in the process
and development of the departmental program.
The
researcher has determined that a questionnaire survey
would be used to obtain the desired data.
The next step
in the research process is to develop an instrument for
data collection.
The process of the development of the
instrument, question construction pilot study and
administration of the questionnaire to the graduate
~
'
-
23
students will be discussed in the next section of the
report.
Development of Instrument
In January, 1978, the committee began to design
the elements of the study and prepare a list of questions.
The committee decided that two types of survey investigations were necessary.
Fi~st,
a descriptive survey to
gather demographic information about the students' Program Specialization, e.g., Educational Psychology, Early
Childhood, Guidance and Counseling, Pupil Personnel or
School Psychology.
Further, it was determined to gather
information about the students'
Progr~m
Status, e.g.,
Pre-Program, semester 1, Semester 2, Semester 3, Semester
4, Post Graduate or Other.
The student committee further decided to ask the
students to evaluate their own involvement in the program,
secondly, the students were asked to evaluate the graduate
program goals, objectives and department instruction.
Before proceeding with more details of the questions
themselves, a description of how the questions were prepared and selected will be discussed.
As discussed in
Chapter II, custom made questionnaires, rather than
"standard" questionnaires, are considered more useful
when attempting to ,gather and measure attitudes of
24
graduate students in specific aspects of instruction
(Costin, et al., 1975).
A previously prepared questionnaire was used as
a guide.
The students of the committee then prepared a
series of pilot questions that were appropriate to the
matters mentioned above.
From these questions, the
students selected a group of questions that appeared to
be of most importance.
The committee spent several weeks
writing and re-writing the questions following the
criteria discussed earlier under question construction.
In summary, the criteria that needed to be met are: the
questions should nave depth, be precise and clear, unsuggestive and stimulating, relevant, without hidden
purposes, wording should be understandable and familiar,
descriptive questions be aimed at gathering factual data,
evaluation questions elicit attitudes, judgments and
evaluations, and that each question contain only one idea
to provide correct interpretation of the responses (Fox,
1969; Kazarian, et al., 1973; Oppenheim, 1966).
A
priority list of questions was formed by the committee.
Following this procedure each student committee
member responded to all of the questions as a pilot project.
Then the committee members evaluated each question
against the criteria list above to determine validity.
In that the students on the graduate committee are rep-
25
resentative of the graduate school population of Educational Psychology, their pre-testing of the questions
was appropriate, and can usually be a test of validity
(Fox, 1969).
The committee decided to use 12 structured
questions, allowing space on the questionnaire for
written comments following each question.
ended question was decided on.
Only one open-
Later in this chapter,
treatment of responses and scoring will be discussed.
At this time the researcher will describe the questions.
section A, Personal Criteria, of the questionnaire
wanted to ascertain the graduate students' evaluation of
their personal involvement in the program.
Questions
1 through 4 asked the students' evaluation of their personal, intellectual, and professional growth as a result
of the program.
They were also asked to evaluate how
much of themselves they are putting into the program
{Appendix 1).
The researcher decided to present the
questionnaire in such a fashion that the respondents
could remain anonymous.
It was believed that this ap-
proach would provide more honest information.
This was
particularly important in the student evaluation of their
personal involvement in the graduate program.
The open-ended question followed, which will be
discussed following this presentaLion of the structured
questions.
)
section B, Program Criteria, contained the
26
last four questions (actually eight questions when
counting sub-questions.
s~b-question
In scoring and analyzing each
was scored as separate question).
Section
B, Program Criteria, was concerned with the graduate
students' evaluation of departmental goals and objectives,
individual course goals and objectives, evaluate overall
quality of departmental instruction theory/method and
eiperiential (Counseling & Guidance Practicums A & B),
evaluate suggested outside reading and research.
The
students were asked to evaluate their understanding of
a counselor's professional role and responsibilities, to
evaluate overall quality of field work experiences
(Counseling & Guidance Practicums C & D), and overall
rating of the department (Appendix 1).
As in section A,
Section 8 questions provided space for written comments.
Again, because the questionnaire was anonymous,
the responses to program goals, objectives and quality
of instruction should be more honest and spontanious due
to the fact the student could remain unknown (Fox, 1969).
The student committee decided that the response
for the structured questions should be a rating of (1)
Low,
(2) Medium,
(3) High.
This was decided because this
format would lend itself easily to a computer statistical
program.
The research indicated that the use of a rating
response of this nature is technically sound and appro-
27
priate, allowing for a low, medium (or neutral) and high
response (Oppenheim, 1966).
Now returning to the open-ended question, What
is
t~e
most important thing you are getting out of the
program?
results
The approach the researcher used in obtaining
of
statement.
the responses was a review of each written
Through response review, it was found that
the respondents' comments fell into nine different areas.
More details of the review process will be discussed later
under Treatment of Data.
The nine areas of response
were:
1.
Personal growth and interpersonal relationships.
2.
Intellectual growth and learning about psychology
and counseling techniques.
3.
A combination of personal and intellectual growth.
4.
Meeting requirements for M.A., M.F.C., license or
credential.
5.
Professional advancement without specific requirements mentioned.
6.
Class or classes/or instructor.
7.
Negatives {frustration, despair, etc.).
8.
Other.
9.
Missing response.
The present discussion has described the develop-
ment of the questionnaire as a result of interested
faculty and students to attempt to gather information
from the students taking courses in the Educational
28
Psychology Department at CSUN.
Presented here is the
selection of issues of concern relating to the department,,
writing and preparing questions, and illustration of the
scoring procedures.
It is now important to discuss the informational
and instructional procedures presented to the prospective
respondents at the time the survey questionnaire was
presented to the students.
The committee spent several
meetings writing the instructions.
There was a cover
letter presented at time of survey to the respondents
that included the background of the student committee.
This letter informed the students of the purpose of the
questionnaire which included the desire to create a pool
of information concerning the students' status as well
as attitudes concerning their involvement in the program.
The students were also instructed that the graduate department would be going through a faculty evaluation
process in the spring of 1979, and that their input would
be used by the faculty in their evaluation process
(Appendix II).
The mechanical instructions to follow in completing
the questions was placed above the sets of questions on
the questionnaire sheet.
The students were asked to rate·
each structured question (1) Low,
(2) Medium,
(3) High,
and place comments following each structured question.
29
The open-ended question provided several lines for the
students' responses (Appendix I).
Discussed in the next section of this chapter is
the important element of the sample used and its representativeness to the graduate student population.
There
would be much doubt in the results of the research study
if proper representativeness was not evident.
Description of Sample
What is emphasized as important in sampling is
the representativeness as well as sample size.
Students
and the general public are often overly concerned with
and impressed by sheer size (Fox,
196~).
In order to
obtain a representative sample of the graduate student
in Educational Psychology, questionnaires were presented
to the students in their classrooms.
The classes selected
would hopefully provide the researcher respondents from
all the various graduate divisions as well as respondents who were not yet involved in the graduate program,
but who were taking classes in the department as prerequisites to admission to the graduate program.
in the report,
res~lts
Later
of data and comparisons of atti-
tudes of involved students, compared with non-involved
students, will be discussed.
The committee members also
presented the questionnaire to students attending both
day and evening classes.
Further, the investigators pre-
30
sented the questionnaires to students in a variety of
courses of instruction in the Educational Psychology
Department, in order to get a cross-section of students;
Pre-Program, First Semester, Second Semester, Third
semester, Fourth Semester and Other.
secondly, by pre-
senting the questionnaire to a variety of classes the
survey was able to obtain enough students to respond to
all the questions.
This approach resulted in acquiring
responses from all Program Specialization and all Program
Status, e.g., Educational Psychology, Early Childhood,
Guidance and Counseling, Pupil Personnel Service, School
Psychology; and from Pre-Program to Other.
Classes
selected from Educational Psychology were: 451, Counseling
and Guidance; 505, Advanced Psychological Foundations;
555, Seminar in Techniques in Counseling; 5598, PracticumExperiential, second semester; and 559D, Practicum Field
work, second Semester.
The sample obtained was generally representative
of the population in the Department of Educational
Psychology.
The enrollment indicates approximately 500
students in the Department of Educational Psychology. One
hundred seventy-seven Educational Psychology students responded,.· about one-third of the total population.
Thirty
students classified themselves as outside the Department
but taking classes in the Department. Therefore, about 86%
31
of the respondents were involved in the graduate program.
There was a total of 207 responses gathered.
Of
the 207, 177 responded that they were involved in the
program.
The largest group was from the Counseling and
Guidance division; consisting of 109 or 53% of the Total
Sample.
The smallest group came from Early Childhood;
12, which is 6% of the total.
Twenty respondents, 14%,
from Educational Psychology, 28 respondents, 14%, from
Pupil Personnel Service/School Psychology, and 30 respondents, 15%, indicated Other or outside the program.
BY semester, the largest group was from second
semester students (68 people, 33% of the sample).
This
would be expected since the questionnaire was given in
the spring.
The smallest group came from third semester
students, 11 students responded which is 5.3% of the
sample.
This may be explained in two ways.
First, third
semester students are involved in field work and not on
campus as often as first year students; therefore, the
questionnaire did not reach them.
may have caused attrition.
Second, drop out rate
These reasons are only
speculative and further research would be needed to
clarify whether these reasons are true or false.
Twenty-
eight respondents, 14%, indicated Pre-Program, 20 respondents, 10%, were first semester, 31 respondents, 15%,
from third semester, and 49 students, 24%, indicated
32
Post Graduate and Other.
Complete details of responses and data will be
discussed in the chapter pertaining to the results of the
survey.
This present information was presented to in-
dicate in some detail the significance of the sample
surveyed, how it relates to the total population of
students involved in the program, how many respondents
were from outside the department, and the process used
to gather the sample.
Before moving to the results of the study and
presentation and analysis of the data collected, a discussion of the limitations of this type of study will
be presented.
Limitations
The literature indicates the pitfalls and difficulties encountered in implementing a questionnaire.
Among these difficulties are deciding on a correct design,
asking the proper questions or stating a hypothesis,
thorough review of the literature, using appropriate
research methods including proper pilot work, proper
sampling, and proper representativeness of the sample
from the population, correct data collection processes,
unbiased coding of responses, proper statistical analysis,
assembling the results, relating findings, and drawing
conclusions and interpretations.
33
Other important errors to be avoided are bias due
to question design and wording, unreliability and lack
of validity in design and techniques used, respondent
unreliability, bias and faulty errors in recording, in
statistical analysis and interpretation (Fox, 1969).
However, a well designed questionnaire and a
carefully formulated study design can minimize the potential negative effects.
Careful planning, preparation
and instrument administration along with
system~tic
collecting of data, and appropriate statistical analysis
and interpretation can all serve to mitigate against
potential negative effects (Anastasi, 1968).
It is important to indicate limitations of the
process yet at the same time be alert to the importance
of the data collected and the appropriate conclusions
that can be drawn from the research study.
In the next
chapter the results along with tables of this research
study will be presented.
All the results were gathered
and identified through the process discussed in this
chapter.
Wherever discrepancies and limitations were
found they will be discussed along with the appropriate
results of the questionnaire study.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Presented in this chapter is the tabulation of
all the responses from the questionnaire.
The information obtained from the questionnaires
was tabulated by the investigator, each response was
counted, and given a number.
Each response was coded by
Program Specialization and Program Status.
The purpose
for numbering and coding was to allow the researcher to
refer back to a particular survey questionnaire if
necessary.
Secondly, the coding was used for keypunching
the information on IBM cards for the SPSS computer program.
The first table indicates the frequency and percentage of responses by Program Specialization, and by
Program status.
Tables 2 through 5 indicated how the
sample responded to the questions concerning Personal
Criteria, i.e., Personal Growth, Intellectual Growth, etc.
Tables 6 through 13 present.how the total sample
responded to the Program Criteria, i.e., Clarity of
Department Goals, Clarity of Individual Course Goals and
Objectives, etc.
Table 14 indicated the categories of
34
35
responses to the open-ended question, What is the most
important thing you are getting out of the program?
The last set of tables, 15, 16 and 17, present the
Analysis of Variance to the three questions displaying
significant levels of difference.
The results of each
of the questions are discussed.
Descriptive Information
The first table of statistics indicates the number
of students by absolute frequency, relative percentage
and cumulative percentage by Program Specialization and
by Program status.
These tables are relatively clear
except for possible student confusion,in the areas of
Pre-Program, Post Graduate and Other categories.
The
size of these groups may not be what they appear to be.
The researcher believes that some students were confused
as to their actual graduate standings, leading to some
misrepresentation in the figures.
This was discovered
by looking over the responses made on each questionnaire
under semester selection.
36
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:
TOTAL SAMPLE
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Educational Psychology
28
13.5
13.5
Early Childhood
12
5.8
19.2
109
52.7
72.0
PPS & School
Psychology
28
13.5
85.5
Other
30
14.5
100.0
207
100.0
Pre-Program
28
13.5
13.5
semester 1
20
9.7
23.2
semester 2
68
32.9
56.0
semester 3
11
5.3
61.4
Semester 4
31
15.0
76.3
Post-Graduate
25
12.1
88.4
Other
24
11.6
100.0
207
100.0
Sample by Program
Specialization:
Counseling & Guidance
Sample by Program
status:
As discussed in Chapter III, 177 respondents from
37
the 207 Total Sample gathered were from the Department of
Educational Psychology.
Thirty students indicated they
were undecided (Other).
Therefore, approximately 86%
of the respondents were involved in the program.
The largest group were from the Counseling and
Guidance division; consisting of 109 or 53% of the Total
Sample.
The smallest group came from Early Childhood;
12, which is 6%.of the Total sample.
By Program status, the largest group was from
second semester, 68.
This is 33% of the sample.
This
would be expected since the questionnaire was presented
to the sample in the spring.
The smallest group came
from third semester students, 11 respondents from that
status which is 5.3% of the sample.
As discussed earlier,
third semester students are involved in field work and
may not have been on campus as much as other students.
This may have caused the smaller response.
secondly,
most of the classes selected for presentation of the
survey are first year classes which could cause the small
percentage.
Results of Personal Criteria Questions
Question
#
1-4
The next section presents tables indicating how
the general sample responded to the first four questions
38
on the survey questionnaire.
Since attitudinal questions are more sensitive
than factual questions, the treatment of the data needed
to be carefully undertaken.
punched on the IBM card.
Each question was coded and
At this time, with careful
coder validity, a check was made for response set, gross
disparity between respondents' rating of the question and
their written comments, and any indication that the
questions were not adequately asking what they were supposed to ask.
It was found that the structured questions
were standing up well to the desired research plan, except
that the researcher discovered that the use of Low,
Medium and High did not adequately discriminate true
High-Low differences in the student responses.
In question #1 under Personal Criteria, Your personal growth as a result of your participation in the
program, when looking at just High and Low responses,
the respondents indicated three times as many High as
Low responses (Table 2, page 39).
39
TABLE 2
PERSONAL CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #1
YOUR PERSONAL GROWTH AS A RESULT OF YOUR
PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Low:
20
9.9
9.9
Medium:
88
42.3
52.2
High:
95
46.3
98.2
4
1.9
100.0
207
100.0
Missing:
Forty-two percent of the sample responded with the
Medium choice, 46% responded High, 10% of the students
responded Low to question #1.
The largest group, 46%
High, did indicate developing their personal growth as a
result of the program.
students were not quite as favorable in their
evaluation of their intellectual growth as a result of
the program when rating question #2, satisfaction in your
intellectual growth as a result of the program, in comparing High to Low scores it displayed only a few percentage points leaning toward High (see Table 3, page 40).
40
TABLE 3
PERSONAL CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #2
YOUR SATISFACTION IN YOUR INTELLECTUAL GROWTH
AS A RESULT OF THE PROGRAM
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
38
18.4
18.4
104
50.2
68.6
63
30.4
99.0
2
1.0
100.0
207
100.0
Absolute
Frequency
Low:
Medium:
High:
Missing:
Comparing question #1 with #2, 46% of the students
rated Personal Growth High in question #2, 30% rated
Intellectual Growth High.
In question #1, Personal Growth,
10% of the respondents rated it Low, in question #2,
Intellectual Growth, 18% of the respondents rated it Low.
In question #3, How much of yourself are you
putting into the program, comparing High to Low scores,
students elicited twice as many High responses as Low.
However, 51% of the students rated their efforts at the
Medium level.
4, page 4i ) •
High was 38% and Low was at 9% (see Table
41
TABLE 4
PERSONAL CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #3
HOW MUCH OF YOURSELF ARE YOU
PUTTING INTO THE PROGRAM
Absolute
Frequency
Low:
Medium:
High:
Missing:
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
19
9.2
9.2
106
51.2
60.4
78
37.7
98.1
4
1.9
100.0
207
100.0
Interestingly, when reviewing the written responses,
many of the students in all ratings, Low, Medium and
High, believed that they could be working harder.
In the next question, #4, Developing professional
objectives, the rating of the general sample was: 40% of
the respondents rated their experience High, 12% rated
it Low and 35% rated their development at Medium (see
Table 5, page 42).
42
TABLE 5
PERSONAL CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #4
DEVELOPING AND MEETING YOUR PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVES
WHAT ARE THESE OBJECTIVES?
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Low:
25
12.1
i 2.1
Medium:
73
35.3
47.4
High:
83
40.1
87.5
Missing:
26
12.6
100.0
207
100.0
From the Total Sample, almost 13% of the respondents did not respond to the question.
As reported
earlier in the report, about 12% of the respondents indicated that they were unclassified students, taking
classes in the Educational Psychology Department.
This
may be one reason for the 13% missing responses to the
question.
Because of the consistently large Medium resp'Onse
on these questions, the researcher believes that it is
somewhat difficult to evaluate and understand the responses falling into the Medium rating.
Response set may
have occurred, or the students may have used the Medium
rating for "no opinion" responses.
43
This is particularly noticeable in question #1,
Personal Growth, #2, Intellectual Growth and #3, Personal
involvement in the program.
It is also believed that a
forced choice response may have been of more use in
gathering evaluative responses, i.e., Low, somewhat Low;
somewhat High; High.
The researcher will discuss further conclusions and
important indications in the last chapter.
some of the
discussion concerning the open-ended question will
possibly throw more light on the preceding discussion of
the first four questions concerning Personal Criteria and
Involvement.
j
Open-Ended Question
A content analysis appro&ch was employed on the
open ended question, What is the Most Important Thing you
are Getting out of the Program?
The researcher met with
the student committee to read, categorize and hand tabulate the free responses.
The committee spent considerable
time reviewing these responses and finally grouped them
into nine categories.
They are ranked here in the order
of frequency of response:
1.
Personal growth and interpersonal relationships.
2.
Intellectual growth and learning about psychology
and counseling.
3.
A combination of personal and intellectual growth.
44
4.
Meeting requirements for M.A., M.F.c., license or
credential.
5.
Professional advancement without specific requirements mentioned.
6.
Class or classes/or instructor.
7.
Negatives (frustration, despair, etc.).
8.
Other.
9.
Missing response.
Fox (1969) states that rater reliability is
critical in response analysis, that a rationale must be
stated for each response in this type of situation to
assure that when the same situation is faced, it can be
recognized and handled in the same way.
The committee
I
consensus with respect to the content analysis and the
nine resulting categories should establish the required
inter-rater reliability.
The researcher attempted in every phase to preserve
coder reliability in establishing these categories.
Further, by reviewing the responses, the researcher was
able to estimate the reliability of the content analysis
of the open-ended question.
Further details of the re-
viewing process will be presented in Chapter IV, under
Results of the Study.
Following is the results of question #5, What is
the most important thing you are getting out of the program, the open-ended question (see Table 6, page 45-46).
45
TABLE 6
PERSONAL CRITERIA, OPEN-ENDED QUESTION
QUESTION #5
WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU
ARE GETTING OUT OF THE PROGRAM?
Absolute
Frequency
CODES:
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
(Determined by student committee review of
respondents' statements on questionnaire)
1.
Personal growth &
interpersonal relationships
57
27.5
27.5
2.
Intellectual
growth learning
about psychology
& counseling
techniques
49
23.7
51.2
3.
Combination of
personal &
intellectual
growth
31
15.0
66.2
4.
Meeting requirements for M.A.,
M.F.c., license or
credential
19
9.2
75.4
5.
Professional advancement without
specific requirements mentioned
8
3.9
79.3
6.
Class or classes/
or instructor
4
1.9
81.2
7.
Negatives
{frustration,
despair, etc.)
2
1. 0
82.2
46
TABLE 6 (continued}
Absolute
Frequency
8.
Other
9.
Missing
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
5
2.4
84.5
32
15.5
100.0
207
100.0
The codes were determined by four committee members selecting at random 40 questionnaires of responses
from the sample and reviewing them for factors of
response.
The nine categories were formed by observing
how the four committee members agreed on them.
This pro-
cess helped determine the reliability of the content
analysis code.
The next step, following the coding of all the
responses, was to test for code reliability.
determined by the single coder method.
This was
Fox (1969) pointed
out that the researcher must select and develop a set of
coded responses; as developed and discussed above.
The
coder whose reliability is to be estimated then codes the
responses using the code developed, and the percent agreement between the standard developed compared to the single
rater's coding is calculated to determine reliability.
This procedure was used and a 93% agreement was found.
At this point, it would be appropriate to look at
47
the responses to the open-ended question (see Table 6,
page 45-46).
Twenty-eight percent of the population re-
sponding to this question indicated that Personal growth
and interpersonal relationship is the Most important thing
they are getting out of the program.
Twenty-four percent
of the students indicated Intellectual growth as most
important.
Fifteen percent responded that a Combination
of both personal growth and intellectual growth is most
important.
Combine these three groups and you have 66%
of the population, with nearly 16% not responding to the
question.
The other categories were somewhat smaller, Professional advancement without specific requirements
mentioned had a total response of almost 10%.
Two per-
cent of the sample indicated Class or classes/or instructor as the Most important thing you are getting out of
the program.
Only 1% of the sample reported Negatives (frustration, despair, etc.) responses.
The researcher found
that just a little over 2% of the respondents made comments
that did not fit into the other categories.
These re-
sponses were placed in the category labeled Other.
By far the categories receiving the most responses
were Personal growth and interpersonal relationships and
Intellectual growth learning about psychology and
48
counseling techniques.
The last portion of the questionnaire asked the
students to evaluate Program Criteria, i.e., goals and
instruction.
Discussion of the data collected and results
of these questions will be presented in the next section
of this chapter.
Results of Program Criteria Questions
The remaining five questions (questions 1a, 1b
and questions 2a, 2b and 2c, thereby totaling eight
questions) are concerned with the Criteria of Program
Goals and Instruction.
In the following section of this
chapter the results of each question will be presented.
In regard to question #1a, Clarity of Departmental
Goals and Objectives, when comparing High to Low respons0s
the students tended to lean toward a Low rating (see
Table 7, page 49).
Thirty-one percent of the respondents
rated this question Low, 42% of the students rated it
Medium, 15% of the students rated it High, and 13% missing
responses.
49
.
TABLE 7
PROGRAM CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #1a
CLARITY OF DEPARTMENTAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Low:
64
30.9
30.9
Medium:
86
4"1. 5
72.4
High:
31
15.0
87.4
Missing:
26
12.6
100.0
207
100.0
The responses to question 1 b, Clarity of Individual Course Goals and Objectives, were 25% High, 50%
Medium, 15% Low and 10% missing responses (see Table 8,
page 50}.
'
50
TABLE 8
PROGRAM CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #lb
CLARITY OF INDIVIDUAL COURSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
30
14.5
14.5
104
50.2
64.7
High:
52
25.1
89.8
Missing:
21
10.1
100.0
207
100.0
Low:
Medium:
In both question 1a and 1b, a large number of
students reported Medium responses.
This pattern appears
to be consistent with the responses on the Personal
Criteria questions.
Of interest is the larger percentage
of missing responses on these two questions, as compared
to the Personal Criteria questions.
Questions 2a, 2b and 2c ask the students to evaluate Departmental Instruction:
Theory Methods; Quality of
Practicum A & B (Experiential); and to rate Suggested
Outside Reading and Research (see Table 9, page 51).
Table 9 presents the Total sample's response to question
2a.
51
TABLE 9
PROGRAM CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #2a
OVERALL QUALITY OF DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTION:
THEORY/METHOD
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25
12.1
12.1
109
52.7
64.8
High:
53
25.6
90.4
Missing:
20
9.7
100.0
207
100.0
Low:
Medium:
Twenty-six percent of the sample rated Instruction
of Theory/Method High, 53% of the students rated it
Medium, 12% saw Instruction Low, and there was 10% of the
sample not responding.
In question 2b, 35% of the respondents rated it
High (Table 10, page 52).
Medium responses for Quality of
Departmental Experiential (Practicum A & B) was 30%, 11%
of the sample rated it Low and 25% of the students did
not respond.
The large number of missing responses may
be a result of the fact that several of the divisions of
the Educatj.onal Psychology Department do not have
Experiential Practicum experience.
Secondly, at the time
of the survey many of the students had not yet completed
52
their full year of Practicum A & B, which may result in
lack of an opinion, concerning their Experiential Practicum.
TABLE 10
PROGRAM CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #2b
OVERALL QUALITY OF DEPARTMENTAL EXPERIENTIAL:
PRACTICUM A & B
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Low:
22
10.6
10.6
Medium:
61
29.5
40.1
High:
72
34.8
75.9
Missing:
54
25.1
100.0
207
100.0
Question 2b, Overall Quality of Departmental
Experiential, has a higher rating at the High level than
the three preceding questions concerning Goals and Objectives, Clarity of Individual Courses and Quality of
Instruction: Theory/Methods.
Question 2c, Suggested outside Reading and Research,
had 40% of the sample rating it High, only 10% of the
respondents rated it Low.
Thirty percent rated it
Medium, with 13% of the sample not responding to the
53
question {see Table 11, page 53).
TABLE 11
PROGRAM CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #2c
SUGGESTED OUTSIDE READING AND RESEARCH
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Low:
20
9.7
9.7
Medium:
74
35.7
45.4
High:
83
40.1
85.0
Missing:
30
14.5
100.0
207
100.0
Of all the previous questions concerning Departmental Instruction, question #2c, suggested Outside
Reading and Research, had a higher percent of respondents
at the High choice.
The next question #3, Growth in Understanding of a
Counselor's Professional Role and Responding, has the
highest percentage of responses of all Program Criteria
questions at the High rating (see Table 12, page 54).
Forty-nine percent of the sample rated it High.
Thirty
percent of the students rated it Medium; 10% rated it
Low and 13% did not respond.
54
TABLE 12
PERSONAL CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #3
GROWTH IN UNDERSTANDING OF A COUNSELOR'S
PROFESSIONAL ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Low:
21
10.1
10.1
Medium:
63
30.4
40.5
High:
97
46.9
87.4
Missing:
26
12.6
100.0
207
100.0
Again, it should be pointed out that the Program
Criteria questions have somewhat higher percentages of
missing responses than the Personal Criteria questions.
This is particularly true of question #4, Your
Overall Rating of the C & D Practicum Experience Field
work (see Table 13, page 55).
Sixty-five percent of the
respondents did not rate this question.
explained by several reasons.
This could be
First, several of the
divisions of the graduate school do not have Field work
Practicum, which would eliminate students from this
question.
Secondly, as pointed out previously, the
largest Program Status sampled was from second semester;
Practicum C & D Field work is taught at the third and
55
fourth semester level.
This would have a tendency to
reduce the number of respondents able to respond to this
question.
TABLE 13
PROGRAM CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION #4
YOUR OVERALL RATING OF THE C & D PRACTICUM
EXPERIENCE (FIELD WORK}
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Low:
16
7.7
7.7
Medium:
32
16.5
23.2
High:
25
12.1
35.3
134
64.7
100.0
207
100.0
Missing:
The remaining percentages are: 12% at the High
rating; 16% of the respondents rated it Medium and 8%
rated C & D Practicum Low.
The last question under Program Criteria, #5,
Overall Quality of the Department, yielded 24% of the
sample at the High rating, 52% at the Medium choice; 11%
at the Low rating and 13% of the responses were missing
(see Table 14, page 56).
Again, as in several other
questions discussed, a large proportion of the respondents
56
rated the Quality of the Department at the Medium rating.
TABLE 14
PROGRAM CRITERIA, TOTAL SAMPLE
QUESTION /f5
OVERALL QUALITY OF THE DEPARTMENT
Absolute
Frequency
Relative
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
23
11.1
11.1
107
51.7
62.8
High:
50
24.2
87.0
Missing:
27
13.0
100.0
207
100.0
Low:
Medium:
With all the Program Criteria questions it was
found that the missing responses were higher than Personal
Criteria questions.
Several of the Program Criteria
questions were at the 25% level or higher in Program
Criteria.
Question #2b, Quality of Experiential Prac-
ticum A & B, and question #4, Rating C & D Practicum
(Field Work), are the questions resulting in this fashion.
This may have been caused in that student samples were
smaller in these two areas of experience.
The respon-
dents were not able to respond to the questions because
they had not as yet completed or received these
expei"iences.
57
The large percentage of Medium responses from the
sample remained constant within the questions pertaining
to Program Criteria as it did with the questions concerning Personal Criteria.
The researcher believes that
a truer High-Low response result would have occurred if
a Forced Choice type response was used.
As an example,
with a four choice format, i.e., High; Somewhat High;
somewhat Low; Low, the students would have to go to one
side of the middle.
This procedure would have eliminated the Medium
choice, and if the respondents failed to respond it could
be because they do not have an opinion or did not have
that particular experience and could not evaluate the
question adequately.
BY checking the general descriptive
statistics and the written responses of the respondents,
the researcher then may be able to separate those respondents who had no opinion from the sample who did not
evaluate the issue because of lack of that experience.
As it is, better than 85% of the sample did respond to all of the structured questions except #2b and
question #4, both under the Program Criteria section of
the survey questionnaireo
In the last chapter, final
conclusions and specific discussion of pertinent results
will be presented.
Before moving on to the last chapter,
the results of the variance computations will be pre-
58
sented.
Results of the Analysis of Variance
In this section of the chapter a discussion of
several of the questions which appeared to have significant differences will be presented.
The structured
attitude questions were tested by comparing each Program
Specialization against one another in each question.
Then each Program Status grouping was tested for any
significant differences from group to group for each
structured question.
Analysis of variance was computed on all structured
evaluation questions &nd on the open-qnded question, by
Program Specialization and Program Status.
All the
statistics were tabulated by the computer on the SPSS
program.
The researcher compiled the results for all
questions reviewing each question for any significant
difference.
The level of significance used was .05.
The analysis of variance was computed on each question by
the CSUN computer center using the SPSS package.
No
significant differences were found in any of the questions when comparing Program Specialization groups.
There was indication of significant differences on
several questions when computed by Program status
(semester variables).
The first question to indicate any
significant difference by Program Status was #2 under
59
Personal Criteria.
This question asked the respondents
to rate their Satisfaction in your Intellectual Growth
as a Result of the Program (see Table 15, page 59).
reached a significance at the .01 level.
for the total sample was 2.11.
It
The mean score
When looking at the in-
dividual group means, the groups with significant differences were Pre-Program, with a mean of 2.44, and Other,
with a mean of 2.50.
TABLE 15
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY PROGRAM STATUS
PERSONAL CRITERIA-QUESTION #2
YOUR SATISFACTION IN YOUR INTELLECTUAL GROWTH
AS A RESULT OF THE PROGRAM
Mean
S.D.
Variance
N
Pre-PPogram:
2.44
0.70
0.49
27
First Semester:
1.80
0.70
0.48
20
Second Semester:
2.07
0.65
0.43
68
Third Semester:
1. 91
0.70
0.49
11
Fourth Semester:
1.90
0.70
0.49
31
Post Graduate:
2.27
0.70
0.49
24
Other:
2.50
o. 51
0.26
24
Total Population:
2.11
0.69
0.48
205
Two questions under Program Criteria by Program
Status displayed significant
differences~
Que s t i o n #1 b ,
60
Clarity of Individual Course Goals and Objectives, had a
significant difference at the .01 level (see Table 16,
page 60).
2.12.
The Total Sample mean for this question was
As in the preceding question, Pre-Program, with
a mean of 2.52, and Other, with a mean of 2.50, had the
most difference from the total mean.
TABLE 16
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY PROGRAM STATUS
PROGRAM CRITERIA-QUESTION #1b
CLARITY OF DEPARTMENTAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Mean
S.D.
•variance
N
Pre-Program:
2.52
0.68
0.46
21
First Semester:
1.90
0.72
0.52
20
Second Semester:
2.03
0.58
0.33
67
Third Semester:
2.11
0.60
0.36
9
Fourth Semester:
1.93
0.64
0.41
30
Post Graduate:
2.17
0.72
o. 51
23
Other:
2.50
0.52
0.27
16
Total Population:
2.12
0.66
0.43
186
Question #2a under Program Criteria was the third
and last question to indicate significant difference.
It was at the 0.01 level.
Total Sample mean for ques-
tion #2a, Rating Overall Quality of Departmental Instruc-
61
tion was 2.15 (see Table 17, page 61}.
Interestingly, the
same two Program Status groups, Pre-Program and Other,
have means most different from the Total Sample than any
of the other groups, 2.57 and 2.32 respectively.
TABLE 17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY PROGRAM STATUS
PROGRAM CRITERIA-QUESTION #2a
OVERALL QUALITY OF DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTION
THEORY/METHOD
Mean
S.D.
Variance
N
Pre-Program:
2.57
0.60
0.36
21
First Semester:
2.05
0.62
0.39
19
second Semester:
2.15
o. 61
0.37
67
Third Semester:
1.90
0.57
0.32
10
Fourth Semester:
2.00
0.60
0.36
29
Post Graduate:
2.00
0.62
0.38
22
Other:
2.32
0.67
0.45
19
Total Population:
2.15
0.63
0.40
187
What may be indicated, by looking at the three
questions discussed above, is that students not classified
into the graduate program view their intellectual growth
higher than those students involved in the program.
secondly, non-classified students tend to view clarity
of individual course goals and objectives and overall
62
quality of departmental instruction in theory and method
higher than classified students.
Further implications and conclusions about these
results will be discussed in the last chapter of the
study.
Before leaving this chapter on the results of the
study, some discussion of the Chi-square computation is
needed.
The next section of this chapter presents the
results of the Chi-square test.
Chi-Square
All structured attitude questions and the openended question were tested with Chi-square for significant variation.
Chi-square is a test to determine if
two or more frequencies are significantly different, and
that this difference is not by chance.
Each of the
questions were tested twice, once by Program Specialization and again by Program Status.
The significance level
used was at the .05 level or better.
Only one question
under Program Specialization scored significantly at .03,
the open-ended question What is the Most Important Thing
You are Getting out of the Program?
This probably
occurred because of the complexity of the question; the
question's responses were broken down into nine categories
and the extreme differences in responses were reflected
in the different categories.
For example, category seven
had only two responses, Frustration and Despair.
The low
63
number in this one category could distort the Chi-square
computation.
The researcher believes that for this
reason, the difference found could be possible because of
chance.
Chi-square computed by Program Status found three
questions having significant differences.
Under Personal
Criteria, question #2: Your Satisfaction in Your Intellectual Growth as a Result of the Program, was significant at the .01 level.
Under Program Criteria, two questions were found
significant.
Question #1b: Rating of Individual Course
Goals and Objectives was significant at .01.
Question
#2b: Rating of Practicum A & B was significant at .01.
Because of very low responses in several response cate- ,
gories, it is believed that the Chi-square computation
is distorted and that any true differences would be caused
by chance for these two questions.
Presented in this chapter ·were the responses to all
questions by the graduate students.
The Total Sample re-
sponse was given by Program Specialization and by Program
status.
All question responses were presented in order
that full results could be analyzed.
The questions were
computed for significant differences and results were
presented and discussed.
In the next and concluding chapter, further dis-
64
cussion and summary of the results will be presented.
The researcher will also present suggestions for further
study that was indicated from the present study.
CHAPTER V
FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
In the pr,evious chapter the results and conclusions
of the responses to each of the questions of the survey
were presented and discussed.
In this final chapter,
discussion of the important findings will again be presented for final consideration.
Because of time and
money considerations, the researcher needed to place
limits as to the degree and depth of analysis that could
have been employed on the responses to this survey
questionnaire.
Therefore, further suggested research
will be indicated in this chapter for further development
of this survey or for a follow-up instrument for future
use.
Before discussing any conclusions the researcher
wishes to place them in proper perspective.
As mentioned,
it was learned that a four choice response, forced choice
type, rather than the three choice employed in this
questionnaire, might have yielded more productive data.
A forced choice format with two choices above the middle
and two choices below the middle would have alleviated
65
66
the necessity of relying on so many neutral responses
which hindered meaningful comparisons.
If the questionnaire were to be redesigned the researcher would include additional demographic variables,
wuch as age, sex, marital status, and possibly occupation and/or past life experiences.
In addition, several
questions concerning students' expectations of the
graduate program would be asked.
Further, the students
could be asked to indicate their educational values or
philosophy of education and their responses could be
compared to their evaluation of the departmental instruction.
If more students had been surveyed the reliability
of the study would havebeen increased, cost and time
factor somewhat restricted the extent of the survey.
The
researcher has attempted to take the sample size into
consideration in evaluating the results of the questionnaire.
The results of the study as presented here have
indicated how the students feel and perceive their own
personal experience in the program.
The study results
further yield understanding of how the students feel
about departmental goals, objectives, courses and instruction.
In the sample there was a large number of students
67
in the third semester, a small number of students in the
fourth semester, in all other groups distribution was
fairly even at about mid point between fourth and third
semester.
By Program Specialization, Counseling and
Guidance was by far the largest group represented; all
other groups were smaller and more equally divided.
In looking at the responses more students rated
Clarity of Departmental Goals and Objectives Low than
High.
It was the lowest rated question on the survey
and the only question to be scored Low by more students
than High.
Of the Total Sample, a small majority rated Satisfaction in Intellectual Growth, and Overall Quality of
Departmental Instruction in Theory and Methods
Higher than Low.
slig~tly
The responses rating Overall Quality
of the Department was also slightly Higher than Low.
However, Pre-Program and Other groups (non-classified
graduate students) rated Satisfaction with Intellectual
Growth, Overall Quality of Departmental Instruction,
Theory and Methods, and Individual Course Goals and Objectives significantly Higher than classified students.
From the survey it appears that more students from
the sample were unclear on Departmental Goals and Objectives.
Interestingly, many more respondents indicated
their growth in Understanding of the Counselor's
Profe~-
68
sional Role and Responsibilities as a result of the program.
Furthermore, students rated Suggested Outside
Readings and Research twice as High than Low.
Of the total student population sampled, most rated
all Personal Criteria questions twice as High than Low
except for Satisfaction with their Intellectual Growth,
classified students displaying a Lower satisfaction than
non-classified students.
Looking at the open-ended question, What is the Most
Important Thing you are Getting out of the Program, more
students indicated they were getting more Personal Growth
than any other program benefit.
The next Highest program
'
benefit perceived was Intellectual Growth.
choices of responses were much Lower.
All other
This seems to
compare with the way students responded to the structured
questio~s.
Further suggested research would be to com-
pare Program Specialization grouping as to their response
to the open-ended question.
The study suggests that there is a need for more
clarity on Departmental Goals and Objectives and that
students see themselves involved and are receiving Personal and Interpersonal Growth.
students see a need for
improvement of Intellectual Instruction in Theory and
Methods.
Overall, the students generally rate themselves
and the program in a positive manner except in the area of
69
Departmental Goals and Objectives.
One very interesting outcome of the study is that
students rate Outside Reading Lists and Research highly
valuable; however, they rated Intellectual Growth Lower.
Further study in this area could prove enlightening in
terms of what and how students want to be taught and
the use of reading lists in actual course instruction.
REFERENCES
Antasi, A.
Psychological Testing.
Co., 1968.
London: The MacMillan
Berdie, D. R., & Anderson, J. F.
Questionnaires:
Design and use. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press,
Inc., 1974.
campbell, D.T.
Social attitudes and other acquired behavioral dispositions.
Psychology-A Study of a
Science, s. Koch (ED.)
New York: McGraw Hill, 1963.
centra, J.A. & Finn, R. L.
Students' points of view in
rating of college education.
Educational Psychology,
1976, M36, 693-703.
Costin, F., Greenough, W. T., & Myer, R. J.
Student
ratings of college teaching: reliability, validity
and usefulness.
Review of Educational Research,
1975, 41, 511-535.
Crespi, I.
Attitude Measurement, Theory and Prediction.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 1977, 41, 285-294.
Curl, J. F. An analysis of a counselor training design
and graduates' perceptions of that design (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1974).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 35,
1974A-1975A.
(University Microfilms No. 74-2-1,659)
Dawes, R. M.
Fundamentals of Attitude Measurement.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972.
Fox, D. T.
The Research Process in Education.
Rinehart & Winston, 1969.
New York:
Hester, L. R., \'leitz, L. J., Anchor, K. N., & Roback,
H. B.
Supervision attraction as a function of the
level of supervisor skillfulness and supervisors'
preceived similarity.
Journal of Counselor
Psychology, 1976, 23(3), 254-258.
Isaac, s., & Michael, w. B.
Handbook in Research and
Evaluation.
San Diego: Robert L. Knapp, 1971.
70
71
Kazarian, s. M., Richetts, s. M., Schaffer, M. A., &
Zankan, c. A.
The needs and desires of graduate
students at California State University at Northridge
(Unpublished Masters Thesis, California State
University, Northridge, 1973).
Krech, D., Cruthfield, R. s., & Ballachey, E. L.
Individual in Society.
New York: McGraw Hill, 1962.
Morstain, B. R.
Analysis of students' satisfaction with
their academic program.
Journal of Higher Educa~. 1977, XLIII(2), 1-16.
Newcomb, T. M., Turner, R. H.,.& Converse, P. E.
fsychology; The S.!._tfd.Y of Human Interaction.
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.
Social
New
Oppenheim, A. N.
Questionnaire Design and Measurement.
New York: Basic Book, 1966.
Rice, J. K.
Perceptions of males and females concerning
their graduate education experience in Counseling.
Journal of N.A.W.D.A.C., 1977, 41(1), 32-37.
Schmuck, R., & Schmuch, P.
Group Proc6ss in the Classroom (2nd ed.).
Dubuque: w. c. Brown, 1979.
Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M.
Scales for the Measurement
of Attitudes.
New York: McGraw Hill Co., 1967.
simmer, G. F. Attitude Measurement.
McNally, 1970.
Chicago:
Rand
Tziner, A., & Cheatham, T. Attitude measurement through
the use of computer-constructed questionnaires.
Educational and Psychology Measurement, 1977, 37(1),
241-243.
72
a·.r·ogt•t.JJ:l ~pt!.:..'.inlil':dt ion
( ) Ed. ?:;y;;h.
( ) f.arly Ci,i ~dhood
( ) Guidal!ce ;; Connseling
) Pupil P~rsonncl Services
) School Psychology
APF'tNOIX 1
i'c·c -Pc·•>~!'dln
Semester 1
Semester 2
Semester 3
Semester 4
Post-Grad.
Other
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIO:!AL PSYCHOLOGY
STUDENT PROGRAH EVALUATION
~irec.!_i_<?_!l_s_:_
Please rate the progr'am in relation to each of the following
cersonal and departmental criteria by circling 1 (lew), 2 (medium), or 3
Chigh).
Translate these evaluations to an ovcr:=-all rating for the departrr.ent.
Please define your criteria for each rating and be as specific as possible.
Lines are provided wi1:h each question for your co:r,;nents.
1.
(1 2 3)
Your personal grow1:h as a result of your participation in
the program·---------------------------------------------------
2.
(1 2 3)
Your satisfaction in your intellectual growth as a result
of the program.
3.
(1 2 3)
How much of yourself you are putt1ng into the program.
~.
(1 2 3)
Hot~ v:ell you are develop2ng and meet1ng your o~.n professional
objectives.
\-That are these objectives? ________________
v~at
is the most important thing you are_ getting out of
the pr?gram?
1.
(1 2 3)
Clarity of a) departmental goals and objectives. ___________
(1 2 3)
b)
(1 2 3)
Overall qual1ty of depart~ental 1nstruction
(1 2 3)
b)
(1 2 3)
c) suggested outside reading & research
3.
(1 2
Growth in undec'standing of a counselor's profess1.onal role
and responsibilities.
lj,
(l
5.
(1 2 3)
2.
ind1v1dual course goals and obJeCt1ves. _______________
il theory/meThod
0
....'i
11>
....'ifll
experiential (pra.ctic= A & B)
rt
3)
2 3}
Overall quality of fiel<l\...c-ri< experiences (practicum
c
& D)
Your overaJl rat1ng of the department.
3/78
73
APPENDIX 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOP. STUDENT SURVEY
This survey represents a concerted effort by students in the Department of Educational Psychalo~J to gather information to improve progr~~ co~~unication. It
co~es at an opportune time,since the depart~ent is in the process of redetining
its goals, and is actively seeking student input.
The purpose of this survey is to obtain student evaluation of the department
in orcer to contribute to the nutual develop~ent bet~een student~ ~r.d
faculty of program goals. There are twa fo~s to be completed: 1) Student
Program Evaluation; and 2) Student Program Resources.
progr~~.
The Student Committee for Program Development was originally formed by concerned
students for the purpose of provicing a vehicle for students to directly influence,
and to participate in departl!'.ental planning. Critical areas of interest in •..thich
students are becoming involved include curriculum planning, fieldvi<Jrk placements,
and preregistration procedures. The Co~~ittee hopes that eac~ o( you will participate in completing the forms.
The actual Student Program Evaluation farm should
~e
conplet~d
anonymously.
Tne Student Program Resource form is cesigned to build a pool of program. resources
from ~;ithin t.'1e student population. Please be sure to sign this form and include
the names of any professionals •..them you feel. could contribute to the prog:z::·a.-n.
If you have completed these forms in another
Thank you for your assistance.
3/78
Department of Educational Psychology
Studer.t Cotr.mittee an Program Development
cla~s,
please do not redo them.