Articulation : the construct in the literature and as perceived in practice within selected 2-year and 4-year institutio...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Articulation : the construct in the literature and as perceived in practice within selected 2-year and 4-year institutions in Florida
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Morley, Rosemary McCauley, 1946-
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 23311304
oclc - 6435010
System ID:
AA00022484:00001

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Dedication
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
    List of Tables
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
    Abstract
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
    Chapter 1. Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Chapter 2. Articulation: The construct as described in the literature
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
    Chapter 3. Analysis of the field study data
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
    Chapter 4. Discussion of the data
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
    Chapter 5. Summary, conclusions, and suggestions for practice and further research
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
    Appendices
        Page 109
    Appendix A. The Florida public community-junior colleges and the Florida State University system
        Page 110
        Page 111
    Appendix B. Florida higher education articulation questionnaire 1978
        Page 112
        Page 113
    Appendix C. Description of the Florida public institutions of higher education selected for the field study
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
    Appendix D. Statistical analysis for the reliability testing of the Florida higher education articulation questionnaire items
        Page 117
        Page 118
    Appendix E. Institution comparisons of student, faculty, counselor, and administrator responses for each item and subscale of the Florida higher education articulation questionnaire
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
    Appendix F. Institutional comparison of student, faculty, counselor, and administrator responses to the Florida higher education articulation questionnaire
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
    Appendix G. Subscale descriptions used for analysis of the Florida higher education articulation questionnaire responses
        Page 136
        Page 137
    Reference notes
        Page 138
    References
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
    Biographical sketch
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
Full Text












ARTICULATION: THE CONSTRUCT IN THE LITERATURE
AND AS PERCEIVED IN PRACTICE WITHIN SELECTED 2-YEAR AND 4-YEAR INSTITUTIONS IN FLORIDA












BY

ROSEMARY McCAULEY MORLEY




















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1~979





























Copyright 1979

by

Rosemary McCauley Morley






























To my mother

Monica Rigney McCauley










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The author is-indebted to many individuals who have assisted her throughout her doctoral program and with the completion of this study. She expresses her gratitude to the members of her supervisory committee, Dr. Michael Y. Nunnery, Chairman, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen, and Dr. Harold C. Riker. Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Nunnery for his encouragement and interest throughout her program and during the preparation of this study.

Also deserving of recognition are Walter E. Williams,

Frank H.'Spain, and Ronald L. Register for their contributions during the formative stages of this project.

The author thanks Mrs. John P. Grady for the typing and

technical assistance she provided.

Finally, the author expresses particular appreciation and thanks to her husband, Leo, and their son, A. J., for their patience and support, and for the many sacrifices they endured to bring this effort to fruition.















iv











TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . iv

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . viii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

CHAPTER

ONE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . 1

Background and Rationale . . . . . . 1
The Problem . . . . . . . . . 8
Statement of the Problem . . . . . 8
Delimitations . . . . . . . . 8
Limitations 10
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . 10
Definition of Terms 11
Field Study Hypotheses . . . . . . 13
Procedures . . . * * * * 15
Derivations of the Propositions
Characterizing Articulation 15
The Field Study . ' 15
Selection of the samples . . . . . 15 Instrument development . . . . . 17
Data collection and treatment . ' * 19
Organization of the Remainder of the Study . 21

TWO ARTICULATION: THE CONSTRUCT AS DESCRIBED
IN THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . 22

Introduction . . . . . . . . . 22
Admissions . . . . . . . . . 23
Evaluation of Transfer Courses . . . . 26 Curriculum Planning . . . . . . . 30
Advising, Counseling, and Student
Personnel Services . . . . . . . 34
Articulation Programs . . . . . . 39
The Literature in Retrospect . . . . . 44
Admissions . . . . . . . . . 44
Evaluation of Transfer Courses. 44
Curriculum Planning . . . . . . 45





v








TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Page

Advising, Counseling, and Student
Personnel Services . . . . . . 45
Articulation Programs . . . . . . 45

THREE ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD STUDY DATA . . . . 46

Introduction. . . . ... . . . . 46
A Comparison of the Student, Faculty,
Counselor, and Administrator Group
Responses to the Florida Higher Education
Articulation Questionnaire. * * * * 48
A Comparison of the Student, Faculty,
Counselor, and Administrator Group
Responses Within Institutional Categories
and Within Each Institution . . . . 51

FOUR DISCUSSION OF THE DATA . . . . . . . 81

Introduction. . . : * * * * 81
Discussion of the Comparisons of the First
15 Items and Subscales. . * * * 82
Discussion of the Comparisons with Regard
to Item 16, the Major Proglem Facing
Transfer Students . . . * * * 88
Areas of Possible Concern to the Institutional Leaders . . . . . . . . 91

FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
PRACTICE AND FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . 97

Summary 97
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 104
Suggestions for Further Research and Practice 107

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . .. . 109

A THE FLORIDA PUBLIC COMMUNITY-JUNIOR COLLEGES
AND THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM . . 111

B FLORIDA HIGHER EDUCATION ARTICULATION
QUESTIONNAIRE 1978 . . . . . . . 113

C DESCRIPTION OF THE FLORIDA PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION SELECTED FOR
THE FIELD STUDY . . . . . . . . 115

D STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE RELIABILITY
TESTING OF THE FLORIDA HIGHER EDUCATION
ARTICULATION QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS . . . . 118


vi








TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Page

E INSTITUTION COMPARISONS OF STUDENT,
FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR
RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE
OF THE FLORIDA HIGHER EDUCATION
ARTICULATION QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . 120

F INSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON OF STUDENT,
FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR
RESPONSES TO THE FLORIDA HIGHER EDUCATION
ARTICULATION QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . 131

G SUBSCALE DESCRIPTIONS USED FOR ANALYSIS OF
.THE FLORIDA HIGHER EDUCATION ARTICULATION
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES . . . . . . 137

REFERENCE NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . 138

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . 145




























vii













LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY,
COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR GROUP
MEAN RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND
SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE ........ 49

2 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY,
COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN TWO INSTITUTIONAL
CATEGORIES(CJC AND SUS) ..... .............. 52

3 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY,
COUNSELOR AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN THREE INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORIES ...... ................. 56

4 COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY-JUNIOR COLLEGE
AND STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORIES ON EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN EACH GROUP ...... ................. .65

5 COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY-JUNIOR COLLEGE,
2-YEAR UPPER DIVISION, AND 4-YEAR
INSTITUTION RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM
AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN GROUPS ....... ................... 68

6 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY,
COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES BY SUBSCALE, NUMBER, AND PERCENTAGE TO
THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN THE FIVE SUBSCALES ....... ..73

7 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY,
COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY SUBSCALE, NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO
THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN TWO INSTITUTIONAL
CATEGORIES ........ .................... 74



viii









LIST OF TABLES Continued

Table Page

8 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY,
COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY SUBSCALE, NUMBER, AND PERCENTAGE
TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN THREE INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORIES ....................76

9 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY,
COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 1..........120

10 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 2..........121

11 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 3.........122

12 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUB SCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 4..........123

13 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUB SCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 5.........124

14 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 6.........125

15 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 7..........126

16 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 8.........127


ix












LIST OF TABLES Continued

Table Pg

17 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUB SCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 9..........128

18 COMPARISON OF STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA
QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN INSTITUTION 10..........129

19 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN INSTITUTION 1................131

20 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
-WITHIN INSTITUTION 2................131

21 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN INSTITUTION 3................132

22 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN INSTITUTION 4................132

23 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN INSTITUTION 5................133

24 COMPARISON.OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN INSTITUTION 6................133

x












LIST OF TABLES Continued

Table Page

25 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN INSTITUTION 7 . . . . . . . 134

26 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN INSTITUTION 8 . . . . . . . 134

27 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES
BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN INSTITUTION 9 . . . . . . . 135

28 COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPENENDED QUESTION OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE
WITHIN INSTITUTION 10 . . . . . . . 135






















xi






Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


ARTICULATION: THE CONSTRUCT IN THE LITERATURE
AND AS PERCEIVED IN PRACTICE WITHIN SELECTED 2-YEAR AND
4-YEAR INSTITUTIONS IN FLORIDA


By

Rosemary McCauley Morley

August, 1979


Chairman: Michael Y. Nunnery Major Department: Educational Administration


Interest in postsecondary educational articulation within

Florida can be traced to 1956. Yet, only in the 1970's did "articulation" as a comprehensive educational construct begin to win acceptance. Even then, many educators were still vague about the meaning of the term. Historically, it has been defined by describing the problems and characteristics of inarriculation. This study was undertaken because nowhere in the literature was there a positive, comprehensive

definition of articulation, nor was there an instrument for gaining perceptions of those involved in higher education. The problem was two-fold: first to derive from related literature a series of propositions which operationally described the construct of articulation in public postsecondary education; and second to determine the perceptions of articulation held




xii








by students, faculty, counselors, and administrators at selected postsecondary institutions in Florida.

In the development of the construct, 15 propositions

were derived from published literature dated from 1950 through 1979. These propositions developed five subscales: admissions, student personnel concerns, articulation programs, evaluation of credit, and curriculum articulation. The Florida Higher Education Articulation Questionnaire (FHEAQ) was an operational statement of each proposition. It also contained an openended question seeking the major problem facing transfer students.

Using the FHEAQ, perceptions were sought from 45 respondents at each of five Community-Junior Colleges (GJC), two 2-year upper division state universities (SUS), and three 4-year state universities in Florida. Of the possible 450 responses, 96%~ were returned. The first 15 responses were recorded on a 5 point scale ranging from "Always" the case to "Never." Responses to the open-ended item were categorized into one of the five major areas. The data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis H test and logical inference.

To give direction to the field study analysis, five null hypotheses were tested:

1. There is no difference among the four groups on each of the 15 items or subscales .

2. There is no difference among the four groups within

CJC or SUS institutions, within CJC, 2-year SUS, or 4-year SUS institutions, or within each institution on each of the 15 items or subscales.

xiii








3. There is no difference between the CJC and SUS institutions or among the CJC, 2-year SUS, or 4-year SUS institutions within each of the four groups on each of the 15 items or subscales.

4. There is no difference in the perceived major problem facing transfer students as expressed by the groups regardless of institutional affiliation.

5. There is no difference in the perceived major problem as expressed by groups within institutional categories.

The following conclusions were drawn:

1. There is sufficient agreement in the literature to

define the construct of articulation by 15 basic propositions.

2. There were differences among the groups regardless of institutional affiliation regarding student personnel, articulation programs, credit evaluation, and curriculum. The students were usually the least positive respondents, and the counselors and/or administrators were the most positive.

3. There were considerable differences in perceptions

among the groups within each of the institutional comparisons and within each institution.

4. There were considerable differences in perceptions between the institutional comparisons within each group.

5. There were differences among the groups regardless of institutional affiliation as to the major problem facing transfer students. Students identified student personnel concerns as the major problem while all other groups identified curriculum articulation.


xiv








6. There were considerable differences in the perceived

major problem among the groups within each of the institutional comparisons and within each institution.
















































xv












CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Background and Rationale

Only in the 1970's did "articulation" as a comprehensive term win educational acceptance, although "school and college relations," from which it is derived., has a long history. A basic reason for renewed interest in articulation was pressure on college enrollments, first from too many students, then from too few, and from the tendency of students to transfer from one school to another. Willingham (1974) indicated that a national survey showed about 150,000 students or one-fourtof the student population surveyed transferred from one school to another (p. 39). A large proportion of transferring students has been a characteristic of public higher education in Florida. In the fall of 1974, the transfer students attending the Florida State University System (SUS) numbered 26,890. This number has continued to increase yearly with 31,780 in the Fall, 1975; 32,584 transfers in the Fall, 1976; 33,454 in the Fall, 1977 and approximately 34,000 in the Fall, 1978 (Division of Community Colleges, 1978, pp. 6, 16).





2

The rising aspirations of minority groups and the

addition to the traditional tri-level educational system of a relatively new fourth, tier--the community-junior college-further accentuated the need for sound planning for student transition. Still, according to Menacker (1975) and Ernst (1978), many teachers, administrators, and student specialists are either unacquainted with the term and status of articulation or have only a vague idea of the meaning of the construct. Even for investigators, the construct has been obscured by the multiplicity of definitions, each influenced by the writer's professional attitudes and interests. Although it is from these varied perspectives that the articulation construct evolved, nowhere has it been defined.

Medsker (Note 1), a leading academic figure in juniorsenior college articulation, found the essence of articulation in joint efforts of individuals, and the policies of institutions across a wide spectrum of activities which facilitate the transfer of students from one institution to another. these endeavors may be formal or informal, sponsored or voluntary. Kintzer (1970) saw articulation as ordering the continuous flow of students from one grade level to another (p. 1). According to Sandeen and Goodale (1976), articulation is an attempt to establish cooperative working relationships, communication, and agreements (p. 34). Ernst (1978) described articulation as systematic coordination between an educational institution and other educational institutions and agencies, designed to ensure the efficient






3

and effective movement of students among these institutions and agencies, while guaranteeing the students' continuous advancement in learning.

The numerous definitions of articulation are alike in many respects. Most descriptions emphasize communication, cooperation, and mutual understanding among institutions. It appears that the common view conceives of education as a continuum that transcends organizational units, integrating skills, attitudes, and subject matter. The primary focus is on improving the student's transition through the units, organizations, and activities. Taken together, these components form the fabric of articulation, best characterized by Menacker (1975) as "the process which promotes continuous, efficient, forward progress of students through the educational sys tem" (p. 4) .

Numerous studies involving the articulation construct have been conducted both on national and state levels. Although focusing on different aspects of the issue, studies with national scope have been relatively recent and include those conducted by Knoell and Medsker (1964a), the Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges (1966), Willingham and Findikyan (1969), Kintzer (1970), and Menacker (1975). All of these studies include the State of Florida and make reference to its leadership role in state-wide articulation planning.

Concern for smooth articulation in Florida higher

education actually began in the 1950's with the genesis of





4

the public community-junior college system. In 1955, the Florida legislature established the Community College Council at the time when Florida had only four junior colleges. This council's report was published in 1957 under the title, The Community Junior Collegein Florida's Future. It contained recommendations for needed legal changes and a plan for establishing a system of public community colleges in Florida which ultimately would provide post-high school education within commuting distance for more than 99% of Florida's population. In 1957, the Florida legislature authorized creation of the Division of Community Colleges in the State Department of Education. It also began implementation of a Master Plan by appropriating funds for six new community colleges. The 28 Community-Junior Colleges which were eventually conceived from the 1957 Master Plan are listed in Appendix A along with their location and date of establishment.

The concern for the articulation of the programs and

services of the community colleges with those of other public educational institutions in Florida has been evident throughout the development of the system. In the 1977-78 Report For Florida Community Colleges Ralph Turlington noted that both the Council for the Study of Higher Education in Florida (1956) and the Florida Community College Council (1957) proposed the basic strategy which has made Florida a forerunner among states in the development of articulation programs serving students (Note 2, p. 14).





5


The 1971 Articulation Agreement has provisions which continue the 1959 general education agreement, define the Associate of Arts degree as the basic transfer degree, assure the transferability of Associate of Arts degrees which are awarded under conditions set forth in the agreement, continue the use of subject area task forces, encourage and provide assurance of transfer for students who complete experimental programs, and establish the Articulation Coordinating Committee charged "to review and evaluate current articulation policies and to formulate additional policies as needed" (p. 6).

As previously implied, Florida is recognized as a

national leader in statewide planning for higher education (Kintzer, 1973a, p. 35). Not only was Florida one of the first states to have an articulation agreement (March, 1971), but by 1974, Florida was the first and only state to have an articulation counseling office in each of the nine public universities (Schafer, p. v). However, authors have indicated that having articulation policies, procedures, and machinery established is only "half the battle" (Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges, 1966, p. 16; Willingham, 1972, p.'4). Grassroots communication and dialogue have been emphasized as necessary for successful articulation, both within the state and across the nation (Brimm, 1977). John Gardner, in 1968, laid a foundation for articulation when he commented that, "The greatest American educational invention of the 20th century is the two-year community college" (p. 2). Robert Mautz, then Chancellor of the Florida State University





6

System, speaking to the Florida Association of Community Colleges in 1969, noted:

The future strength of all of the state universities will be the junior college transfer student. We intend to work with the community
colleges to assure a future of distinction.
(Note 3)

In 1972, then President Cecil Mackey of the University of South Florida commented, when addressing a commission of the Florida Association of Community Colleges, "There are no junior partners in Higher Education . rather, we are all senior partners in the firm" (Note 4, p. 3). One year later, in 1973, Florida Senate Bill 1187., which became law, clearly conveyed the legislative concern for articulated educational programs at all levels and for maximizing the articulation of students at all levels.

These quotations and actions speak directly to the two-level system of higher education (junior-community colleges and universities) and in most cases directly support institutional articulation. The analysis of perceptions and the development of an articulation construct as reported herein constitute an additional step in the quest for understanding "good" articulation. It is believed that this study provides a viable link and base for future studies of attitudes, planning, and analysis.

The study reported herein is not the first effort at articulation research in Florida institutions of higher education. Research conducted at the state level dealing with performance of transfer students as compared to native





7



university students includes Walker (Note 5), Voyles (Note 6), and Nickens (1970). Additional studies by McFaddin (1971), Sitzman (1972), Medford (1974), Sistrunk (1974), Schafer (1974), Blackwell (1975), Hite (1975), and Turner (1975), constitute a series of doctoral dissertations relating to articulation concerns and problems encountered by students matriculating at more than one institution during their degree program.

All of these dissertations and the original Articulation Agreement illustrate the tendency to define good articulation via the problems and characteristics of inarticulation. The literature has been focused primarily in two areas: first, a historical review of articulation or smooth student progress within a system; and second, a delineation of specific problems encountered by students when articulation is absent. The usual pattern is to give a narrow interpretation of articulation in a given setting (usually unique to the author), and then to delineate the problems or issues constituting

inarticulation. As with other subjects, it has been easier to define articulation in terms of what it is not, rather than in terms of what it is.

Since the literature contained no comprehensive statement defining articulation as a basis for gaining insight into the perceptions of those involved, the study reported herein was undertaken. More specifically, a comprehensive





8

definition was derived, and an examination of the perceptions of students, faculty, counselors, and administrators was made. Some of the.reasons for the derivation of the construct from the literature were the following: (a) to define in a comprehensive way what articulation is today; (b) to provide a viable link between the present level of understanding and possible future research; (c) to aid teachers, administrators, and student specialists in their understanding of the comprehensive term. Some of the reasons for the examination of perceptions were to isolate: (a) specific ways of improvement;

(b) procedural misconceptions; (c) glaring "omissions" in personnel training.

The Problem


Statement of the Problem

The problem in the study was two-fold; first, to derive

from related literature a series of propositions which operationally described the construct of articulation in public postsecondary education; second, to determine the perceptions of articulation held by students, faculty, counselors, and administrators at selected public postsecondary institutions in Florida, identifying the extent to which those perceptions were consistent with respect to the propositions which comprised the construct.


Delimitations

In regard to the derivation of the propositions from

t-he literature, the following constraints were in effect-in this study:






9

1. In the development of the construct of articulation, the review of the literature was confined to scholarly literature, authoritative opinion, and specific unpublished documents dated from 1950 through 1979.

2. The propositions which constitute the construct were confined to the areas of admissions, evaluation of transfer courses, curriculum planning, advising, counseling, other student personnel services, and articulation programs.

In regard to the field s tudy portion of the investigation, the following constraints were in effect:

1. The field study perceptions were limited to students and personnel in two 2-year upper division universities, three 4-year universities and in five selected communityjunior colleges in Florida. The 2-year upper division and 4-year universities were selected from the nine institutions in the State University System (SUS) so as to guarantee state representation in terms of age of the institution, the enrollment, and the geographic location. The five community-junior colleges were selected either because of their close proximity to one of the universities designated to be surveyed or because of their role as a major "feeder-institution" as identified through enrollment data.

2. The data collection for the field study was limited to a questionnaire which was administered to persons at each of the 10 selected institutions in Florida. There was a possible n of 45 at each institution (25 students, 10 faculty,

5 counselors, and 5 administrators). The total possible N






10

was 450 persons. A total of 433 usable responses or 96% were returned. These responses included 238 or 95% of the students, 95 or 95% of the, faculty; 50 or 100% of the counselors; and 50 or 100% of the administrators. At each institution the sample of student, faculty, counselors, and administrators was selected by a campus contact person. The questionnaire was structured to ascertain the respondents' perceptions of the relative presence or absence of the construct, articulation.

3. The field study of this investigation focused on

the policies and procedures governing the traditional transfer student moving from a community-junior college to a senior institution. No effort was made regarding non-traditional transfer students who move from the senior institution to a community-junior college or from senior institution to senior institution.

Limitations

1. There was no external judgment made regarding the validity of the propositions derived by the researcher.

2. The field portion of the study was limited in that it was conducted in only one state. Generalizations beyond the State of Florida and even beyond the institutions sampled are speculative, rather than conclusive, in nature.


Assumptions

There were three basic assumptions made in this study. The first was that a comprehensive construct of articulation








would clarify the subject matter for future research. The second was that a determination of perceptions was needed to understand the existing condition or "state-of-affairs" regarding articulation. The third, and most important, was that articulation is an integral part of postsecondary education in the United States, and more specifically, in Florida.


Definition of Terms


Administrator. A person designated at the institution to carry out management responsibilities; for example, a department chairperson, assistant or associate dean, dean, assistant vice-president, president, registrar, or financial aids officer.

Articulation. An all encompassing view of student flow from institution to institution. The theory with all its aspects in contrast to a narrow interpretation such as an agreement, a process, or an attitude.

Articulation agreement. A compact between two or more institutions of higher education. It may be established'by a formal statewide policy. a state agency; an institutional system, or on a voluntary basis among groups of institutions. The purpose of the agreement is to facilitate the movement of the student from one level of education to another.

Campus contact person. An articulation officer with duties as general liaison between institutions of higher education or his/her designee.





12


Community-junior college. A postsecondary educational institution offering college parallel, occupational, and community service programs; one which offers an Associate of Arts (AA) degree upon completion of the college parallel programs and the Associate of Science (AS) degree upon completion of a terminal technical program. In 1979, there were 28 public community-junior colleges in Florida.

Construct. A construct is a concept which has the added meaning of having been deliberately and consciously invented or adopted for a special scientific purpose.

Counselor. A trained person employed to assist students with course selection, career counseling, and/or academic advising.

Faculty. A professional staff member whose primary

responsibility is teaching rather than other administrative or support functions.

Proposition. A statement or assertion which defines or describes a particular aspect of the phenomenon under consideration; e.g., a proposition relative to the evaluation of transfer courses is: "A letter grade of 'D' is acceptable for transfer."

Senior institution. A college or university which grants a baccalaureate or higher degree. At the time of the study, two types of public senior institutions existed in Florida:

1. 2-Year Upper Division--An upper division

college is an institution of higher education

offering baccalaureate degree programs and





13

limited graduate programs without provisions

for general education programs. This type of institution usually enrolls students that have completed the first two years of college elsewhere, and offers only junior, senior and

graduate course-work.

2. 4-Year Institution--A traditional institution

offering comprehensive programs from freshman

year through graduate work.

Transfer student. One who matriculates at two or more different institutions during his/her college experience; in this study, one who commences his/her education at a community-junior college and then moves on to a college or university.


Field Study Hypotheses


To give direction and organization to the analysis of the perceptual data obtained in the field study by means of the Florida Higher Education Articulation Questionnaire (see Appendix B), five null hypotheses were tested. For clarity and consistency, the term scale refers to each of the individual items 1 15 on the questionnaire. The term subscale refers to the five areas of the articulation construct:

(a) admissions (items 1, 2, 4); (b) student personnel services (items 5, 6, 11); (c) articulation programs (items 3, 7, 9);

(d) evaluation (items 10, 12, 15); and (e) curriculum (items 8, 13, 14). The term group refers to the four samples of





14

student, faculty, counselor and administrator. The term category refers to the institutional types: CJC, 2-year upper division, or 4-year institutions.

The null hypotheses used in this study were as follows:

1. There is no significant difference among the student, faculty, counselor, or administrator group mean responses on each of the 15 items or each subscale.

2. There is no significant difference among the student, faculty, counselor, or administrator group mean responses within the two institutional categories (CJC or SUS), or within the three institutional categories (CJC, 2-year SUS, 4-year SUS), or within each institution on each of the 15 items or each subscale.

3. There is no significant difference in mean category responses between the two institutional categories (CJC or SUS) or among the three institutional categories (CJC, 2-year SUS, 4-year SUS) within the student, faculty, counselor, or administrator groups on each of the 15 items or each subscale.

4. There is no difference in the perceived major problem fa cing transfer students as expressed by student, faculty, counselor, or administrator groups in the open-ended question.

5. There is no difference in the perceived major problem, facing transfer students as expressed by student, faculty, counselor, or administrator groups within the two institutional categories (CJC or SUS), or within the three institutional categories (GJC, 2-year SUS, 4-year SUS), or within each institution on the open-ended question.





15

Procedures


The procedures used in the investigation are described here in detail. First, there is a description of how the salient propositions were derived from the scholarly literature. Second, there is a description of the field study which includes how the samples were selected, a discussion of the data gathering instrument, the data collection process, and means of data treatment.


Derivations of the Propositions Characterizing Articulation

A thorough review of the literature was conducted to

derive the salient propositions which described the construct of articulation. Sources included both published literature and specific unpublished documents regarding the construct of articulation.

The sources searched included Dissertation Abstracts International, The Educational Resource Information Center Reports (ERIC), Current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE), Books in Print and the International Index to Periodicals. These were reviewed from 1950 through 1979, with material* selection based on both relevance and originality.


The Field Study


Selection of the samples.

Ten institutions of higher education were chosen for

this study. The selection was made on the basis of age, size,





16


and type of institution. An attempt was made to seek representation from both old and new; large and small; public 2-year upper division, public 4-year institutions, and community-junior colleges in the State. Five of these institutions were members of the State University System (SUS), and five were Florida Community-Junior Colleges (CJC). Appendix C contains a brief description of each of the 10 institutions chosen.

A target population of 45 respondents was sought at

each of the institutions, thus generating a total N of 450 individuals. This target population of 45 was divided into four groups:, 25 students, 10 faculty, 5 counselors, and 5 administrators. The specific respondents were chosen by the individual campus contact person (see definition of terms). The rationale for seeking the perceptions of these four groups was that faculty and administrators are central figures in creating and interpreting articulation policies and procedures. The counselors are very important because of the key role they play as links between the established articulation policies and procedures and the student use of the educational system.. The students are consumers who can provide valuable input on whether or not the articulation policies and procedures are working as designed. It is believed that by analyzing the perceptions held by each of these groups, one can assess the degree of consistency between the perceptions and the 15 propositions. Through such analysis, existing inconsistencies can be isolated and then addressed.





17


Ins trument development

The questionnaire (Appendix B) was developed from the

propositions of the established articulation construct. The proposition items were randomly listed to offer less predictability. The review of the scholarly literature indicated that the salient propositions logically formed five areas: (a) admission, (b) student personnel services,

(c) articulation programs, (d) evaluation, and (e) curriculum. These five areas were consistent with the areas emphasized in the Guidelines: For Improving Articulation (Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges, 1966). The introductory remarks on the questionnaire were general so as to be appropriate for all four samples. A five point "Likert' scale was provided for responses as perceived by each participant. The possible responses were: You believe this statement true
"always," "often," "sometimes," "seldom," or "never." An additional response option was "no basis to judge."

Each proposition was then translated into operational terms for use on the questionnaire. To illustrate this translation, consider proposition 8--Curriculum changes are planned with phased implementation dates, with accommodations for individuals presently in the program was translated to item #13--Curriculum changes are planned with well-phased, well-publicized dates.

An instrument such as the one used in this investigation must depend largely on fa ce and content validity (Kerlinger, 1973). The face validity concerned judgments about the instrument after it was constructed. Prior experience and





18

professional recommendations on face value were also taken into consideration. Content validity was ensured by both the overall plan of content and the method for constructing the items. Each item used in the instrument was documented in the review of the literature (Chapter II).

Two approaches were used to determine the reliability of the instrument. Both approaches used a modification of methods used by Medford (1974) and recommendations by Kerlinger (1973). The first approach concerned the reliability of the instrument as a whole. The survey instrument was administered to a sample population of 15 individuals and then was administered to 10 of those respondents eight days later. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation technique was used to determine the relationship between the scores obtained on the initial administration of the instrument and the set of scores obtained*when the instrument was administered. This procedure produced a set of 10 correlation coefficients. Appendix D shows the exact Pearson r for each of the 10 pretest respondents. With each correlation at 91% or above, the instrument was considered as reliable on the whole.

The second approach in determining the reliability of the instrument was concerned with each item on the instrument. The technique of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used again to determine the relation of a set of respondent scores obtained from the initial administration of the instrument with a set of respondent scores obtained on the second administration for each of the 15 items. This approach




19


produced a set-of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficients for each item. With correlations at or above 89%, each item was determined to be reliable (see Appendix D).

One open-ended question was listed following the 15 questions derived from the propositions:

What do you believe to be the major

problem facing transfer students?

Its purpose was to establish the most serious problem as perceived by the students, faculty, counselors, and administrators.


Data collection and treatment

As previously cited, one means of data collection was utilized: a questionnaire which consisted of 15 items, all relating to the derived propositions of articulation, and one open-ended question which permitted individual interpretation. The researcher visited each of the 10 campuses in the state and discussed the research objectives with the campus contact person. This person then assumed the responsibility for circulating and collecting the 45 questionnaires at his/her institution for a bulk return mail. When problems were encountered, a second campus contact was identified for additional assistance. Participants in each sample (students, faculty, counselors, and administrators) were chosen because they met the descriptive requirements provided to the campus contact person and because they were available and willing to participate. The 10 campus visits began in October, 1978, and





20


ended in December, 1978. Returns were accepted from December, 1978, through March 1, 1979, with a total percentage returned of 96%g. Usable returns were received from 238 of a possible 250 students, or 95%, 95 of a possible 100 faculty, or 95%, 50 of a possible 50 counselors, or 100%, 50 of a possible 50 administrators, or 100%.

The cumulative data collected served the general purpose of identifying the perceptions of the articulation construct as viewed by each of four groups of respondents: student, faculty, counselor, and administrator. Specifically, the responses were tabulated to provide the total number of responses. and the mean responses for each item. Descriptive statistics and logical inference were employed by the researcher in analyzing the data. A non-parametric statistical test, the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance, was used to analyze three groups or more, in reference to the first three hypotheses. The .05 level of significance was used to reject these first three null hypotheses. Along with the H value and level of significance obtained from the Kruskal-Wallis, an arithmetic mean was calculated for each item and subseale. Logical inference was employed in analyzing the open-ended question and was used to reject null hypotheses 4 and 5. Consistent with the null hypothesis posed, institutions were compared jointly as members of either the CJC, 2-year upper division, or 4-year institution groups. The combined 2-year and 4-year schools were also grouped for an

all SUS comparison.






21

In regard to the open-ended question, which is referenced in null hypotheses 4 and 5, the analysis consisted of a reading of each response by the researcher, and, based on her judgment, the categorization of the responses were made among one of five subscales: admission, evaluation of credit, curriculum, student personnel or articulation programs. In terms of this categorization, hypotheses 4 and 5 were tested, using raw data and percentages.


Organization of the Rema1n:det of the Study


In Chapter II, attention is given to the description of the articulation construct as derived from the literature. Chapter III is a presentation of the data from the field study portion of this investigation. Chapter IV is discussion and interpretation of the data. Chapter V is summary of the study with conclusions and suggestions for further study and practice.














CHAPTER II

ARTICULATION: THE CONSTRUCT AS
DESCRIBED IN THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Certain salient propositions tend to emerge as one reviews the scholarly literature, authoritative opinion, and unpublished documents regarding articulation policies and practices in postsecondary education. From the mid 1950's through 1960, discussion of articulation seemed to center on several recurring issues. Then, in the early 1960's the Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges developed a set of national guidelines for smooth transfer among institutions. After two subsequent revisions and.a national review, the guidelines were published in 1966. This document was not only a systematic accumulation of articulation concerns, but also a product of the combined creative efforts of leading national figures. The major issues identified provide a concise outline of historical problems and issues in articulation. They were: admissions, evaluation of transfer courses, curriculum planning, advising, counseling and student personnel services, and articulation programs (Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges, 1966). In subsequent literature, authors such as Gleazer (1968), Sandeen and Goodale (1972),




22





23

Menacker (1975), and Wattenbarger (1976) continued to focus major concern*on articulation--its failures and successes. Throughout these more recent documents the same five major categories seem to prevail with perhaps one added dimension, student responsibilities. By this is meant, the obligation of students to do their part in making articulation efforts successful. However, when considering this obligation, it must be reviewed in light of the five main categories earlier stated. Acknowledged student responsibility, therefore, is

intertwined in each'issue.

In the following sections, propositions are derived,

described, and supported by related literature. These propositions in essence define the articulation construct in a positive and direct statement.


Admissions

If one accepts the existence of articulation theory as

discussed by the Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges in the 1966 Guidelines, the first category to be considered would be institutional admission policies and procedures. Willingham (1972) commented that a major reason why admissions deserves special study and attention in articulation theory is because it involves problems qualitatively different from freshman admissions. While the procedures are similar, smooth flow of transfer students requires special conditions, attitudes, policies, and procedures which do not occur automatically. Based on a review of the literature, three






24

major propositions dealing with admissions matters are inherent in the articulation construct.

Proposition 1: The minimum grade point average standard

for admission of a -junior* college' transfer 'student to a senior institution* is a "C" or' "2.0"* on a* "4.0" scale.

Sanford (cited in Menacker, 1975), as early as 1961, pointed out that there were little data on which to base a decision about the "proper" grade point average (GPA) for transferability. However, a few years later, Knoell and Medsker (1964b, p. 60) had researched enough institutions and had analyzed the relative success of enough groups to strongly recommend a "C" average as a "proper" GPA. After revision and national review, the Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges in 1966 documented this conclusion in the Guidelines:

Public four year colleges and universities should adopt an overall "C" average as the
standard for admission from junior college,
provided they can accommodate all applicants
who are thus qualified. (p. 7)

Many individual state policies have reconfirmed this national conclusion. For example, Kintzer (1973a) pointed out that the 1971 Florida Articulation Coordination Committee agreement concluded that:

Achievement of a grade point average of not less than 2.0 in all courses attempted ..
the D will be accepted for transfer (provided
the overall grade average does not drop below
the prescribed 2.'0 level). (p. 37)

Many other states followed suit in this regard, with other research documenting that most students with a 2.0 CPA or





25

above experience success at the senior institutions (Kintzer, 1973a; Nelson, 1971; Nickens, 1970).

Proposition 2: Prior academic performance is the best single indicator of admissibility; however, consideration of supplemental information strenat-ens placement and is used for admissions decisions.

Closely allied to the minimal GPA issue is the conviction of many that beyond the minimal grade point standard established, senior institutions admissions officers must pay close attention to the probability of the transfer students' success. Willingham (1972) concluded there are two ways for a counselor to improve the estimate of student success. "One method is to determine grade differentials between receiving institutions and each sending community college" (p. 25). Many are in agreement that this does improve the prediction of upper division grades (Eastman, Note 7; BashaT,7, 1965; Willingham, 1963). The second common method of improving estimates of success is "to supplement available course information with appropriate admissions tests" (Willingham, 1972, p. 26). Scherer (1972) concurred with this second method. He concluded his remarks by stating that the relative importance of supportive data increases with the use of poor or limited coursework.

Proposition 3: Accurate, detailed information for all

institutions is available to students within the system.

It is necessary to have clear and objective statements

of admissions criteria. "Junior College Students should





26

be able to know at any time whether they are eligible to transfer" (Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges, 1966, p. 8). Updated catalogs, brochures, and verbal advice are important aspects of admissions procedures, and they must be available to students for smooth transfer. It appears that not only "what" one knows about the status of his/her admissibility is important, but also "when" one finds it out (Willingham, 1972, p. 34). Menacker (1975, p. 71) reconfirmed this concern which had been originally expressed by Knoell and Medsker in 1965 (p. 71), that if equitable considerations are to be afforded the transfer student in the areas of housing, financial aid, and early registration, then the transfer student should be admitted no later than early in the term before transferring. Although considerable information can be available to prospective students, student initiative is an important part of a smooth, well-planned transfer. Unfortunately, even though students have been advised properly, they sometimes fail to apply to prospective transfer institutions until

the last quarter before transfer.


Evaluation of Transfer Courses


It is obvious that transfer course evaluation is central to the smooth flow of students from one level of education to another. There are three basic convictions on evaluation of transfer courses which constitute the propositions in this area.





27

Proposition 4: There is system-wide acceptance of all college-level courses completed with a "D" or better as at least elective credit (academic not technical).

A recent approach to this topic was suggested by Menacker (1975). He stated:

The best approach to problems of credit transfer
is the critical path strategy, similar to that concept's use in physics and systems analysis.
Maximum credit can be utilized if those responsible ask the question, "How can this course
best aid the student's move toward graduation?"
(p. 81)

By being flexible, institutions use transferred credits to the student's advantage. Unfortunately, a variety of rigid demands have been documented. Kintzer (1973a, p. 38) cited a host of abuses by senior institutions in his discussion of evaluation problems. Some of these were: insisting on exact equivalency of courses; refusing to accept occupational courses; putting limits on the amount of credit granted in certain majors;refusing to accept a course, implying that it is inferior to the university counterpart; and shifting courses from lower to upper level, while holding community colleges to specific definition of what constitutes lower and upper level work. People continue to voice concern. For example, Humpert, in his 1977 doctoral dissertation, noted that many of these policies could be the subject of lengthy debate; however, each potentially limits the smooth transition of the student, and unjustly so, when arbitrarily used. In addition, the Joint Committee on Junior and Senior





28

Colleges, in their 1966 Guidelines, specifically stated that the key to this issue is the fact that policies and procedures should be regularized system-wide.

Not only has course content been an issue in acceptability of credit, but also the level of performance (letter grade earned),, and the prerequisite obligations identified (Schwartz, 1978). Wattenbarger (Note 8) discussed the "D" grade at length-and echoed the pleas made earlier by Kintzer (1973a) and Menacker (1975). H~e recommended that "D" grades be evaluated for transfer students in the same fashion as "D" grades earned by native students. Earlier in 1972, Willingham mentioned that 83%~ of the institutions he surveyed

treated "D" grades in this fashion (p. 27-28).

Proposition 5: To insure forward progress, no maximum

limits of transfer credit are enforced unless the major program integrity is. jeopardized; or the number of hours earned exceeds 135 quarter hours or 90 semester hours.

Coupled with the decision regarding what is acceptable credit is, the question of how much credit can be accepted? Scherer (1972) reported that most institutions set a limit

of one-half of the total program (assuming the student was attending a 2-year lower division institution). Procedures often exist for exceptions to this rule because the non-traditional students often have attended 4-year, then 2-year, institutions, having earned more credit than their traditional

counterparts. Wattenbarger (Note 8) indicates that rigid policies with no appeal procedure still plague the articulation scene in some states.





29


Throughout the 1960's Wattenbarger speculated that

most credit evaluation problems were due to the process of educational bookkeeping. In 1972, he clarified the scope of bookkeeping by indicating the problem involves counting, recording, and transferring a student's earned academic credits. This may seem quite elementary to some, but it is actually related- to questions concerning the institution's philosophy, program planning, faculty competence, and admissions policies. Often, course equivalency and occupational objectives enter into the issue also.

In its 1966 Guidelines, the Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges had identified a recommended strategy: no maximum should be set on transferable credit; instead, there should be a minimum residence requirement at the second institution; but in no case should less than half of the baccalaureate program be accepted from the community-junior college Associate of Arts program (p. 9).

Proposition 6: System-wide Acceptance of non-traditional learning methods, experimental courses, off-campus educational opportunities, and credit-by-examination programs is evident.

Because the student population is becoming more and

more non-traditional in age, experience, goals, and schedules, institutions have been moving rapidly in the area of nontraditional methods of obtaining college-level credit. Some of the avenues available are credit-by-exam programs, experimental teaching methods, United States Air Force Institute (USAFI) credit, and vocational and occupational job experience





30

(Wright, 1978). Some of these alternative credit methods have almost become the rule rather than the exception. One such option is the College Entrance Examination Board's program of College Level Examination (CLEP). CLEP started in 1965, and in 1970, about 1,000 colleges were participating in the program (Menacker, 1975, p. 158). Inequalities in passing scores still often exist among institutions in a state and even in a given city (Sandeen & Goodale, 1976).

Sound articulation policy must address these non-traditional methods of obtaining credit. Senior institutions must develop policies serving the best interest of the student as well as protecting their institutional integrity (Portillo, 1978). In a radical departure, the University of West Florida, in 1970, began accepting entire vocational programs (AS degrees). It developed on an individual student basis, a baccalaureate program which, in the opinion of the leadership of the University of West Florida, was academically justifiable, even though it had a strong technical base (Willingham, 1972).


Curriculum Planning

One of the accepted functions of the community college is to provide the first two years of baccalaureate programs. It is self-evident then that programs at the two levels must be coordinated to avoid lost motion for students.

Proposition 7: Institutions honor the statewide agreement on minimal general education requirements.






31

In the early 1960's, limited attention was given

curriculum articulation due to the low level of transfer activity among institutions. Kintzer (1973a, p. 31) held, as had many authors of the 1970's, that the situation had increased in importance because of the numbers affected, and he further encouraged state policies for decisions. These same sentiments were voiced by iMedsker and Tillery (1971), ." there is a definite need for state policies provided for transfer" (p. 59). By 1971, the Florida Articulation Coordination Committee had developed (as did other states) an Articulation Agreement Between the State Universities and Public Junior Colleges which stated the following:

1. General education requirements shall be the
responsibility of the junior college, but
if not complete prior to transfer (evidenced
by the Associate of Arts Degree (AA), then
the general education requirements shall
become the responsibility of the university.
2. The AA degree is defined as the "basic
transfer degree of Florida junior colleges,
which is the primary basis for transfer
students to upper division study at a
state university." (p. 3)

A basic program such as the Associate of Arts degree

can add educational stability to academic transfer decisions.

Proposition 8: Curriculum changes are planned with phased implementation dates, and with accommodations for individuals presently in the program.

In 1966, one of the guidelines proposed by the Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges was "that senior institutions should notify junior colleges as early as possible of impending curriculum changes. Sufficient lead





32

time should be given to effect change with a minimum of disruption" (p. 12). Closely related to this guideline was the issue.that:

transfer students should be given the option
of satisfying graduation requirements which were in effect in the senior colleges at the
time they enrolled as freshmen in that system.
(P.

Both of these guidelines prevent individual institutions from circumventing the intent of transfer programs.

Scherer, in 1972, reported that nationally a concern of community-junior colleges was that senior institutions refused to recognize "grandfather" rights of students following earlier catalogs. Many senior institutions reported that this lack of recognition occurs as a matter of policy. In 1975, Menacker commented that:

Another cause of curriculum inarticulation is the propensity of academic personnel on both
levels frequently to change course design,
degree requirements, and similar aspects of the academic program. . Curricular adjustments cause great confusion for the community college student and his counselor who
are concerned with fitting programs for transfer, and for the senior institution when
analyzing the status of transfer courses and
programs. (p. 80)

Kintzer (1970, p. 89) felt that the ambiguity about who sets the policies and guidelines for curriculum often creates problems. Faculty philosophies, he intimated, differ on the value of general education and which courses to be required.

This ambiguity and dissent within institutions is further compounded by external pressures of departments throughout the state to complement one another. Menacker (1975),





33

again cited Sanford's 1961 statement, which clarified that wide variation in department curricula throughout the state was an understandable but unfortunate problem for transfer students (p. 60). Kintzer (1973a) commented that sudden changes in upper division curricula is one major problem. Community-junior colleges, he further noted, have been accused of mixing subcollege material with college level material and labeling it transferable courses. Another negative accusation which he mentioned was that community-junior colleges develop transfer courses without consultation with senior institutions. It is possible to understand why Willingham (1972) summed it up by saying:

While it is important to achieve middle ground
solutions, there is virtually no theory of
curriculum articulation to guide such development . . When pairs of institutions agree
on parallel courses, educational continuity is greatly improved; but this does not solve
the problem of students transferring to diverse
senior colleges nor does it encourage curricular flexibility at the junior college. Students need to be protected against trivial
differences in requirements among institutions,
but not at the expense of continuity of
instruction or preparation for a career. (p. 44)

Proposition 9: Junior and senior college personnel.are flexible in evaluating transfer work','keeping the benefit

of the student in mind.

One of the official duties of the community-junior

colleges is to provide the first two year college-parallel program of general education. The general education included in the Associate of Arts degree is supported by senior institutions through formal and informal agreements (Kintzer, 1973a).





34


To have a statewide code regulating the curricular articulation of 2-year and 4-year institutions is quite commonplace. Some states which have initiated this procedure are California, Michigan, and Florida (Kintzer, 1973a, p. 144).

Great strides also have been accomplished in the area of subject articulation, even with protecting the integrity of the programs at each institution. In fact, junior-senior college curriculum conferences have become quite popular. iMenacker (1975) suggested that G. Robert Darnes had offered two excellent guidelines for conducting such a conference: The conference must (1) be cooperatively planned; (2) have equal representation on the committees (p. 147).

Student feed back data are a tool which is often used to augment conferences. Follow-up on students in specific programs assists campus administrators in isolating duplicated requirements and unnecessary coursework. Coordination of programs also relies very heavily on parallel program

worksheets. When these are utilized by both upper and lower division institutions, the student usually has little or no problem in transfer. Most articles and books dealing with articulation among 2-year and 4-year institutions address curriculum coordination as a serious faculty concern (Kintzer, 1973a, p. 146; Knoell & Medsker, 1965, p. 78; Willingham, 1972, p. 13).


Advising, Counseling, and Student Personnel Services

One of the problems recurrent in most articulation studies concerns the dissemination of accurate factual





35


information regarding academic programs, and the transfer process in general. In the literature, the terms counseling, guidance, academic advisement, and orientation are used indiscriminately to mean the providing of information, advice, and coordination to the transfer student. In Little's 1978 West Virginia study, he concluded that the surveyed transfer students perceived registration and advisement as the least satisfying process involved in transfer.

Proposition 10: A well informed advising system is

accessible to students.

In 1968, Atwell concluded from his study that:

Perhaps one of the most obvious implications of this study is the need for realistic career and
university choices on the part of the junior
college student. The junior college has a mandate to provide its students with information-about themselves, the institutions to which
students may transfer, and the courses of study available. Whether this is done through a program of faculty advisement, counseling by professional counselors, or by some other technique or combination of techniques is not the point in
question. That it be done, however, and done
efficiently, seems absolutely necessary!
(p. 152-153)

Later in 1973, Kuhns commented that, "Adequate communication and guidance, both before and after transfer, are crucial to student success" (p. 36). Sistrunk (1974) determined from his study that university academic advisors were uninformed about the content of the Associate of Arts degree programs at the community colleges, and vice versa. Koos (1970) suggested that articulation problems could be ameliorated by properly matching of students and institutions and





36

encouraging students to meet all lower-division requirements prior to transfer. Wattenbarger stated:

Probably the most critical source of problems
caused by the community college is the fact
that there appears to be inadequate guidance
for students regarding university positions and transferability of certain courses. In spite of concerted efforts to organize counseling services in the community colleges so
they will aid in the transfer function, there
are apparently still many problems and counseling is not what we had hoped. (Note 8, p. 43)

Also, in 1975, Menacker spoke of this subject and stated:

Most schools supported some form of orientation, especially for freshmen . unfortunately, such an important articulation
service is rarely extended to transfers in a
manner that serves their unique needs. (p. 83)

Earlier, in 1971, Buckley commented:

.transfer students' expectations have
the same mythological character as freshman expectations . We cannot assume
the transfer students, even with previous college experience, begin with different expectations than freshmen. Both tend to
exaggerate their expectations .. This
lack of sophistication and idealization of
college life has implications for our
orientation programs. The necessity for
freshman enculturation has been recognized
for some time. This study points out the need to expand our process of orientation
and assimilation to include transfer students. (p. 188)
Knight (1978) concluded after careful review of 500 students

at Auburn University that transfer shock does exist and should

be anticipated by the transfer student and the counseling

staff at the institution.

Proposition 11: Procedur'es an'd regulations go .verning

student financial aid are as equitable for transfer students

as they are for "native" s tudents.





37

One of the more serious problems in transfer articulation is the inequitable institutional regulations governing student aid. Glazer (1968) expressed concern that financial aid programs at senior institutions did not give consideration to the needs of the junior college student. Very few 4-year institutions have reserved scholarships or made special financial provisions for transfer students. Willingham and Findikyan (1969) found in their national survey that a larger number were being aided than ever before, but that the gap between the percent of transfer students aided and the percent of freshmen aided had actually widened. In 1972, Willingham discussed how-federal legislation had dramatically increased the financial aid for transfer students by substantially funding the Basic Opportunity Grants. He felt progress such as this legislation would help bridge whatever gap still existed. He also listed the lack of available aid as one of the more serious problems facing articulation supporters (pp. 34-35).

Sandeen and Goodale (1976) discussed the financial aid problem at length. They summarized their conclusions in this way:

The primary problems with student financial aid
programs for the transfer students involveAnadequate communications, low priority attitudes toward transfer students; and inadequate planning on the part of financial aid counselors
and admissions staff. The number of transfer students will probably continue to grow at a faster rate than the number of new freshmen,
and institutions need to reevaluate their
programs, policies, and services in financial aid programs in light of the projected enrollment figures. (p. 70)





38


In 1973, the Association Transfer Group sponsored the

Airline House Conference on College Transfer. One study discussed by Willingham at this conference had been jointly conducted with Exxon. Among the conclusions Willingham

(1974) reached were:

Financing university education was the overriding concern of most of the transfers; fully
two-thirds of the 1,435 respondents rated it
as the number one problem. (p. 99)

In 1977, White, McCook, Fling, Miller and Hohenstein reconfirmed past conclusions that the area of financial aid was still one of the most serious problem areas in articulation efforts (p. 657).

Proposition 12: Student activities are designed to incorporate the transfer students.

Widespread concern for the lack of involvement in student activities on the part of the transfer student resulted in specific mention of this issue in the 1966 Guidelines:

. students transferring . frequently report . difficulty in becoming involved in student activities." (Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges, p. 15). There has been little improvement since 1966 in this area. Willingham (1972) spoke indirectly to this issue when he enumerated his ten transfer problems. Also, Sandeen and Goodale (1972) made specific mention of this issue when they discussed student personnel services and how they were not meeting the transfer student's needs. They included the issue when they listed topics which needed further study.






39


Later, in 1974, Sistrunk interviewed students and faculty on six Florida State University System campuses and concluded:

It was a conclusion of those persons interviewed
that student activities are geared primarily to
the native students. While opportunities are
available, such opportunities are not well
publicized. (p. 106)

Historically, the size of the senior institutions has hampered student involvement. Junior college campuses with smaller classes are often more conducive to student leadership and campus campaigning. Menacker (1975) discussed how involving the transfer student in traditional college activities is complicated by the new trend of non-traditional students, With more mature students, veterans, and students in non-traditional programs, the range of student activities

must widen and bridge the gap. New activities should not isolate these new populations, but rather creatively incorporate their interest (pp. 96-114). This remains to be one of the areas demanding innovative ideas of all students, faculty, and administrators.


Articulation Programs

Research completed in the early 1960's (Knoell & Medsker, 1964a, p. 80) indicated that coordination of articulation policies and procedures was a major area of investigation. Even though some improvements in statewide coordination began during the 1960's many authorities writing in the 1970's felt a need still exists (Kintzer, 1973a; Kuhns, 1973; Menacker, 1975; Scherer, 1972).





40

Propo-sition 13:, The formal state-wide articulation

agreement.proVides for 'smooth student flow 'among institutions of* higher, education.

The Carnegie Commission (1970) expressed the continued need in many states for the more careful articulation of policies governing the transfer student. Schultz (1971) continued the plea for more joint policies to facilitate the transfer student. In that same year, Nelson stated that formal "machinery" is needed in junior senior articulation programs. In an answer to this type of pressure, Kintzer (19 73a, p. 33) indicated that formal articulation agreements between-2-year and 4-year institutions were rapidly being reached across the country. He further noted a trend toward the AA degree as the base of state-wide plans. Such agreements attempt to protect the integrity of all institutions and establish communications among the segments of higher education. In 1977, Cosentino, Denny, Carroll, and Shontz, through their membership in the Junior-Senior College Relations Committee of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), conducted a survey of all articulation programs and "agreements" that existed in the United States. Their survey revealed that 10 states had no formal state-wide articulation program. They were: Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont. Most of these states, however, indicated concern for articulation matters at the state level. Thirty-seven -states





41

indicated some type of articulation activity, and three failed to respond. Cosentino, et al. therefore concluded that "All states are interested in articulation and most realize that formal agreements are not final--they must be progressive in nature" (p. 659).

Willingham (1972) inserted a word of caution that having a formal agreement should not be viewed as an end but rather as a means to an end. Communication about the agreement and its ramifications among institutions is the only way it can be successful. Real problems seemed to be resolved only through personal contact and special investigation, not by agreement policies alone (Bushnell, 1978). Part of the success lies in providing a framework which would allow

dialogue (White et al., 1977).

Proposition 14: Inter-institutional rapport created

by informal dialogue and personal relationships often assists

the transfer student.

Medford (1974), after lengthy review of institutional communication regarding articulation, concluded that

many of the problems are ones of attitudes at both

levels. Mutual trust and respect could help open the avenues to solving transfer problems" (p. 21). Regardless of whether the articulation agreements are formal or not, grassroots communication and procedures are necessary ingredients for good articulation programs.

Hamilton (1975) commented that one of the highlights of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Florida Association of





42

Colleges and Universities was the presidents' roundtable discussion. Some of the topics reviewed by member institution presidents at this meeting were: competition for students, duplication of academic programs, and financial aid for students. He further commented that: "This forum for presidents is perceived as serving a viable function in the role of planning and articulation among Florida institutions of higher education" (Hamilton, p. iv). This state-wide example of dialogue assists in the implementation of formal policies and the state-wide agreement. Another form of dialogue rests with the articulation practitioner who picks up the phone and contacts a counterpart at another school, either to ask a question or to refer a student. Personal relationships built over years add the "glue" which molds policies and procedures into a successful program.

Even in the mid 1960's one of the "Guidelines for Improving Articulation" (Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges, 1966) among institutions alluded to continual dialogue through assessment. It was as follows:

Articulation programs should provide for built in periodic evaluation of the adequacy of machinery, effectiveness of types of personnel involved, the
appropriateness of problems considered, and concrete achievements attained. Machinery should
remain flexible and resDonsive to changing.situations. (p. 17)

Proposition 15: Special orientation programs designed for the transfer student are available.

Formal articulation programs range from state-wide

endeavors to inter-institutional agreements within a state.





43


Informal programs are as varied as the number of institutions investigated. It is important to realize that these programs may not only be coordinating in nature, but may also be designed to meet individual needs.

Most colleges and universities support some form of orientation program which may even include liaison visits several quarters before transfer. These programs range from elaborate week-long affairs, usually during the summer, to simple programs measured in hours. Such an important articulation service rarely is extended to transfer students in a manner that serves their unique needs.

Menacker, in 1975, reported that a 1971 national study of 735 senior institutions indicated less than 20% provided any kind of special student personnel programs for transfer students. Menacker further commented on a survey which he conducted in 1970, in which 60% of the community college transfers contacted indicated that their transition could have been eased by an orientation program specifically designed for them. For proper role definition, students need not only information about the new social-academic system, but also support from the new institution. Research provides support for the idea that there is "transfer shock" for transfer students. Administrative policies and procedures can do much to mitigate the shock, but the face-to-face human contact found in a good orientation program seems indispensable for integrating transfers quickly and smoothly into senior institutions (Menacker, 1975, p. 85).





44


The Literature in Retrospect

Considering the literature collectively, 15 major propositions emerged to describe the construct of articulation. The following is an enumeration of these propositions listed by category.


Admissions

1. The minimum grade point average standard for admission of a junior college transfer student to a senior

institution is a "C" or "2.0" on a "4.0" scale.

2. Prior academic performance is the best single indicator of admissibility; however, consideration of

supplemental information strengthens placement and

is used for admissions decisions.

3. Accurate, detailed information for all institutions is available to students within the system. Evaluation of Transfer Courses

4. There is s'ystem-wide acceptance of all collegelevel courses completed with a "D" or better as at

least elective credit (academic not technical).

5. To insure forward progress, no maximum limits of

transfer credit are enforced unless the major program integrity is jeopardized; or the number of hours earned exceeds 135 quarter hours of 90 semester hours.

6. System-wide acceptance of non-traditional learning

methods, experimental courses, off-campus educational

opportunities, and credit-by-examination programs is

evident.





45

Curriculum Planning

7. Institutions honor the statewide agreement on minimal

general education requirements.

8. Curriculum changes are planned with phased implementation dates, and with accommodations for individuals presently in the program.

9. Junior and senior college personnel are flexible in

evaluating transfer work, keeping the benefit of

the s student in mind.


Advising, Counseling, and Student Personnel Services

10. A well informed advising system is accessible to

students.

11. Procedures and regulations governing student financial aid are as equitable for transfer students as

they are for "native" students.

12. Student activities are designed to incorporate the

transfer students.


Articulation Programs

13. The formal state-wide articulation agreement provides

for smooth student flow among institutions of higher

education.

14. Inter-institutional rapport created by informal

dialogue and personal relationships often assists

the transfer student.

15. Special orientation programs designed for the transfer student are available.












CHAPTER III


ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD STUDY DATA Introduction


The purpose of this chapter is to present an analysis

of results obtained in the field portion of this study. The questionnaire used (Florida Higher Education Articulation Questionnaire) was designed td elicit information regarding the perceptions of students, faculty, counselors, and administ raptors at selected 2-year and 4-year institutions of higher education in Florida about the 1978 policies and procedures of institutional articulation. Institutional articulation was defined by 15 propositions which were derived from a review of the literature.

The Florida Higher Education Articulation Questionnaire (FHEAQ) contained 16 items; items 1 through 15 were operational derivations of the 15 propositions found in a review of the related literature. This section was followed by an open-ended question which stated: "What do you believe to be the major problem facing transfer students?"- Data generated included: (a) number-of usable responses for each item and subscale by group within each institution and within each category of institutions; (b) the mean response for each




46





47


item and subscale by group within each institution and within each category of institutions; (c) a Kruskal-Wailis H value with a level of significance for item and subscale by group within each institution and within each category of institutions; and (d) the exact number and percentage of responses on the open-ended question for each subscale (admissions, student personnel, articulation programs, credit evaluation, and curriculum) by group within each institution and within each category of institutions. The data were analyzed by the

following procedures:

1. Comparing the four groups based on the arithmetic

mean score calculated by group within each institution and category of institutions for each of the 15 items and subscales.

2. Comparing the H value with its level of significance for each item and subscale by group within-each institution and category of institutions.

3. Comparing by inspection the raw scores and percentages of responses on the open-ended question by group within each institution and category of institutions.

4. Comparing the four groups based on the arithmetic

mean score by institution and category of institution within each group for each of the 15 items and subscales.

5. Comparing the H value with its level of significance for each item and subscale by institution and category of institutions within each group for each of the 15 items and subs cales.

These procedures were designed to test the five null

hypotheses proposed in Chapter 1. On the questionnaire (see





48


Appendix B) the optimal response for items 1 through 14 is "l-Always." However, as written on the questionnaire, the optimal response for item 15 is "5-Never." For the purpose of expressing the responses for all items with the arithmetic mean, item 15 was recoded before computations with "1-Never," "2-Seldom," "3-Sometimes," "4-Often," and "5-Always." Therefore, the arithmetic mean in all cases is representative of a 5-point Likert Scale with 1 equal to the most optimal response and 5 equal to the least optimal response.

Usable responses varied by questionnaire item and subscale. Overall usable data were collected from 238 or 95% of the students, 95 or 95% of the faculty, 50 or 100% of the counselors, and 50 or 100% of the administrators. Although the return rate of questionnaires was 96%, the usable response rate was 81%.


A Comparison of the Student, Faculty,
Counselor, and Administrator Group Responses to the Florida Higher Education Articulation -Questionnaire

The first null hypothesis which provided direction for the analysis was as follows:

There is no significant difference among the
student, faculty, counselor, or administrator
group mean responses on each of the 15 items
or each subscale.

The number of usable responses and the mean responses

for each item and subscale are reported by respondent groups independent of institutional affiliation in Table 1. In addition, the Kruskal-Wallis H and level of significance are







49












,4 f- -4 t Ln m -4 N .-q 4 o #n t w c:> r- a % o r-4 --T a%
w f C: M Of-4 C) r %o C:)a" Moo "Mr4 Oao
> -rq m 0 ko a% %0 0 0 0 C> 0 r-4 Ln 0 0 in a a 0 0 m
w W . . . . . . . . . . E
0 CD C> 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 oj
-A
0
r4
cq 't cn ko cq o r-- o cq 't 4 :t 10,1 cn cn r- ca 0 cooocs %OCOMONCO "Lncno N tnr r-4MO4 Via% a
%D %0 -.1 %n r- lzr a% M co r- fl, cq fn ko rA C14 M ko 11 -It 0
0 %D r-4 0 f-4 Ln %0 r- Ln CO Ln -.T CO M N 0 Ln M r-4 :3 > r-4 r-4 Cq 4 4 A 4 Ca
0 4
1-404 0
w rT-4 z 44
V) z r4 t M 4 r-4 r-4 M CD Ln M r-4 Ln N %D C C*4 -4 C)N M
z 0 0"a %0 N = m F- Ln m C> N m %0 w 0 cn -4 C-) Cf) (D r4
D F-4 41 IX 4) 0
0 cn H Cu CN rA C C C C4 C C C C C4 C4 C 1 r C O C C 0 x r-4 Q
p 44 cc m
z En .41 UO
P-4 D
>.I En ce 0 u (a. cd :3
E-A r4 0 %.0 Ln M W) r- CN 4 Ln f- a% 04 kO C14 t CJ %.0 r- CIJ C)% C6 U 0) '0 W
M cn -.7 cn CV) m cn to 0 4)
t-4 CC -r4
::D w 4J CO
UZ= 4
44 f-4
-0 r= AJ 0 r-4
4 0 0 N CNI co r%- Ln Ln aN Ln CN 00 -It C9 00 r-- o %10 0 00 r. 0 -A 4-1 cd
0 'Z Z Cn C-J -.t 00 In -4 0% %* ON MJ W -7 C) C> M C11 C14 0 CC JJ :3:
A4 P r 4 C4 1 C C4 C V C C 1 1 0 C C C4 C rz 4 14 "1 1
z co 4J GA) $4 91, JJ CO
W 0 44 z -A 41 w u '4
Cl P4 0 :3 -A CL 0. 0) 0) 10
D 0 0 u 00 0 P- %D f-,t C14 Cl) M 4 Ln 4 r- M W :3 4 ;3 C:
E-4 W r: %.I tn -,t 4 -4 t --T IT lZr %T M I:t 1%T It IT Cn M M M 4 $4 C.0 P k 0
CO 4) :3 4 0 4 >1
ci 0. 0 tko lu w
0 (A $4 >NA
E-4 U t-4 4 ON V) r- m ko M r-4 0 r-4 m --T Ln 4 M r-l M to bo p -,o
n r C -4 19 C C C C r C r-4 C14 10 M 44 W 0 Gj
E-4 4J 0 U) p 0.010 0
14 C4 4 C*4 C4 C14 04 C4 C14 C*4 C14 CY) C14 v4 04 04 N Cq Z a) r-4 a)
P4 U) M :j U 0 fn6 CO CC 4-) r-l
FA u r. P. w > :3 0
Cu u M %D r- r-4 C*l C> r-4 -.0 C14 r- 4 a% cn t vi C14 P- t W 0 V) U) P. >
ZP r co %D Co rl- a% r- r- r- P- It r- r- r- ko %D 't Ln T Lr) E a) C) r = e 4)
ZHZ 4) 4 w 0 0 r-4
0 zi 0 0.10 u
En cs 0) 0 9) 0 vi
H w %Zr M C14 r- 4 r- 0 0 %D 4 r- (:> M 4 OD -,t M 00 00 CO IJ r-4 IM. 4) 4J Q) C
"Zi 4 r- 4 4 r- t 00 00 %D C) 4 M 4 4 -4t Ln r- %,D (0.0 Ca k :3 U N . . . . . . . . . co 4)
E--4 4,J 4 CIJ CN CIJ Cel 04 M N Cq C-4 C14 C-4 N C $4 W P 144 gold IV
P4 Z H 10 0 0 0 u =*
z -4 :3 %0 0 Cn N r-4 M M r- %.0 r4 r-4 r- N r-4 r- -4 en M C) (n 44 CU U -r4 41
0, 4-J U 0 4 0 4 4 C%4 00 r- .O 00 %0 %D 0 r- r- r- tn Cn -4" Cl) 44 r-4 0 4-4
U) 04 N C4 CN -4 4 4 4 r-4 4 C4 4 4 r-4 rA 4 4 4 0 O 0 V) -A 4J
Cu- Q) -r4 0 14
$4 0) E 4 tko
r4 (1) :3 r-4 -A 41
S la'a 0 co (n 0
4) Z 0 144 14 9: CU
41 ON A 0 4 00 04 r- -4 C) Cl) r-4 r- 4 (=) kD M 04 CT% 4 U) C) 0 1 44 ()
Z F4 r-- a% %.0 co %0 r-4 T cn m cn co C14 r- en C%4 C'4 -,o Ln Ul kc 0.0 (1) r-l 0 -r4
Cv) (n M M M %43Cn Cl) Cn M C4 M M M M M C-4 C4 P S Cd 144
4 W.Z -4 r-4 q4
Cu .0 4j to) C) C:
4 -r4 0 > bo
5 Cu k w 4) -ri
w u 04 M t Ln %.0 r- 00 ON C) 4 C-4 M t Ln -4 M 0 fZ tz1 En H Z < 44 4
4J W 4 r-4 r-4 r-4 i r-4 CU .0 U 'V W 44
F-4 0





50

listed for each item and subscale. A comparison of these data indicates significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses on items 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and subscales B, C, D, and E. More specifically, there were significant differences found on item 2, which dealt with the minimum CPA needed for admission of AA degree holders; item 6, which dealt with the accessibility of well-informed advisors; item 9, which dealt with the formal state-wide articulation agreement; item 10, which dealt with the acceptance of "D" grades as at least elective credit; item 14, which dealt with institutions honoring the General Education Requirements from other institutions; and item 15, which dealt with the limits imposed by senior institutions on transfer credit. The subscales for which significant differences were found, were subscale B, which included the three questions on student personnel matters; subscale C, which included the three questions on articulation programs; subscale D, which included the three questions on credit evaluation; and subscale E, which included the three questions on curriculum matters. Thus, the first null hypothesis is rejected on 10 of the 20 comparisons and accepted for the remaining 10 comparisons (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and subscale A). Of the 10 items showing significant differences, all 10 showed the students provided the least optimal group mean response indicating they perceived institutional articulation policies and procedures as least operational. The more optimal group mean response indicated






51

the more positive perception of articulation policies and procedures as they were operational. From inspection of Table 1, it can be seen that the more optimal mean response was given by the faculty group for subscale C, articulation programs; the more optimal mean response was given by the counselor group for items 6, 9, 10, and subscales B, C, and E; and the more optimal mean response was given by the administrator group for items 2, 14, and 15.


A Comparison of the Student, Faculty,
Counselor, and Administrator Grouip Responses
Within Institutional Categories and
Within Each Institution


The second null hypothesis which provided direction for the analysis was as follows:

There is no significant difference among the
student, faculty, counselor,' or administrator group mean responses (a) within the two institutional categories, (b) within the three institutional categories, or (c) within each
institution on each of the 15 items or each
subs cale.

Results relative to parts a, b, and c of this null hypothesis are shown separately, as can be seen in Table 2 by the number of usable responses, the mean responses by respondent groups, and the computed H value with its level of significance on each item and subscale for the Community-Junior Colleges (CJC), collectively, and the State University System (SUS), collectively. A review of these data indicates significant differences at, or beyond, the .05 level among group mean responses within the Community-Junior Colleges on item 1, which dealt with the most






52
TABLE 2

COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR, AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF. THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN TWO INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORIES(CJC AND SUS)





Community-Junior Colleges

Scale Student Faculty Counselor Administrator H Level
Itema nb x-c nb c b c nb xc Valued Sig

1 103 2.57 37 3.11 25 3.28 24 3.25 10.779 0.013*
2 101 1.95 42 1.93 25 1.52 23 1.26 8.313 0 040*
3 91 2.36 30 2.47 24 2.83 22 2.73 3.333 0.343
4 107 2.10 42 2.02 25 2.00 22 1.95 0.627 0.890
5 98 2.83 33 2.61 20 2.65 21 3.29 5.661 0.129
6 110 2.29 43 2.23 23 1.96 24 2.58 5.486 0.139
7 86 2.85 32 2,69 22 2.50 23 2.87 2.187 0.534
8 81 2.99 28 2.93 21 2.62 21 2.95 2.594 0.459
9 84 2.60 34 2.59 25 2.48 23 2.30 1.708 0.635
10 96 2.98 29 2.48 21 2.29 17 2.88 7.595 0.055
11 80 2.36 23 2.30 20 1.90 20 2.55 4.959 0.175
12 85 3.09 34 3.21 21 3.00 21 3.24 1.163 0.762
13 96 2.93 37 3.11 24 2.79 23 3.04 2.188 0.534
14 84 2.24 31 2.00 23 2.04 22 2.05 2.247 0.523
15 83 2.77 29 2.03 2) 2.24 24 1.50 21.673 0.000*
Subscalea
725 227 21 2.14 T126 0.771B 74 2.48 19 2.28 18 2.13 18 2.72 7.026 0.071
C 58 2.66 21 2.43 21 2.63 20 2.63 12.597 0.006*
D 71 2.84 17 2.31 15 2.35 15 2.58 3.428 0.330
E 65 2.72 19 2.54 20 2.47 19 2.81 1.311 0.727

State University System
1 103 2.34 42 1.97 23 1.87 .22 1.90 9.773 0.021*
2 109 1.64 44 1.49 25 1.28 22 1.21 9.781 0.021*
3 112 1.92 37 1.99 23 1.78 21 1.86 0.395 0.941
4 105 2.24 39 2.48 21 2.48 23 2.49 3.443 0.328
5 113 2.61 40 2.72 22 2.31 21 2.31 3.145 0.370
6 118 2.63 47 1.95 24 1.79 23 2.04 20.438 0.000*
7 103 2.77 40 2.27 22 2.59 19 2.55 6.445 0.092
8 96 2.64 43 2.44 21 2.28 20 2.28 9.289 0.026*
.9 82 2.73 42 2.26 18 1.77 22 2.08 21.477 0.000*
10 85 3.04 43 3.18 22 1.63 20 2.00 34.720 0.000*
11 81 2.17 24 2.12 14 1.71 19 1.48 8.645 0.034*
12 82 3.11 40 3.42 23 2.95 21 3.13 3.645 0.302
13 106 2.93 42 2.69 20 2.44 23 2.71 3.819 0.282
14 87 2.18 42 1.54 21 1.57 20 1.15 22.250 0.000*
15 94 2.22 35 2.43 20 2.75 20 2.24 2.244 0.523
Subscalea
A 84 2.05 34 1.93 20 1.81 21 1.84 5.170 0.160
B 79 2.44 23 2.20 13 1.76 18 1.90 13.993 0.003*
C 75 2.47 31 2.20 16 1.99 17 2.12 12.698 0.005*
D 69 2.82 30 3.13 17 2.29 17 2.85 11.212 0.011*
E 68 2.51 35 2.21 19 2.08 20 2.05 18.004 0.000*
aSee Appendix B for statement of scale items and Appendix G for subscale items bNumber of usable responses per group per item and subscale CArithmetic mean of usable responses per group per item and subscale dKruskal-Wallis computed H value, corrected for ties eLevel of Significance computed by Kruskal-Wallis
*Significant at the .05 level or beyond





53

important single indicator for student admissibility; item 2, which dealt with the minimum GPA needed for admission by AA degree holders; item 15, which dealt with the limits imposed by senior institutions on transfer credit; and subscale C, which included the three questions on articulation programs. The least optimal mean responses on items 2, 15, and subscale C were given by the student. The only other item showing a significant difference was item 1, in which the least optimal response was given by the counselor group. The more optimal response was given by the students for item 1; by the administrators for items 2 and 15; and by the faculty for subscale C.

Within the State University System, significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses were found for 12 of the 20 items. They were item 1, which dealt with the most important single indicator for student admissibility; item 2, which dealt with the minimal GPA needed for admission by AA degree holders; item 6, which dealt with the accessibility of well informed advisors; item 8, which dealt with flexibility in evaluating transfer work; item 9, which dealt with the formal state-wide articulation agreement; item 10, which dealtwith the acceptance of "D" grades as at least elective credit; item 11, which dealt with equitable financial aid policies and procedures; and item 14, which dealt with institutions honoring the General Education Requirements from other institutions.





54

There were significant differences on four subscales. These were subscale B, which encompassed the three questions on student personnel matters; subscale C, which included the three questions on articulation programs; subscale D, which was made up of the three questions on credit evaluation; and subscale E, which included the three questions on curriculum matters. Thus, the (a) part of the second null hypothesis is rejected because of either CJC or SUS significant differences for items 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and for subscales B, C, D, and E. The null hypothesis part (a) is accepted for the remaining 7 items 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, and subscale A. Within the SUS group mean responses, which were significantly different, the more optimal response was given by the counselors in items 1, 6, 9, 10 and subscales B, C, and D. Four of the remaining 12 items showing significant differences showed the more optimal response was provided by the administrators. They were items 2, 11, 14 and subscale E. Item 8 was answered more optimally by both the counselors (K = 2.28) and administrators (= 2.28).- The least optimal SUS group mean response was given by the students on all items and subscales except item 10 and subscale D. On these exceptions, the faculty reported the least optimal responses, closely followed in both cases by the students. Thus, one might reflect that when significant differences occurred, the counselor and admninistrator groups consistently perceived the articulation policies and procedures as more operational than did the faculty and





55

student groups. Results relative to part (b) of the second null hypothesis are shown in Table 3. Included are the number of usable responses, the mean responses by respondent groups, and the computed H value with its level of significance on each item and subscale for the Community-Junior Colleges collectively, the 2-year Upper Division SUS Institutions collectively, and the 4-year SUS Institutions collectively. Obviously, for the Community-Junior College comparison, the significant differences as reported in part (a) remain the same. A review of Table 3 indicates significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses within the 2-year Upper Division SUS Institutions on seven items. They were item 6, which dealt with the accessibility of wellinformed advisors; item 9, which dealt with the formal statewide articulation agreement; item 10, which dealt with the acceptance of "D" grades as at least elective credit; item 11, which dealt with equitable financial aid policies and procedures; and item 14, which dealt with institutions honoring the General Education Requirements from other institutions. The two subscales for which there were significant differences were B, which included the three questions on student personnel matters, and E, which encompassed the three questions on curriculum matters. Also, as can be seen in Table 3, there were six items with significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among the groupomean responses within 4-year SUS Institutions. Four of these (items 9, 10, 14, and subscale E) were also identified with significant differences in the







56



z

0) eq cq <)-, 0 co C:) cn CD ON cq r- 't 00 CN r-, cn C f- 1-4
> .,4 CN %.o r- co t C) M 4 0 -4 %0 --T r-4 r-4 %D 0 CO Ln -:T 0) cn 0 r" I r m cn 0 0 0 -T 01. C) CC OOCDOO
F4 0 C C; C; 1 C; C; c; C C C C; 0* C> C> CD 0 CD
V
cq a o cn co --T cn Ln -t r-4 Ln Co co" mooo
cn U') m r M T co cn q% 00 1-- co co Ln It %0 M tn
F4 r-4 --T (n 0 4 Ln t t CN 0% r4 LrN M 0 C-- f-4 r-- Ln cq
cd . . . . . . ...
> %0 r, 4 Cq Cn M M C7\,:t C) 0 0 0 r- -t ko r- co
0 r4 r-4 r4. r-4
0 w 040CO 000 MOOCO 0C)OLncn M kO e-I Ln %0
,T cn -,o cn 0 C: Cn 4 Ln ko I:r 0 %D cq co 0%
cn u C I I . . . ...
:D -H X C4 N r-4 N . r-4 Cn r-I ",-4 C14 IN r-4
(n
9 m co 0 0 a C7% 03 Cp co 0 CO 0 00 F" a 0 00 fl. 00
u) -l 04 r4 r-4 r-I r4 r4 r4 r-4 4
z --:4 <
0 m 00 Ln -It co cn cn 0 cn -,D r-, co r- cn 0 %0 cn C>
0 z w) cn 00 00 r- t M -4 M (n T Ln Ln M Ln in %D 0% a w
PL4 0 I s
C14 0 x rA r-4 C C 1 Cl; C C 4* r-4 r-4 0
:5 4J
0 m co o m co co m CO CO %D CO r- a% rl 00 P, rl- -.0 ko wl P -94

:t Ln 0% C cn Ln %0 r-4 0 C> Cn M %0 Ln %0 cn ON -It tn ko rA
C P N 4 VI kO M 0 M O t 00 ,t W) M 00 00 cO r4 a% 0 cd
p m . C)
z x C cl; C r4 Cli C 0 C4 C4 r C -;C4"" a)
u %.o 10 a)
co .0 00 %D %0 to r- rl- %0 %0 Ln C14 -.t %.D r" kn wl :3
V) 4 r4 i r4 r-4 r-4 r-I r-4 r-4 r-4 r-4 4 r-4 r-4 r-4 T-4 r-4 r-4 r4 r-4. CO co
u
00 (7 a% -*' rl- r-4 Cn 4 00 rl- Ul kD kO -,t Ln In It r- cn 'A p m z (14 CO 4 Cq r-4 r- %D U" -,I 4 C) 1- -4 %r, 0 -It -It CO Ln 0 10
0) U . . . . . . . . 44
'OF C-4 r-4 " C4 N " M M Cq N " cq u
0 C) 'T cn co %D Go C) L-) r-4 Ln M 't V) "D 0 cn 0 co %.0 a) 10
41
z cn (n It I:r -T m m cn m m t M (n cn cn cn Cq x r-4 0
cn -A cc co

z
-;z 4:
:3: cn CD m 0 (7% CYN -.t ON Ln Ln Ln en 0 1-4 4 %0 0 r- -W
r-4 4 -4:t -.,t m cn cn w) cn ui r- %o m o P, r- 0 C P. cn "A co 44
a) 6C 0 C) M 00 -4 4 V),T D C) r-4 r- tn Ln 0 r- 0 C) cl r- 4) "q
0 w > -r4 . . . r4 4
0) V) 0 0 C> 0 0 CD 0 0 C;, ,=; C; C C; (D* C; C; C; C; 0, 10 a,) 4-1 Cd
14 0 (d od ic
En C7% M Cn r- r4 IZ f-- t CO Ul ON M 00 r- M %D %.0 r- 00 r-4 0 14 1
t r-4 M %0 W W ON 0 ON Ln %.0 r-4 t r cli C14 ON C14 4 CL 0 r-4
z z r- c-I cn %,o %0 T r-4 Ln r- Ln CY, 4 4 C14 %C r4 0 Ln %;T cn :144 to
::3 z 0 114
00
L) C-4 0 C; L Ln, C C r r-: C 04 r4 r N M r-4 r -r4 W PO ED
> r-4 (1) bo (1) 0
E-4 4J 14 41 p
Ln %0 M Ln ON w r- Ln 0 W Ln Lr% o t C,4 m OD 'A -,4 a) p ci 4
" r- m N Ln w C7% cn w U') -4 r- %0 VI 00 I'll, (1) 0
E-4 ;Z) . a) pw w 0)
ce 4 C4, C r 9 C4 C4 C C C C4 9 9 C4 1 C C4 C C14 -4 C% W a 0
m : to 0 w >%
,t Cn C14 r-4 t M 4 Cn r- 0 4 M 04 -:1- f-j 00 0 Ln OIA u 0 0) ci 4)
C,4 C14 C4 N C14 CN C14 04 C14 -1 04 C14 C14 04 C14 04 -4 r-4 -4 0 P CO o
r4 bo r. -4
r%4 M co 04 m a Ln to o co CN o o ON rl- cn cn Ln fl- 44 0 a) p
a) V) co 0 %D ON Ln %-0 -.:r m 0 rl- ko m 't 0 p 0. :3 10 0
to . (Ii co r-4 4)
C) I x C4 1 C4 C C C4 C 14 C C C C4 C4 C -L, 0. a). m 4-1,-4
0 )4 > :J W
z z 2 04 in tn t Ln C) cv) C 4 r4 L) -4 C:) r-4 t CY) r 4 Ln 00 4 in (D 0) to P. >
04 04 C14 C14 C 4 C*4 C14 N C14 N C14 C*4 N Cq C9 4 cq 4 04 rz (L) (L) 5 4) 0) m 4 0 A
D r-4 r-4 m rl- C14 -4 m CN m ON m C> r-4 4 0 m C-4 00 cn -1 t 4-1 r 'D C)
E-4 0 r-4 M -It 0 ko %D ON Ln 'T M r-4 0 0 m C14 IZ M Lr) co 0 ca a) tn
U) E-4 4 CJ . . . '-' 0.0 'U 0
:j 19 M 4 C-4 C14 C-4 04 C4 C4 C4 Cl C C C4 C C C4 C 1; 1 0 (n : :3
z u a) Ia. 0
n co jo El- 0 04 Ce) Cf) C*4 00 -Qt (7N cn ;t r*- 4 ON r-4 ON 4 r- ON P 4 44 r= CO 0
E cn IT Cl) cn -Z m 04 m eq Cl) m cn C14 Cl) -4 C14 -4 r-4 0 0 0 CJA*
E-4 0 44 0) ci 44 41
0 V) m cr% u) 0*, C) 00 %.D ON C41 04 00 kO 4 JZ 44
Ln 0'% M r-4 00 C14 00 CN NO M M C) CYN 04 rl C14 It %0 co r- go .0 co 0 r4 41 44 . . . . . . 0 Cd
0 D V ix C*4 4 N C14 Cn C14 C14 CN C4 C C4 C4 C x r1n .0. *rl .
:5 H :3 -4 -A
4-1 r ce) -4 -q r- co 0 %0 r-4 It 110 C) Ln %D IT m r- 00 A vi v u 0 w
0 M 0 0 m (D ON r-4 W w w a% w w M w w 00 r- Ln r- 1,0 Z t" -r4 ::r 0
r-4 r-4 r-4 r-4 W 0 ) 1 44 U
0) CL a) -4 0 -r4
14 p r= 0 44
cd cl W Z '4 -4 -A
w U 'a 4-1 Lo w $3
4 f5 r-4 04 m 't Ln %0 r- 00 cr% 0 -4 C-4 m -.t Ln co <4 9 -r4 0 > to
Cd a) r4 4 r-4 r-4 r-4 r4 jO 4 4 W -A
U :5 M z : 4 4 W
En F4 a )C







57







-r4

0
r-4



:3 r-4

$4 to
0 In
44 :j
U)

4
cl

r-4 ID M co ON CD r-4 fl- --l co 0 0 aN r (n In r- U-) u a w
w C:> C", r-4 In C) m 0 CD In vo C% a IN (7% co --t CN r-4 Q. ;J .0 w
> C', r-4 M C14 In r-l CD 0 00 CD r-4 CD m 'D C> C:> C:> r to .,4 U) -A
Q En . ( C C; ( C lc < 0 -4
CI-C 0 0 C) 0 0 0 C) C OOCDO 'U P -A r-4
10 J: W 4J td
N r- u-) c% r-4 r-q r- m r-4 a, r- o In w In C) CD (;N cn r co r :3:
co r- In,- co o N r- m u, o r- -,c In 0 co C U-) 0 Q p 1
a, %.o In r-4 cn r- cn r-- -4 ko ko i P- -t cq It -ri m 0 r-4
C C r 4 0 :J 44 Cd
> %0 V-- c In C-- -t crl C) 0 0 0 V
r-4 Clq r-4 r-4 fi -rq $4 10 w
a to 0 :j
ON C IN IN ko 00 a m fl- 00 a C' m co cn C14 In I-- 'In M 4-1 0 14
1.0 C %C ko m m r- cn 4 In W 0 110 CD IN r- C) CD C> -,A 0) 4 CJ : d
C,4* C C C. C 'i W 'If::,
4 M $4 ( 0
-0 a M C,4 Cn n -4 M C> C14 IN M M M N M IN 00 ON C) IN rl :1 (n 0 41 1-1
-4 4 A -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 r-4 -4 -4 r-4 4 r-4 -j Q 0 C) Q 0
z En p to >NA
-4 r r- r-.q LI) t C) r-4 00 C) rl- 00 ON In C14 00 C> IT It to r -A
E-4 0 cli r 00 kD C) r- m C) fl- C) U') m %D 00 C') -'T -4 44 0 e) p
z 0 ,1 P. :1 '11 0
C C'4* C C'* C C C4 r-* C4 C C,4* _; C,4* C14 C14 C C4 a 0 r-4 a)
:3 41 (a. cli Cd -Li r-4
0 a Ul LI C Cn t In -t Cl) 04 -44' t- :t M M Cl) ce) r- 0 IN p > :3 C)
A r-4 r-4 4 r-4 -i v-4 r-4 r-4 r-4 r-4 r-4 r-4 r-l r-4 r-4 -4 >

CY) C) <* -4 CO M C) Cl) 00 -,1 -4 ,t If) r- M 'J, -4 0 r-4
0 mo co -4- r- Cl) -I- In -T C) 'T 't r- %D -4 0 Lr) C-4 C-4 (-) !_3 ( a -0 ci
ci .. . (z 0 (d 0) If)
IX C-J -4 04 C-4 IN IN C14 C-J M 0 M C-4 -4 Cq IN IN C4 Cl) C 4 4J CL U) 4J W C:) U) En :1 ci
ca a -4 m -It C) CY) r- %D 00 C", %D If) r-4 C% r-4 r, f, 0 ci C. 0
C-4 C-,' C-4 C-i cq CY) cq 4 C-4 C-4 r-4 -4 r-A r-4 C'' %4 P 44 F, (13 W
E-4 0 0 0 (1 (,
M CO f- t -4 (:7N %.0 00 %D CYN In r C14 00 LO -,t r- C,4 -4 44 (IJ U -r4 41 M -Z r- 04 UN Ul 00 r- 00 0'% r-4 1-4 (D Cq CN 0 -t -1100 U') r-4 rZ 44
C) 0 . r 'a cj W..4
N C C C 1 C 1; C 1 C4 C r C C C C cli ri Ili -1-4 0
X U) r-4 bO
'D CY) Lr% CN r-- r-- C:) M r-4 r-4 c 00 00 r-4 r-4 c) Lr) r, %.0 -4 C',j -r4 :3 .,4 41
M f: mo %c .n -.0 -,D r- %,D % O In In 'I 't ko In ko In 't -zt 't It IIZ (i Cd U) s::
C (4-4 -r4 :3: 0
cl 0 0 4-1 1 4-4 0
P. Q-4 O.r4
0. 4 r= CO 44
< 4
0) U) V)
,4 4 C'Z m 't In %.0 r- Oa ()N C:) r-4 M -t In <4 pq 0 C) ::j :> 00
-4 -4 4 r-4 r-4 -4 a : 5
U 4-1 E/) z 4 En
En a ci -0 w






58

2-year Upper Division SUS Institutions. However, there were two subscales in which significant differences appeared only within the 4-year SUS Institutions. These were subscale C, which contained the three questions on articulation programs, and subscale D, which included the three questions on credit evaluation. Thus, part (b) of the second null hypothesis is rejected because of eight items and three subscales which were found within one of these three institutional categories to be significantly different. They were items 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and subscales C, D, and E.

Within the 2-year Upper Division SUS Institutions, the

least optimal group mean response for those items with significant differences was given by the students, except for item 10. The least optimal group mean response for item 10 was given by the faculty. The more optimal group mean responses for these significantly different mean responses were evenly divided between counselors and administrators, except for item 6, which was more optimally responded to by the faculty. Within the 4-year SUS Institutions, for those items and subscales which reported a significant difference, the more optimal group mean response for items 9, 10, and subscale D was given by the counselors, while on item 14 and subscales C and E, the administrators gave the more optimal response. The least optimal responses were consistently given by the students and faculty. Students reported the least optimal responses on items 9 and 14, and subscales C and E, while the faculty reported the least optimal responses on item 10 and subscale D. The same pattern





59


mentioned in reference to Table 2 exists in Table 3. The counselor and administrator groups perceived the articulation policies and procedures as more operational than did the faculty and student groups. Results relative to part (c) of the second null hypothesis are shown in Tables 9 through 18 (see Appendix E). They indicate for each of the 10 institutions the number of usable responses, the mean responses by respondent groups, and the computed H value with its level of significance on each item and subscale. A review of Table 9 (see Appendix E) indicates a significant difference at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses within Institution 1 on item 4, which dealt with the availability of accurate detailed information for all other State educational institutions. The least optimal group mean response was reported by the students, and the more optimal mean response was given by the administrators.

From Table 10 (see Appendix E) it can be seen that there was significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses within Institution 2 on six items and all five subscales. The six items were: item 1, which dealt with the most important single indicator for student admissibility; item 5, which dealt with whether or not student activities are designed to assimilate the transfer student into the student body; item 8, which dealt with the flexibility in evaluating transfer work; item 10, which dealt with the acceptance of "D" grades as at least elective credit; item 13, which dealt with well-planned curriculum changes having






60

well-publicized implementation dates; and item 14, which dealt with institutions honoring the General Education Requirements from other institutions. The least optimal response in all cases, except subscale A, was reported by the students. In subscale A, the faculty reported the least optimal response. The more optimal response in all cases, except item 14, was

reported by the administrators. This one exception was reported by the counselors.

As shown in Table 11 (see Appendix E), there were significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses within Institution 3 on items 9 and 10. Item 9 dealt with the formal state-wide articulation agreement, and item 10 dealt with the acceptance of "D" grades as at least elective credit. The least optimal responses for items 9 and 10 were reported by the student group, while the more optimal responses for both-items were reported by the counselors.

A review of Table 12 (see Appendix E) shows significant

differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses within Institution 4 on five items, and subscale B. These were: item 1, which dealt with the most important single indicator for student admissibility; item 2, which dealt with the minimum GPA needed for admission by AA degree holders; item 6, which dealt with the accessibility of well-informed advisors; item 11, which dealt with equitable financial aid policies and procedures; item 14, which dealt with institutions honoring the General Education Requirements from other institutions; and subscale B, which focused on student personnel matters.





61

The least optimal mean responses on all five items and subscale B were reported by the students. The more optimal mean responses were divided among the other three groups, with the faculty providing the more optimal responses on items 1, 2, and 14; with the counselors providing the more optimal responses to subscale B and item 6; and with the administrators providing the more optimal response to item 11.

From a review of Table 13 (see Appendix E), it can be seen that there are no significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses within Institution 5 on any item or subscale. This was the only institution at which the perceptions of all four groups were relatively similar.

From the data contained in Table 14 (see Appendix E),

it can be seen that there were significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses within Institution 6 on four items, and subscales B and E. These were: item 2, which dealt with the minimum GPA needed for admission by AA degree holders; item 6, which dealt with the accessibility of well-informed advisors; item 9, which dealt with the formal state-wide articulation agreement; and item 14, which dealt with institutions honoring the General Education Requirements from other institutions. Subscale B dealt with the three questions on student personnel matters, while subscale E dealt with curriculum articulation. For the items and subscales in which there were significant differences, the least optimal responses were given by the





62

student group. Again, as in Institution 4, the more optimal mean responses were spread among the other three groups. The faculty provided the more optimal response to item 14 and subscale E, while the counselors provided it for item

6 and subscale B, and the administrators provided it for items 2 and 9.

A review of Table 15 (see Appendix E) indicates significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses within Institution 7 on items 2 and 7. Item 2 dealt with the minimum GPA needed for admission by AA degree holders, and item 7 dealt with the assistance of informal dialogue and inter-institutional staff rapport. The least optimal response for item 2 was provided by the faculty, while the more optimal response was provided by

the counselors. The least optimal response for item 7 was provided by the students, while the more optimal responses were given by faculty.

From an examination of Table 16 (see Appendix E) it can be seen that there were significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among the group mean responses within Institut ion 8 on item 15 and subscale D. Item 15 dealt with the limits imposed on transfer credit by senior institutions, and subscale D dealt with credit evaluation. On both item 15 and subscale D the least optimal response was provided by the counselors. Item 15 was more optimally responded to by the administrators, and subscale D was more optimally responded to by the faculty.





63
A review of Table 17 (see Appendix E) indicates significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among group mean responses within Institution 9 on items 13 and 15, and on subscales A and D. Item 13 dealt with well-planned and publicized curriculum changes. Item 15 dealt with the limits imposed on transfer credit by senior institutions. Subscale A encompassed the three questions on admissions articulation, while subscale D included the three questions on credit evaluation. The least optimal response to item 13 was given by the faculty, and the more optimal response was given by the students. The least optimal response to item 15 and subscale D was given by the students, while the least optimal response to subscale A was given by the faculty. The more optimal response for item 15 and subscale D was given by the counselors, while it was given by the administrators for subscale A.

Table 18 (see Appendix E) shows a significant difference at or beyond the .05 level among the group mean responses within Institution 10 on item 5, which dealt with whether or not student activities are designed to assimilate the transfer student into the student body. The least optimal response was reported by the administrators, while the more optimal responses were provided by the students and faculty.

Considered in total, the individual institutional data shows that null hypothesis 2, part (c), must be accepted for Institution 5, and rejected for the remaining nine institutions.





64

The third null hypothesis which provided direction for the analysis was as follows:

There is no significant difference in mean category responses (a) between the two institutional
categories (CJC or SUS) or (b) among the three
institutional categories (CJC, 2-year upper division, 4-year) within the student, faculty, counselor, or administrator groups on each of the 15
items or each subscale.

Results relative to parts (a) and (b) of this null hypothesis are shown separately. Table 4 shows the number of usable mean responses by institutional category (CJC and SUS) and the computed H value with its level of significance on each item and subscale for the student, faculty, counselor, and administrator groups collectively. A review-of these data shows significant differences at or beyond the .05 level between the institutional categories within the student groups on items 3, 6, 8 and 15; within the faculty group on items 1, 4, 8, 10, and subscales A and D; within the counselor group on items 1, 3, 9, 14, and subscales A and C; within the administrator group on items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and subscales A-, B, C, and E. Thus, the student responses differed significantly between the CJC 'and SUS institutions on issues such as having transfer student orientation programs available (3); having well-informed advisors available (6); having flexible evaluation of transfer credit by senior institutions (8); and having no limits imposed by senior institutions on the amount of transfer credit accepted (15). In the case of items 3 and 8, the more optimal responses were given by the SUS students, while items 6 and 15 were more optimally responded to by the CJC students.






65

TABLE 4

COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY JUNIOR COLLEGE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORIES ON EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE
OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN EACH GROUP




STUDENT FACULTY
Scale CJC SUS H Level CJC SUS H Level
Itemsa Inb -c nb x-c Value d Sig.e nb -c n :- Valued Sig.e

1 103 2.57 103 2.34 3.222 0.073 37 3.11 .42 1.97 10.201 0.001*
2 101 1.95 109 1.64 3.197 0.074 42 1.93 44 1.49 2.546 0.111
3 91 2.36 112 1.92 9.781 0.002* 30 2.47 37 1.99 2.050 0.152
4 107 2.10 105 2.24 0.588 0.443 42 2.02 39 2.48 4.072 0.044*
5 98 2.83 113 2.61 1.602 0.206 33 2.61 40 2.72 0.062 0.804
6 110 2.29 118 2.63 5.367 0.021* 43 2.23 47 1.95 1.388 0.239
7 86 2.85 103 2.77 0.318 0.573 32 2.69 40 2.27 2.529 0.112
8 81 2.99 96 2.64 5.141 0.023* 82 2.93 43 2.44 5.224 0.022*
9 84 2.60 82 2.73 2.135 0.144 34 2.59 42 2.26 1.843 0.175
10 96 2.98 85 3.04 0.135 0.713 29 2.48 43 3.18 5.834 0.016*
11 80 2.36 81 2.17 1.367 0.242 23 2.30 24 2.12 1.139 0.286
12 85 3.09 82 3.11 0.006 0.937 34 3.21 40 3.42 0.833 0.361
13 96 2.93 106 2.93 0.005 0.942 37 3.11 42 2.69 2.930 0.087
14 84 2.24 87 2.18 0.663 0.416 31 2.00 42 1.54 4.527 0.033*
15 83 2.77 94' 3.77 8.680 0.003* 29 2.03 35 3'57 1.442 0.230
Subscalea

A 87 2.22 84 2.05 3.141 0.076 31 2.32 34 1.93 4.775 0.029*
B 74 2.48 79 2.44 0.019 0.892 19 2.28 23 2.20 0.287 0.592
C 58 2.66 75 2.47 0.880 0.348 21 2.43 31 2.20 0.644 0.422
D 71 2.84 69 2.82 0.819 0.366 17 2.31 30 3.13 6.269 0.012*
E 65 2.72 68 2.51 0.032 0.858 19 2.54 35 2.21 2.265 0.132
Scale
Itemsa COUNSELORS ADMINISTRATORS

1 25 3.28 23 1.87 14.283 0.000* 24 3.25 22 1.90 13.373 0.000*
2 25 1.52 25 1.28 0.710 0.399 23 1.26 22 1.21 1.872 0.171
3 24 2.83 23 1.78 9.417 0.002* 22 2.73 21 1.86 5.668 0.017*
4 25 2.00 21 2.48 2.627 0.105 22 1.95 23 2.49 3.986 0.046*
5 20 2.65 22 2.31 1.025 0.311 21 3.29 21 2.31 6.677 0.010*
6 23 :1.96 24 1.79 0.310 0.578 24 2.58 23 2.04 6.015 0.014*
7 22 2.50 22 2.59 0.134 0.714 23 2.87 19 2.55 0.634 0.426
8 21 2.62 21 2.28 -2.105 0.147 21 2.95 20 2.28 9.233 0.002*
9 25 2.48 18 1.77 7.472 0.006* 23 2.30 22 2.08 0.974 0.324
10 21 2.29 22 1.63 3.459 0.063 17 2.88 20 2.00 6.724" 0.010*
11 20. 1.90 14 1.71 0.223 0.637 20 2.55 19 1.45 11.068 0.001*
12 21 3.00 23 2.95 0.005 0.941 21 3.24 21 3.13 0.002 0.968
13 24 2.79 20 2.44 1.377 0.241 23 3.04 23 2.71 2.326 0.127
14 23 2.04 21 1.57 6.105 0.013* 22 2.05 20 1.18 14.372 0.000*
15 21 2.24 20 3.24 1.072 0.300 24 1.50 20 3.76 2.719 0.099
Subscalea
A 25 2.27 20 1.81 10.213.0.001* 21 2.14 21 1.84 4.304 0.038*
B 18 2.13 13 1.76 0.500 0.479 18 2.72 18 1.90 9.997 0.002*
C 21 2.63 .16 1.99 8.886 0.003* 20 2.63 17 2.12 6.240 0.012*
D 15 2.35 17 2.29 0.131 0.717 15 2.58 17 2.85 2.553 0.110
E 20 2.47 19 2.08 3.249 0.071 19 2.81 20 2.05 16.020 0.000*
aSee Appendix B for statement of scale items and Appendix G for subscale items bNumber of usable responses per group per item and subscale CArithmetic mean of usable responses per group per item and subscale dKruskal-Wallis computed H value, corrected for ties eLevel of Significance computed by the Kruskal-Wallis
*Significant at the .05 level or beyond





66

The CJC faculty and SUS faculty responses differed

significantly on items related to the more important single indicator for admission (1); the accuracy of detailed information from other State institutions (4); the flexibility of senior college personnel in evaluating transfer credit (8);

the extent to which courses earned by a "D" are accepted as at least elective credit (10); and the extent to which General Education Requirements are honored by other institutions (14). They also differed on subscales A and D, which related to admissions and credit evaluation, respectively. The more optimal responses were given by the SUS faculty on items 1, 8, 14, and subscale A, while they were given by CJC faculty for items 4, 10, and subscale D.

The counselor responses differed significantly between CJC and SUS institutions on items about prior academic performance being the most important single indicator for admission (1); the availability of well-informed advisors (3); whether the formal state-wide articulation agreement facilitates student transfer (9); and whether institutions honor the General Education Requirements from other institutions. They also differed on subscale A and C, which related to admissions and articulation programs. The more optimal responses were given by SUS counselors on all four items and

both subscales.

The CJC administrator and SUS administrator responses

differed significantly on all but six items (2, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15) and one subscale, D. In all cases except item 4 (accurate





67

information on other institutions is available), the more optimal responses were reported by the SUS administrators. In item 4, the more optimal response was obviously reported by the CJC administrators.

Null hypothesis 3, part (a), is rejected within the student group for items 3, 6, 8, and 15. It is rejected within the faculty group for items 1, 4, 8, 10, and subscales A and D. It is rejected within the counselor group for items 1, 3, 9, 14, and subscales A and C. Finally, it is rejected within the administrator group for items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and subscales A, B, C, and E.

Results relative to null hypothesis 3, part (b), are shown in Table 5. Specifically reported are the number of usable mean responses by institutional category (CJC, 2-year, 4-year), and the computed H value with its level of

significance on each item and subscale for the student, faculty, counselor, and administrator groups, collectively. A review of these data indicates significant differences at or beyond the .05 level among the three institutional categories within the student group on items 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 15; within the faculty group on items 1, 6, 10, 14 and subscale D; within the counselor group on items 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, and subscales A and C; and within the administrator group on items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, and subscales B, C, and E. Thus, the student responses differed significantly among the CJC, 2-year upper division, and 4-year institutions on items related to the minimum CPA needed for AA transfers (2);






68

TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY-JUNIOR COLLEGE, 2-YEAR UPPER DIVISION, AND 4-YEAR INSTITUTION RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM AND SUBSCALE OF THE FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN GROUPS


STUDENTS FACULTY

Scale SUS SUS H Level SUS SUS H Level
Itemsa ,iCJ 2-Year- 4-Yea Valued SIg J -er4Ya Valued Sig. e

nb -ec nb x-c nb -Ec nb -c nb -c nbn- nb b
1 103 2.57 40 2.28 63 2.38 3.229 0.199 37 3.11 18 1.94 24 2.00 10.397 0.006*
2 101 1.95 44 1.89 65 1.48 7.125 0.028* 42 1.93 16 1.25 28 1.64 3.124 0.210 3 91 2.36 43 2.19 69 1.77 12.688 0.002* 30 2.47 16.2.19 21 1.84 3.515 0.172
4 107 2.10 38 2.24 67 2.24 0.650 0.723 42 2.02 16 2.50 23 2.48 4.077 0.130 5 98 2.83 46 2.17 67 2.91 17.884 0.000* 33 2.61 16 2.63 24 2.79 0.496 0.780
6 110 2.29 48 2.71 70 2.59 5.625 0.060 43 2.23 17 1.35 30 2.30 12.530 0.002* 7 86 2.85 40 2.63 63 2.86 1.259 0.533 32 2.69 17 2.06 23 2.43 4.707 0.095
8 81 2.99 35 2.51 61 2.72 6.280 0.043* 82 2.93 16 2.31 27 2.52 5.837 0.054
9 84 2.60 31 2.48 51 2.88 6.249 0.044* 34 2.59 16 2.00 26 2.42 4.496 0.106
10 96 2.98 35 3.17 50 2.96 0.812 0.666 29 2.48 15 3.40 28 3.07 6.499 0.039*
11 80 2.36 33 2.15 48 2.19 1.414 0.493 23 2.30 12 1.83 12 2.42 1.925 0.382 12 85 3.09 34 3.06 48 3.15 0.088 0.957 34 3.21 14 3.43 26 3.42 0.839 0.657
13 96 2.93 45 2.76 61 3.07 1.620 0.445 37 3.11 16 2.56 26 2.77 3.493 0.174
14 84 2.24 36 2.14 51 2.22 0.723 0.697 31 2.00 17 1.35 25 1.68 6.134 0.047* 15 83 2.77 34 2.65 :60 4.02 13.677 0.001* 29 2.03 14 3.14 .21 3.86 5.771 0.056
Sub
scalesa

A 87 2.22 30 2.05 54 2.05 3.144 0.846 31 2.32 15 1.83 19 2.01 5.571 0.062
B 74 2.48 33 2.44 46 2.44 1.414 0.493 19 2.28 12 1.89 11 2.54- 2.228 0.328
C 58 2.66 30 2.47 45 2.47 0.829 0.661 21 2.43 14 2.14 17 2.25 0.808 0.668
D 71 2.84 28 2.83 41 2.82 0.802 0.670 17 2.31 13 2.95 17 3.27 6.939 0.031*
E 65 2.72 26 2.51 42 2.51" 0.973- 0.615 .19 2.54 15 .06 20 2.33 3 .669:D.160

COUNSELORS ADMINISTRATORS
Scale
Itemsa
1 25 3.28 8 1.50 15 2.07 16.019 0.000* 24 3.25 9 2.22 13 1.71 14.293 0.001"
2 25 1.52 10 1.30 15 1.27 0.736 0.692 23 1.26 10 1.50 12 1.00 3.526 0.172
3 24 2.83 9 1.89 14 1.71 9.423 0.009* 22 2.73 8 2.38 13 1.57 7.927 0.019*
4 25 2.00 8 1.88 13 2.85 7.671 0.022* 22 1.95 10 2.40 13 2.57 4.318 0.115
5 20 2.65 8 1.75 14 2.64 4.303 0.116 21 3.29 10 2.30 11 2.33 6.686 0.035*
6 23 1.96 9 1.44 15 2.00 2.475 0.290 24 2.58 10 1.60 13 2.36 9.039 0.011*
7 22 2.50 8 2.38 14 2.71 0.850 0.654 23 2.87 9 2.33 10 2.73 1.474 0.479
8 21 2.62 8 2.13 13 2.38 2.445 0.294 21 2.95 8 2.00 12 2.46 9.713 0.008*
9 25 2.48 6 1.33 12 2.00 10.268 0.006* 23 2.30 10 2.00 12 2.15 1.091 0.579
10 21 2.29 8 1.50 14 1.71 3.594 0.166 17 2.88 8 2.38 12 1.77 8.480 0.014*
11 20 1.90 7 1.43 7 2.00 1.809 0.405 20 2.55 10 1.10 9 1.80 13.696 0.001"
12 21 3.00 9 3.56 14 2.57 5.117 0.077 21 3.24 8 3.50 13 2.93 1.423 0.491
13 24 2.79 7 2.57 13 2.38 1.857 0.395. 23 3.04 10 2.60 13 2.79 2.331 0.321
14 23 2.04 8 1.38 13 1.69 6.441 0.040* 22 2.05 8 1.25 12 1.15 14.752 0.001*
15 21 2.24 7 3.43 13 3.15 1.250 0.535 24 1.50 7 3.57 13 3.86 2.899 0.235
Sub
scalesa

A 25 2.27 7 1.43 13 2.02 14.673 0.001* 21 2.14 9 2.03 12 1.71 4.575 0.102
B 18 2.13 6 1.50 7 2.38 4.639 0.098 18 2.72 10 1.66 8 2.18 12.749 0.002*
C 21 2.63 6 1.66 10 2.20 10.918 0.004* 20 2.63 8 2.21 9 2.06 6.294 0.043*.
D 15 2.35 5 1.93 12 2.44 0.619 0.734 15 2.58 7 2.85 10 2.85 4,659 0.097
E 20 2.47 7 2.00 12 2.14 3.249 0.197 19 2.81 8 1.96 12 2.12 16.054 0.000*
aSee Appendix B for statement of scale items and Appendix G for subscale items bNumber of usable responses per group per item and subscale CArithmetic mean of usable responses per item and subscale dKruskal-Wallis computed H value, corrected for ties eLevel of significance computed by the Kruskal-Wallis Significant at the .05 level or beyond





69


the presence of well-informed advisors (3); the presence of activities designed to assimilate the transfer students (5); the flexibility of senior institution personnel in evaluating transfer work (8); the degree to which the formal state-wide articulation agreement facilitates smooth transfer (9); and the limits imposed by senior institutions on transfer credit (15). In those items with significant differences, the more optimal responses were reported by 2-year institution student groups on items 5, 8, and 9; 4-year institutions on items 2 and 3; and by the CJC student group on item 15. The least optimal mean responses were provided by the 4-year institution's students on items 5, 9, and 15, and by the CJC students on items 2, 3, and 8.

When one considers those items with significant differences, it can be seen that faculty responses differed significantly among the three institutional'categories on items related to the most important single indicator of student admissibility (1); the presence of well-informed advisors available (6); the acceptance of "D" credit as at least elective credit (10); whether the General Education Requirements are honored by other institutions (14); and subscale D, which included the credit evaluation items. The more optimal responses were given by the faculty of the 2-year upper division institutions on items 1, 6, and 14, and by the CJC faculty group on item 10 and subscale D. The least optimal response was given by the faculty of the 4-year institutions on items 6 and subscale D; by the 2-year





70

institution faculty on item 10; and by the CJC faculty on items 1 and 14.

The counselor responses differed significantly among the three institutional categories on items related to whether prior academic performance is the most important single indicator for admission (1); the availability of orientation programs (3); whether accurate, detailed information on other institutions is available to students (4); whether the formal state-wide articulation agreement facilitates smooth student transfer (9); and whether institutions honor General Education Requirements from other schools (14); and subseales A and C, admissions and articulation programs, respectively. Of those items showing significant differences, the more optimal mean responses were given by the counselor group at the 2-year upper division institutions in all cases except item 3. On item 3, the more optimal response was given by the counselors at the 4-year institutions. Of those items with significant differences, the least optimal responses were given by the CJC counselors, except for item 4, for which the least optimal response was given by the 4-year institution counselors.

The administrator responses differed significantly

among the three institutional categories on items related to whether prior academic performance is the most important single indicator for admission (1); the availability of orientation programs (3); whether student activities assimilate the transfer student into the student body (5); presence






71

of well-informed advisors (6) ; flexibility of senior institution personnel in evaluating transfer credit (8); whether a 11D" grade is acceptable for transfer of credit (10); equitability of financial aid policies and procedures (11); and whether General Education Requirements are honored by other institutions. Also, there were significant differences on subscales, B (student personnel), C (articulation programs), and E (curriculum concerns). Considering those responses reporting significant differences, the more optimal mean responses were given by the administrators at 4-year institutions on items 1, 3, 10, and 14. The administrators at 2-year upper division institutions gave the more optimal responses on items 5, 6, 8, 11, and subscales B and E. The least optimal mean responses were given by administrators from the CJC institutions on all 8 items and 3 subscales.

Null hypothesis 3, part (b), is rejected within the student group for items 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 15. It is rejected within the faculty group for items 1, 6, 10, 14, and subscale D. It is rejected within the counselor group for items 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, and subscales A and C, and rejected within the administrator group for items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14 and subscales B, C, and E.

The fourth null hypothesis which provided direction for the analysis was as follows:

There is no difference in the perceived major problem facing transfer students as expressed
by student, faculty, counselor, or administrator groups in the open-ended question.





72

The classification of the responses to the open-ended question were made according to the five subscale areas (admission, student personnel, articulation programs, evaluation of credit, and curriculum). Each response was assigned to one of these subscales. The number of usable responses and the percentage is shown by subscale for each group in Table 6. A review of this table indicates the major problem as perceived by three of the four groups (faculty, counselor, and administrator) was curriculum articulation, while the student group perceived the major problem to be student personnel issues. The area least expressed as a major problem varied. Students and administrators reported admissions as the least expressed major problem; the faculty reported articulation programs; and counselors reported credit evaluation. Null hypothesis 4 is rejected based on the observed differences among the groups.

The fifth null hypothesis which provided direction for the analysis was as follows:

There'is no difference in the perceived major problem facing transfer students as expressed
by student, faculty, counselor, or administrator groups (a) within the two institutional
categories (CJC or SUS), or (b) within the
three institutional categories (CJC, 2-year,
4-year), or (c) within each institution in the
open-ended question.

Results relative to parts (a), (b), and (c) of this null hypothesis are shown separately. Shown in Table 7 are the number of usable responses and the percentage for each subscale for each group within the CJC and SUS institutions.





73

TABLE 6


COMPARISON OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY, COUNSELOR,
AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES BY SUBSCALE, NUMBER, AND PERCENTAGE TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION OF THE
FHEA QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN THE FIVE SUBSCALES



Student Faculty Counselor. Administrator
Subscalea nb %c nb %c nb -c -nb %c


A 27 16 8 13 9 24 4 10

B 43 26 12 19 8 22 9 24

C 28 17 4 7 5 14 5 13

D 30 18 13 21 3 8 6 16

E 38 23 25 40 12 32 14 37
aSee Appendix G for statement of subscale items bNumber of usable responses per group per subscale CPercentage of usable responses per group per subscale






74


14
0
co
$4 u Ln co CO a,%
-W a- 2 r-4 r-4 Ln
W

z r-4
0 r= .14 0 H
P4 1w
4-)
z 0
H 4
P4 E-4 P4 0
0 U) r-4 Q C-4 r- 4
E-4 W 4J (L) a-e C14 r-4 r-4 -4
95W r4 (n
0 t C") r--4 C4 00
(1) 0
>
zp rq
H z
z W z U 00 C14 C3% CD r-4
Cl 1 0 r-4 r-4
.:Vl z H
rz P-4 D Cd ca In -4 cr) rZ 0 E-4 4-3 rX4
.94 H M
W E-4 4.3
En 0 04 1-4
z w r-4 04 04 r-4 04
0 H
4 0
W E-4 0 a 00 m cn C14 C:)
(n U) r-4 r-4 N 0)
z r-4
:D ca
0 .94 z (i
PQ UPH Ct)
C4 z = 0 r-4 'o
E -W 4J cd
>4 u co
E--4 P4 l : aN r-A %D U.) m
w r-4 ce) r-4 WO
PL4 W ul 4-) :J
C4 r4 -r-I (n
f44 Cl H r .4, m Lr) r-4 t m
r%4 z -9:4 bo -H
:4 z a) 9
z co 040
P P4 0
z w F4 0
pq P 0 p ;j
N U) 0 o H
W P r-4 0 r-4 V) p (1)
P z D 0 0) N C14 bo cl,
r4 44
0 p to
'e4 Lr) Ul) It 0) w
0 4J Pw W
u 44 W w 0
rZ4 Cl) 4-) >N F 0) 04
0 pq w r4 41 0 r- 00 -,t r-I C: (1) 0) co
r-4 4-1 0 w
z (n p Cd 0 p
0 4J Cl,
V) >-I Cd 'a C4 00 r-4 %.D r-4 w a)
H PCI 0 r-4 rMA
P4 p 10
:4 4-J 0 Cd
P4 u C14 m r- %0 %0 44 a) cn
z t-'-s r-4 cli C14 t-4 :J
0 010
Cd 44
41 a m C) V) 00 00 9 r) 0
r-4
44 W
cc Q) 0 co
(1) P4 41
r 4 P. p
co -:4 a)
ci '0 C)
co ec pq 0 p w 4)
En z P4
co a ci






75

A review of this table indicated the major problem as perceived by the CJC faculty was curriculum articulation. The major issue perceived by the CJC students, counselors, and administrators is student personnel issues. The major issue within the SUS groups was curriculum articulation, as shown by the faculty, counselor, and administrator responses. The SUS student group reported articulation programs as the major problem. Null hypothesis 5, part (a) is rejected based on inspection of the data.

Results relative to null hypothesis 5, part (b), are shown in Table 8. More specifically shown are the number of usable responses and the percentage for each group within the three groups (CJC, 2-year, 4-year). A comparison of these data indicates differences between groups within all three institutional categories for all five subscales. The community-junior college responses remain the same as in Table 7; however, the breakdown of the state university system group shows new information. Consistent with Table 7, the faculty, counselor, and administrator groups at both the 2-year and 4-year institutions expressed curriculum articulation as the major problem. However, the students at the 2-year upper-division institutions perceived the major problem as articulation programs, while the students at the 4-year schools considered the major problem to be student personnel issues. Null hypothesis 5, part (b), is rejected because of the observed differences.

Results relative to null hypothesis 5, part (c), are

shown in Tables 19 through 28, which are found in Appendix F.







76






14
0
41
u M r-4 %0 Ln (7% 0 0 co 0 C14
r-4 M r-4 cn %D C14 T-4 -.1

.r4
P4
0 M Ln r-4 t m C C) cn 0 Ln r-4 t f-4 C14 1,0



Ea
z
H
0 -:4 z
z H
w p W 0
Z 0 En H r-4 ci %D 1,0 r-4 kD r-4 r- r-- r-- r- cq Ln rl- C> co C)
<4 04 w 9:4 W N C-4 C14 r-4 r-4 r-4 r-4 Cn r-4 (D
W:D 0 rb r-4
-04 co
0 C -cc p 0 -0 Ln in 't r-4 't r-4 r-4 r-i r-4 Cn C14 0 r4 %.0 4) to
-l z w -94 r-4 .0
w e. = u cc 0
cn 44 w 0 rn
U)
::D 9,0 $4
0 W Z 41 0 4)
0 PP E-4 0
.N 1-4 >)
00 44 E-4 41 ci r- 00 -4t r-4 C> w CD C m m C14 Ln -100 r-4 0) P C14
>4 Z 0 :) 0 r-4 0--o C14 C14 t >-4 C14 cq It 4 r-4 r-(-t r-4 4) Z
14 Fl E-4 :J I I Cd 040
4 4 -Z H 0 0 C-4 0 p
pq ::3 W 0 E-4 Cd a C,4 00 r-I v.0 r-4 r-4 LI) r-I m P4 bo
<4 0 -l H En r-4 U) 0 0 cn V) r-4 a :J
E-4 -4 E-4 z o P
u V) F4 p a)
EP. w tO 04
PQ D w 4-4
p :) CYW 0 p w
z En P4 0) 4)
pm 4-3 04 W
>4 0
PQ 0
P zz 0) 04
C/3 M w H m w
w I = 0 ci 04 M t- %D %.0 r- 00 -It r-4 r- 00 N r-4 4J 0 0)
W En Z E-4 a) -6 r-4 C-4 C-4 r-4 r-4 M r-4 C4 C-4 Cq r Cq CO 0 P
= z w H 4-) P4
E-4 0 PL4 :3: rn w W
P4 0 41 'D m 0 Ln 00 00 CY) Ln r-4 4 %.0 Ln 00 C14 00 .4 4) r-4
P14, m C14 r-4 r-i r-4 r--l r4 r-4 r4 P P 4
oww 0 Cd
04 = 4-4 (1) rn
Z E-4 r-4 :3
0 010
U) 0 cd 44
H E-4 0 0
C4 :j

Cd Wo Cd
Q)
co
ci pq 0 1=1 w -e pq 0 Cl w <4 PCI 0 Cl w 'm 0
co
(n Z P4
co 4 c.)






77

Each table shows. the number of usable responses and percentages amon g the groups within each subs cale for the ten institutions, respectively. Table 19 (see Appendix F) shows that there were differences among the groups at Institution 1. The largest percentage of responses within each of the four groups identified curriculum articulation (Subscale E) as the major perceived transfer student problem. This was the only institution in which the largest percentage for each group was reported for the same subscale, with no ties. Table 20 (see Appendix F) contains the comparison among groups for Institution 2. The largest percentage of student responses indicated articulation programs (Subscale C) as the major problem, while faculty,.counselors, and administrators all perceived the-major problem as curriculum articulation (Subs cale E). Table 21 (see Appendix F) shows

the comparison for* Institution 3. The largest percentages of student responses were related to student personnel (Subscale B); the faculty reported curriculum articulation (Subscale E); the counselors reported equal concern among admissions, articulation programs, evaluation of credit, and curriculum articulation (Subscales A, C, D, and E); and the administrators reported articulation programs (Subscale C). Table 22 (see Appendix F) shows the comparison of data for Institution 4, with the largest percentage of student respondents recorded for articulation programs (Subscale C). The faculty responses perceived articulation programs, evaluation of credit, and curriculum articulation.





78

(Subscale C, D and E) as equally important to transfer students. Counselors recorded equal concern for student personnel and curriculum articulation, (Subscale B and E). The administrators perceived curriculum articulation (Subscale E) as the major problem. Table 23 (see Appendix F) shows the comparison of data for Institution 5, with the largest percentage of student and administrator responses reported for student personnel matters (Subscale B). The faculty responses reported equal concern for admissions issues (Subscale A) and credit evaluation (Subscale D). The counselor responses reported the major problem facing transfer students as curriculum articulation (Subscale E). Table 24 (see Appendix F) shows the comparison for Institution 6. The largest percentage of both student and faculty responses reported curriculum articulation (Subscale E) as the major problem. The counselors reported student personnel issues (Subscale B) as the major problem, while the administrators were equally concerned with two areas: credit evaluation and curriculum articulation (Subscales D and E, respectively). Table 25 (see Appendix F) shows the comparison for Institution 7. The largest percentage of all four groups (students, faculty, counselors, administrators) reported student personnel (Subscale B) as the major problem facing transfer students. However, faculty perceived student personnel equally as serious as credit evaluation and curriculum articulation (Subscales D and E). Student personnel was matched by counselors in their concern for admissions, articulation programs, and credit evaluation (Subscales A., C,






79

and D, respectively). Table 26 (see Appendix F) shows the comparison for Institution 8. At this institution, the largest percentage of student responses reported equal concern for admissions, articulation, and student personnel matters (Subscales A and B, respectively). The faculty at

this institution reported equal concern for admissions, credit evaluation and curriculum articulation (Subscales B, D, and E) as major problems. The counselors perceived admissions (Subscale A) as the major problem, while the administrators reported equal concern for admissions, student personnel matters, credit evaluation, and curriculum (Subscales A, B, D, and E, respectively). Table 27 (see Appendix F) shows the comparison for Institution 9. The largest percentage of student responses reported credit evaluation (Subscale D) as the major problem. The faculty and counselors at this institution agree that the major problem was curriculum articulation (Subscale E). The administrators reported equal concern for admissions and student personnel (Subscales A and B, respectively) as major problems. Table 28 (see Appendix F) shows the comparison for Institution 10. The student group perceived curriculum articulation (Subscale E) as the major problem, while faculty *reported with equal concern student personnel matters, evaluation of credit, and curriculum articulation (Subscales B, D, and E, respectively). The counselors reported articulation programs (Subscale C) as the major problem facing transfer students, while the administrators perceived it to be credit evaluation (Subscale D).





80


Collectively considering all 10 institutions, curriculum articulation (Subscale E) was expressed more frequently as the major problem facing transfer students than were other issues.












CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION OF THE DATA

Introduction


The purpose of this chapter is to discuss findings from the field portion of the study which were presented in Chapter III. The following review of the focus of the study is provided in order to place this discussion in proper perspective. Specifically, the writer sought to review related literature in order to build a construct of articulation. The writer then conducted a field study involving students, faculty, counselors and administrators at selected 2-year and 4-year institutions in Florida to provide perceptions of how the articulation construct was being operationalized and to identify the major perceived articulation problems. Selected comparisons were made using the KruskalWallis H test. Determination of what respondents believed

to be major problems facing transfer students was made by i-nspection of the raw data and making percentage comparisons of the responses to an open-ended question. Also, a determination was sought of the extent to which these group perceptions were consistent with the propositions which comprised the construct. This was accomplished by comparing group mean responses to the optimal response of 111.11 Although the



81





82

direction of the investigation was structured by five null hypotheses, the discussion herein is developed in three major sections: (a) a discussion of the data comparisons of items

1 15 and the five subscales on the FHEA Questionnaire;

(b) a discussion of the data comparison of item 16, the open-ended question; and (c) a discussion of those group mean responses of 3.0 or above, which the researcher considered to be in an unacceptable operational range.



Discussion of the Comparisons
of the First 15 items and Subscales

The first comparison of these items was made among the student, faculty, counselor, and administrator groups regardless of institutional affiliation. As was shown in Table 1, the students responded least optimally on each of the six items where there were significant differences and on all four of the subscales where there were significant differences. The more optimal mean responses for those items indicating'significant differences were given, except for one, by either the counselors or administrators. The exception was subscale C, dealing with articulation programs. On this subscale, the more optimal mean response was given by the faculty. It appears that the perceptions of the responding students throughout Florida public higher education were not only different from the faculty, counselor, and administrator perceptions but reflected the most displeasure and dissatisfaction with the current articulation





83


practices and procedures. It appeared through remarks and response patterns that students reflected "the way it was," while, to varying degrees, the faculty, counselors, and administrators reflected "the way it was supposed to be."

Table 2 showed the comparison of the four group mean responses within two institutional categories: the community-junior colleges, and the state university system. Only on items 1, 2, and subscale C were there significant differences in both the CJC and SUS institutions. The responses to item 1 were found to be exact opposites, with CJC students perceiving prior academic performance as the most important single indicator of admissibility (SE = 2.57) and the CJC counselors perceiving it as the least optimal response (x- = 3.28). .The SUS students, on the other hand, least optimally responded to this item (i 2.34), and the SUS counselors were more positive (X_ = 1.87). When one reviews the literature, information was documented by Willingham (1972), among others, supporting the perceptions of the CJC students and SUS counselors. Their perceptions, as groups who deal directly with the admission criteria, coincides with the literature. Therefore, assuming the v validity of the CJC student and SUS counselor responses, the counselors at the CJC institutions appear to need information, while the SUS institutions' counselors need to "practice what they preach."

On item 2 responses, the institutional category made no

distinguishable differences. The administrators in both cases tended to perceive a "2.0" as the minimum GPA needed by AA





84

degree holders for admission the most often, with the CJC administrator mean of X_ = 1.26 and the SUS administrator mean of x~ = 1.21; the students tended to perceive that this was not necessarily the case, as indicated by the CJC student mean of i = 1.95 and the SUS student mean of i = 1.64. Subscale C, which showed significant differences in both the CJC institutions and in the SUS institutions, represents a composite opinion of perceptions of articulation programs, and includes items 3, 7, and 9. Thus, it was not influenced by the other two common items with significant differences (1 and 2). The subscale C responses of the students were the least optimal in both types of institutions. That is, they perceived fewer and less effective orientation programs for transfer students, less assistance by informal inter-institutional dialogue, and less assistance from the formal statewide articulation agreement than did faculty, counselors and administrators. When collectively viewing the significantly different items and subscales, either within the CJC institutions, the SUS institutions, or within just those items common to both categories, the responses support the same pattern as was seen in Table 1. Specifically, the student perceptions reflected the least optimal view. They saw articulation policies and procedures as least operational, and were closely followed by the faculty responses. In most cases, the counselor and administrator responses reflected the more optimal views. Although only the comparisons indicating significant differences are cited here, the same pattern was observable in most other





85

comparisons. In the case of the SUS institutions, over half of the comparisons showed significant differences.

Table 3, which shows the comparisons among the three

institutional categories of CJC, 2-year SUS, and 4-year SUS, reveals differences between the two different types of institutions in the State University System. Items 6, 9, 10, 14 and subs cale E were the five cases of the original twelve significant different SUS cases which remained common to 2-year SUS and 4-year SUS groups. These four items and subscale E, although common to both SUS categories, do not overlap with any significantly different items found within the CJC comparisons. Therefore, although the pattern appears the same with counselors and administrators perceiving articulation practices and procedures more operational than the students, and in some cases faculty, the items where significant differences were found varied. In the case of CJC institutions, the significant differences were for items which dealt with admissions, credit evaluation, and articulation programs. In

the case of the 2-year SUS and 4-year SUS institutions, the significantly different items cluster around student personnel concerns and curriculum articulation. It is understandable that these particular concerns are of special importance to each institutional category, respectively; however, it is unconstructive to have significant differences among the groups in their perceptions.

Table 4 contained comparisons of each item and subs cale between the CJC and SUS institutions within each of the four