Citation
An assessment of student affairs preparation programs in relation to professional competencies

Material Information

Title:
An assessment of student affairs preparation programs in relation to professional competencies
Creator:
Hyman, Randy E., 1952-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 164 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Employee skills ( jstor )
Graduate students ( jstor )
Graduates ( jstor )
High school students ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Professional standards ( jstor )
Professional training ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Competency-based education -- United States ( lcsh )
Professional education -- United States ( lcsh )
Student affairs administrators -- Training of -- United States ( lcsh )
City of Orlando ( local )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1983.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 151-162).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Randy E. Hyman.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
030570288 ( ALEPH )
ACQ5224 ( NOTIS )
11903322 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text














AN ASSESSMENT


OF STUDENT


AFFAIRS


PREPARATION


PROGRAMS


IN RELATION


PROFESSIONAL


RANDY


COMPETENCIES


HYMAN


A DISSERTATION


PRESENTED


TO THE


GRADUATE


COUNCIL


---~ ---


v


















Dad,


Richard


Hyman,


who first


said


to me


"Hitch


your


wagon


to a


star"


. and


to Jesus


Christ,


the star who


controlled


my wagon


provided


me with


the direction.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


completion


doctoral


program


would


have


been


possible


were


for a few


wonderful


people


who


deserve


special


recognition


for their


roles.


To Dr.


San deen,


chairman


mentor,


offer


heartfelt


thanks.


His unending


patience,


support,


encouragement


provided


me with


motivation


which


enabled


me


make


dream


become


reality.


To the members of


committee,


Dr. James


Wattenbarger


Smith,


extend


sincere


thanks


time,


support,


suggestions


they


gave me


during


the course of


study.


Special


assistance


thanks


Jester


in the analysis


data


John


to Donna


Dixon


Ornowski


their


for her


work in


the typing


manuscript


final


drafts.


Sincere


notes


recognition


are extended


a couple


of special


colleagues.


Jack


Worley


express


my gratitude


always


being


there


when


needed


a listening


ear.


Grimm


express


appreciation


constant


support


consideration


throughout


doctoral


program.


Finally,


Robi,


would


son


give


, Drew


Their


very


love,


special


patience,


recognition


faith


wife


me were















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............ .. .. .. .. i i


CHAPTER


I. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY.......................


Introduction..


Purpose ...
Questions for Investigation
Justification for the Study.
Conceptual Framework........
Assumptions. ....
Limitations ................
Definitions.................
Overview of the Study.......


* 4 *t .
* 4


..4... .. S.....
* 4*

* 40
..*. ..4* t ..
**..*.**.*....0.
*..*. ..*.........


II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................


Student Personnel as an Emerging
Profession..............................
Development of Student Personnel
Preparation Programs.....................
Chapter Summary............................


III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................


Research Objectives..............
Research Population...............
Development of the Instrument.....
Endorsement of the Study..........
Administration of the Instrument..
Treatment of the Data.............
Research Questions................
Chapter Summary...................


........
.....,..
..e.....

0.......
....0...
........*


IV. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA.......................


Demographic Profile of Respondents.
Data on Possession of Competencies.
Data on Importance of Competencies.
C'hantp -r irrrv .............. ..


.......
.......

.......


ABSTRACT.










SUMMARY


, CONCLUSION


, AND


FUTURE


CONSIDERATIONS..


A Summary
Findings.


Con c


Impl i
for


lusions


the Deve


....


cat ions
Further


* *4*
..O..
0.....
* Cons
Cons


lopment of
.e.o..o...

iderations


Study


Study


APPENDIX


RESEARCH


INSTRUMENT


FOR


FACULTY.....


RESEARCH


AND


INSTRUMENT


CHIEF


FOR


STUDENT


DIRECTORS


AFFAIRS


OF HOUSING


OFFICERS..


LETTER


OF ENDORSEMENT


FROM


VICE


PRESIDENT


STUDENT


AFFAIRS.


LETTER


OF ENDORSEMENT


FROM


RESEARCH


AND


INFOR-


NATION


COMMITTEE


FOLLOW-UP


POST


CARD 00**S*** S SOt*


TABLE


LISTING


MEAN


COMPETENCY


SCORES


FOR


POSSESSION


EACH


AND


BY CATEGORY........


GROUP


IMPORTANCE


S. 130


TABLES


TABLES


LISTING
R GROUPS


LISTING


RANGE


TEST


MULTIVARIATE
BY CATEGORY


RESULTS


ANALYST I
........


OF DUNCAN'


POSSESSION


AND


OF VARIANCE


MULTIPLE
IMPORTANCE


BY CATEGORY


REFEREBCE


*0 5SCCOC* **055 055 ** 5*140


NOTES


REFERENCES......


.... ... .... .. ... .* tees .


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH


. ...... ... .. .... *t* S 0


150













Abstract of


Dissertation


of the University
Requirements fo


Presented


of Florida in


the Degree of


to the Graduate


C


Partial Fulfillment of


council
the


Doctor of Philosophy


AN ASSESSMENT


IN RELATION


STUDENT


AFFAIRS


TO PROFESSIONAL


SEPARATION PROGRAMS
COMPETENCIES


RANDY


December


E. HYMAN


1983


Chairman:


Major


Arthur


Department:


Sandeen


Educational


Administration


Supervision


primary


whether


purposes


preparation


study


programs


were


student


determine


personnel


administration

competencies


educated


for the development


determine


of entry


relative


level


importance


professional


those


competencies


for assuming


an entry


level


staff


position


in the field


student


affairs.


Perceptions


three


groups


of professionals


field


student


affairs:


(faculty


in preparation


programs,


directors


housing,


chief


student


affairs


officers)


were


assessed


to determine


whether


they


believed


recent


master' s


graduates


preparation


programs


actually


possessed


the professional


competencies


whether


they


believed


the competencies


were


important


for assuming


an entry


level


position


in student


affairs.


three


groups


were


compared


determine

possession


whether

of the


or not


differences


competencies


existed


recent


graduate


their

s and


perceptions


of importance


PE










developed


Je


Miller


. Prince


in The


Future


Stu dent


Affairs


served


conceptual


framework


study.


modified


model


identified


categories


of development


which


included


goal


setting,


consultation,


communication,


assessment


evaluation,


environmental


organizational


management.


From


a review


literature


related


research,


a two-part


research


instrument


was


developed


which


included


competencies


recommended


faculty,


practitioners,


professional


associations


entry


level


stu dent


affairs


staff.


instrument


was


administered


faculty,


directors


housing


chief


student


affairs


officers.


sponse


rate


46.3%


faculty,


66.7%


directors


of housing,


60.7% of


chief


student


affairs officers


was


achieved


results


study


indicated


T.H.E.


model


was


appropriate framework

the important learning


outcome s


identification

of professional


concept aliz ation


preparation


programs in


student personnel administration.


Chief


doubt as

possessed


student


affairs


recent


to whether


competencies


officers


master's


in any


directors


graduates


of the five


of housing


of preparation


conceptual


indicated


programs


categories.


Each


three


groups


believed


that


competencies


categories


were important


assuming


an entry


level


position in


student


affairs.


three


groups


did not have


similar


perceptions


of the training


recent


graduates


received


competencies.


Faculty


perceived


significantly


greater


possession


competencies


recent


grad-


. I-i -1'-1 1 -*1nt


re-


II


!1


r


.


*


*

















CHAPTER


DESCRIPTION


OF THE


STUDY


Introduction


Professional


preparation


for individuals


seeking


a career


student


among


affairs


professional


administration


associations,


been


faculty


a subject


trainers,


much


student


concern


affairs


practitioners.


Traditionally


was


assumed


that


people


became


personnel administrators


came


from


the teaching


ranks


(Hill and


Green,


1960)


training.


Counseling


Recent


was


studies


primary


on the issue


not only,


component


preparation


have


of formal

concluded


that


professional,


administration


was


academic

critically


preparation


important


student


career


personnel


student


affairs


1977


field

Miller


(Rhatigan,


1968;


Carpenter,


Newton

1980;


Richardson


Delworth


, 1976;

Hanson,


Minetti,


1980


Stamatakos,


1980)


need


been


acknowledged


broad-based


foundation


of academic


preparation


in particular


core


areas


including


study


psychology,


culture


change;


philosophy,


nance,


planning


curriculum


higher


education:


counselling;


ethics;


a supervised


work


experience


(Trueblood


, 1966,


82-83


as cited in


Minetti,


1977


n~~~~~~~ r a A I-.. -----


i' i..


_I.. _I!


*r I


P










population.


demand


for graduates


of student


affairs


preparation


programs


was


greater


than


supply


produced


relatively


preparation


programs.


response


demand


for trained,


stu-


dent


affairs


professionals,


number


preparation


programs


ex-


panded


during


the 1960's


early


1970


Preparation


profession


derives


from


an operational


field,


for which


there


a taxonomically


ordered


set of roles


functions


be performed,


which


through


is appropriately


the utilization


grounded


a substantive


in theory


knowledge


philosophy.


base


Selection


a matter


of identification


of individuals


presumed


to be capable


mastering


such


knowledge


in order


to perform


specific


roles


within


existing


operational


field


(Dewey,


1977).


Designing


educational


programs


which


result


students'


possessing


requisite


knowledge


skills


is the charge


of the


person


engaged


in the preparation


of student


affairs


professionals.


Educators


of professionals


field


must


help


students


understand


appre-


ciate


current


state


practice


gain


perspective


future


development


(Knock,


1977).


Although


the need


for professional


preparation


been


recognized


accepted


area


of student


affairs,


what


constitutes


quality


preparation


field


matter where questions


can


be raised


(Knock,


1977).


Delworth


Hanson


(1980)


have


identified


major,


interrelat-


components


which


they


view


as fixed,


essential,


core


categories


student


affairs


profession.


They


believed


that


history


, 1 1


. 1 -- -A


rl-


~~1~1~


A I


-~~~ p --^-


f


k I










Professional


preparation


the master's


level


must


provide


back-


ground


or history,


philosophy,


theory


in building


foundations


effective


professional


education


a broad


context


(Trueblood,


1966;


O'Banion,


1969;


Delworth


Hanson,


1980).


Such


preparation


must


provide


opportunity


competencies


acquisition


necessary


effective


application


functioning


of skills


time,


professional


student


affairs


positions


(Domeier,


1977,


Minetti,


1977


Delworth


Hanson,


1980;


Stamatakos,


1981).


These


opportunities


generally


provided


through


practicums,


internships,


assistantships.


A model


core


curriculum


master


degree,


entry


level


student


affairs


practitioners


was


developed


Delworth


Hanson


(1980).


This


core


curriculum


was


developed


consideration


the need


reexamine


the variety


of roles


student


affairs


professionals


assume


allow


introduction


new


ideas,


concepts,


models


practice.


Such


a curriculum


would


permit


a continuous


evolution


consistent


with


changing


needs


profession


current


models


practice.


Delworth


Hanson' s


curriculum


components


included


models


following


practice


history


orientation,


philosophy,


core


theory,


competencies,


specialized


competencies,


administration


management,


practicum


or field


work,


additional


theory


courses.


Council


Student


Personnel


Administrators


(COSPA)


iden-


tified


purpose


of professional


preparation


the following


state-


-I nfIL


are










They


must


be able


use


competencies


assessment,


goal setting,
implementing


change
roles o


processes
Sconsultan


as appropriate in
t, administrator,


and
group


instructor
s. and or


relationships


ganizations.


(Cooper


with individuals,
, 1972, p. 6)


acquisition


professional


competencies


underscores


importance


of preparation


programs.


Such


programs,


through


their


course


work


field


experience,


have


sought


provide


graduate


students


with


the competencies


necessary


to function


adequately


in the


field.


Purpose


primary


professional


tration


purpose


preparation


educated


study


programs


development


was


to determine


stu dent


entry


personnel


level


whether


adminis-


professional


competencies.


Perceptions of


three


groups


of professionals in


the field


student


affairs


were


compared


determine


whether


differences


existed


in their


perception


training


graduates


with


master' s


degrees


received


in their


preparation


programs


for the


entry


level


competencies.


perceptions


three


groups


were


compared


determine


differences


relative


importance


competencies


assuming


entry


level


professional


position


student


affairs.


Questions


for Investigation


This


study


was


designed


answer


the following


questions:


recent


student


graduates


personnel


master's


administration


leve.


enter


I preparation
the field of s


programs


;tu dent


affairs


wri'h


trsnin an


on rir


1 p~r~m


rnmn i on anni a c


J p


rocrll+


+loF


f


%


* Ir










student


personnel


administration


receive


for the identified


entry


level


competencies?


Is it important


personnel


for recent


preparation


prior to


master' s


programs


time


entry


degree


to have


into


graduates


acquired


the student


from


these
affairs


student


competen-
field?


Do CSAOs,
importance of


DOHs, and
these entry


have


level


similar


perceptions


competencies?


Justification


the Study


need


competently


trained


staff


been


a concern


student


personnel


profe


ssionals


over


thirty


years.


LaBarre


(1948)


observed


that


despite


increased


needs


personnel


workers


assurances


trained


could


persons


be given


unless


that


some


the work


measures


would


their


be done


proficiency


competently


were


signed


meet


minimum


qualifications.


LaBarre


indicated


that


there


was


a need


basic


work


standards


field.


called


professional


student


personnel


associations


to undertake


research


study


to establish


minimum


performance


standards


on a national


scale.


believed


preparation


programs


offered


the logical


place


to identify


criteria


upon


which


professional


standards


might


be based.


literature


excellence


of the field


professional


identified


preparation


concern


programs.


for quality


study


professional


preparation


college


student


personnel


administrators


observed


that


professional preparation


assumed


increased importance


a function


of trends


toward


professionalization


increased


demands


from


another

(1&'79'


professionally


study


I;Aani-4^ flnAf Ir


trained


workers


*eparation p:

a~ amL nanA^ an^^k +^h e^^ ^h ^^ ^t_


(Hoyt


programs


r%1*


-r'(i


Rhatigan,


student p

Q4-... A^^*


1968).


personnel ,
flasnnwn a


Rockey










resources,


a well-conceived


curriculum,


opportunity


for practical


work


experiences.


more


student


recent


affairs


study


officers


sought


(CSAOs)


determine


about


the attitudes


quality


chief


professional


preparation


programs


(Sandeen,


1982).


results


indicated


that


although


graduate


training


in student


personnel


work


was


found


to be


considerable


importance,


only


three


percent


CSAOs


study


rated


overall


program


quality


as excellent


only


six percent


rated


faculty


excellent.


Sandeen's


(1982)


study


identified


major


problems


much


with


oriented


current


toward


preparation


counseling


programs:


quality


programs


students


uneven;


lack


and the lack

respect when


of academic


they


rigor


are compared


some


to other


programs

graduate


generates a

programs.


Canon


(1982)


noted


that


marginal


students


coexisted


with


those


generally


conceded


to be of


high


quality


concluded


that


student


affairs


divisions


reflected


these


extremes


in both


the quality


effectiveness of


their programs


services.


Issues


standards,


quality,


excellence


have


been


significant


that


they


represented


outcomes


which


most


professionals


believed


the field


of student


affairs


needed in


the preparation


of those about


enter


the field.


Penn


(1973)


described


the key


to excellence


terms


quality


adequate


programs


learning


related


resources,


appropriate


defined


curriculum


standards


offerings,


acceptable


performance.


He urged


the development


of curriculum


guidelines


are


--













closer


recognition


student


personnel


administration


"profession.


performances


indicated


competencies


need


for graduates


generally


standards


of preparation


programs.


Penn


(1973)


supported


viewpoint


observing


that


professional


competence


in the field


student


affairs was


related


to knowledge and


specific


skills


learned in


preparation


programs.


Curriculum


guidelines


have


been


addressed


American


College


Personnel


Associations


Many


ACPA's

Personnel


Association


(COSPA),


programs


Directory


provided


(ACPA),


others


listed


Graduate

course


Council


(O'Banion,


most


Preparation


offerings


Student


1966;


recent


Programs


well


Rhatig an,


issue


Personnel


1965).


(1980)


in College


other


Student


developmental


experiences


consistent


with


curricular


recommendations.


To date,


credentials


or standards


are required


states


, regional


accrediting


agencies,


or professional


associations


entry


into


the field


stu-


dent


affairs.


Rhatigan


(1968)


noted


that


the issue


of professional


preparation


was


extremely


complex.


Such


complexity


was


to multiple


areas


specialization,


many


levels of


training,


different


sizes


types of


institutions


to be served.


In his study


of professional


preparation


concluded


there


was


an urgent


need


for research


that


related


training


experiences


examination


to professional


skills


effectiveness.


, attitudes,


Such


knowledge


research


that


must


effective


involve


adminis-


trators p


possess


(Rhatigan,


1968).









(Domeier,


1977


Minetti,


1977


Hanson,


Note


have


provided


means


which


productivity


graduate


training


programs


student


personnel


can


be measured.


In the development


a program


evaluating


outcomes


educational


program,


certain


basic


sumptions


must


be considered:


The
whick


kinds
i the


changes


program


in behavior


seeks


to bring


patterns
about a


in human


beings


re its educational


objectives.


An educational
the objectives


program
of the pr


is appraised


ograms


are actually


finding
y being


out how
realized.


Previous


studies


have


indicated


that


the acquisition


of profession-


competencies


represents


a primary


objective


preparation


programs


(Williamson,


1952;


Newton


Hellenga,


1974).


study


administrators


recommended


that


examined


specified


examination


training g


competency


the purposes


tasks,


quality


student


Domeier


of student


affairs


(1977)


affairs


training


programs


in relation


to specified


competencies.


indicated


that,


with


some


modification,


questionnaire


could


be utilized


as an


assessment


instrument


a guide


competency


development


student


affairs


preparation


programs.


similar


study


Minetti


(1977)

training


sought

and


determine


assistantship


relationship


experiences


between


preparation


academic


programs


identifying


locus


preparation


entry


level


competencies


necessary


work


in the field


of student


affairs.


He indicated


that


study


addressed


"should


ideal


professional


preparation


156).


He recommended


further


study


to investigate


as-










Stamatakos


(1981)


extensive


examination


professional


preparation,


done


part


a review


student


affairs


progress


toward professionalism


, identified


critical


concerns.


quality


programs
lacking i


A review of
glaring lack
learned and


of students


inconceivably


a reasonable


existing


admitted


broad,


standards


preparation


specificity


the skills


to professional


loose,
201).


program


regarding


students


are expected


preparation


inconsistent,


literature reveals
2 knowledge to I


acquire


202).


Within
grams


and
there


emphasis or


between


little


duration


actual


proposed


to consistency
202).


preparation


nature,


pro-


content


In general,
program of
be assured


prepared
lar to job
potential ;
mobility


after


study
that


> carry
entry


students


in a typical
they will be


out the
positions


depth
203).


have


successfully


program,
adequately


variety
or that


completed


the profession c;
y or reasonably


of responsibilities


they


of understandings


have


necessal


annot
well


particu-


the leadership
ry for upward


If it is


determined


sense


that


truly


some preparation


prepanng


student


programs
affairs p


are not in
professionals


are bootlegging
or educational


them


through


psychology


counsel


programs,


lor, pupil
should su


person-


ch


insti-


tutions


professional


programs


Extensive


listed


preparation


with


review


a sense of


of the


association
programs?
undeserve


literature


sponsored


Such


directories


listings


legitimacy


on professional


do provide
p. 203).


preparation


Stamatakos


(1981)


conclude


that


there


published


research


evidence


to support


the notion


that


those


hired


for student


affairs


positions


, do,


in fact,


possess


the general skills


competencies


that


characterize


positions


sought


filled


professional


preparation


programs


educate


specifically


adequately


development


agreed


upon


skills


competencies


(Brown,


1972;


Council


of Student







-10-


specific


recommendations


of Domeier,


Minetti,


Rhatig an;


supported


the conclusions


of Stamatakos,


have


led this


researcher


pursue


the study


of professional


competencies


entry


level


pro-


fessionals in


manner


outlined in


purpose


statement.


Conceptual Framework


Professional


preparation


purpose


training


development


student


affairs


professionals,


equipping


them


with


expertise


the integrated


development


college


students.


Profes-


sionally


prepared


student


affairs


staff


must


share


a common


concern


for the


these


nature


institutions


effectiveness


affect


are


of institutions


affected


of higher


students


education


(Delworth


Hanson,


1980).


Professional


training


should


enable


student


affairs


staff


assume


a variety


of roles


including


consultant


, administrator,


counselor,


instructor,


researcher


(Cooper,


1972;


Delworth,


Hanson,


1980).


Preparation


programs


prepare


persons


competencies


categories


such


assessment,


goal


setting,


change


processes to effectively implement


the afore


named


roles


literature


preparation


work


field


student


affairs


reflects


concern


many


professionals


about


lack


quality


scope


training


(Knott,


should


1977).


placed


According


upon


one


practical


study,


the emphasis


acquisition


skills


(Newton


broader


Richardson,


set of


1976).


competencies


There


student


an increased


affairs


emphasis


professionals.


on a


Knott


/ I nnr,\


. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, L.2 :- ---- --- --- A.l


use


,I


~1


_


-


1






-11-


many


graduate


training


programs


require


some


revamping


in order


to become


solid


programs


preparing


generalists


with


these


compe-


tencies.


Miller


Carpenter


(1980)


believed


that


optimal


professional


preparation


combines


a mastery


a body


of knowledge


a cluster


skills


competencies


within


context


of personal


development.


They


noted


that


professional


credibility


excellence


of practice were


directly


dependent


upon


the quality


of professional


preparation


(1980).


They


postulated


that


there


were


identifiable


skills


competencies


essential


to the growth


of student


affairs


professionals,


the learning


which


could


be systematically


facilitat


through


programs


of profes-


sional preparation.


number


support


models


the development


philosophies


of quality


have


professional


been


preparation


advanced


(Spooner,


1979;


Rentz,


1976;


Meabon


, Bailey,


Witten,


1975;


Dewey,


1977).


A thorough

modification


review


the literature


of the Tomorrow' s


Higher


led the researcher


Education


model


to select


as the conceptu-


al framework


Tomorrow' s


for this


Higher


study.


Education,


T.H.E.,


was


acronym


coined


which


American


stands


College


Personnel


Association


(ACPA)


1968


purpose


of developing


strategy


(Miller


for examining


Prince,


1976).


future


college


essence


student


T.H.E.


personnel


project


work


was


reconceptualize

the fundamental


through


systematic


conceptions


about


review,


reconstruction,


the specific


roles,


functions


change,

. meth-


nfl"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~k~~~r nrr 1iaanr -aa ii un rnannnt+ -


~n rl


nm~E3~11rfl~


(I~~tlra


na*ann n nt


nr4 ~~4 m


rnn






-12-


based


staffing


approach


toward


competency-based


approach


(American


College


Personnel


Association


, 1975).


T.H.E.


model


extended


ideas


advanced


American


Council


Education


Student


Personnel


Point


of View


(1937,


1949).


This


statement


identified


the commitment


of the profession


services


to and


development


the "whole


student.


This


commitment


was


based


recognition


needed


competencies


student


affairs


staff


service


agents


, control


agents,


developmental


educators.


Council


Student


Personnel


Associations


Higher


Education


advanced


essentially


same


philosophy


their


work


Student


Development


Point


of of


View


of Education


(1970).


T.H.E.


eclectic


emphasizes


that


student


stresses


development.


a combination


theoretical


cognitive


base


affective


development.


incorporates


competency


categories


develop-


ment:


Goal-Settin


esire


tives)
provide


that


--the
then
guide


evidence


process
defining 1
the steps


stating
more


specific


in achieving


of accomplishment


general
results


the goals


(Miller


Prince,


outcome
(objec-
nd that


1976,


Assessment--the
and organizations


variety


sources


process


through


systematically


describe,


which


acquire


appraise,


students,


I use
and


data:
modify


groups,


from a
their


own


development


Instruction--a


knowledge


to integrate affec
tion of individual


change s
practice


:tive


learning


strategyy wh
applying
id cognitive


styles


ich
vhat


seeks


to provide


is learned.


learning
d needs.


both


It seeks


through recogni-


Consultation--the


with


activity


another


4. ~ ,, 1. a -nf


pers


St fl I-


process


;on, group, o


which


one


r agency in c
4.1 t .4 -- -


person
order to


engage:
S







-13-


Environmental


Management--a


positive,


collaborative


effort


all
mizE


community


their


living


member
g and


organize


learning


their


resources


maxI-


experiences.


Evaluation--a


continuous


process


delineating,


obtaining,


and
choice


providing info:
es (Stufflebeam,


rmation
1971).


with


which


judge


various


Delworth


Hanson


(1980)


identified


four


critical


basic


compe-


tency


areas:


assessment


evaluation,


teaching


or training,


consultation,


counseling.


These


areas


were


consistent


with


components


of T.H


ACPA


taxonomy


purpose


sponsored


competencies


of the project


project


using


was


T.H.E.


review


, Hanson


(Note


a conceptual


developed


framework.


the competency-based


educa-


movement


to determine


its potential


application


to professional


preparation


programs


student


personnel


work.


Han son


developed


195 competencies


of which


only


twenty


were


rated


a panel


perts


in the field


of student


personnel


work


as lower


than


very


impor-


tant.


purpose


study,


the researcher


selected


T.H.E.


purpose


model


a conceptual


of the study


is to


framework


examine


with


the training


minor


revision.


graduates


receive


entry


level


professional


competencies.


Consistent


with


recommen-


dation


Knott


(1977)


category


communication


been


substituted


instruction


in the original


T.H.E.


format.


Assessment


evaluation


Delworth


have

Hanson


been


combined


(1980)


model.


as one

The


category coi

competencies


insistent


use


with


in this


O+~ ~ Vt -nfl ~afln .1 ar..4.. a A 4- a nfl ~ a d. L


UlI -n n I


/NTa.n


ex-


1.


1


e


,~,,


n


F,,~


rirtn


I 1







-14-


communication,


assessment


evaluation,


environmental


orga-


nizational


management.


Assumptions


This


study


assumed


that


perceptions


respondents


completing


instrument


were


honestly


accurately


given.


professional


competencies


identified


from


literature


reflected


actual,


expe


cted


competencies


entry


level


student


affairs staff.


Respondents


a knowledge


background


of the


competencies


needed


staff hired


for entry


level


positions in


student


affairs.


Respondents


a knowledge


competencies


taught


preparation


programs in


student


personnel.


Limitations


This


study


was


limited


to the examination


entry


level


profes-


sional


competencies


because


this investigator


believed


they


repre-


sented


most


immediate


measurable


product


a master's


q*


-. S


LA- _


I ^ -


.f






-15-


Findings


were


limited


to measurements


competencies


perceived


practitioners


faculty


trainers.


results


can


gener-


alized


to preparation


programs


generally


as all


programs


listed


the ACPA


directory were


surveyed.


Results


cannot


populations


tencies


generalized


used


held


study.


recent


beyond


Their


graduates


specific


perceptions


practitioner


compe-


importance


those


competencies


cannot


be generalized


to the total


practitioner


popu-


lation


in student


affairs.


This


study


was


limited


perception


practitioners


faculty

bachelor


affairs


trainers


degree.


practitioner


four


year


result


population


institutions,


cannot


employed


awarding


be generalized


at community


least


a student


colleges


proprietary institutions.


Definitions


Student personnel--work


concerned


students


with


both


in primarily


services


which


within


a post


the education


non


classroom


support


secondary
nal and


education institution


personal


activities
compliment


development of
the administra-


the formal academic


process.


Student


affairs--the
Concerned


division
with th


within


a post


.e provision


secondary
services


education


institu-


programs


students


which


complement


supplement


the academic


mission


higher


education institutions.


(Domeier,


1977







-16-


Practitioners--professional


student


personnel


administrators,


educators


in a division


counselors,


engaged in
of student


program


time


affairs.


facilitators,


employment in
They may be
* consultants.


(Minetti,


1977


Chief


student affairs officer--the


who
of th
sion.


is immediately
le programs,


responsib
staff, and


college or university
le for the direction


services


the student


administrator


coordination


affairs


divi-


Director of


Housing--the


immediately
programs,
housing de
Division of


response
staff, an


apartment
Student


college or university
ble for the direction


services


is one
Affairs.


administrator who is


of the housing
the departments


coordination
department.


that


comprn


of the
The
se the


Entry


level


competencies--abilities,


skills,


knowledge,


and activities


which


permit


professional


an individual


position


stu


to carry out
dent affairs


expectations
a minimally


in a first
acceptable


manner.


Faculty


trainers--professional


ment


as faculty,


educators


teaching


engaged in


advising


graduate


11 time en
students


nploy-
enrolled


in preparation


programs in


student personnel administration.


Professional


aration--the
competencies


in the student


generally
degree


acquired


awarding


acquisition
necessary


affairs
within


program


profession.


of background,


assuming
Such ni


context


a graduate


knowledge,


a full


time


reparation


a formal,
institution


p051-


is most


academic,
)f higher


education.


Overview


of the Study


Chapter


study


. presented

, conceptual


introduction,


framework,


purpose


assumptions,


justification


limitations,


definitions.


Relevant


literature


research


pertaining


to the profes-


of student


Chapter


described


study


are


personnel and


professional


methodology


Chapter


presented


design


data


Chapter


preparation


used


collected


are presented in


study


are


analyzed


discussion


results,
















CHAPTER


REVIEW


OF THE


LITERATURE


This


chapter


provide


overview


literature


pertains


to professional


preparation


for student


affairs


administration.


Three

emerging


general

g profe


areas

ssion,


reviewed:


development


student


student


personnel


personnel


preparation


programs


development


competencies


student


affairs


pro-


fessionals.


Student


Personnel


as an Emerging


Profession


Historical


Role in


Higher


Education


development


student


personnel


work


been


well


docu-


mented


in the literature


(Leonard,


1956;


Cowley


, 1949;


Mueller,


1961;


Ayers,


Tripp,


Russel


, 1966;


Shaffer


Martinson,


1966;


Apple-


ton,


Briggs,


Rhatigan,


1978)


Dating


back


founding


Harvard


College


1636


a similar


theme


was


observed;


higher


educa-


was


privately


Until


about


controlled


1862


maintained


presidents


a strong


faculty


religious


engaged


empha-


exag-


gerated


type


of student


services,


concerning


themselves


primarily


with


deportment


students


assuring


pious


attitudes


A~l~aanra innirifaEo rn+ n ea'rd ent -ja .,nA ne


~i ii rr Lln r a


nllr arri~c!


n rac a; n n


nna~


car~n na


T^T~ a






-18-


construction


of dormitories


was


supervise


the lives


studies


students.


Discipline


was


primary


reason


staff


interaction


with


students


outside


confines


classroom.


Generally,


emphasis


was


on control


with


the president


the faculty


acting


the role


of guardians


to provide


direction


the students,


often


the form


sanctions


for unacceptable


behavior.


Explosive


enrollments


spurred


Land


Grant


1862


brought


about


an abrupt


change


in emphasis


in higher


education


with


a need


to deal


with


large


numbers


of heterogeneous


students


(Shaffer


Martinson,


1966).


These


developments


brought


with


them


a different


set of student


needs


that


required


staff


attention


more


diverse


ways.


appointments


of the first


deans


women


men


around


turn


century


signaled


emergency


student


personnel


work.


Appleton


, Briggs,


Rhatigan


(1978)


identified


factors which


contributed


to the origins


of student


personnel


work:


The d
public


Development
colleges a]


land


grant


institutions


the rise


universities.


Increasing
geneity


enrollments


accompanying


increase


in hetero-


of student populations.


Social,


political,


and intellectual


ferment in


the nation.


Rise


of coeducation


increase


in numbers


women


enter-


institutions.


Introduction


of elective


systems in


higher


education.


Emphasis c

Impact of


vocationalism


science and


over


the scient


traditional liberal arts.

:ific method.


Emerging


signs


fundamental


struggle


between


empiricism


flfl A hiirnnnicn,


"g






-19-


view


of higher


education


as a


social


status


phenomenon.


Establishment

Impact of libel


a true


university


iral immigration


laws in


system.

U.S.


Changing


roles of


students in


higher


education.


needs


of individual


students


were


identified


primary


focus


student


personnel


staff.


building


a sound


student


personnel


program


called


dedication


both


administration


faculty


a philosophy


based


needs


individual


student


Student


(Blaesser,


Personnel


1945)


Point


Such


View "


a philosophy


was


according


grounded


"The


support


higher


education's


basic


purposes:


the preservation


, transmission,


enrichment


culture--the


product


scholarship,


research,


human


experience


(American


Council


Education,


1937).


task


was


assist


student


developing


limits


his/her


potential.


order


this,


institution


consider


student


awareness


a "whole


student


of the significance


student


personnel


from


was


both


express


individual


group


perspectives.


work


became


an individualized


application


research


clinical


findings


psychology,


sociology,


anthropology,


a college


education


environment


to the task


(American


of aiding


Council


students


Education,


to develop


1949).


Cowley


(1964)


observed


the three


functions


of higher


education


to be


core,


complementary,


continuity.


concluded


that


student


personnel


work


was


complementary


that


mission


was


nrnvi siin


of nnnarmuiernmr n-rnornm


cPru1 riS


fnrirqidn






-20-


Definitions


Criteria


for a Profession


issue


of what


constitutes


a profession


been


examined


discussed


throughout


literature


higher


education.


Characteristics


a profession


have


been


identified,


definitions


have


been


provided,


criteria


have


been


produced.


Among


the criteria


which


characterized


profession


were


development


special


discipline,


development


special


training


programs,


delineation


specific


areas


operation,


a strong,


central


organization


which


standards


professional


membership,


established


(Feder,


a code


1948).


of ethics,


term


policed


"professional"


the activities


generally


of practitioners


referred


individual


who performed


tasks


that


were of


more


than


usual


difficulty,


required


a long


period


of preparation


education,


resulting


attainment


higher


degree


skill


knowledge


(John son,


1959).


Flexner


(1915)


observed


that


a person


was


a professional


he/she


indicated


devoted


that


his/her


such


entire


activities


time


a particular


to be intellectual


activity.


in nature


have


a definite

distinguishing


purpose.


mark


Lloyd-Jones


profession


(1949)


was


remarked


"the


that


possession


intellectual


technique


acquired


ecial


training


which


could


applied


some


sphere


everyday


life"


260).


good


deal


emphasis


was


placed


upon


acquisition


special


knowledge


special


training


American


Personnel


Guidance


Association


(AGPA)


+Aa+ mt-rlrc nif r


n rn Srr c c; an


sc


rlal; nal~a~






-21-


This


body


derived


specialized


through


knowledge,


scientific inquiry


skills, an
scholarly


I attitudes
learning.


This


body


acquired
graduate
continuou


specialized


through
level, i


knowledge,


professional


n a college


in-service


skills,


preparation,


or university


training


attitudes


preferably


as well


personal


gri


on the


as through
owth after


completion


of formal


education.


This


body


constantly


if specialized
tested and


knowledge
extended


, skills,
through


attitudes


research


scholarly inquiry.


profession


may,
other


indeed


a literature


must,


draw


portions


even


though


content


from


areas of knowledge.


profession


above


personal


exalts
gain.


service


sesses


individual


a philosophy


and
and


society
a code


of ethics.


profession


members coi
professional
society.


Membership


through


instantly


examines


preparation


in the professional


of the profession


must


voluntary


improves


services


organization


persons


be limited


association of
Sthe quality c
the individual


the practice


meeting


stated


standards of preparation


competency.


profession


membership


as long


affords


as services


life
meet


career


permanent


professional standards.


The public
compensate


recognizes,
the members


confidence


of the profession


is willing


for their


services


(AGPA,


1971,


327-330).


difficulties


identifying


student


personnel


admini-


station as

boundaries


a profession


around


been


the larger


the problem


function


of establishing


of student


personnel


clear


adminis-


tration


(Wrenn


Darley


, 1949).


Lack


of cohesion


coordination


of the separate


personnel


functions


contributed


to the problem


identity


as a profession.


Traditionally


when


a body


of knowledge






-22-


philosophy,


management and


psychology,


sociology,


administration


(Crane,


humanities


1965).


Useem

occupation


skills


(1964)


a professic


is backed


observed

on lies il


a consistent


that


1 the degree


body


difference

to which


theories


between

its cluster


principles.


believed


that


student


personnel


administration


was a


professionalizingg"


occupation


sense


there


was


increasing


attention


theoretical


principles


out of which


should


flow


the skilled


performance.


This


servation


professionalizingg"


occupations


was


observed


Wilensky


(1964)


who


noted


that


label


was


loosely


applied


increasing


special


nation


transferability


skill;


proliferation

arrangements,


objective


licensing


standards


certification;


work;

and


the

the


spread

growth


tenure

service


occupations.


Concern


for the recognition


of student


personnel


administration


a profession


been


widely


expressed


literature


(Cowley,


1936;


Wrenn


Darley,


1949;


American


Council


Education


, 1949;


Lloyd-Jones,


1974


1949;


; Stamatakos,


Feder,

1981).


1959


Wrenn


Mueller,


1959;


Darley


Penny,


have


1969


provided


Penn,


perhaps


best


most


widely


accepted


criteria


determine


whether


student personnel


work


deserves identity


as a profession.


The application


of standards of


selection


training.


definition


of job


titles


functions.


possession


of specialized


knowledge


skills.


5 -- -- -


mrn


f ~


--Y--;~IYI~I


--






-23-


Legal recognition


development of


of the vocation.


a code of ethics.


The performance


of a socially


needed


function


(1949).


In their


study


Wrenn


Darley


concluded


that


student


personnel


work


was


profession


(1949).


eight


criteria


established


measure


professionalism


they


concluded


that


the greatest


barrier


to student


personnel


work


was


the application


of standards


selection


training.


Too many


staff in


student


affairs


were


selected


because


they


were already


employ


ed by


an institution


in some


capacity.


They


observed


problems


with


specific


selection


criteria


unclear


training


expectations


inconsistent


with


demands


work.


Stamatakos


(1981)


used


Wrenn


Darley' s


(1949)


criteria


assess


progress


student


personnel


made


toward


acquiring


identity


as a profession.


Although


he believed


the field


does


qualify,


noted


continued


difficulties


with


selection,


standards


, quality,


competency


of professional


preparation


programs


their


graduates.


He urged


continued


research


examine


whether


the training


received


in preparation


programs


provides


graduates


with


sufficient


skills


competencies


to function


effectively


in the field


of student


affairs.


Professional


Status


professional


needs


student


personnel


work


are


best


represented


attention


competencies


skills


necessary


practitioners


to effectively


deliver


quality


services


programs.


n--fin n~~~~~~n Crirne ei nn ctini~anthi


P~nHr


si~tntsmsntn t


ahnlif


ef3n ~; n n


nl;~hhtl f


r~n


n*nrrn


I






-24-


Among


the primary


needs


identified


Williamson


(1952)


was


establishment


high


standards


selection


professional


competence


increased


recognition


student


personnel


of the need


staff.


more


There


attention


been


to organizational


management


skills,


both


training


application


(Borland


Thomas,


1976;


Appleton,


Briggs,


Rhatigan


, 1978;


McDaniel,


1972).


Cross


(1973)


supported


Brown


(1972)


urging


increased


attention


the integration


student


personnel


function


within


academic


areas.


This


posture


received


stron g


support


from


Crookston


(1972).


status


student


personnel


a profession


varied


according


perceptions


field


addressed


mission


purpose.


Knock


(1977)


observed


lack


progress


toward


achievement


of professional


status


which


been


cited


in the


literature


(Feder,


1959;


Koile,


1966


Shoeben


1967


Ny green,


1968;


Penny,


1972).


further


supported


importance


defining


operational


purposes


then


developing


skills


procedures


fulfilling


such


purposes


(Cowley


, 1964;


Berdie,


1966


Parker


, 1971;


Crookston,


1972


Crookston,


1976;


Miller


Prince,


1976).


Saddlemire


noted


that


student


personnel


practitioners


must


be convinc-


ed of


their


status


as educators


should


display


confidence


in their


legitimacy


in higher


education


as visible


contributors


to the attainment


of the educational


goals


of the institution


(Note


Confusion


about


identity


, role,


purpose


been


-.rn


* *t J13., A i


A~ nnYlrn~


h


r


r


*nA


I Inntnr I I UI


A


/ 1


r






-25-


problems


stemming


from


the nomenclature


of the field


implied


that


withholding


faculty


status


student


personnel


practitioners


relegated


them


to second


class


status


A study


Astmann


(1975)


ascertain


faculty


perceptions


toward


student


personnel


services


found


that


faculty


didn't


fully


accept


colleagues


student


personnel


equals.


Student affairs


was


perceived


as a large


complex


operations


with


vague,


ill-defined


purpose,


being


only


remotely


necessary


to the


realization


institutional


goals


impractical


budget


terms.


According


Prior


(1973)


planlesss


gerry


building"


student


personnel


services


over


several


decades


resulted


in conflicting


illogical


mixtures


functions


responsibilities


202).


result


student


personnel


been


susceptible


variety


misperceptions


its role


false


expectations


of this


competence.


Wrenn


Darley


(1949)


believed


that


the status


of student


personnel


not been


enhanced


because


a lack


of well


accepted


standards


academic


preparation.


field


failed


to notify


higher


education


what


those,


established in


the field,


considered


to be job


function


adequate


qualifications.


been


recommended


that


student


personnel


practitioners


clarify


traditional roles


and aggressively


pursue


new

1975


profes


relationship s


Berry,


sional


with


1976).


training


institutions


More


programs


(Penn,


attention


(Berry,


Manspeaker


should


1976).


directed


professional


Millette,

toward


future


of student


personnel


depends


on present


leadership


training


programs


(Brumfield,


1979).






-26-


Student


Development


literature


offered


evidence


perceived


need


student


personnel


to direct


attention


more


academic


curricular


concerns


(Wise,


1951;


Nash,


Saurman


Sousa,


1975;


Miller


Prince,


1976;


Jones,


1978).


This


need


been


included


as part


overall


move


away


from


emphasis


services


increased


attention


on the development


students.


This


transition


assumed


a prevailing


"service


status"


view


of student


personnel


administration


that


must


move


more


direction


a preventive,


proactive,


collaborative


consistent


with


the student


development


philosophy


Hanson and


Lenning


(1979)


acknowledged


that


student


development


concept


for higher


education


received


strong


historical


support


from


the "Student


Personnel


Point


View "


(American


Council


Education,


1937,


1949)


which


urged


attention


development


"whole"


student.


development


Hanson


focused


more


Lennin g


issues


(1979)


believed


attitude,


that


moral,


student


value


development


assisting


students


acquisition


of developmental


skills.


Brown


(1972)


viewed


a role


change


student


development


staff


diagnosticians,


consultants,


programmers,


instructors,


behavioral


student


scientists,


personnel


and researchers.


historically


Crookston


defined


was


(1976)


believed


longer


that


a viable


concept


that


student


development


should


be used


to describe


more


accurately


underlying


philosophy


the field.


Crookston


(1972)


t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E*~I1\E r.In4-A 4Lt naS --~AaA 4 ,4wr+ '1nl fn n b4


r~19~; nn ak;n


FYlnM


^-A--


,,,~,~


Cn


L I. 1 1.


t






-27-


progress


gain


respect


of students


academic


colleagues


would


have


begin


educate


new


generation


student


development


specialists.


Some


practitioners


field


have


regarded


student


development


thrust


as a passing


phenomenon,


have


now


begun


view it


as a model


to justify


the presence of


student personnel


workers


on campuses


(Humphries,


1977)


Hanson


Lenning


(1979)


observed


that


Carnegie


whole


student


Commission


was


(1973)


realistic;


claimed


that


that


the development


totalism


campus


approach


students


was


inconsistent


with


mission


higher


education.


Student


development


been


hampered


obstacles


deep


rooted


work


habit


routines,


beliefs,


attitudes


perceptions


practitioners


have


been


traditionally


trained


(Stamatakos,


1980)


Others


claimed


that


little


recognition


been


given


that


student


development


must


implemented


areas


where


students


student


have


conduct,


unwilling


contact


registrars


with


office


institution,


, admissions


office


areas


(Trow,


such


1978).


Although


acknowledged


datedness


service


concept,


Rhatigan


(1975)


raised


issue


with


assumption


that


much


more


become


possible


we move


organizationally,


directly


into


the academic


hierarchy.


Rhatigan


(1975)


advocated


a broadening


service


concept


increased


use


classroom


vehicle


as a tool


program


delivery.


Shaffer


(1973)


concluded


that


order


remain


a significant


C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t -,--~. ~ .4 ~r4,An na-ea iC 4~A fifff I


~ bHn nrr ~ n~


F:~lrl


AAn ~W;1tll~~


C, ,,,


:n tr; nl~ nu


mr r


5 a


I






-28-


Development


of Student


Personnel


Preparation


Programs


Background


Training


for student


personnel


administration


prior


to World


II consisted


Many


largely


professionals


experience


in student


received


personnel


on the job


as well


(LaBarre,


as in higher


1948).


education


generally


did not support


the notion


that


profe


ssional


preparation


was


a necessary


prerequisite


entry


into


field


(Turner,


1936;


Hullfish,


1941


Nygreen,


1965)


. Hullfish


(1941)


spoke


in support


the contention


some


that


good


deans


I'


born


not made,


a concept


generally


referred


as the


" chromosome


theory.


Others


supported


the notion


that


a better


background


for a position


in student


personnel


would


be in


an academic


discipline


(Nygreen,


1965).


A study


done


determine


perceptions


chief


student


affairs


administrators


revealed


that


there


was


little


connection


between


a chief


student


affairs


officer


(CSAO)


was


trained


which


CSAO perceived


his/her role


(Up craft,


1971)


A study


to determine if


differences


existed


chief


student


affairs


officers'


perception


student personnel


programs


based


upon


whether


they


were


academically


trained


field


revealed


mixed


results


(Blackburn,


1969).


Academic


preparation


contributed


toward


emphasis


counseling


educational


experience


reform,


contributed


models


emphasis


behavioral


upon


learning


research


Practical


needs


students.


earlier


study


Saddlemire


(1950)


male


student


narcrnn f P1


Im nni Qtrn tr n- 1


nniversitie


showed


mltppp~


S IJ I


A


Z


I1


i


- n


Jif






-29-


held


teaching


appointments.


Only


no academic


rank.


later


study


(1969)


career


patterns


student


personnel


administrators


revealed


that


those


working


student


affairs


graduate


degree


training


guidance,


counseling,


student


personnel.


training


Eighty-six


new


percent


student


of the respondents


personnel


believed


administrators


was


that


formal


great


importance.


Historically


, the first


formal


training


program


began


at Teachers'


College,


Columbia


University


(LaBarre,


1948;


Barry


Wolf,


1957


Lloyd-Jones,


1962;


Klopf,


1963)


in 1913.


Early


concepts


of educational


personnel


work


were


confined


to vocational


guidance.


Parallel


to this


was


the emphasis


on counseling


guidance.


1926


, a prospective


vocational


guidance


worker


could


find


coursework


schools;


neophyte


dean


(Barry


Wolf,


1957).


contributions


training


were


improved


practice,


advanced


theory,


production


trained


workers


promotion


field


of student


personnel.


primary


issues


related


to training


identified


then


relevant


today included


content,


methodology,


selection,


evaluation


(Barry


Wolf,


1957).


Selection


Standards


Wrenn


(1952)


considered 'the


issues


of selection


standards


major


unresolved


problems


preparation


student


personnel


practitioners.


believed


graduate


institutions


should


accept


responsibility


admitting


into


training


programs


only


ii I---~- 2 a n *-1~ ~*. 4k fl. ~ 1 ~4 St. 9,-


;n ~bta


ct, ,,,


'IAt~trl


rrl~ El~nnrl


Lt., L


,,_: 1,,,,


Am A





rl 1_






-30-


graduate

socially


trainees.

sensitive,


was


emotionally


believed


that


matu re,


the best


applicants


intellectually


abl<


should be

e (Wrenn,


1952).


They


must


show


evidence


of sufficient


motivation


toward


roles


function


of the field.


Woolf


Woolf


(1953)


believed


that


the most


important


consideration


in the selection


of trainees


should


the philosophy


attitude


of the candidate.


A study


of the


selection


of students


preparation


in college


student


personnel


work


revealed


inadequacy


existing


instruments


measure


characteristics


believed


to be


related


Success


ful performance


in the field


(Wellman,


1952).


selection


study


(Wellman,


revealed


1955).


a lack


later


valid


study


, objective


preparation


criteria


program


admission


policies indicated


a heavy


emphasis


on predictors


academic


success


as initial


screening


criteria;


standardized


tests,


grade


point


averages,


recommendation


letters


(Gimmestad


Goldsmith,


1973)


issue


of standards


most


recently


been


addressed


within


context


what


should


considered


acceptable


training


preparation


programs


this


training


acceptability


could


measured.


Stamatakos


(1981)


analyzed


Wrenn


Darley 's


(1949)


traditional


criteria


or professionalism.


Stamatakos


examined


standards


of admission


performance


addressing


skills


competencies


student


affairs


professionals


are expected


to have


or actually


possess


at the time


they


enter the


practice


of the profession


. 106).


reviewing


previous s


studies


(Minetti,


1977;


Ostroth,


1979;






-31-


(Brown,


1972;


Council


of Student


Personnel


Associations,


1975;


Newton


Hellenger,


1974;


Newton


Richardson,


1976;


Parker,


1971;


Rentz,


1976),


Stamatakos


(1981)


could


find


evidence


that


employers


consciously


attempt


to determine


if applicants


for positions


actually


possess


the expected


competencies,


those


hired


for student


affairs


positions


possess


the expected


competencies,


professional


preparation


programs


educate


specifically


adequately


development of


agreed


upon


skills


competencies


. 106).


Content


Content


preparation


programs


student


personnel


been


field.


source


of considerable


Initial programs


sought


controversy


to provide


among


strong


professionals


grounding


in the


in counsel-


guidance


as it


was


the belief


that


such


was


the primary


back-


ground


necessary


to adequately


prepare


student


personnel


practition-


(Williamson,


1949;


Wrenn,


1949;


Mueller,


1959;


Parker,


1971).


Parker


(1966)


took


the position


that


education


as a counselor,


based


upon


adequate


philosophy


individual


development


within


guidelines


that


benefit


entire


society


, was


crucial


to adequate


functioning


as an effective


student


personnel


administrator


256)


value


overall


generalist


approach


to preparation


been


acknowledged


supported,


primarily


through


the efforts


of the


professional


associations


(Council


Student


Personnel


Associations,


1965,


1969;


American


Personnel


Guidance


Association,


1971


-~ t. a,


ers


r t


m A


i


..






-32-


responsibility


curriculum


characteristics.


authority,


training


In the first


purposes


experiences,


category


goals,


proposed


emphasis


of responsibility


unique


authority,


Robinson


found


APGA


statement


to be


most


comprehensive;


the second


most


category


comprehensive.


purpose


Robinson


goals,


found


COSPA


general


statement


agreement


was


among


statements


third


category


. 255).


concluded


that


three


statements


represented


general


agreement


on what


ought


to be


included


preparation


programs


recommended


seeking


consensus


on one


statement


for the field.


Such


consensus


was


both


sought


achieved


subsequent


statement


revisions


ACPA


(1967)


COSPA


(1969)


which


reflected


cooperative


agreement


recommended


Robinson


(1966)


Association


statements


addition


other


studies


(Rhatigan


1965;


O'Banion,


1966)


earlier


writing


Williamson


(1952)


supported


the claim


a common


core


of knowledge


that


all student


personnel


staff


should


possess.


O' Banion


(1966,


1969)


devised


curriculum


theory


which


stated


that


"program


is derived


from


purpose


function


experiences


(1969,


that


249)


should


study


common


determine


student


core


personnel


practitioners in


higher


education included


psychology,


counseling


principles

overview


techniques,


of student


personnel


practicum

work in


in student


higher


personnel


education,


work,

study


college


student,


sociology/ anthropology,


higher


A TT I r1 TII tU A i. r t i


--


1 i,..


1


It


It






-33-


Numerous


studies


(Howtz,


1967


Davis,


1956;


William son,


1961;


Rhatigan


, 1965;


Rockey,


1972;


Yates,


1977


Minetti,


1977)


support


value


internship /practicum


experience


a student


personnel


preparation


program.


Howtz


(1967)


a study


determine


internships


contributed


significantly


development


student


personnel


practitioners


found


that


practical


experience


content


courses


should


be concurrent.


More


an increased


recent work


concern


in the content of


emphasis


preparation


on the end


programs


result


revealed


preparation;


competencies


COSPA,


skills


(Cooper,


1971,


have


been


COSPA,


acquired


1974)


Two


statements


incorporated


student


development


philosophy


education


support


preparation


programs


which


were


competency


based.


competency


objectives


were


incorporated


within


roles


administrator,


instructor,


consultant.

preparation


goal


of people


who in


professional

addition to


preparation


having


attained


become


a high level of


development,


skills


collaborate


with


others


their


development.


goal


setting,


They


were


change


to be able


processes


use


competencies of


implementing


assessment,


roles


consultant,


administrator,


instruction


relationship


with


individuals


, groups,


organizations


COSPA


, 1974,


Models


Rodgers


(1977)


identified


four


major


types


preparation


n1.ntfl.~ C in 0+11 Ann+ I I t'rhlln Cohn Cr I


n-cnnrcnal


31


E~ll~ nn~


II


nmn*~me


I I


1 T-


*^






-34-


Preparation


Programs


College


Student


Personnel


(1980)


classified in


one of


Rodgers'


four types.


student


personnel


education


process-outcome


mode


, referred


Sped


Pom,


based


upon


student


development


principles.


synthesized


elements


learner


centered


competency-based


education


(Arner,


Peterson


, Arner,


Hawkins,


Spooner,


1976;


Peterson,


1977;


Spooner,


1979).


Sped


model


was


built


three


components;


substantive


knowledge,


acquisition


skills


techniques,


personal


development


integration


Spooner


(1979)


recognized


that


objective


assessment


tools


were


needed.


benefits


of the model


were


its wide


array


courses


learning


experiences


the emphasis


on training


a person


strengths.


Brown


(1977)


believed


greatest


strength


model


was


breakdown


education


content areas into


the three


aforementioned


components.


Rentz

interrelated


(1976)

cores


proposed


learning


a triadic


model


(classroom,


emphasizing


internship


three


selfhood)


a sharing


task


force


integrating


agent


of learning).


model


was


proposed


as a result


of perceived


weaknesses


in entry


level


employment


positions


, related


responsibilities,


expectation


graduate


students.


Rentz


(1976)


supports


Howtz


(1967)


strong


recommendation


for a field


based


internship


concurrent


with


classroom


work.


Other


models


observed


literature


included


a student


activities


model


(Meabon,


Bailey


, Witten


, 1975),


a cooperation


model


ITT1~ -. -~ ~ -I *gI-' 2 t ~ a tn4 a 1


'n/fl'


In-.-'-.


-.4* -


I ~n-"


can


C,,,,:,l


** q


11~


*


I ll'/ J


k 1






-35-


competencies


consultation,


areas


milieu


goal


management,


setting,


evaluation.


assessment,


Delworth


instruction,


Hanson


(1980)


indicated


that


acquisition


critical


competencies


similar


areas


assessment


evaluation,


instruction,


counseling,


consultation


should


be the


primary


focus of


preparation


programs.


Preparation


Program


Assessments


Cowley


personnel


(1957)


positions


noted


reasons


tendency


having


make


little


appointments


to do with


to key


preparation


such


duties


(Hill


Green,


1960).


Stamatakos


(1981)


made


reference


1200


"crossovers"


entering


over


field


every


year


from


other


faculty


little


positions,


business


or no previous


, industry,


training


the military,


or experience


the clergy;


student


affairs


all with


work.


Upcraft


(1971)


concluded


that


formal


preparation


little


effect


the student affairs


practitioners'


perception


of their work.


present


departments


preparation


counseling


programs


are


guidance,


administered


psychology,


through


educational


psychology

separate


y, higher

program


education,


exists


or educational

interdisciplinar


administration.


nature,


When


involving


course


offerings


from


wide


range


departments


with


direct


affiliation


to counseling


or higher


education


(Greenleaf,


1977).


Cosby


(1965)


perceived


the heavy


emphasis


on counseling


as a source


conflict


administration.


student

A study


affairs


practitioners


Commission


V of the


heavilyy

National


engaged


Association


i miT ca n rnavl


ECliirl nn+


Pae cnn no11


(M CP ~ ~


i++4+ i rac


#'%T


/.J


nT


/^lT






-36-


behavioral


scientists


believed


stu dent


affairs


practitioners


were


very


inadequately


trained


that


they


lacked


a thorough


understanding


the problems


with


which


they


dealt


the effects


of their


work


students


faculty


(Smith,


Note


Peterson


(1977)


offered


a thorough


summary


assessed


criticisms of


student personnel


preparation


programs.


Student personnel
grounded in theory


education


been


sufficiently


and research.


Graduate


programs


have


been


too eclectic.


Quality


programs


is inconsistent.


student


personnel


educators


have


been


trained


for their


roles.


Student
preach.


personnel


educators


practice


what


they


Graduate
residence


students


have


been


used


cheap


labor


(e.g.,


halls).


Ratio of


students


to faculty


is often inexcusable


Quality o
standards.


theses


dissertations


below


minimum


A number of


studies


have


been


done,


assessing


graduate


prepara-


programs


at particular


institutions


(Davis


, 1956;


Broertjes


, 1965;


Bolton,


1974


Marler,


1977).


assessing


opinions


recent


graduates


quality


effectiveness


of these


programs


findings


revealed


general


sfaction


with


programs


with


recom-


mendation


for increased


focu s


experiential


components


(practicums


internships).


general


profile


study


Kuh,


Greenlee,






-37-


A longitudinal


study


of the graduate


assistantship


work


training


experience


highlighted


importance


experiential


learning


preparation


programs


(McGovern


Tinsley,


1976).


Various


trends


preparation


have


been


observed.


There


been


increased


emphasis


training


generalist


rather


than


specialists


(Emmet,


1963).


There


is a trend


away


from


counseling


guidance


courses


as a prerequisite


for student


personnel


work


(Emmet,


1963).


Riker


(1977)


observed


that


professional


preparation


programs


are placing


skill


more


responsibility


attainment


on students


utilizing


faculty


for demonstrating


more


learning


supervisors,


resource


persons.


believed


that


concept


competency-based


curriculum


receives


greater


attention,


carefully


planned


learning


modules


would


replace


content


courses.


Needs / Recommendations


Practicums


components


internships


of preparation


have


programs.


been


Kirkbride


recognized


(1972)


valuable


recommended


that


practicums


offered


formal


training


program,


greater


emphasis


placed


exposure


generalists


than


specialists,


a team


supervisors


rather


than


individuals


utilized


84).


Increased


recognition


was


made


need


analyze


training


content


terms


actual


function


expectations


effort


lessen


disparity


between


training


performance


-'j--- .. ._ -- *'


rnr*\


Ini


r


_ -


i






-38-


Rhatigan,


1978).


There


been


a strong


endorsement


a sharper


focus


on organizational


development


(Blaesser,


1978;


McDaniel,


1972).


A study


Yates


(1977)


of the perceptions


of chief


student


personnel


administrators


coordinates


preparation


programs


regarding


intended


learning


outcomes


of doctoral


programs


supports


this.


Yates


(1977)


found


that


respondents


believe


there


a need


greater


emphasis


development


management


skills


preparation


programs.


Trueblood


(1966)


recommended


that


preparation


programs


open


preparation

preparation


modification

programs

programs


based

select q

develop


upon va

Qualified p

learning


rying

peoplee


training


needs,


for training,


expectations


which


reflect


that

that

the


demands


of professional


positions.


results


a study


Tracey


(1971)


showed


that


a higher


priority


must


given


to the evaluation


of and improvement of existing


preparation


programs.


Professional


Competency


Competency


results


when


individual


exhibits


behavior


that


enables

desirable


im to perform a

manner (Southern


Administration,


1955).


particular

States C


A competency


administrative


cooperative


must


task


Program


be judged


most


Educational


in reference


purpose


and must


be concerned


with


quality


. 45).


group


can


claim


professional


standing


without


explicit


statements


about


what


constitutes


competence


field


*1 I


A.


I- --


1I


Jr1


II


1_- ~.


--






-39-


Developing


basic


competencies


successful


professional


been


seen


purpose


professional


education


(Wolfe,


1980).


Williamson


(1958)


noting


diversity


needed


professional


competencies


as a problem


dimension


of professional


training


indicated


that


the development


competency


in one's


own


specialty


as well


as in


their role


with


working


with


colleagues


(faculty


and staff)


was


critical.


Studies

necessary f


have


or the


been

adequate


done


function


determine


specific


professional


competencies


higher


education


(Lynam,


1970;


competency


Davies,


tasks


used


1970).


student


A study


affairs


Domeier


(1977)


administrators


developed

examined


training


administrators


tasks.


results


indicated


that


student


affairs


administrators


agree


on the applicability


frequency


of using


tasks


their


present


positions.


They


agree


sources


training


they


each


competency


task.


Minetti


(1977)


developed


a list


entry


level


competencies


to determine


whether


locus


preparation


for each


competency


was


formal


student


personnel


preparation


program


an assistantship


Ostroth


(1979)


utilized


Minetti'


s (1977)


competencies


determine


what


criteria


employers


used


evaluating


candidates


seeking


entry


level


positions


student


affairs.


Hanson


(Note


generated


a list of


competencies


using


Delphi


technique


classifying


competencies


according


dimensions


T.H.E.


model


(Miller


Prince,


1976).


study


Newton


Hellenga


(1974)
I .


to determim


appropriate


goals,


A.


objectives,
I 1 .


and~


a direction


..A -1






-40-


move


toward


a competency


based,


module


model


in lieu


more


tradi-


tional


offerings.


Competency


assessment


represented


approach


that


eval-


uates


performances,


judges


ability


, and


measures


what


demonstrated


(Goldsmith,


1979).


New


ways


identifying


measuring


competencies


are


needed


assure


that


ability


perform


competently


is the ultimate


goal.


primary


concern


should


given


to the assessment


evaluation


of professional


performance


outcomes


(Pottinger


, 1979).


Delworth


Yarris


(1978)


observed


that


more


skills


competencies


are required


in the student


services


profession


that


must


be addressed


those


who aspire


as trainers.


Practitioners


preparation


program


faculty


through


direct


long


term


co-sponsorship


the profession's


major


specialty


associations,


need


to conduct


joint


research


to determine


needed


desired skills


competencies


at all


levels


in the profession


(Domeier,


1977).


Once


agreed


through


the medium


of association-sponsored


conferences,


a vigorous


sustained


dissemination


promulgation


campaign


should


be undertaken


to effect


their


acceptance


exercise


hiring


practicing


performance


objectives,


instructional


objectives


in professional


preparation


programs


(Knock,


1979;


as cited


in Stamatakos,


1981).


Chapter


Summary


rrL ir~nS. a- n ..4.4 A S..


S.. nn- -. a.


can


I~~C~:~A~


~t


,t.,,r,,


I PF


*
.


I


m






-41-


preparation


programs,


identification


measurement


competencies identified in


the literature.


next


chapter


describes


the methodology


design


developed


utilized in implementing


study.
















CHAPTER


RESEARCH


DESIGN


AND


METHODOLOGY


This


study


was


designed


determine


student


personnel


professional


preparation


programs


educated


specifically


the devel-


opment


entry


level


competencies.


Three


groups


of professionals


field


perception


student


of the training


affairs


were


graduates


compared


with


master


determine


degrees


their


received


their


preparation


programs


entry


level


competencies


determine


their


perception


the importance


competencies


entry


level


staff.


This


chapter identifies


describes


the following


aspects


of the


study:


research


objectives,


research


populations


, development


of the


instrument,


endorsement


study,


administration


instru-


ment,


treatment


of the data,


a chapter


summary.


Research


Objectives


purpose


of this


study


was


to determine


if student


personnel


professional


preparation


programs


educated


development


entry


level


competencies.


objective


of the study


was


to provide


answers


to the follow-


research


questions:


Do recent


a radiizatesP


*II


ma ~pl


lp'tpl


nrmpnnratir


n nrnor~mQ






-43-


chief


housing (
the trainix
programs
identified


student


DOE


in student


entry


level


affairs
faculty
master'


officers
(FTs) h
degree


personnel


(CSAOs),


rave


graduates


administration


competencies?


important


recent


master


s degree


graduates


from


student


have
into


personnel


acquired
the student


Do CSAOs
importance


administration


these c
affairs


:ompetencies
field?


FTs,


entry


level


have


preparation
prior to f


similar


programs


time


entry


of the


Research


Population


The

chief


research

student


population


affairs


for this


officers


study


(CSAOs)


included


selected


directors


samples

housing


(DOHs)


four


year


public


private


post


secondary


educational


institutions


faculty


(FTs)


employed


institutions


with


depart-


ments


offering


graduate


programs


student


personnel


administration


leading


a Master's


degree.


random


sample


CSAOs


was


selected


from


voting


delegate


directory


the National


Association


Student


Personnel


Administrators


SPA).


hundred


forty-one


DOHs


at institutions


which


house


3000


or more


students


university-operate d


directory


residential


facilities


of College


were


University


selected


Housing


from


Officers


International


(ACUHO-I).


hundred


sixty-two


were


selected


from


Directory


Graduate


Preparation


Programs


College


Student


Personnel


(American


College


Personnel


Association


1980).


No studies


have


been


reported in


the literature which investigated


the nercentions


of both


student


affairs


practitioners


sa. -


faculty


train-


0) and
recent


directors


similar perceptions of


preparation


receive


for the


, DOHs,
of these


competencies?


perceptions


of the Association






-44-


support


notion


that


those


hired


student


affairs


positions


possess


specified


competencies


whether


preparation


programs


have


prepared


their


graduates


with


these


competencies.


These


three


samples


of student


affairs


professionals


were


selected


a number


reasons.


Chief


Student


Affairs


Officers


maintain


overall


student


ultimate


affairs


responsibility


departments.


for the hiring


quality


professional


of the student


staff


affairs


in all


staff


frequently


reflects


level


of involvement


CSAO


with


staff.


CSAO


approves


supports


the expected


minimal


profes-


sional


educational


requirements


for all professional


staff


positions


in the student


affairs


division.


Directors


Housing


were


selected


because


they


represent


student


affairs


department


which


frequently


maintains


a large


number


professional


staff.


Housing


departments,


providing


residence


facilities


3000


students


more


, hire


provide


a larger


number


of professional


staff


than


do housing


department


which


provide


facilities


than


3000


students.


Departments


that


size


more


likely


to maintain


annual


operating


budget,


large


enough


support


a professionally


trained


residence


staff.


study


Ostroth


(1979)


supports


the observation


that,


more entry


level


professional


positions


are


available


housing/residence


department


than


within


the other


departments


of student


affairs.


Faculty


were


selected


primarily


because


they


assume


responsibility


providing


formal


academic


applied


nrenaration ni


graduate n


rocrramsr


student


personnel


work


Their


are


J J


.






-45-


represent


prospective


entry


level


professionals


into


the student


affairs


field.


Development of


the Instrument


Extensive


review


the literature


previous


studies


compe-


tencies


necessary


Richardson,


1976


for student


Minetti,


affairs


1977,


staff


Domeier,


(Yates,


1977


1977


Newton


Ostroth,


1979;


Hanson,


Note


resulted


development


a selected


expected


entry


level


professional


competencies


student


personnel


work.


Tomorrow's


Higher


Education


H.E.)


model


(Miller


Prince


, 1976)


was


used


as the foundation


for a conceptual


framework,


providing


categories


competencies


which


were


identified.


slight


Hanson's


modification


(American


competencies,


model


College


Delworth


was


Personnel

Hanson's


accomplished


Association,

(1980) re


consistent


1977)


with


taxonomy


commendations,


consistent


with


the need


to provide


a framework


adequate


for specific,


entry


level


competencies


Hanson's


(Note


ACPA


sponsored


study


used


T.H.E.


model


identifying


student


affairs


staff


competencies.


Twenty-eight


leaders


in ACPA


responded


a Delphi


survey


which


eventually


Hanson' s


identification


competencies


areas


goal


setting,


assessment,


consultation,


instruction,


milieu


management,


eval-


uation.


garding


Hanson' s


which


study


competencies


requested


were


response


considered


from


most


ACPA


leaders


important


re-


Those


competencies


were


identified


, categorized,


accumulated


- a~ en~ f f toal nwnnrf -t nnt r m 1h


~n ntt~r~ll


frnm


nrk~Fk


Fnmn ~~nn ~~t


~ c~ vnn nmtr


at






-46-


Domeier


(1977)


deductively


generated


58 administrative


competency


tasks


under


the following


categories:


budget


management,


cooperative


relationships,


professional


communication,


development,


leadership,


research


personnel


evaluation,


management,


student


contact.


This


researcher


added


these


competencies


taxonomy


developed


entry


level


competency


deviation.


Competency


tasks


from


Domeier' s


study


, which


overlapped


with


Hanson's


study


were


eliminated.


Minetti


important


(1977)


entry


derived

level


entry


student


level


affairs


competencies


staff.


judged


identified


to be

these


competencies


under


following


categories:


counseling,


human


relations


interpersonal


skills;


theory


practice


of administration


management;


research,


testing,


measurement;


historical,


philosophical,


social


foundations;


meeting


student


needs;


professional


purpose


identity.


This


researcher


added


compe-


tencies


developing


competency


taxonomy,


eliminating


those


competencies


which


were


duplicated in


the other


studies.


competency


taxonomy


developed


the researcher


from


previous


studies


numbered


Overlap


duplication,


evidence


common


themes


enabled


researcher


derive


entry


level


competencies.


With


assistance,


support


approval


of faculty


University


Florida,


entry


level


competencies


were


analyzed;


some


were


eliminated ;


balance


were


categorized


within


the modified


conceptual


framework.


rr


nsa ~!1tnnric 4Ant414c~d frm ts md id nrnl


mn~i f;p~


rnn rpn fll ~1


; rl on ~~ Ci P~


~ s +o nnri o C


I


Inu






-47-


Goal


Setting


Write


behavioral objectives


Identify
students


articulate institution's


goals


policies


Teach


students


the consequences of


their


behavior


Engage in


systematic planning


Consultation


Recognize


use


expertise of others


Facilitate


group


problem


solving


group


decision


making


Facilitate


staff


development


through in-service


training


Work


effectively with


a diversity


individual students and


faculty

Communication


Analyze


write


memos


reports


Make effective
presentations


use of


verbal and


nonverbal


skills in


group


Perceive and


accurately interpret


attitudes,


beliefs,


needs of others


Represent


student


concerns


to other


campus


groups


Recognize and
procedures


define


confidentiality


practices


Determine
secretarial


non


print


usage


services,
media)


office
business


management
machine


procedures


operation,


print


(i.e.
and


IV. Assessment and


Evaluation


Assess


student


needs


Analyze


and interpret program


needs


requests


Design


student


programs


3 based oi


n student 3


needs






-48-


Revise


programs on


the basis of


evaluation


data


Recognize


and analyze


interpersonal


problems


Environmental and


Develop


Organizational


administer


Management


a budget


Organize resources
activities


(people,


material)


carry


out program


Understand institutional mission,


objectives,


expectations


Know


utilize


effective


decision


making


strategies


Accept


authority


and responsibility


delegate


appropriate


Identify


utilize


available


financial resources


Mediate
groups


conflict


among


students,


campus,


and/or


community


Recognize


accept


the ethical


consequences


of personal


professional


behavior


Select,


train,


supervise


staff


Manage


physical resources


facilities


Adjudicate


student


conduct


matters


effectively


instrument


developed


use


including


in this


these


study


competencies


Part


categories


of the instrument


was


requested


common


demographic


information


from


respondents;


age,


highest


earned


degree,


length


of time


in current


position,


length


of time


in the field


student


affairs,


type


institution


where


employed,


institutional


enrollment,


fields)


in which


advanced


degrees


were


earned,


membership


professional


associations.


Those


responding


practitioner


instrument


were


asked


indicate


number


their






-49-


entry


level


staff


earned


a Master'


degree in


a field


related


to student


affairs.


Those


responding


faculty


instrument


were


asked


indicate


many


students


graduated


from


respondent's


academic


program


with


a master' s


degree,


if the respondents


ever


(currently


one


time )


served


administrative


capacity


student affairs,


and if


in what


capacity.


Part


II of the instrument


requested


that


recipients


each sample


respond


each


competency


indicating


recent


master' s


degree


graduates


preparation


programs


in student


personnel


administration


have


possessed


the competency


the importance of


the competen-


for assuming


an entry


level


staff


position.


recipients


instrument


were


asked


to respond


twice


each competency


circling


number


which


best


reflected


their


perception


based


following


key:


Indicate


the extent of your


Indicate


extent


agreement with


statement


the following


each


competency.


which


believe


competency is


assurmng


level


"Recent master's degree graduates
in student personnel administration


possess


each


important
an entry


staff position


competency.


Possession


of Competency


Importance of


the Competency


Disagree
Disagree
Agree (0


strongly (DS)


Not important


(NI)


Of little importance.
Important (I)


Agree


strongly


(AS)


Not important


(NI)


instrument


was


pilot


tested


at the University


of Florida


using


student


department


affairs


administrative


associated


with


staff


preparation


faculty


program


members


student






-50-


Feedback


from


a 100%


return


on the


pilot


enabled


the researcher


make


necessary


revisions


alterations


instrument.


competencies


were


evaluated


to be appropriate


use


in the


study.


a result


of the pilot


test


extensive


evaluation


critique


members


faculty


student


affairs


staff,


face


validity


was


assumed


for the instrument.


Although


have


been


possible


generate


similar


data


means


other


instrumentation


example,


structured


interviews)


three


considerations


qualified


use


instrument:


extensive


nature


of the information


to be gathered


the consequent


data


analysis,


financial


time


constraints,


the need


avoid


possible


bias


subjectivity


part


both


researcher


respondents


(Borg


, Hillway


, 1969


, Macoby


Macoby


, 1954;


as cited in


Domeier


, 1977,


Endorsement


of the Study


That


need


exists


to conduct


additional


research


area


received


strong


support


literature


(Sandeen,


1982;


Stamatakos,


Richardson,


1981


1976;


Domeier


Rhatigan,


1977


1965).


Minetti,


results


1977;


of this


Newton


study


of significant


interest


value


to all professionals


practice


teach


the student


personnel


profession.


results


provide


information


useful


to those


who


plan


develop


preparation


programs


as well


as provide


information


about


the kind


of training


entry


level


professionals


have


received.


letter


endorsement


for the


study


-S..fl -fl -


IT; *


Vs,.0 e4 aan


^-s C+nrlnn+


A Un Ira


ml+ thal TTnriiror-


,~ rr


kr






-51-


obtained


a letter


of support


endorsement


from


Research


Information


Housing


Officers


Committee of the Association

International (ACUHO-I).


of College


Both


endorseme


University

nt letters


expressed


respondents


recognition


to promptly


support


complete


study


return


encouraged


the questionnaire.


ACUHO-I


endorsement


letter


accompanied


only


instruments


sent


to the


sample of


DOHs.


Administration


of the Instrument


Initial


distribution


of the


instrument


was


accomplished


through


mailout.


Each


of the 453 potential


respondents,


representing


CSAOs,


DOHs


, and


FTs,


received


a cover


letter


indicating


purpose


of the


study,


endorsement


letters


appropriate


the respective


sample,


two-part


stationery


questionnaire.


the University


cover


of Florida


letter


was


student


reproduced


affairs


division


on official


in order


to lend


letter

terms


additional


outlined


used


credibility


primary


to the study


(See


purpose


investigation,


Appendix).


study,


requested


defined


that


cover


specific

recipient


complete


return


the questionnaire


via the self


addressed,


prepaid


postage


envelope included


in each


mailout.


cover


letter


requested


return


of the


questionnaire


within


weeks


provided


assurances


confidentiality


in all aspects


of the investigation.


Feedback


received


from


the pilot


enabled


the researcher


to design


an instrument


package


to enhance


recipient


understanding


well


encourage


high


response


rate.


instruments


were


-' q.- ~ -~. A L .. 1.. A C2CTCi1n.. 1 1 e r


~..~tr nYCI Cf


ct,,,,, ,t,


n ~ r un n n n ~


I






-52-


recipients


failed


respond


initial


request


(See


Appendix).


This


request


asked


that


instrument


returned


within


weeks.


Treatment


of the


Data


Responses


obtained


on each


of the


33 competencies


in Part


II of


instrument


yielded


individual


score


each


competency


possession


and importance.


Responses


question


possession


provided


a measure


extent


to which


respondents


in each


sample


perceived


entry


level


staff


to possess


or not possess


each


competency.


Responses


question


on importance


provided


a measure


extent


to which


respondents


in each


sample


perceived


each


compe-


tency


important


or not important


for the assumption


an entry


level


staff position.


Statistical


Analysis


System


(SAS)


computer


program


was


primary


used


in analyzing


the data.


This


program


system


enabled


the researcher


to perform


various


types


data


analysis


relevant


the design


study.


All instruments

appropriate sa


were


simple.


number

The


coded

results


to allow

from


for identification


useable,


with


returned


instruments


were


transferred


on to data


coding


sheets


subsequently


punched


on to IBM


cards.


Procedures were


selected


from


the SAS


program


which


enabled


researcher


answer


research


questions


asked


study.


Tkhkc


i- iiP ctinn C


niP rs


tc fnllnun


r:


J>






-53-


with


training


entry


level


competencies


result


their


training


programs?


CSAOS,


training


recent


student


DOHs,


master' s


personnel


have


degree gradu
administration


similar


Plates
rec


perceptions


of preparation
eive for the


programs
identified


entry


level


competencies?


Is it important
personnel pr
competencies
field?


for recent


separation
prior to


master'


program
full time


Degree
s to
entry i


graduates


have


nto


from


acquired
student


student
these
affairs


Do CSAOs,
importance of


DOHs,
these


have


entry


level


similar


perceptions


competencies?


Frequencies

instrument


procedure

providing


were


applied


percentage


to the questions


responses


each


in Part


item


respondents.


An analysis


variance


for repeated


measures


was


applied


to the


data


from


Part


to provide


measures


central


tendency


for each


respondent


group


on the possession


and importance


variables.


A multivariate


analysis


variance


was


conducted


categories


competencies


each


group


variables


possession


importance


of their


to determine


perceptions


similarity / differences


possession


among


importance


each


three


groups


category


competency.

significance


differences


were


category


observed


competency


level


possession


importance


Duncan


s multiple


range


was


performed


determine


between


what


groups


a significant


difference


existed.


Chapter


Summary


design


methodology


incorporated


the study


been


n..4l~~narl +1-d rpQpnr


nhi ertives .


rpnp~rrh


C~;E


nlr Cl;n a rl






-54-


endorsement of


the study,


administration


of the instrument,


treatment


data.


Chapter


IV presented


a detailed


review


description


of the


data obtained in


study.
















CHAPTER


PRESENTATION


OF THE


DATA


data


presented


chapter


were


collected


from


a re-


search


instrument


professionals;


faculty


administered


(FTs)


three


institutions


groups


offering


student

master's


affairs

degree


programs


student


personnel


administration,


directors


housing


(DOHs)


chief


student


affairs


officers


(CSAOs)


at four year public


private


post


secondary


educational


institutions.


instrument


was


developed


from


extensive


review


literature


including


previous


studies


competencies


determined


to be


necessary


entry


level


student


affairs


staff.


instrument


included


entry


level,


professional


competencies,


organized into


categories.


primary


purpose


study


was


determine


professional


preparation


programs


student


personnel


administration


educated


development


these


competencies.


Specifically,


the study


sought


provide


answers


to the following


questions


for investigation:


Do recent
student
affairs w


graduates


personnel


ith


training


master


administration


in entry


level i
enter


level


)reparation
the field


competencies


programs in
of student


as a result


their preparation


programs?


Do chief
(DOHs)
training


student


affairs


faculty


recent


officers


(FTs)


master's


have


degree


(CSAOs),


similar


graduate
4-4t-4n4--4.4


directors


perceptions
es of nr'


housing


separation


---a -- n na 1 nf tI,..flr


r-


nn


,L.. fl~L


mnnnrrn






-56-


Is it important


personnel


recent


preparation


master's


programs


degree
> have


graduates
acquired


from
these


student
compe-


tencies prior to full


time


entry


into


the student


affairs


field?


CSAOs,


DOHs,


have


similar


perceptions


importance of these entry


level


competencies?


Of the 453 CSAOs,


DOHs


, and


were


mailed


a copy


instrument,


useable


instruments


were


returned


A break-


down


the rate of


return


indicated


that


91 of


150 (60.67%)


CSAOs,


of 141


(66.67%)


DOHs


75 of


(46.30%)


of FTs representing


of the 81 preparation


programs


returned


usable instruments.


data


included


chapter


are presented


to address


four


questions


for investigation


in this


study


be organized


to the following


sections:


demographic


profile


of respondents;


data


on possession


tencies;


statistical


competencies;


comparisons


data


among


on importance


groups;


compe-


a chapter


summary


copy


of the research


instrument


appears in


Appendix


Demographic


Profile of


Respondents


summary


demographic


information


respondents


three


groups


is provided


in Table


Total


respondents


to the study


were


including


DOHs,


CSAOs.


Responses


the item


pertaining


to institutional


type


revealed


that


the majority


all respondents


are currently


employed


at public


institutions.


There


were


some


differences


item


between


groups.


over-


n'a i4 W~4-'.. ., (o *9 Is flcnf fflIla I l~I I l7~O n flntnr


lan


pmn~ntrPrl


nn FT e


,,, ~nlrvr; nn


M~;nr;~~*


I


Iin


I A "^k I


'- Tn n







-57-


C,
z
-4
CO

C


C
Cl)

C
H
U
rz~
-4


to








-58-


O o







































































































C
V C
'-4
0 1-~
*9.4 C
rz. u
S V


..






-60-


population


in this


study


reported


much


variation


in the size


respective


employing


institutions.


clear


majority


pop-


ulation

meant a


worked


Although,


enrollments


ove


a particular


the largest

r 20,000


number


students.


institution


31.9%)


Again


with


worked

, there


respect


to enroll-


in institutions


were


with


differences


among


groups


with


respect


to enrollment


at employing


institutions.


majority


reported


employment


institutions


with


over


20,000


enrolled


students.


More


DOHs


.2%)


worked


large


institutions


over


20,000


students,


their


numbers


were


more


equally


spread


among


the other


size


ranges


with


the exception


under


5000


category.


No DOHs


reported


employment


in institutions


that


size


not surprising


given


the fact


that


all DOHs


in the population


directed


programs


which


housed


3000


more


students


campus.


largest


number


CSAOs


(38.5%)


reported


employment


at institu-


tions with


enrollment


under


5000.


largest


number


of the


total


population


37.8%)


reported


that


they


been


employed


their


current


position


level


for less


than


years.


of FTs


Variations


(33.3%)


among


worked


groups


their


revealed


current


level


that


a large


over


number


years


with


the next


largest


group


of FTs


(29.3%)


reporting


employment


their


current


level


for 11-15


years.


Both


practitioner


groups


differed


with


FTs.


majority


of DOHs


reported


employment at


their


current level


for less


than


years.


greatest


number


CSAOs






-61-


majority


the population


respondents


reported


employ-


ment


student


affairs/higher


education


more


than


years


(49.4%).


This


was


consistent


among


all three


groups


with


the largest


number


of each


group


reporting


such


an employment


commitment


over


years.


largest


portion


the population


reported


their


ages


between


36-45


years


(45.4%).


This


was


consistent


among


each


three


groups


with


largest


percentage


of each


group


reporting


range.


majority


of the population


indicated


that


a doctorate


was


highest


earned


degree


(65.4%).


Some


differences


among


groups reveal-


ed that


reported


the highest


number


of earned


doctorates


(96%)


followed


CSAOs


DOHs


Differences


among


three


group s


were


noted


among


respon-


dents


with


advanced


rees


a field


related


higher


education.


reported


the largest


percentage


of doctorates


(93.3%)


followed


CSAOS


tage


(60.4%)


master


DOHs


degrees


(35.1%)


earned


DOHs


a field


reported


related


the largest


to higher


percen-


education


(75.5%)


followed


CSAOs


(65.9


7%).


respondents


were


asked


to indicate


institution (


where


advanced


degrees were earned.


summary


responses


indicated


that


particular


institutions


were


choice


many


respon-


dents.


Among


the 42 institutions identified


as those


where


earned


master'


degrees,


Teacher' s


College


Columbia


University


- -1 r--. ~1! -i'r -- -


.4


tda n4 C A A


'IA A4CC.,....


rru.


rr


A


m


..-ur


E~






-62-


University


Michigan


State


Ohio


State


, Teacher's


College,


Columbia


Florida


State


University


Iowa


named


most often.


CSAOs identified


51 different institutions


where


group


earned


master's


degrees.


Southern


Illinois


University


, Michigan


State


Syracuse


University


Indiana


University


were


named most often.


CSAOs


identified


different institutions


where


group


reported


earnin g


doctoral


degrees.


Indiana


University


Michigan


State


Ohio


State


, and


Florida


State


were


named


most


often.


DOHs


identified


different


institutions


where


group


reported

Michigan


earning


State


master' s

were th


rees.


e only


Indiana


institutions


University


named


more


(10)

than


DOHs.


DOHs


a group


, reported


smallest


number


having


earned


a doctorate


34).


that


number,


22 institutions


were


identi-


group


degree


granting


institution.


Indiana


University


Michigan


State


were


the only


institutions


named


by more than


DOHs.


Membership


population.


in professional


indicated


associations


Table


was


that


reviewed


largest


for the total


number


respondents


reported


membership


in the National


Association


Student


Personnel


Administrators


(NASPA)


, followed


membership


American


College


Personnel


Association


(ACPA)


9%).


large


number


respondents


(43.5%)


reported


membership


professional


associations


other than


those identified


on the research


instrument.








-63-










4-)
41 in en an i-rn H 0 4
U
I-
41 0. Cl 4 4 N
0.. H H N tfl H (N



C
*~2
cc
C.,
H
cc
C' H 0 H 0~ '.0 0'
__ Z H N H en N (N H H
C

CO
U

C
z
'C C
4)
U 4 4 en en Cl in H
S S S S S S
$4
o 41 en en H H a-. 0
N 04 H Cl


H
z

tz~C


Cl (NI 0 0 '.0 in 4
z Cl Cl 04 H (NI




z
C
H V
0 0 Cl
c
Q o 044
'-4 C '-4
'C CA 43 02 C
0 $4 02
0) 5.4 41
LU 43
I" S.d 5.44)
o 00
I-. tt 43
cc V4) 5... 0)
-4 .3.4 -
4-4 0 '4.4 S..
4)
C.. C
04 en
-4 0 C
U) 4,
v V 0
4) 4) 4) '-4
5.. U $4
Li C
'.4 '-4 U
en
44 4.4 V
4.4 .0 44 .0 4)
0 0 CU 0
~LJ nfl 44 *9, $4
en 0 0)
02 in
U $4 5.. v-4 $4 $4
Si 03.4 '.1






-64-


these


items


are


summarized


Table


Each


group


was


asked


report


fessional


the number


student


affairs


time


staff


since


they


being


hired


employed


a first


their


pro-


current


position


level.


largest


percentages


both


DOHs


CSAOs


reported


hiring


more


than


20 such


staff


(DOH


- 31.9%,


CSAO


- 33.5%).


DOHs


hired


CSAOs


student


were each


affairs


staff


asked


to indicate


earned


many


a master's


degree


these


newly


a field


related


to higher education.


results


revealed


a smaller


percentage


of each


group


hired more


than


20 staff trained in


higher


education


(DOH


- 26%,


CSAO


- 22.4%).


were


asked


respond


three


items


research


strument


specific


their


group


shown. in


Table


that


largest


percentage


of FTs


(76.8%)


reported


that


in the time


they


served


a faculty


member


their


respective


institution,


over


students


received


a master's


degree


from


that


particular


pre-


paration


program.


Most


(57.3%)


were


not currently


serving


administrative


capacity


in either


academic


or student


affairs


many


(50.7%)


have


never


served


administrative


capacity


either


student


or academic


affairs.


Among


those


currently


serve


have


served


administrative


capacity


student


academic


affairs


largest


percentages


reported


service


residence


hall/housing


(41.3%)


, counseling


center


(40%),


dean


students


office


(42.7%)


Data on


Possession


of Competencies


S~r *


i


.







-65-









-66-


'I
C
4)

C)
f-I
5" 0..
a)
.1-I bO
C C
dl






-67-


training


competencies


necessary


function


effectively


entry


level


position


student


affairs.


This


objective


was


stated


research question


one.


recent


student
with tr


graduates


personnel


gaining


master


administration


in entry


level


s level
enter 1


competencies


preparation
e field of s
as result


programs
student aff


thei:


airs


r pre-


paration


programs?


instrument


used


study


contained


competency


items


organize


ed in


conceptual


categories.


Those


categories


were:


Goal


Setting


Consultation

Communication


Assessment


Evaluation


Environmental


Organizational


Management


extent


to which


each


the three


research


groups


perceived


that


recent


master's


graduates


preparation


programs


enter


the field


of student


affairs


with


training


in the


competencies


was


determined


asking


each


group


of participants


assess


the extent


to which


they


perceived


group


recent


graduates


participants


was


to have


asked


possess


assess


d each


competency.


possession


through


Each

their


response


following


statement


each


competency:


"Recent


master' s


degree


graduates


possess


competency.


Each


participant


study


responded


statement


on the following


four-point


scale.


Possession


of the Compe


tency


Agree st


:rongly






-68-


extent


which


each


group


agreed


with


statement


each


category


competency


provided


measure


to determine


the extent


which


each


group


perceived


recent


master' s


graduates


possession


each


of the

category


competencies.


Mean


competency


scores


were


reported


standard

and e


deviations


examined


determine


the extent


which


each


group


agreed


with


possession


competencies


recent


graduates.


Differences


between


groups


regarding


the extent


their


agreement


with


possession


ex-


amined later in


the study


Goal


Setting


Mean


scores


standard


deviations


of faculty


(FTs)


director' s


of housing


(DOHs)


chief


student


affairs


officers


(CSAOs)


for extent


agreement


with


possession


of the competencies


category


goal


setting


are


reported


Table


groups,


the highest


mean


scores


extent


agreement


on possession


were


competency


quences


their


"teach


behavior.


student


lowest


to deal


mean


with


score


conse-


extent


agreement


on possession


was


competency


"write


goals


objectives


(2.867).


lowest


mean


scores


for both


DOHs


532)


CSAOs


(2.648)


were


extent


agreement


on possession


compe-


tency


"engage


in systematic


planning.


Mean


scores


extent


of agreement


with


possession


for the


category


of Goal


Setting


were


than


3.0 for


DOHs


750)


CSAOs


782)


indicating


a tendency


direction


toward


"disagree"


response


range


on possession


competencies


in this


category.


mean


score


for FTs


extent


*


- 'v t. an .%%a~ 4- nnfl a ee 9 rn. ra ,,-+an wr a; t r 2 1 7


12


hF


a a~~; Y n


4 I*YAAm An C


n~~a~ Arvr*


-


n,


nr~, a









-69-


C
o
"-I C
C,
V
Li


*-






-70-


range


on possession


competencies


in his


category.


Standard


devia-


tions


for all


groups on


all competencies


were


than


II Consultation.


Mean


scores


standard


deviations


each


three


groups


extent


agreement


with


possession


compe-


tencies


category


of Consultation


are reported


in Table


groups


highest


mean


scores


were


competency


"recognize


use


expertise


of others.


lowest


mean


score


was


competency


"facilitate


staff


development


through


service


training


competency


No. 6


080).


"facilitat<


DOHs r

e group


reported


lowest


problem solving


mean

group


score


decision-


making"


872)


lowest


CSAO


mean


score


was


competency


, facilitate


staff


development


through


in-service


training"


(2.644).


Mean


scores


for FTs


every


competency


in this


category


the category


itself


303)


were


greater


than


, indicating


tendency in


the direction


toward


the "agree"


response range


or posses-


for this


category


competencies.


Mean


scores


of DOHs


for all


competencies


category


were


than


Mean


scores


DOHs


(2.921)


CSAOs


846)


possession


for the


category


Consultation


were


than


3.0, indicating


a tendency


in the direction


of the


' isare


response


range


category


competencies.


Standard


deviations


for each


respondent


group


were


than


1.0 for


competencies.


III Communication.


Mean


scores


standard


deviations


for each


of the


three


groups


extent


agreement


with


possession


S .4S r -, Sj 1


m I I


1 ,


r 1


11 1






-71-






-72-


U) U)
E-4Lz~


Hor~
0.4

cc~o
%Z4~z4rd

0
~za-4~


U,






-73-


presentations.


DOHs


(2.946)


CSAOs


(3.044)


each


indicated


highest


mean


score


possession


competency


"recognize


define


confidentiality


practices


procedures


All three


groups


reported


lowest


mean


scores


possession


competency


"determining


use


of office


management


procedures.


mean


score


category


Communication


(3.0


was


above


Mean


scores


DOHs


692)


CSAOs


(2.744)


for the category


Communication


were


than


, indicating


a tendency


in the direc-


toward


tencies


the "disagree"


in the this


range


category.


with


Standard


respect


deviations


possession


for each


compe-


respondent


group


were less


than


1.0 for


all competencies in


category.


Assessment


Evaluation.


Mean


scores


standard


devia-


tions


each


three


groups


extent


agreement


with


possession


competencies


category


Assessment


Evaluation


scores


are reported


were


in Table


competency


groups


recognizez e


the highest


analyze


mean


inter-


personal

different


problems.


competency.


Each

Mean


group r

scores


reported

for CS


A


a lowest

Os, were


mean

less


score

than :


every


competency


category.


Mean


scores


each


group


category


eating a

possession


Assessment


tendency


competencies


Evaluation


direction

in this


toward


category.


were


than


"disagree"


Standard


indi-


range


deviations


each


group


were


than


for all competencies in


category.


Environmental


Organizational


Management.


Mean


scores


-------------------- .-. ----A


r


_r_


1_.. 1


L


L--







-74-







-75-


Zn

~Z4O
'Sn- -

HO

0~
<4:


C

z
CI2~

0
~Z2
HH





Ho~


a
o 0.
a
- 0
1)
C,








-76-






H 4 N
IC 0'
0 IC IC
C12 .

0
0
cc
CO
CE,

ON 0 H
H 0 4 N
o IA '.0
I C







4 N- 0'
o '.0 N
O N. IC '0 IC
Ca *



*0


I'- 4 0 H
L.A C
S (N (N CN






H CN 4 0
o 0' '0 H
0 '0 '0 '0 '0
Co



S



(N (fl N
'.0 0 N
IC I~- I-.
I 0 S 0 C


-4
C
U
'-4 V V
S C 4) C
'4 (U en 0
w 'a
-4 tO U
4, 0 4,
C C) U V
41 0 1.. 0. 1.. C
tO 0 0
44 he CO 0 0
0. 0 0
0 P4 0 V 44
u a
C) 44 Ci 0 4)
cc00 .-' V
0) v tO cU
U 44
C 4) 0 rt 02
0 U C 0 en en -
C 0 he di di 4)
t2 4, ,-4 I-I '-4 44
N P4 43 0 r4
Cr1 U) r4 U 44
o H a 0 0 44 4-I 0) r4 U
o 02 Ci' Ct






-77-


highest


mean


scores


(3.562)


CSAOs


(3.011)


were


competency


"recognize


accept


the ethical


consequences


personal


professional


behavior.


highest


mean


score


DOHs


022)


was


competency


"select,


train,


super-


vise


staff.


lowest


mean


scores


for all


groups


were


compe-


tency


"develop


administer


a budget.


mean


scores


for all three


groups


category


Environmental


Organiza-


tional


Management


were


under


3.0, indicating


a tendency


each


group


direction


toward


"disagree"


range


with


respect


possession


competencies


category.


Standard


deviations


each


group


were


than


all competencies in


category.


Summary


Data


Possession


Competencies.


Each


group


reported its


highest


mean


score


on possession


for the


same


competency


categories


Goal


Setting,


Consultation,


Assessment


Evaluation.


Each


group


reported


its lowest


mean


score


on possession


for the


same


competency


in the categories of


Communication


Environ-


mental


Organizational


Management.


Mean


scores


DOHs


were


than


competencies


in categories


of Goal


Setting,


Con-


sultation,


Communication,


CSAOs


category


Assessment


3.0 for all


Evaluation.


competencies


Mean


in the


scores


category


were


of Consultation.


greater


Mean


than


scores


for DOHs


CSAOs


were


below


every


category


indicating


tendency


possession


direction


toward


of competencies


disagree


study.


Mean


range


with


scores


respect


for FTs


were


2r rnl f r i a a(


(2


2


r.nlt


CCC;n n


rhn Lr IrtC rl C; nill


nT


F






-78-


direction


toward


"agree"


range


on possession


competencies


these


categories.


Mean


scores


for FTs


were


below


for the cate-


gories


Assessment


Evaluation


930)


Environmental


Organizational


"disagree"


Management


range on


(2.934)


possession


indicating


of competencies


a tenden

in these


toward


categories.


Data on


Importance


of Competencies


Another


four


primary


objectives


study


was


determine


whether


these


competencies


were


important


recent


master's


level


degree


position


recipients


in the student


to have

t affairs


acquired

field.


prior


assuming


This objective


was


an entry


stated


research


question


important


recent


master' s


degree


graduates


student


personnel


preparation


programs


have


acquired


these
affairs


competencies
field?


prior


to full


time


entry


into


the student


extent


to which


each


of the three


groups


perceived


impor-


tant


recent


master' s


graduates


preparation


programs


have


acquired


indicate


these


competencies


the extent


to which


was


they


determined


believed


asking


each


each


competency


group


was


Im-


portant


assuming


entry


level


staff


position.


Participants


each


of the


three


groups


assessed


extent


of importance


for each


competency


according


to the following


four-point


scale:


Importance


of the Competency


- essential

- important


- of little importance







-79-


were


reported


examined


determine


extent


which


each


group


found


competencies


important


assumption


entry


level


positions


in student


affairs.


Differences


between


groups


the extent


their


perception


of the importance


these


competencies


be examined


later in


the study.


Goal


Setting.


Mean


scores


standard


deviations


of faculty


(FTs


directors


of housing


(DOHs)


chief


student


affairs


officers


SAOs


extent


importance


the competencies


in the


category


of Goal


Setting


are reported in


Table


DOHs


(3.777)


CSAOs


(3.725)


highest


mean


scores


were


competency


, "teach


students


to deal


with


consequences


of their


behavior.


ported


highest


mean


score


competency


No. 2


, "identify


articulate


institutions


goals


policies


students"


(3.613).


three


groups


reported


a lowest


mean


score


competency


"write


behavioral


than


every


objectives.


competency


Mean

in the


scores


category


DOHs


of goal


were

setting


greater

Mean


scores


for the


category


of Goal


Setting


were


greater


than


3.0 for FTs


(3.378),


DOHs


(3.415),


CSAOs


410)


indicating


a tendency


direction


toward


importance


competencies


category


assuming


an entry


level


staff


position.


Standard


devia-


tions


each


group


were


than


for all competencies


category.


Consultation.


Mean


scores


standard


deviations


three


groups


extent


importance


competencies


-A- r r. lt ~.-I --- S i i I


re-


J>


c


rn


L1


~-I-


1 I







-80-


U)





0.4



z
r1aL.1~
tZ4OH

rz~
HOco


C) "-






-81-


z
0
r% -
0<

C')
C12Z
QZ 0
E-4r3]Q

~40
HO>~




~Z4<
~~CU
0
Lz4HLz~


0 L






-82-


reported


the lowest


mean


scores


for competency


11a iltt


staff


development


through


in-service


training.


Mean


scores


for DOHs


CSAOs


were


greater


than


for all


competencies


except


competency


Mean


scores


were


greater


than


compe-


tencies


in this


category.


Mean


scores


category


of consultation


were


above


(3.573),


DOHs


476)


CSAOs


(3.431),


indicating


a tendency


in the direction


of the importance


of the


compe-


tencies


category


assuming


entry


level


staff


position.


Standard


deviations


for each


group


were


than


1.0 for all


compe-


tencies in


category.


Communication.


Mean


scores


standard


deviations


of the


three


research


groups


extent


of importance


of the


competencies


the category


of Communication


are reported


in Table


highest


mean


score


was


competency


"make


effective


use


verbal


mean


scores


non-verbal


skills


DOHs


group


CSAOs


presentations.


were


highest


competency


"perceive


accurately


interpret


attitudes,


beliefs,


needs


others.


groups


"determining


reported

usage c


the lowest


>f office


mean


management


scores


competency


procedures.


Mean


scores


category


Communication


were


above


341)


, DOHs


3.287)


, and


CSAOs


(3.411)


, indicating


a tendency


the direction


of the importance


of these


competencies


assuming


entry


level


staff


position.


Standard


deviations


for each


group


were


than


for all competencies.


-- --4*at f


r r


~ 1 .I


I,


,Ir


1







-83-







-84-






-85-


tencies


the category


Assessment


Evaluation


are reported


Table


groups


reported


the highest


mean


scores


for competency


"assess


greater

for the


than


category


student


needs.


every


Mean


competency


of Assessment


scores


in this


Evaluation


for FTs


category.


were


DOHs


Mean


greater


were


scores


than


(3.330),


tendency


DOHs


in the direction


250)


CSAOs


the importance


of the


263),


indicating


competencies


in this


category


assuming


entry


level


staff


position.


Standard


deviations


for each


group


were


than


for all competencies


category.


Environmental


Organizational


Management.


Mean


scores


standard


deviations


three


research


groups


extent


importance


the competencies


category


of Environmental


Organizational


Management


are reported


Table


CSAOs


reported


highest


mean


scores


competency


"recognize


accept


the ethical


consequences


of personal


professional


behavior.


DOHs


reported


highest


mean


scores


competency


" select,


train,


supervise


staff.


CSAOs


reported


lowest

and f;


mean


facilities.


scores


DOHs


competenc

reported


"manage


the lowest


mean


physical


score


resources

:ompetency


"develop


administer


a budget.


Mean


scores


for FTs


DOHs


were


greater


than


every


competency


category


Mean


scores


category


Environmental


Organizational


Management


were


greater than


3.0 for FTs


340)


DOHs


(3.342)


rc A f~-. I) -- a.:- -~ 4.a A ~. .- ~ 4 n 4kn A~~anA4 n C vnn.4-,n


nr I,\


A LA*L rj nn nrr ;n


r C1 I n,







-86-


w
C
(12
U



tz4U
.- -

HO
~U2
U-


C
z
z
OQ
~Lz~
-4




z





cI2z








-87-







in '0 4
(Na LA LA
Wi 4 N '0 '0
C,,


U
0
.4
CO
C-)


N C H H
rI En 0 H 0'
4 '.0 LV, y-4 U
a C
en en cn en in U








in LA N CV, H
LA 0 4 en 0
o LA LA 4 '0
C,,



go


4
0'
II
a a C
z en gv~ en cr1 en go







4 LA 0 N
C '0 4 (N 0~
o '.0 4 '0 '.0 LA
CO a a a



0




0 0 in LA
in N 4 0' N
I-. cV1 0 0
En* a I:
in En En in en


a 1*2
to 0
a
C 0 "4 V V
43 S C C
V U 0 02 0
'.4 4-'
a 02 U
CO 4.) 1) (U 4)
twa. 5 0 C) U V
to C 0 She
w a 0
CO 0 C)
4) '3-)
Ca U C C
JJ U 4.4 4) 0 4)
U $4 4 0 V
'-4 0
-I V 02 i-I
144 V C 43 0 -~ r4 CO
0 0 0 U C 0 CO 0
0 0 C 0 $4 42 4) 4)
0 4) 4) 5-4 5 ,-I A.)
a N p., a C
o 4) 02 Co N-i U a
(J M 4-i C 4) 4) A.) 44 0) r4 r4 U
0 S '44 C) '4.4 S V 4)
0 C Q 4) CC CU Q






-88-


all competencies in


category.


Summary


of Data


on Importance.


Each


group


reported its


highest


mean


score


on importance


for the


same


competency


in the categories


Consultation


Assessment


Evaluation.


Each


group


reported


lowest


mean


score


importance


same


competency


categories


Goal


Setting,


Consultation


, and


Communication.


Mean


scores


were


greater


than


competencies


categories


Consultation;


Assessment


Evaluation;


Environmental


Organizational


Management.


Mean


scores


for DOHs


were


greater


than


for all


competencies


categories


of Goal


Setting


Assessment


Evaluation.


Mean


scores


CSAOs


were


greater


than


3.0 for all


competencies


in the


category


of Environmental


Organizational


Management.


Mean


scores


DOHs


CSAOs


were


greater


than


3.0 for each


of the five


categories


indicating


a tendency


toward


importance


of all


competencies


in every


category


assuming


an entry


level


staff position.


Statistical


Comparison


Among


Groups


issue


dependent


differences


variables


among


possession


three


entry-level


groups


competencies


recent


master


graduates of


preparation


programs in


student


personnel


administration


of importance


of those


competencies


assuming


entry


level staff position


been


identified


as a primary


objective


study


as stated in


research


questions


chief


student


affairs


officers


(CSAOs),


directors


housing


(DOHs)


faculty


(FTs)


have


similar


perceptions






-89-


data


in this


section


have


been


presented


in order


to satisfy


requirements


these


research


questions


determining


whether


differences exist


among


three


group


the extent of each


group's


agreement


that


recent


master's


graduates


actually


possess


competencies


to determine


whether


differences


exist


among


three


research


groups


the extent


to which


each


group


perceives


each


competency


important


assuming


entry


level


staff


position.


total


respondents


from


three


groups


provided


data


base


study.


purposes


analyzin g


data


determine


if significant


differences


existed


among


the three


groups


each


categories


the research


instrument


General


Linear


Model


(GLM)


Procedure of


the Statistical


Analysis


System


(SAS)


Multivariate


Analysis


Variance


(MANOVA)


was


used.


Significance


was


determined


in this


study


at alpha


= .05


the 260


useable


instruments


study,


27 had


at least


one


missing


value,


meaning


that


they


a blank


a response


possession


importance


on a given


competency.


analysis


category,


the GLM


procedure


for MANOVA


takes


mean


the other


competencies


category


with


the missing


value


substitutes


that


mean


for the


missing


value


purposes


computing


overall


mean


that


category


differences


that


among


respondent.


groups


GLM


for possession


-MANOVA


analyzing


importance


category


could


done


using


respon


ses.


GLM-MANOVA


test


d atoarrn n a


avri ac ra


rl(f1yon r f 1C


rnmn


t anr ir


rntii'I


r 1i


nnltr


Il EP


HI






-90-


means


each


group


possession


importance


competencies


used


in the GLM-MANOVA


analysis


are included


in Table


29 in


Appendix


Pair


were


wise


indicated.


comparison s


Duncan's


were


multiple


made


where


range


significant


was


used


differences


to determine


between


which


group s


significant


differences


were


indicated


possession


importance.


post


comparison


category,


responses


were


used.


Post


comparisons


competency


used


233 responses which


contained


no missing


values.


I. Goal


Setting.


Write


behavioral


objectives


Identify


articulate


institution's


goals


policies


students


Teach


students


to deal


with


consequences


of their


behavior.


Engage in


thematic planning


Mean


scores


importance


each


for the


of the three


category


of Goal


research


Setting


groups


on possession


are provided


in Table


TABLE


MEAN


SCORES


FOR


RESEARCH


GROUPS


ON POSSESSION


AND


IMPORTANCE


OF GOAL


SETTING


Group


Possession


Importance


, IL


II


1






-91-



TABLE


MULTIVARIATE


ANALYSIS


GOAL


SETTING


DF=2,257


F-Value


ALPHA=. 05


Implication


Possession
Importance


17.6


.0001
.7691


Significant
Not Significant


significant


difference


among


three


groups


extent


agreement


that


recent


master's


graduates


preparation


programs


possess


competencies


category


goal


setting


is indicated


Table


differed


significantly


with


both


DOHs


CSAOs


extent


which


they


agree


recent


graduates


preparation


programs


possess


competencies


category


Goal


Setting


shown


Duncan' s


multiple


range


test in


Table


TABLE


DUNCAN'S


MULTIPLE


RANGE


TEST


FOR


POSSESSION


OF GOAL


SETTING


Group

FT


Mean


Duncan


Grouping


CSAO
DOH


Note.


Means


with


same


letter


are not


significantly


different.


Analysis


of individual


competencies


in the


category


of Goal


Setting






-92-


category.


significant


difference


was


found


extent


importance


competency


results


Duncan's


multiple


range


test,


summarized


Table


Appendix


H indicate


that


differed


significantly


with


DOHs


CSAOs


on posse


ssion


competencies


significant


difference


existed


between


FTs and DOHs on


extent


of perceived importance of


competency


Consultation


Recognize and
decision making


facilitate


group


problem


solving


group


Facilitate


group


problem


solving


group


decision


making


Facilitate


staff


development


through in-service


training


Work


effectively


with


a diversity


of individual


students


faculty


Mean


scores


for each


three


research


groups


on possession


importance


for the


category


of Consultation


are provided


in Table


These


means


were


used


in the analysis


summarized in


Table


MEAN


SCORES


FOR


TABLE
GROUPS


ON POSSESSION


AND


IMPORTANCE


OF CONSULTATION


Group


Possession


Importance


DOHs
CSAOs


.846


.431


TABLE


MULTIVARIATE


ANALYSIS,


CONSULTATION


DF = 2,257


ALPHA


= .05






-93-


significant


difference


among


three


groups


extent


agreement


that


recent


master


s graduates


preparation


programs


possess


competencies


category


goal


setting


indicated


Table


differ


significantly


with


both


DOHs


CSAOs


in the


extent


to which


they


agree


recent


graduates


preparation


programs


possess


competencies


category


Consultation


shown


Duncan's


multiple


range


test in


Table


TABLE


DUNCAN' S


MULTIPLE


RANGE


TEST


FOR


POSSESSION


OF CONSULTATION


Group


Mean


Duncan


Grouping


DOH


.303

.921

.846


CSAO


Note.


Means


with


same


letter


are not significantly


different.


Analysis of individual


competencies in


category


of Consultation


been


summarized


Table


Appendix


Significant


differences


existed


among


groups


extent


agreement


possession


four


competencies


category.


Significant


differences


were


found


on extent


of importance


competencies


results


of Appendix


of Duncan's


indicate


multiple


that


range


test,


differed


summarized


significantly


Table


with


DOHs


CSAOs


on pos


session


competencies


Significant


differences


existed


between


every


possible


pair


groups


C; rCYr ; 1 ,"4+1",r


CQAfn


hn-,+h


n~c cac a; nn


rli F~a *~ rl


~nmn n~ an ~~t


/


Tnl




Full Text
Implications .......................
Conclusions .......................
REFERENCES .......................
APPENDIX A ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ............
B PARENT PERMISSION SLIPS ...........
C SAMPLE TESTSTANDARD............
D SAMPLE TESTMODIFIED............
E MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES BY CATEGORY, RACE, AND SEX.....................
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................


35
2. Flexible setting
The student may be administered a test individually or in small
group setting by a proctor rather than in a classroom or auditorium setting.
3. Recording of answers
The student may mark answers in a test booklet, type the answer by machine, or indicate the selected answers to a test proctor. The proctor may then transcribe the student's responses onto a machine-scoreable answer sheet.
4. Mechanical aids
The student may use a magnifying device, a pointer, a non-calibrated rule or template, or other similar devices to assist in maintaining visual attention to the test booklet.
5. Revised format
The test may be presented to the student using one or more of the following techniques.
(a) visual readingregular or enlarged print.
(b) tactile readingbraille code or technology to allow optical/ tactile transformation; test items which have no real world applications for the blind person will be deleted from the test form provided by the Department.
(c) the mathematics and writing portions may be presented in sign language; all directions may also be presented in sign language and the reading portion of the test must be read by visual or tactile means.
(d) auditory presentationan audio-taped version of the mathematics and writing portions of the test, in a form provided by the


32
Characteristic Needs of Handicapped Individuals
The diagnosis of a mildly handicapping condition evolves from the basic premise that the child does not learn as other children do. He frequently demonstrates certain behaviors that prohibit him from acquiring knowledge in a traditional manner. These behaviors or characteristics necessitate modifications in teaching style and/or presentation of materials. Given the opportunity to learn, however, the mildly handicapped child is capable of learning. His "needs" to accomplish this task are simply different than his nonhandicapped peers.
Sumnarizing the findings of noted authorities, Morsink (1977) listed some characteristics of mildly handicapped children that may
impede learning. These include
(a) Attention difficulties. Some children may have problems concentrating on a specific task, may be unable to use attention selectively, or may be overselective in its use. This inability may
i
result in limited task behavior or impulsive guessing.
(b) Perceptual problems (auditory/visual/motor). Children with these problems tend to have difficulty discriminating differences between similar items. They may also focus on the irrelevant details of a task or concept.
(c) Social-emotional problems. Frequently, mildly handicapped children demonstrate poor attitudes towards school and appear to be unmotivated to learn. It becomes increasingly difficult for these children to attempt academic tasks with enthusiasm when they have


AN ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT AFFAIRS PREPARATION PROGRAMS
IN RELATION TO
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES
By
RANDY E. HYMAN
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
1983

To,
My Dad, Richard Hyman, who first said to me "Hitch your wagon to a
star" . . . and to Jesus Christ, the star who controlled my wagon and
provided me with the direction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of my doctoral program would not have been
possible were it not for a few wonderful people who deserve special
recognition for their roles.
To Dr. Art Sandeen, my chairman and mentor, I offer heartfelt
thanks. His unending patience, support, and encouragement provided
me with the motivation which enabled me to make my dream become
reality.
To the members of my committee, Dr. James Wattenbarger and Dr.
A1 Smith, I extend my sincere thanks for the time, support, and
suggestions they gave me during the course of this study.
Special thanks go to Dr. Bob Jester and John Dixon for their
assistance in the analysis of my data and to Donna Ornowski for her
fine work in the typing of the manuscript and final drafts.
Sincere notes of recognition are extended to a couple of special
colleagues. To Jack Worley I express my gratitude for always being
there when I needed a listening ear. To Jim Grimm I express my
appreciation for constant support and consideration throughout my
doctoral program.
Finally, I would like to give very special recognition to my wife,
Robi, and my son, Drew. Their love, patience, and faith in me were
the greatest sources of inspiration in the completion of this study.
Robi's assistance through the duration of my doctoral program has
come to exemplify for me the meaning of the word support.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i i i
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER
I.DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY 1
Int roduc t ion 1
Purpose 4
Questions for Investigation 4
Justification for the Study 5
Conceptual Framework 10
Assumptions 14
Limi tat ions 14
Def ini t ions 15
Overview of the Study 16
II.REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 17
Student Personnel as an Emerging
Pro fession 17
Development of Student Personnel
Preparation Programs 28
Chapter Summary 4 0
III.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 42
Research Objectives 42
Research Population 42
Development of the Instrument 45
Endorsement of the Study 50
Administration of the Instrument 51
Treatment of the Data 52
Research Questions 52
Chapter Summary 5 3
IV.PRESENTATION OF THE DATA 5 5
Demographic Profile of Respondents 56
Data on Possession of Competencies 64
Data on Importance of Competencies 78
Chapter Summary 100
i v

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS.. 101
A Summary of the Development of the Study.. 101
Findings 109
Conclusions 112
Implications and Considerations
for Further Study 114
APPENDIX
A RESEARCH INSTRUMENT FOR FACULTY 117
B RESEARCH INSTRUMENT FOR DIRECTORS OF HOUSING
AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS 120
C LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM VICE PRESIDENT FOR
STUDENT AFFAIRS 123
D LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM RESEARCH AND INFOR¬
MATION COMMITTEE 126
E FOLLOW-UP POST CARD 128
F TABLE LISTING MEAN SCORES FOR EACH GROUP BY
COMPETENCY FOR POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE
BY CATEGORY 130
G TABLES LISTING MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
FOR GROUPS BY CATEGORY 134
H TABLES LISTING RESULTS OF DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE
RANGE TEST FOR POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE
BY CATEGORY 140
REFEREBCE NOTES 150
REFERENCES 151
BIOGRAPHI CAL SKETCH 163
v

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
AN ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT AFFAIRS PREPARATION PROGRAMS
IN RELATION TO PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES
By
RANDY E. HYMAN
December, 1983
Chairman: C. Arthur Sandeen
Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision
The primary purposes of this study were to determine
whether or not preparation programs in student personnel
administration educated for the development of entry level professional
competencies and to determine the relative importance of those
competencies for assuming an entry level staff position in the field of
student affairs. Perceptions of three groups of professionals in the
field of student affairs: (faculty in preparation programs, directors of
housing, and chief student affairs officers) were assessed to determine
whether they believed recent master's graduates of preparation
programs actually possessed the professional competencies and whether
they believed the competencies were important for assuming an entry
level position in student affairs. The three groups were compared to
determine whether or not differences existed in their perceptions of
possession of the competencies by recent graduates and of importance
of the competencies for entry level, student affairs positions.
A modification of the Tomorrow's Higher Education (T.H.E.)
model, commissioned by the American College Personnel Association and
-vi-

developed by T. J. Miller and J. S. Prince in The Future of Student
Affairs served as the conceptual framework for this study. The
modified model identified categories of development which included goal
setting, consultation, communication, assessment and evaluation, and
environmental and organizational management. From a review of the
literature and related research, a two-part research instrument was
developed which included 33 competencies recommended by faculty,
practitioners, and professional associations for entry level student
affairs staff. The instrument was administered to 162 faculty, 141
directors of housing and 150 chief student affairs officers. A re¬
sponse rate of 46.3% of faculty, 66.7% of directors of housing, and
60.7% of chief student affairs officers was achieved.
The results of the study indicated the T.H.E. model was an
appropriate framework for the identification and conceptualization of
the important learning outcomes of professional preparation programs in
student personnel administration.
Chief student affairs officers and directors of housing indicated
doubt as to whether recent master's graduates of preparation programs
possessed competencies in any of the five conceptual categories. Each
of the three groups believed that the competencies in all categories
were important for assuming an entry level position in student affairs.
The three groups did not have similar perceptions of the training
recent graduates received for the competencies. Faculty perceived
significantly greater possession of the competencies by recent grad¬
uates in all conceptual categories. The three groups did have similar
perceptions of the importance of the competencies in all five categories
for assuming an entry level position in student affairs.
-vii-

CHAPTER I
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Professional preparation for individuals seeking a career in
student affairs administration has been a subject of much concern
among professional associations, faculty trainers, and student affairs
practitioners. Traditionally it was assumed that people who became
personnel administrators came from the teaching ranks (Hill and Green,
1960). Counseling was the primary, if not only, component of formal
training. Recent studies on the issue of preparation have concluded
that professional, academic preparation in student personnel
administration was critically important for a career in the student
affairs field (Rhatigan, 1968; Newton and Richardson, 1976; Minetti,
1977; Miller and Carpenter, 1980; Delworth and Hanson, 1980;
Stamatakos, 1980). The need has been acknowledged for a
broad-based foundation of academic preparation in particular core areas
including study in psychology, culture and change; philosophy, fi¬
nance, planning, and curriculum in higher education; counselling;
ethics; and a supervised work experience (Trueblood, 1966, pp. 82-83
as cited in Minetti, 1977, p. 5).
Expansion of the student population in higher education
beginning in the early 1900's placed increased demands on student
affairs administrators to address the multiple needs of this new
-1-

-2-
population. The demand for graduates of student affairs preparation
programs was greater than the supply produced by relatively few
preparation programs. In response to this demand for trained, stu¬
dent affairs professionals, the number of preparation programs ex¬
panded during the 1960's and early 1970's.
Preparation for any profession derives from an operational field,
for which there is a taxonomically ordered set of roles and functions to
be performed, through the utilization of a substantive knowledge base
which is appropriately grounded in theory and philosophy. Selection
is a matter of identification of individuals presumed to be capable of
mastering such knowledge in order to perform specific roles within the
existing operational field (Dewey, 1977).
Designing educational programs which will result in students'
possessing requisite knowledge and skills is the charge of the person
engaged in the preparation of student affairs professionals. Educators
of professionals in any field must help students understand and appre¬
ciate the current state of practice and also gain a perspective on
future development (Knock, 1977). Although the need for professional
preparation has been recognized and accepted in the area of student
affairs, what constitutes quality preparation for the field is still a
matter where questions can be raised (Knock, 1977).
Delworth and Hanson (1980) have identified five major, interrelat¬
ed components which they view as fixed, essential, core categories of
the student affairs profession. They believed that 1) history and
philosophy, 2) relevant theories, 3) models of practice, 4) professional
competencies, and 5) management and organizational competencies as
components, defined the structure of the student affairs profession.

-3-
Professional preparation at the master's level must provide back¬
ground or history, philosophy, and theory in building foundations for
effective professional education in a broad context (Trueblood, 1966;
O'Banion, 1969; Delworth and Hanson, 1980). Such preparation must
also provide opportunity for the acquisition and application of skills
and competencies necessary for effective functioning in full time,
professional student affairs positions (Domeier, 1977, Minetti, 1977;
Delworth and Hanson, 1980; Stamatakos, 1981). These opportunities
are generally provided through practicums, internships, and
assistantships.
A model core curriculum for master's degree, entry level student
affairs practitioners was developed by Delworth and Hanson (1980).
This core curriculum was developed in consideration of the need to
reexamine the variety of roles student affairs professionals assume and
to allow for the introduction of new ideas, concepts, and models of
practice. Such a curriculum would permit a continuous evolution
consistent with the changing needs of the profession and current
models of practice. Delworth and Hanson's curriculum components
included the following: 1) history and philosophy, 2) theory, 3)
models of practice and role orientation, 4) core competencies, 5)
specialized competencies, 6) administration and management, 7)
practicum or field work, 8) additional theory and tool courses.
The Council of Student Personnel Administrators (COSPA) iden¬
tified the purpose of professional preparation in the following state¬
ment:
The goal of professional preparation programs is the
preparation of persons who in addition to having
obtained a high level of self development have skills
in collaborating with others in their self development.

-4-
They must be able to use competencies of assessment,
goal setting, and change processes as appropriate in
implementing the roles of consultant, administrator,
and instructor in relationships with individuals,
groups, and organizations. (Cooper, 1972, p. 6)
The acquisition of professional competencies underscores the
importance of preparation programs. Such programs, through their
course work and field experience, have sought to provide graduate
students with the competencies necessary to function adequately in the
field.
Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether or
not professional preparation programs in student personnel adminis¬
tration educated for the development of entry level professional
competencies. Perceptions of three groups of professionals in the field
of student affairs were compared to determine whether or not
differences existed in their perception of the training graduates with
master's degrees received in their preparation programs for the entry
level competencies. The perceptions of the three groups were also
compared to determine differences in the relative importance of the
competencies for assuming an entry level professional position in
student affairs.
Questions for Investigation
This study was designed to answer the following questions:
1. Do recent graduates of master's level preparation programs in
student personnel administration enter the field of student affairs
with training in entry level competencies as a result of their
preparation programs?
2. Do chief student affairs officers (CSAOs) Directors of Housing
(DOHs), and faculty (FTs) have similar perceptions of the
training recent master's degree graduates of preparation programs
in

-5-
student personnel administration receive for the identified entry
level competencies?
3. Is it important for recent master's degree graduates from student
personnel preparation programs to have acquired these competen¬
cies prior to the full time entry into the student affairs field?
4. Do CSAOs, DOHs, and FTs have similar perceptions of the
importance of these entry level competencies?
Justification for the Study
The need for competently trained staff has been a concern of
student personnel professionals for over thirty years. LaBarre (1948)
observed that despite increased needs for personnel workers no
assurances could be given that the work would be done by competently
trained persons unless some measures of their proficiency were de¬
signed to meet minimum qualifications. LaBarre indicated that there
was a need for basic work standards in the field. She called for
professional student personnel associations to undertake research and
study to establish minimum performance standards on a national scale.
She believed preparation programs offered the logical place to identify
criteria upon which professional standards might be based.
The literature of the field has identified concern for quality and
excellence in professional preparation programs. One study of the
professional preparation of college student personnel administrators
observed that professional preparation assumed increased importance as
a function of trends toward professionalization and increased demands
from professionally trained workers (Hoyt and Rhatigan, 1968). In
another study of preparation programs in student personnel, Rockey
(1972) identified key components of a College Student Personnel prepa¬
ration program to be quality faculty and students, sufficient elabo¬
ration of the program, strong, supporting departments, institutional

-6-
resources, a well-conceived curriculum, and opportunity for practical
work experiences.
A more recent study sought to determine the attitudes of chief
student affairs officers (CSAOs) about the quality of professional
preparation programs (Sandeen, 1982). The results indicated that
although graduate training in student personnel work was found to be
of considerable importance, only three percent of the CSAOs in the
study rated overall program quality as excellent and only six percent
rated faculty as excellent. Sandeen's (1982) study identified major
problems with current preparation programs: the programs are too
much oriented toward counseling; the quality of students is too
uneven; and the lack of academic rigor in some programs generates a
lack of respect when they are compared to other graduate programs.
Canon (1982) noted that marginal students coexisted with those
generally conceded to be of high quality and concluded that student
affairs divisions reflected these extremes in both the quality and the
effectiveness of their programs and services.
Issues of standards, quality, and excellence have been significant
in that they represented outcomes which most professionals believed
the field of student affairs needed in the preparation of those about to
enter the field. Penn (1973) described the key to excellence in terms
of quality programs as related to appropriate curriculum offerings,
adequate learning resources, and defined standards of acceptable
performance. He urged the development of curriculum guidelines and
an accreditation body to evaluate and accredit professional preparation
programs in the field. Stamatakos (Note 5) promoted the
standardization of training and accreditation, seeing this as a step

-7-
closer to the recognition of student personnel administration as a
"profession." He indicated the need for generally set standards of
performances and competencies for graduates of preparation programs.
Penn (1973) supported this viewpoint by observing that professional
competence in the field of student affairs was related to knowledge and
specific skills learned in preparation programs.
Curriculum guidelines have been addressed by the American
College Personnel Association (ACPA), Council of Student Personnel
Associations (COSPA), and others (O'Banion, 1966; Rhatigan, 1965).
Many of the programs listed in the most recent issue (1980) of the
ACPA's Directory of Graduate Preparation Programs in College Student
Personnel provided course offerings as well as other developmental
experiences consistent with curricular recommendations. To date, no
credentials or standards are required by states, regional accrediting
agencies, or professional associations for entry into the field of stu¬
dent affairs.
Rhatigan (1968) noted that the issue of professional preparation
was extremely complex. Such complexity was due to multiple areas of
specialization, many levels of training, and different sizes and types of
institutions to be served. In his study of professional preparation he
concluded there was an urgent need for research that related training
experiences to professional effectiveness. Such research must involve
examination of skills, attitudes, and knowledge that effective adminis¬
trators possess (Rhatigan, 1968).
The logical outcomes of preparation programs are the competencies
which graduates of the programs should acquire prior to entry into the
profession. Such competencies have been identified in several studies

-8-
(Domeier, 1977; Minetti, 1977; Hanson, Note 2), and have provided a
means by which the productivity of graduate training programs in
student personnel can be measured. In the development of a program
for evaluating outcomes of an educational program, certain basic as¬
sumptions must be considered:
1. The kinds of changes in behavior patterns in human beings
which the program seeks to bring about are its educational
objectives.
2. An educational program is appraised by finding out how far
the objectives of the programs are actually being realized.
Previous studies have indicated that the acquisition of profession¬
al competencies represents a primary objective of preparation programs
(Williamson, 1952; Newton and Hellenga, 1974).
In a study that examined the training of student affairs
administrators for specified competency tasks, Domeier (1977)
recommended examination of the purposes and quality of student affairs
training programs in relation to specified competencies. She indicated
that, with some modification, her questionnaire could be utilized as an
assessment instrument or as a guide to competency development in
student affairs preparation programs. A similar study by Minetti
(1977) sought to determine the relationship between the academic
training and assistantship experiences in preparation programs by
identifying the locus of preparation for entry level competencies
necessary for work in the field of student affairs. He indicated that
the study addressed the "should be" or ideal for professional
preparation (p. 156). He recommended further study to investigate
and compare with what in reality is occurring in training programs.

-9-
Stamatakos (1981) in an extensive examination of professional
preparation, done as part of a review of student affairs progress
toward professionalism, identified five critical concerns.
1. The quality of students admitted to professional preparation
programs is inconceivably broad, loose, inconsistent, and
lacking in reasonable standards (p. 201).
2. A review of existing preparation program literature reveals a
glaring lack of specificity regarding the knowledge to be
learned and the skills students are expected to acquire (p.
202).
3. Within and between actual and proposed preparation pro¬
grams there is little or no consistency in nature, content
emphasis or duration (p. 202).
4. In general, after students have successfully completed a
program of study in a typical program, the profession cannot
be assured that they will be adequately or reasonably well
prepared to carry out the variety of responsibilities particu¬
lar to job entry positions or that they have the leadership
potential and depth of understandings necessary for upward
mobility (p. 203).
5. If it is determined that some preparation programs are not in
any real sense truly preparing student affairs professionals
but are bootlegging them through counselor, pupil person¬
nel, or educational psychology programs, should such insti¬
tutions be listed in association sponsored directories of
professional preparation programs? Such listings do provide
programs with a sense of undeserved legitimacy (p. 203).
Extensive review of the literature on professional preparation led
Stamatakos (1981) to conclude that there is no published research
evidence to support the notion that 1) those hired for student affairs
positions, do, in fact, possess the general skills and competencies that
characterize positions sought or filled or 2) professional preparation
programs educate specifically and adequately for the development of
agreed upon skills and competencies (Brown, 1972; Council of Student
Personnel Associations, 1975; Newton and Hellenga, 1974; Newton and
Richardson, 1976; Parker, 1971; Rentz, 1976; as cited in Stamatakos,
1981, p. 106).

-10-
The specific recommendations of Domeier, Minetti, and Rhatigan;
supported by the conclusions of Stamatakos, have led this researcher
to pursue the study of professional competencies for entry level pro¬
fessionals in the manner outlined in the purpose statement.
Conceptual Framework
Professional preparation has as its purpose the training and
development of student affairs professionals, equipping them with
expertise in the integrated development of college students. Profes¬
sionally prepared student affairs staff must share a common concern
for the nature and effectiveness of institutions of higher education as
these institutions affect and are affected by students (Delworth and
Hanson, 1980). Professional training should enable student affairs
staff to assume a variety of roles including consultant, administrator,
counselor, instructor, and researcher (Cooper, 1972; Delworth, and
Hanson, 1980). Preparation programs prepare persons to use
competencies in categories such as assessment, goal setting, and
change processes to effectively implement the afore named roles.
The literature on preparation for work in the field of student
affairs reflects the concern of many professionals about lack of quality v
and scope (Knott, 1977). According to one study, the emphasis in
training should be placed upon the practical acquisition of skills
(Newton and Richardson, 1976). There is an increased emphasis on a
broader set of competencies for student affairs professionals. Knott
(1977) identified such competencies in categories of administration,
assessment, evaluation, and research; communication (written and
verbal); goal setting; leadership; and organization. He observed that

-11-
many graduate training programs may require some revamping in order
to become solid programs for preparing generalists with these compe¬
tencies.
Miller and Carpenter (1980) believed that optimal professional
preparation combines a mastery of a body of knowledge and a cluster
of skills and competencies within the context of personal development.
They noted that professional credibility and excellence of practice were
directly dependent upon the quality of professional preparation (1980).
They postulated that there were identifiable skills and competencies
essential to the growth of student affairs professionals, the learning of
which could be systematically facilitated through programs of profes¬
sional preparation.
A number of models and philosophies have been advanced to
support the development of quality professional preparation (Spooner,
1979; Rentz, 1976; Meabon, Bailey, and Witten, 1975; Dewey, 1977).
A thorough review of the literature has led the researcher to select a
modification of the Tomorrow's Higher Education model as the conceptu¬
al framework for this study. T.H.E., an acronym which stands for
Tomorrow's Higher Education, was coined by the American College
Personnel Association (ACPA) in 1968 for the purpose of developing a
strategy for examining the future of college student personnel work
(Miller and Prince, 1976). The essence of T.H.E. project was to
reconceptualize through systematic review, reconstruction, and change,
the fundamental conceptions about the specific roles, functions, meth¬
ods, and procedures that characterize future personnel practice.
T.H.E. emphasized student development in a move away from a status-

-12-
based staffing approach toward a competency-based approach
(American College Personnel Association, 1975).
The T.H.E. model extended ideas advanced by the American
Council on Education in the Student Personnel Point of View (1937,
1949). This statement identified the commitment of the profession to
services to and development of the "whole student." This commitment
was based on the recognition of needed competencies for student
affairs staff as service agents, control agents, and developmental
educators. The Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher
Education advanced essentially the same philosophy in their work A
Student Development Point of of View of Education (1970).
T.H.E. emphasizes student development. Its theoretical base is
eclectic in that it stresses a combination of cognitive and affective
development. It incorporates six competency categories of develop¬
ment:
1. Goal-Setting—the process of stating the general outcome
desired and then defining the more specific results (objec¬
tives) that guide the steps in achieving the goals and that
provide evidence of accomplishment (Miller and Prince, 1976,
p. 27).
2. Assessment—the process through which students, groups,
and organizations systematically acquire and use data from a
variety of sources to describe, appraise, and modify their
own development (p. 27).
3. Instruction—a change strategy which seeks to provide both
knowledge and practice applying what is learned. It seeks
to integrate affective and cognitive learning through recogni¬
tion of individual learning styles and needs.
4. Consultation—the activity or process in which one person
engages with another person, group, or agency in order to
identify the needs and/or capabilities of that person, group,
or agency and then to plan, initiate, implement, and evaluate
action designed to meet and/or develop those needs and/or
capabilities (p. 89).

-13-
5. Environmental Management—a positive, collaborative effort by
all community members to organize their resources to maxi¬
mize their living and learning experiences.
6. Evaluation—a continuous process of delineating, obtaining,
and providing information with which to judge various
choices (Stufflebeam, 1971).
Delworth and Hanson (1980) identified four critical basic compe¬
tency areas: 1) assessment and evaluation, 2) teaching or training,
3) consultation, and 4) counseling. These areas were consistent with
the components of T.H.E.
In an ACPA sponsored project, Hanson (Note 2) developed a
taxonomy of competencies using T.H.E. as a conceptual framework.
The purpose of the project was to review the competency-based educa¬
tion movement to determine its potential for application to professional
preparation programs in student personnel work. Hanson developed
195 competencies of which only twenty were rated by a panel of ex¬
perts in the field of student personnel work as lower than very impor¬
tant.
For the purpose of this study, the researcher has selected the
T.H.E. model as a conceptual framework with minor revision. The
purpose of the study is to examine the training graduates receive for
entry level professional competencies. Consistent with the recommen¬
dation of Knott (1977) the category of communication has been
substituted for instruction in the original T.H.E. format. Assessment
and evaluation have been combined as one category consistent with the
Delworth and Hanson (1980) model. The competencies for use in this
study have been derived from Hanson's (Note 2) taxonomy and the
studies of Domeier (1977) and Minetti (1977) and have been identified
with and assigned to categories of goal setting, consultation,

-14-
communication, assessment and evaluation, and environmental and orga
nizational management.
Assumptions
This study assumed that
1. The perceptions of the respondents completing the instrument
were honestly and accurately given.
2. The professional competencies identified from the literature
reflected actual, expected competencies for entry level student
affairs staff.
3. Respondents had a knowledge of background of the competencies
needed by staff hired for entry level positions in student affairs.
4. Respondents had a knowledge of the competencies taught in
preparation programs in student personnel.
Limitations
1. This study was limited to the examination of entry level profes¬
sional competencies because this investigator believed they repre¬
sented the most immediate and measurable product of a master's
level graduate program in terms of competencies acquired and
expected.

-15-
2. Findings were limited to measurements of competencies perceived
by practitioners and faculty trainers. The results can be gener¬
alized to preparation programs generally as all programs listed in
the ACPA directory were surveyed.
3. Results cannot be generalized beyond the specific practitioner
populations used in this study. Their perceptions of compe¬
tencies held by recent graduates and the importance of those
competencies cannot be generalized to the total practitioner popu¬
lation in student affairs.
4.This study was limited to the perception of practitioners and
faculty trainers at four year institutions, awarding at least a
bachelors degree. The result cannot be generalized to a student
affairs practitioner population employed at community colleges or
proprietary institutions.
Definitions
Student personnel—work within a post secondary education institution
concerned with both the educational and personal development of
students in primarily non classroom activities and the administra¬
tion of services which support and compliment the formal academic
process.
Student affairs—the division within a post secondary education institu¬
tion concerned with the provision of services and programs for
students which complement and supplement the academic mission of
higher education institutions. (Domeier, 1977, p. 12)
Entry level position—generally a position requiring a master's degree
from a professional preparation program and no full time experi¬
ence in student affairs. Staff in such positions assist in the
development and administration of programs and services for
students.

-16-
Practitioners—professional educators engaged in full time employment in
student personnel in a division of student affairs. They may be
administrators, counselors, program facilitators, or consultants.
(Minetti, 1977, p. 14)
Chief student affairs officer—the college or university administrator
who is immediately responsible for the direction and coordination
of the programs, staff, and services of the student affairs divi¬
sion.
Director of Housing—the college or university administrator who is
immediately responsible for the direction and coordination of the
programs, staff, and services of the housing department. The
housing department is one of the departments that comprise the
Division of Student Affairs.
Entry level competencies—abilities, skills, knowledge, and activities
which permit an individual to carry out job expectations in a first
professional position in student affairs in a minimally acceptable
manner.
Faculty trainers—professional educators engaged in full time employ-
ment as faculty, teaching and advising graduate students enrolled
in preparation programs in student personnel administration.
Professional preparation—the acquisition of background, knowledge,
skills, and competencies necessary for assuming a full time posi¬
tion in the student affairs profession. Such preparation is most
generally acquired within the context of a formal, academic,
degree awarding program at a graduate institution of higher
education.
Overview of the Study
Chapter 1 presented the introduction, purpose and justification
for the study, conceptual framework, assumptions, limitations, and
definitions. Relevant literature and research pertaining to the profes¬
sion of student personnel and professional preparation are presented in
Chapter II. The methodology and design used in this study are
described in Chapter III. The data collected and analyzed in this
study are presented in Chapter IV. A discussion of the results,
conclusions, and recommendations is presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter will provide an overview of the literature as it
pertains to professional preparation for student affairs administration.
Three general areas will be reviewed: student personnel as an
emerging profession, development of student personnel preparation
programs, and development of competencies for student affairs pro¬
fessionals.
Student Personnel as an Emerging Profession
Historical Role in Higher Education
The development of student personnel work has been well docu¬
mented in the literature (Leonard, 1956; Cowley, 1949; Mueller, 1961;
Ayers, Tripp, and Russel, 1966; Shaffer and Martinson, 1966; Apple-
ton, Briggs, and Rhatigan, 1978). Dating back to the founding of
Harvard College in 1636 a similar theme was observed; higher educa¬
tion was privately controlled and maintained a strong religious empha¬
sis. Until about 1862 presidents and faculty engaged in an exag¬
gerated type of student services, concerning themselves primarily with
the deportment of the students, in assuring pious attitudes and
diligence in academic pursuits. The most pressing service need was
the provision of housing. One of the chief purposes in the
-17-

-18-
construction of dormitories was to supervise the lives and studies of
students. Discipline was the primary reason for staff interaction with
students outside the confines of the classroom. Generally, the
emphasis was on control with the president and the faculty acting in
the role of guardians to provide direction for the students, often in
the form of sanctions for unacceptable behavior.
Explosive enrollments spurred by the Land Grant Act in 1862
brought about an abrupt change in emphasis in higher education and
with it a need to deal with large numbers of heterogeneous students
(Shaffer and Martinson, 1966). These developments brought with them
a different set of student needs that required staff attention in more
diverse ways. The appointments of the first deans of women and men
around the turn of the century signaled the emergency of student
personnel work. Appleton, Briggs, and Rhatigan (1978) identified
factors which contributed to the origins of student personnel work:
1. The development of land grant institutions and the rise of
public colleges and universities.
2. Increasing enrollments and accompanying increase in hetero¬
geneity of student populations.
3. Social, political, and intellectual ferment in the nation.
4. Rise of coeducation and increase in numbers of women enter¬
ing institutions.
5. Introduction of elective systems in higher education.
6. Emphasis on vocationalism over traditional liberal arts.
7. Impact of science and the scientific method.
8. Emerging signs of fundamental struggle between empiricism
and humanism.
9. Correlation between intellectualism and impersonalism on the
part of faculty educated in German institutions.
10.Expanding industrialism and urbanization.

-19-
11. The view of higher education as a social status phenomenon.
12. Establishment of a true university system.
13. Impact of liberal immigration laws in U.S.
14. Changing roles of students in higher education.
The needs of individual students were identified as the primary
focus of student personnel staff. The building of a sound student
personnel program called for dedication by both administration and
faculty to a philosophy based on all the needs of the individual
student (Blaesser, 1945). Such a philosophy according to "The
Student Personnel Point of View" was grounded in the support of
higher education's basic purposes: the preservation, transmission, and
enrichment of culture—the product of scholarship, research, and
human experience (American Council of Education, 1937). The task
was to assist the student in developing to the limits of his/her
potential. In order to do this, the institution had to consider the
student as a "whole." The student personnel role was to express
awareness of the significance of student life from both individual and
group perspectives. The work became an individualized application of
the research and clinical findings of psychology, sociology,
anthropology, and education to the task of aiding students to develop
in a college environment (American Council of Education, 1949).
Cowley (1964) observed the three functions of higher education to be
core, complementary, and continuity. He concluded that student
personnel work was complementary and that its mission was the
provision of nonacademic programs and services for students.

-20-
Definitions and Criteria for a Profession
The issue of what constitutes a profession has been examined and
discussed throughout the literature of higher education.
Characteristics of a profession have been identified, definitions have
been provided, and criteria have been produced. Among the criteria
which characterized a profession were the development of a special
discipline, the development of special training programs, the
delineation of specific areas of operation, and a strong, central
organization which set standards for professional membership,
established a code of ethics, and policed the activities of practitioners
(Feder, 1948). The term "professional" generally referred to an
individual who performed tasks that were of more than usual difficulty,
and required a long period of preparation and education, resulting in
the attainment of a higher degree of skill and knowledge (Johnson,
1959). Flexner (1915) observed that a person was a professional if
he/she devoted his/her entire time to a particular activity. He
indicated that such activities had to be intellectual in nature and have
a definite purpose. Lloyd-Jones (1949) remarked that the
distinguishing mark of a profession was "the possession of an
intellectual technique acquired by special training which could be
applied to some sphere of everyday life" (p. 260). A good deal of
emphasis was placed upon the acquisition of special knowledge or
special training.
The American Personnel and Guidance Association (AGPA)
delineated the marks of a profession as follows:
1. Possession of a body of specialized knowledge, skills, and
attitudes known and practiced by its members.
s/

-21-
2. This body of specialized knowledge, skills, and attitudes is
derived through scientific inquiry and scholarly learning.
3. This body of specialized knowledge, skills, and attitudes is
acquired through professional preparation, preferably on the
graduate level, in a college or university as well as through
continuous in-service training and personal growth after
completion of formal education.
4. This body of specialized knowledge, skills, and attitudes is
constantly tested and extended through research and
scholarly inquiry.
5. A profession has a literature of its own, even though it
may, and indeed must, draw portions of its content from
other areas of knowledge.
6. A profession exalts service to the individual and society
above personal gain. It possesses a philosophy and a code
of ethics.
7. A profession through the voluntary association of its
members constantly examines and improves the quality of its
professional preparation and services to the individual and
society.
8. Membership in the professional organization and the practice
of the profession must be limited to persons meeting stated
standards of preparation and competency.
9. The profession affords a life career and permanent
membership as long as services meet professional standards.
10.The public recognizes, has confidence in, and is willing to
compensate the members of the profession for their services
(AGPA, 1971, pp. 327-330).
One of the difficulties in identifying student personnel admini¬
stration as a profession has been the problem of establishing clear cut
boundaries around the larger function of student personnel adminis¬
tration (Wrenn and Darley, 1949). Lack of cohesion and coordination
of the separate personnel functions has contributed to the problem of
identity as a profession. Traditionally, when a body of knowledge or
literature exists and enough people are thoroughly based in it, prac¬
ticing its principles, a profession is born. Basic principles for stu¬
dent personnel administration in higher education are still found in

-22-
philosophy, psychology, sociology, and the humanities as well as in
management and administration (Crane, 1965).
Useem (1964) has observed that the difference between an
occupation and a profession lies in the degree to which its cluster of
skills is backed by a consistent body of theories and principles. She
believed that student personnel administration was a "professionalizing"
occupation in the sense there was an increasing attention to the
theoretical principles out of which should flow the skilled performance.
This observation of "professionalizing" of occupations was also
observed by Wilensky (1964) who noted that the label was loosely
applied to increasing specialization and transferability of skill; the
proliferation of objective standards of work; the spread of tenure
arrangements, licensing or certification; and the growth of service
occupations.
Concern for the recognition of student personnel administration as
a profession has been widely expressed in the literature (Cowley,
1936; Wrenn and Darley, 1949; American Council on Education, 1949;
Lloyd-Jones, 1949; Feder, 1959; Mueller, 1959; Penny, 1969; Penn,
1974; Stamatakos, 1981). Wrenn and Darley have provided perhaps
the best and most widely accepted criteria to determine whether
student personnel work deserves identity as a profession.
1. The application of standards of selection and training.
2. The definition of job titles and functions.
3. The possession of specialized knowledge and skills.
4. The development of a professional consciousness and
professional group.
5. The self imposition of standards of admission and
performance.

-23-
6. Legal recognition of the vocation.
7. The development of a code of ethics.
8. The performance of a socially needed function (1949).
In their study Wrenn and Darley concluded that student personnel
work was not yet a profession (1949). Of the eight criteria
established to measure professionalism they concluded that the greatest
barrier to student personnel work was the application of standards of
selection and training. Too many staff in student affairs were selected
because they were already employed by an institution in some capacity.
They also observed problems with specific selection criteria and
unclear training expectations inconsistent with the demands of the
work. Stamatakos (1981) used Wrenn and Darley's (1949) criteria to
assess the progress student personnel has made toward acquiring
identity as a profession. Although he believed the field does qualify,
the noted continued difficulties with selection, standards, quality, and
competency of professional preparation programs and their graduates.
He urged continued research to examine whether the training received
in preparation programs provides graduates with sufficient skills and
competencies to function effectively in the field of student affairs.
Professional Status
The professional needs of student personnel work are best
represented by attention to competencies and skills necessary for
practitioners to effectively deliver quality services and programs. No
group can claim professional standing without explicit statements about
what constitutes competence in that field and the means by which
competence can be attained and assessed (McCleary, 1973).

-24-
Among the primary needs identified by Williamson (1952) was the
establishment of high standards of selection and of professional
competence for the student personnel staff. There has been an
increased recognition of the need for more attention to organizational
and management skills, both in training and in application (Borland
and Thomas, 1976; Appleton, Briggs, and Rhatigan, 1978; McDaniel,
1972). Cross (1973) supported Brown (1972) in urging increased
attention to the integration of student personnel function within the
academic areas. This posture received strong support as well from
Crookston (1972).
The status of student personnel as a profession has varied
according to perceptions of how well the field has addressed its
mission and purpose. Knock (1977) observed the lack of progress
toward achievement of professional status which has been cited in the
literature (Feder, 1959; Koile, 1966; Shoeben, 1967; Nygreen, 1968;
Penny, 1972). He further supported the importance of defining
operational purposes and then developing skills and procedures for
fulfilling such purposes (Cowley, 1964; Berdie, 1966; Parker, 1971;
Crookston, 1972; Crookston, 1976; and Miller and Prince, 1976).
Saddlemire noted that student personnel practitioners must be convinc¬
ed of their status as educators and should display confidence in their
legitimacy in higher education as visible contributors to the attainment
of the educational goals of the institution (Note 3).
Confusion about identity, role, and purpose has been at the
foundation of this issue of professionalism. Dewey (1972) observed too
little pertinent discussion of the role and responsibility of professional
preparation programs. Others (Holland and Kleinberg, 1974) noted

-25-
problems stemming from the nomenclature of the field and implied that
the withholding of faculty status to student personnel practitioners
relegated them to second class status. A study by Astmann (1975) to
ascertain faculty perceptions toward student personnel services found
that faculty didn't fully accept colleagues in student personnel as
equals. Student affairs was perceived as a large complex of operations
with vague, ill-defined purpose, being only remotely necessary to the
realization of institutional goals and impractical in budget terms.
According to Prior (1973) the "planless gerry building" of student
personnel services over several decades has resulted in conflicting and
illogical mixtures of functions and responsibilities (p. 202). As a
result student personnel has been susceptible to a variety of
misperceptions of its role and false expectations of this competence.
Wrenn and Darley (1949) believed that the status of student personnel
has not been enhanced because of a lack of well accepted standards of
academic preparation. The field has failed to notify higher education
what those, established in the field, considered to be job function and
adequate qualifications. It has been recommended that student
personnel practitioners clarify traditional roles and aggressively pursue
new relationships with institutions (Penn, Manspeaker, and Millette,
1975; Berry, 1976). More attention should be directed toward
professional training programs (Berry, 1976). The professional future
of student personnel depends on present leadership and the training
programs (Brumfield, 1979).

-26-
Student Development
The literature has offered evidence of the perceived need for
student personnel to direct attention to more academic and curricular
concerns (Wise, 1951; Nash, Saurman and Sousa, 1975; Miller and
Prince, 1976; Jones, 1978). This need has been included as part of
an overall move away from an emphasis on services and increased
attention on the development of students. This transition has assumed
a prevailing "service status" view of student personnel administration
that must move more in the direction of a preventive, proactive,
collaborative role, consistent with the student development philosophy.
Hanson and Lenning (1979) acknowledged that this student development
concept for higher education received strong historical support from
the "Student Personnel Point of View" (American Council of Education,
1937, 1949) which urged attention to the development of the "whole"
student. Hanson and Lenning (1979) believed that student
development focused more on issues of attitude, moral, and value
development in assisting students in the acquisition of developmental
skills. Brown (1972) viewed a role change for student development
staff as diagnosticians, consultants, programmers, instructors,
behavioral scientists, and researchers. Crookston (1976) believed that
student personnel as historically defined was no longer a viable
concept and that student development should be used to describe more
accurately the underlying philosophy of the field. Crookston (1972)
indicated that staff needed to adjust from a status-based relationship
with students to a relationship based on competency and collaboration.
Cross (Note 1) stressed that if the field was to make substantial

-27-
progress and gain the respect of students and academic colleagues it
would have to begin to educate a new generation of student
development specialists.
Some practitioners in the field have regarded the student
development thrust as a passing phenomenon, but have now begun to
view it as a model to justify the presence of student personnel workers
on campuses (Humphries, 1977). Hanson and Lenning (1979) observed
that the Carnegie Commission (1973) claimed that the development of
the whole student was not realistic; that totalism in the campus
approach to students was inconsistent with the mission of higher
education. Student development has been hampered by obstacles of
deep rooted work habits, routines, beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions
of practitioners who have been traditionally trained (Stamatakos,
1980). Others claimed that little recognition has been given to the
fact that student development must be implemented in areas where
students have unwilling contact with the institution, areas such as
student conduct, registrars office, admissions office (Trow, 1978).
Although he acknowledged the datedness of the service concept,
Rhatigan (1975) raised issue with the assumption that much more will
become possible if we move organizationally, directly into the academic
hierarchy. Rhatigan (1975) advocated a broadening of the service
concept and an increased use of the classroom vehicle as a tool for
program delivery.
Shaffer (1973) concluded that in order to remain a significant
force in higher education, the student personnel field must contribute
to the total organizational development of colleges and universities and
not focus exclusively on the development of the individual student.

-28-
Development of Student Personnel Preparation Programs
Background
Training for student personnel administration prior to World War
II consisted largely of experience received on the job (LaBarre, 1948).
Many professionals in student personnel as well as in higher education
generally did not support the notion that professional preparation was
a necessary prerequisite to entry into the field (Turner, 1936;
Hullfish, 1941; Nygreen, 1965). Hullfish (1941) spoke in support of
the contention of some that good deans "are born not made," a concept
generally referred to as the "chromosome theory." Others supported
the notion that a better background for a position in student personnel
would be in an academic discipline (Nygreen, 1965). A study done to
determine role perceptions of chief student affairs administrators
revealed that there was little connection between the way a chief
student affairs officer (CSAO) was trained and the way in which a
CSAO perceived his/her role (Upcraft, 1971). A study to determine if
differences existed in chief student affairs officers' perception of
student personnel programs based upon whether they were academically
trained in the field revealed mixed results (Blackburn, 1969).
Academic preparation contributed toward emphasis on counseling,
educational reform, and models for behavioral learning. Practical
experience contributed to emphasis upon research and needs of
students. An earlier study by Saddlemire (1950) of male student
personnel administrators in colleges and universities showed 61
different titles being used for the chief male student personnel
administrator. Forty-four and a half percent were full professors and

-29-
78% held teaching appointments. Only 10% had no academic rank. A
later study by Foy (1969) of career patterns of student personnel
administrators revealed that 41% of those working in student affairs
had graduate degree training in guidance, counseling, or student
personnel. Eighty-six percent of the respondents believed that formal
training of new student personnel administrators was of great
importance.
Historically, the first formal training program began at Teachers'
College, Columbia University (LaBarre, 1948; Barry and Wolf, 1957;
Lloyd-Jones, 1962; Klopf, 1963) in 1913. Early concepts of educational
personnel work were confined to vocational guidance. Parallel to this
was the emphasis on counseling and guidance. By 1926, a prospective
vocational guidance worker could find coursework at 40 schools; the
neophyte dean at 24 (Barry and Wolf, 1957). The contributions of
training were felt to be improved practice, advanced theory,
production of trained workers and promotion of the field of student
personnel. The primary issues related to training identified then and
relevant today included content, methodology, selection, and evaluation
(Barry and Wolf, 1957).
Selection and Standards
Wrenn (1952) considered ‘the issues of selection and standards to
be the major unresolved problems in the preparation of student
personnel practitioners. He believed graduate institutions should
accept the responsibility for admitting into training programs only
those who demonstrated some evidence that they would succeed in the
graduate program and on the job. Anderson (1948) urged the
development of standards that would serve as criteria for selection of

-30-
graduate trainees. It was believed that the best applicants should be
socially sensitive, emotionally mature, and intellecturally able (Wrenn,
1952). They must show evidence of sufficient motivation toward the
roles and function of the field. Woolf and Woolf (1953) believed that
the most important consideration in the selection of trainees should be
the philosophy and attitude of the candidate. A study of the selection
of students for preparation in college student personnel work revealed
an inadequacy of existing instruments to measure characteristics
believed to be related to successful performance in the field (Wellman,
1952). The study also revealed a lack of valid, objective criteria for
selection (Wellman, 1955). A later study of preparation program
admission policies indicated a heavy emphasis on predictors of academic
success as initial screening criteria; standardized tests, grade point
averages, and recommendation letters (Gimmestad and Goldsmith,
1973).
The issue of standards has most recently been addressed within
the context of what should be considered acceptable training in
preparation programs and how this training acceptability could be
measured. Stamatakos (1981) analyzed Wrenn and Darley's (1949)
traditional criteria or professionalism. Stamatakos examined standards
of admission and performance by addressing skills and competencies
student affairs professionals are expected to have or actually possess
at the time they enter the practice of the profession (p. 106).
In reviewing previous studies (Minetti, 1977; Ostroth, 1979;
and Hanson, Note 2) Stamatakos (1981) indicated that competencies
believed to be important for staff to possess had been identified. In a
review of previous research on the issue of preparation standards

-31-
(Brown, 1972; Council of Student Personnel Associations, 1975; Newton
and Hellenger, 1974; Newton and Richardson, 1976; Parker, 1971; and
Rentz, 1976), Stamatakos (1981) could find no evidence that a)
employers consciously attempt to determine if applicants for positions
actually possess the expected competencies, b) those hired for student
affairs positions do possess the expected competencies, c) professional
preparation programs educate specifically and adequately for the
development of agreed upon skills and competencies (p. 106).
Content
Content for the preparation programs in student personnel has
been the source of considerable controversy among professionals in the
field. Initial programs sought to provide strong grounding in counsel¬
ing and guidance as it was the belief that such was the primary back¬
ground necessary to adequately prepare student personnel practition¬
ers (Williamson, 1949; Wrenn, 1949; Mueller, 1959; Parker, 1971).
Parker (1966) took the position that education as a counselor, based
upon an adequate philosophy of individual development within
guidelines that will benefit the entire society, was crucial to adequate
functioning as an effective student personnel administrator (p. 256).
The value of an overall generalist approach to preparation has
been acknowledged and supported, primarily through the efforts of the
professional associations (Council of Student Personnel Associations,
1965, 1969; American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1971;
American College Personnel Association, 1967, 1975). Robinson (1966)
analyzed statements about preparation generated by each of the three
professional associations to determine substantive areas of 1)

-32-
responsibility and authority, 2) purposes and goals, 3) proposed
curriculum and training experiences, and 4) emphasis and unique
characteristics. In the first category of responsibility and authority,
Robinson found the APGA statement to be the most comprehensive; in
the second category, purpose and goals, the COSPA statement was the
most comprehensive. Robinson found general agreement among all
statements on the third category (p. 255). He concluded that the
three statements represented general agreement on what ought to be
included in preparation programs and he recommended seeking
consensus on one statement for the field. Such consensus was both
sought and achieved via subsequent statement revisions by ACPA
(1967) and COSPA (1969) which reflected the cooperative agreement
recommended by Robinson (1966).
Association statements in addition to other studies (Rhatigan,
1965; O'Banion, 1966) and earlier writings of Williamson (1952)
supported the claim for a common core of knowledge that all student
personnel staff should possess. O'Banion (1966, 1969) devised a
curriculum theory which stated that "program is derived from purpose
and function (1969, p. 249)." His study to determine the core of
experiences that should be common to all student personnel
practitioners in higher education included 1) psychology, 2) counseling
principles and techniques, 3) practicum in student personnel work, 4)
overview of student personnel work in higher education, 5) study of
the college student, 6) sociology/anthropology, and 7) higher
education. He also found that the use of the curricular theory was
effective in determining a core program of preparation.

-33-
Numerous studies (Howtz, 1967; Davis, 1956; Williamson, 1961;
Rhatigan, 1965; Rockey, 1972; Yates, 1977; Minetti, 1977) support the
value of the internship /practicum experience in a student personnel
preparation program. Howtz (1967) in a study to determine if
internships contributed significantly to the development of student
personnel practitioners found that practical experience and content
courses should be concurrent.
More recent work in the content of preparation programs revealed
an increased concern and emphasis on the end result of preparation;
competencies and skills to have been acquired. Two statements by
COSPA, (Cooper, 1971, and COSPA, 1974) incorporated student
development philosophy of education in support of preparation
programs which were competency based. The competency objectives
were incorporated within roles as administrator, instructor, and
consultant. The goal of professional preparation has become the
preparation of people who in addition to having attained a high level of
self development, had skills to collaborate with others in their self
development. They were to be able to use competencies of assessment,
goal setting, and change processes in implementing the roles of
consultant, administrator, and instruction in relationship with
individuals, groups, and organizations (COSPA, 1974, p. 78).
Models
Rodgers (1977) identified four major types of preparation
programs in student personnel: 1) counseling, 2) administrative, 3)
practice oriented, and 4) social intervention. Most preparation
programs identified in the most recent ACPA Directory of Graduate

-34-
Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel (1980) can be
classified in one of Rodgers' four types.
The student personnel education process-outcome mode, referred
to as Sped Pom, is based upon student development principles. It
synthesized elements of learner centered and competency-based
education (Arner, Peterson, Arner, Hawkins, Spooner, 1976; Peterson,
1977; Spooner, 1979). The Sped Pom model was built on three
components; substantive knowledge, acquisition of skills and
techniques, and personal development and integration. Spooner (1979)
recognized that objective assessment tools were needed. The benefits
of the model were its wide array of courses and learning experiences
and the emphasis on training to a person's strengths. Brown (1977)
believed the greatest strength of the model was its breakdown of
education and content areas into the three aforementioned components.
Rentz (1976) proposed a triadic model emphasizing a) three
interrelated cores of learning (classroom, internship, and selfhood)
and b) a sharing task force (an integrating agent of learning). The
model was proposed as a result of perceived weaknesses in entry level
employment positions, related job responsibilities, and expectation of
and by graduate students. Rentz (1976) supports Howtz (1967) strong
recommendation for a field based internship concurrent with classroom
work.
Other models observed in the literature included a student
activities model (Meabon, Bailey, Witten, 1975), a cooperation model
(Hartley, 1969), a molar model (Caple, 1972), financial aid model (Bob,
Lee, 1979) and communication model (Painter, 1979). Miller and Prince
(1976) proposed an integrated model based upon the acquisition of

-35-
competencies in areas of goal setting, assessment, instruction,
consultation, milieu management, and evaluation. Delworth and Hanson
(1980) indicated that acquisition of critical competencies in similar
areas of assessment and evaluation, instruction, counseling, and
consultation should be the primary focus of preparation programs.
Preparation Program Assessments
Cowley (1957) noted the tendency to make appointments to key
personnel positions for reasons having little to do with preparation for
such duties (Hill and Green, 1960). Stamatakos (1981) made reference
to the 1200 "crossovers" entering over field every year from other
faculty positions, business, industry, the military, the clergy; all with
little or no previous training or experience in student affairs work.
Upcraft (1971) concluded that formal preparation has little effect on
the student affairs practitioners' perception of their work.
At present preparation programs are administered through
departments of counseling and guidance, psychology, educational
psychology, higher education, or educational administration. When a
separate program exists it is interdisciplinary in nature, involving
course offerings from a wide range of departments with direct
affiliation to counseling or higher education (Greenleaf, 1977). Cosby
(1965) perceived the heavy emphasis on counseling as a source of role
conflict for student affairs practitioners heavily engaged in
administration. A study by Commission V of the National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) of the attitudes of
behavioral scientists toward the training and responsibilities of student
personnel administrators revealed that a significant number of

-36-
behavioral scientists believed student affairs practitioners were very
inadequately trained and that they lacked a thorough understanding of
the problems with which they dealt and the effects of their work on
students and faculty (Smith, Note 4).
Peterson (1977) offered a thorough summary of the assessed
criticisms of student personnel preparation programs.
1. Student personnel education has not been sufficiently
grounded in theory and research.
2. Graduate programs have been too eclectic.
3. Quality of programs is inconsistent.
4. Few student personnel educators have been trained for their
roles.
5. Student personnel educators fail to practice what they
preach.
6. Graduate students have been used as cheap labor (e.g.,
residence halls).
7. Ratio of students to faculty is often inexcusable.
8. Quality of theses and dissertations is below minimum
standards.
A number of studies have been done, assessing graduate prepara¬
tion programs at particular institutions (Davis, 1956; Broertjes, 1965;
Bolton, 1974; Marler, 1977). In assessing the opinions of recent
graduates as to the quality and effectiveness of these programs the
findings revealed general satisfaction with the programs with recom¬
mendation for increased focus on experiential components (practicums
and internships). A general profile study by Kuh, Greenlee, and
Lardy (1978) supported these findings.

-37-
A longitudinal study of the graduate assistantship work training
experience highlighted the importance of experiential learning in
preparation programs (McGovern and Tinsley, 1976).
Various trends in preparation have been observed. There has
been increased emphasis on training for the generalist rather than
specialists (Emmet, 1963). There is a trend away from counseling and
guidance courses as a prerequisite for student personnel work (Emmet,
1963). Riker (1977) observed that professional preparation programs
are placing more responsibility on students for demonstrating learning
and skill attainment and utilizing faculty more as supervisors, and
resource persons. He believed that as the concept of
competency-based curriculum receives greater attention, carefully
planned learning modules would replace content courses.
Needs / Recommendations
Practicums and internships have been recognized as valuable
components of preparation programs. Kirkbride (1972) recommended
that 1) practicums be offered at the end of the formal training
program, 2) greater emphasis be placed on exposure to generalists
than specialists, 3) a team of supervisors rather than individuals be
utilized (p. 84).
Increased recognition was made of the need to analyze training
content in terms of actual job function and job expectations in an
effort to lessen the disparity between training and job performance
(Blaesser and Froelich, 1950; Stroughton, 1957).
Preparation programs must increase their attention to the
administration and management of higher education (Appleton, Briggs,

-38-
Rhatigan, 1978). There has been a strong endorsement for a sharper
focus on organizational development (Blaesser, 1978; McDaniel, 1972).
A study by Yates (1977) of the perceptions of chief student personnel
administrators and coordinaters of preparation programs regarding
intended learning outcomes of doctoral programs supports this. Yates
(1977) found that respondents believe there is a need for greater
emphasis on the development of management skills in preparation
programs.
Trueblood (1966) recommended 1) that preparation programs be
open to modification based upon varying training needs, 2) that
preparation programs select qualified people for training, and 3) that
preparation programs develop learning expectations which reflect the
demands of professional positions. The results of a study by Tracey
(1971) showed that a higher priority must be given to the evaluation
of and improvement of existing preparation programs.
Professional Competency
Competency results when an individual exhibits behavior that
enables him to perform a particular administrative task in the most
desirable manner (Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational
Administration, 1955). A competency must be judged in reference to
purpose and must be concerned with quality (p. 45).
No group can claim professional standing without explicit
statements about what constitutes competence in the field and the
means by which competence has been the beginning step in a total
competency based program (McCleary, 1973).

-39-
Developing basic competencies of the successful professional has
been seen as the purpose of professional education (Wolfe, 1980).
Williamson (1958) in noting the diversity of needed professional
competencies as a problem dimension of professional training indicated
that the development of competency in one's own specialty as well as in
their role with working with colleagues (faculty and staff) was critical.
Studies have been done to determine specific competencies
necessary for the adequate function in professional higher education
(Lynam, 1970; Davies, 1970). A study by Domeier (1977) developed
competency tasks used by student affairs administrators and examined
the training of administrators for the tasks. The results indicated
that student affairs administrators did not agree on the applicability
and frequency of using the tasks in their present positions. They
also did not agree on the sources of training they had for each
competency task. Minetti (1977) developed a list of entry level
competencies to determine whether the locus of preparation for each
competency was the formal student personnel preparation program or
an assistantship. Ostroth (1979) utilized Minetti's (1977) competencies
to determine what criteria employers used in evaluating candidates
seeking entry level positions in student affairs. Hanson (Note 2)
generated a list of 195 competencies using the Delphi technique and
classifying the competencies according to dimensions of the T.H.E.
model (Miller and Prince, 1976). A study by Newton and Hellenga
(1974) to determine appropriate goals, objectives, and a direction for
student personnel preparation programs established that a competency
based approach was the preferred mode for training compared to
traditional course-centered approaches. Riker (1977) also called for a

-40-
move toward a competency based, module model in lieu of more tradi¬
tional offerings.
Competency assessment has represented an approach that eval¬
uates performances, judges ability, and measures what can be
demonstrated (Goldsmith, 1979). New ways of identifying and
measuring competencies are needed to assure that the ability to
perform competently is the ultimate goal. The primary concern should
be given to the assessment and evaluation of professional performance
outcomes (Pottinger, 1979).
Delworth and Yarris (1978) observed that more skills and
competencies are required in the student services profession and that
this must be addressed by those who aspire as trainers.
Practitioners and preparation program faculty through the direct
and long term co-sponsorship of the profession's major and specialty
associations, need to conduct joint research to determine needed and
desired skills and competencies at all levels in the profession (Domeier,
1977). Once agreed on, through the medium of association-sponsored
conferences, a vigorous and sustained dissemination and promulgation
campaign should be undertaken to effect their acceptance and exercise
in hiring, practicing performance objectives, and as instructional
objectives in professional preparation programs (Knock, 1979; as cited
in Stamatakos, 1981).
Chapter Summary
This chapter contained a review of the literature related to the
development of student personnel as a profession, the development of

-41-
preparation programs, and the identification and measurement of
competencies identified in the literature.
The next chapter describes the methodology and design developed
and utilized in implementing this study.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to determine if student personnel
professional preparation programs educated specifically for the devel¬
opment of entry level competencies. Three groups of professionals in
the field of student affairs were compared to determine their
perception of the training graduates with master's degrees received in
their preparation programs for the entry level competencies and to
determine their perception of the importance of the competencies for
entry level staff.
This chapter identifies and describes the following aspects of the
study: research objectives, research populations, development of the
instrument, endorsement of the study, administration of the instru¬
ment, treatment of the data, and a chapter summary.
Research Objectives
The purpose of this study was to determine if student personnel
professional preparation programs educated for the development of
entry level competencies.
The objective of the study was to provide answers to the follow¬
ing research questions:
1. Do recent graduates of master's level preparation programs
in student personnel administration enter the field of student
affairs with training in entry level competencies as a result
of their preparation programs?
-42-

-43-
2. Do chief student affairs officers (CSAOs), directors of
housing (DOH) and faculty (FTs) have similar perceptions of
the training recent master's degree graduates of preparation
programs in student personnel administration receive for the
identified entry level competencies?
3. Is it important for recent master's degree graduates from
student personnel administration preparation programs to
have acquired these competencies prior to full time entry
into the student affairs field?
4. Do CSAOs, DOHs, and FTs, have similar perceptions of the
importance of these entry level competencies?
Research Population
The research population for this study included selected samples
of chief student affairs officers (CSAOs) and directors of housing
(DOHs) at four year public and private post secondary educational
institutions and faculty (FTs) employed at institutions with depart¬
ments offering graduate programs in student personnel administration
leading to a Master's degree. A random sample of 150 CSAOs was
selected from the voting delegate directory of the National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). One hundred and
forty-one DOHs at institutions which house 3000 or more students in
university-operated residential facilities were selected from the
directory of the Association of College and University Housing Officers
International (ACUHO-I). One hundred and sixty-two FTs were
selected from the Directory of Graduate Preparation Programs in
College Student Personnel (American College Personnel Association
1980).
No studies have been reported in the literature which investigated
the perceptions of both student affairs practitioners and faculty train¬
ers regarding training in preparation programs for specified profes¬
sional competencies. Indeed, there is no published research to

-44-
support the notion that those hired for student affairs positions
possess the specified competencies or whether the preparation
programs have prepared their graduates with these competencies.
These three samples of student affairs professionals were selected
for a number of reasons. Chief Student Affairs Officers maintain
overall ultimate responsibility for the hiring of professional staff in all
student affairs departments. The quality of the student affairs staff
frequently reflects the level of involvement the CSAO has with the
staff. The CSAO approves and supports the expected minimal profes¬
sional and educational requirements for all professional staff positions
in the student affairs division.
Directors of Housing were selected because they represent a
student affairs department which frequently maintains a large number
of professional staff. Housing departments, providing residence
facilities for 3000 students or more, hire and provide for a larger
number of professional staff than do housing department which provide
facilities for few than 3000 students. Departments of that size are
more likely to maintain an annual operating budget, large enough to
support a professionally trained residence hall staff. A study by
Ostroth (1979) supports the observation that, by far, more entry level
professional positions are available in the housing/residence life
department than within the other departments of student affairs.
Faculty were selected primarily because they assume the
responsibility for providing the formal academic and applied
preparation in graduate programs of student personnel work. Their
responsibility is to direct the development of graduate students who

-45-
represent prospective entry level professionals into the student affairs
field.
Development of the Instrument
Extensive review of the literature and previous studies of compe¬
tencies necessary for student affairs staff (Yates, 1977; Newton and
Richardson, 1976; Minetti, 1977, Domeier, 1977; Ostroth, 1979;
Hanson, Note 2) resulted in the development of a selected list of
expected entry level professional competencies for student personnel
work. The Tomorrow's Higher Education (T.H.E.) model (Miller and
Prince, 1976) was used as the foundation for a conceptual framework,
providing categories for the competencies which were identified. A
slight modification to the model was accomplished consistent with
Hanson's (American College Personnel Association, 1977) taxonomy of
competencies, Delworth and Hanson's (1980) recommendations, and
consistent with the need to provide a framework adequate for specific,
entry level competencies.
Hanson's (Note 2) ACPA sponsored study used the T.H.E. model
for identifying student affairs staff competencies. Twenty-eight
leaders in ACPA responded to a Delphi survey which eventually led to
Hanson's identification of 195 competencies in areas of goal setting,
assessment, consultation, instruction, milieu management, and eval¬
uation. Hanson's study requested response from ACPA leaders re¬
garding which competencies were considered most important. Those
competencies were identified, categorized, and accumulated by this
researcher as part of an overall competency taxonomy from which the
final, entry level competency list was derived.

-46-
Domeier (1977) deductively generated 58 administrative competency
tasks under the following categories: budget management, cooperative
relationships, communication, leadership, personnel management,
professional development, research and evaluation, and student
contact. This researcher added these competencies to the taxonomy
developed for entry level competency deviation. Competency tasks
from Domeier's study, which overlapped with Hanson's study were
eliminated.
Minetti (1977) derived 47 entry level competencies judged to be
important for entry level student affairs staff. He identified these
competencies under the following categories: counseling, human
relations and interpersonal skills; theory and practice of administration
and management; research, testing, and measurement; historical,
philosophical, and social foundations; meeting student needs; and
professional purpose and role identity. This researcher added compe¬
tencies to the developing competency taxonomy, eliminating those
competencies which were duplicated in the other studies.
The competency taxonomy developed by the researcher from the
previous studies numbered 134. Overlap, duplication, and evidence of
common themes enabled the researcher to derive 71 entry level
competencies. With the assistance, support and approval of faculty at
the University of Florida, the 71 entry level competencies were
analyzed; some were eliminated; and the balance were categorized
within the modified conceptual framework.
The categories identified from the modified T.H.E. conceptual
model and the 33 entry level professional competencies utilized in the
study included the following:

-47-
I.Goal Setting
1. Write behavioral objectives
2. Identify and articulate institution's goals and policies to
students
3. Teach students the consequences of their behavior
4. Engage in systematic planning
II.Consultation
5. Recognize and use expertise of others
6. Facilitate group problem solving and group decision making
7. Facilitate staff development through in-service training
8. Work effectively with a diversity of individual students and
faculty
III.Communication
9. Analyze and write memos and reports
10. Make effective use of verbal and nonverbal skills in group
presentations
11. Perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, and
needs of others
12. Represent student concerns to other campus groups
13. Recognize and define confidentiality practices and
procedures
14. Determine usage of office management procedures (i.e.
secretarial services, business machine operation, print and
non print media)
IV.Assessment and Evaluation
15. Assess student needs
16. Analyze and interpret program needs and requests
17. Design student programs based on student needs
18. Interpret and understand various evaluation strategies
19. Identify and understand various evaluation strategies
Design and implement a program to evaluate staff
20.

-48-
21. Revise programs on the basis of evaluation data
22. Recognize and analyze interpersonal problems
V. Environmental and Organizational Management
23. Develop and administer a budget
24. Organize resources (people, material) to carry out program
activities
25. Understand institutional mission, objectives, and
expectations
26. Know and utilize effective decision making strategies
27. Accept authority and responsibility and delegate as
appropriate
28. Identify and utilize available financial resources
29. Mediate conflict among students, campus, and/or community
groups
30. Recognize and accept the ethical consequences of personal
and professional behavior
31. Select, train, and supervise staff
32. Manage physical resources and facilities
33. Adjudicate student conduct matters effectively
An instrument including these competencies and categories was
developed for use in this study. Part I of the instrument requested
common demographic information from respondents; age, highest earned
degree, length of time in current position, length of time in the field
of student affairs, type of institution where employed, institutional
enrollment, the field(s) in which advanced degrees were earned, and
membership in professional associations. Those responding to the
practitioner instrument were asked to indicate the number of their
professional staff who have been hired in a first professional student
job since they have served at their current position level (at their
current institution and any previous institutions) and how many such

-49-
entry level staff earned a Master's degree in a field related to student
affairs. Those responding to the faculty instrument were asked to
indicate how many students had graduated from the respondent's
academic program with a master's degree, if the respondents had ever
(currently or at one time) served in an administrative capacity in
student affairs, and if so, in what capacity.
Part II of the instrument requested that recipients in each sample
respond to each competency by indicating 1) if recent master's degree
graduates of preparation programs in student personnel administration
have possessed the competency and 2) the importance of the competen¬
cy for assuming an entry level staff position. The recipients of the
instrument were asked to respond twice to each competency by circling
the number which best reflected
following key:
Indicate the extent of your
agreement with the following
statement for each competency.
"Recent master's degree graduates
in student personnel administration
possess this competency."
Possession of Competency
1. Disagree strongly(DS)
2. Disagree (D)
3. Agree (A)
4. Agree strongly (AS)
their perception based on the
Indicate the extent to
which you believe each
competency is important
for assuming an entry
level staff position
Importance of the Competency
1 Not important (NI)
2. Of little importance. (LI)
3. Important (I)
4. Not important (NI)
The instrument was pilot tested at the University of Florida using
five student affairs administrative staff and five faculty members in
the department associated with the preparation program for student
personnel administration. The pilot test requested: 1) respondents'
evaluation of the competencies, 2) respondents' understanding of the
intent of the study, and 3) any suggestions they could offer.

-50-
Feedback from a 100% return on the pilot test enabled the researcher
to make necessary revisions and alterations in the instrument. All
competencies were evaluated to be appropriate for use in the study.
As a result of the pilot test and extensive evaluation and critique by
members of the faculty and student affairs staff, face validity was
assumed for the instrument.
Although it may have been possible to generate similar data by
means of other instrumentation (for example, structured interviews)
three considerations qualified the use of the instrument: 1) the
extensive nature of the information to be gathered and the consequent
data analysis, 2) financial and time constraints, and 3) the need to
avoid the possible bias and subjectivity on the part of both the
researcher and respondents (Borg, 1963, Hillway, 1969, Macoby and
Macoby, 1954; as cited in Domeier, 1977, p. 6).
Endorsement of the Study
That the need exists to conduct additional research in this area
has received strong support in the literature (Sandeen, 1982;
Stamatakos, 1981; Domeier, 1977; Minetti, 1977; Newton and
Richardson, 1976; Rhatigan, 1965). The results of this study may be
of significant interest and value to all professionals who practice and
teach in the student personnel profession. The results may provide
information useful to those who plan and develop preparation programs
as well as provide information about the kind of training entry level
professionals have received. A letter of endorsement for the study
was provided by the Vice President of Student Affairs at the Univer¬
sity of Florida, the Supervisor of the study, whose own interests in
this area parallel those of the researcher. The researcher also sought

-51-
and obtained a letter of support and endorsement from the Research
and Information Committee of the Association of College and University
Housing Officers International (ACUHO-I). Both endorsement letters
expressed recognition and support of this study and encouraged the
respondents to promptly complete and return the questionnaire. The
ACUHO-I endorsement letter accompanied only instruments sent to the
sample of DOHs.
Administration of the Instrument
Initial distribution of the instrument was accomplished through a
mailout. Each of the 453 potential respondents, representing CSAOs,
DOHs, and FTs, received a cover letter indicating the purpose of the
study, endorsement letters appropriate to the respective sample, and
the two-part questionaire. The cover letter was reproduced on official
stationery of the University of Florida student affairs division in order
to lend additional credibility to the study (See Appendix). The cover
letter outlined the primary purpose of the study, defined specific
terms used in the investigation, and requested that the recipient
complete and return the questionaire via the self addressed, prepaid
postage envelope included in each mailout. The cover letter requested
return of the questionaire within two weeks and provided assurances
of confidentiality in all aspects of the investigation.
Feedback received from the pilot test had enabled the researcher
to design an instrument package to enhance recipient understanding as
well as encourage a high response rate. The instruments were
numbered 1 through 453 for follow-up purposes.
A follow-up post card urging recipient participation in and sup¬
port for the study was sent two weeks after the first mailout to

-52-
recipients who had failed to respond to the initial request (See
Appendix). This request asked that the instrument be returned
within two weeks.
Treatment of the Data
Responses obtained on each of the 33 competencies in Part II of
the instrument yielded an individual score for each competency on
possession and importance.
Responses to the question on possession provided a measure of
the extent to which respondents in each sample perceived entry level
staff to possess or not possess each competency.
Responses to the question on importance provided a measure of
the extent to which respondents in each sample perceived each compe¬
tency important or not important for the assumption of an entry level
staff position.
The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) computer program was the
primary tool used in analyzing the data. This program system enabled
the researcher to perform various types of data analysis relevant to
the design of the study.
All instruments were number coded to allow for identification with
the appropriate sample. The results from all useable, returned
instruments were tranferred on to data coding sheets and subsequently
punched on to IBM cards.
Procedures were selected from the SAS program which enabled the
researcher to answer the research questions asked in the study.
Those questions were as follows:
Research Questions
1. Do recent graduates of master's level preparation programs in
student personnel administration enter the field of student affairs

-53-
with training in entry level competencies as a result of their
training programs?
2. Do CSAOS, DOHs, and FTs have similar perceptions of the
training recent master's degree graduates of preparation programs
in student personnel administration receive for the identified
entry level competencies?
3. Is it important for recent master's degree graduates from student
personnel preparation programs to have acquired these
competencies prior to full time entry into the student affairs
field?
4. Do CSAOs, DOHs, and FTs have similar perceptions of the
importance of these entry level competencies?
Frequencies procedures were applied to the questions in Part I of
the instrument providing percentage responses for each item on all
respondents.
An analysis of variance for repeated measures was applied to the
data from Part II to provide measures of central tendency for each
respondent group on the possession and importance variables.
A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted on categories
and competencies for each group for variables of possession and
importance to determine similarity /differences among the three groups
of their perceptions of possession and importance of each category and
competency. If differences were observed at the .05 level of
significance for any category or competency on possession or
importance Duncan's multiple range test was performed to determine
between what groups a significant difference existed.
Chapter Summary
The design and methodology encorporated in the study has been
outlined in this chapter consisting of a) research objectives, b)
research populations, c) development of the instrument, d)

-54-
endorsement of the study, e) administration of the instrument, and f)
treatment of the data. Chapter IV presented a detailed review and
description of the data obtained in this study.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
The data presented in this chapter were collected from a re¬
search instrument administered to three groups of student affairs
professionals; faculty (FTs) at institutions offering master's degree
programs in student personnel administration, directors of housing
(DOHs), and chief student affairs officers (CSAOs) at four year public
and private post secondary educational institutions. The instrument
was developed from an extensive review of the literature including
previous studies of competencies determined to be necessary for entry
level student affairs staff. The instrument included 33 entry level,
professional competencies, organized into five categories. The primary
purpose of the study was to determine if professional preparation
programs in student personnel administration educated for the
development of these competencies. Specifically, the study sought to
provide answers to the following questions for investigation:
1. Do recent graduates of master's level preparation programs in
student personnel administration enter the field of student
affairs with training in entry level competencies as a result of
their preparation programs?
2. Do chief student affairs officers (CSAOs), directors of housing
(DOHs) and faculty (FTs) have similar perceptions of the
training recent master's degree graduates of preparation
programs in student personnel administration receive for the
identified entry level competencies?
-55-

-56-
3. Is it important for recent master's degree graduates from student
personnel preparation programs to have acquired these compe¬
tencies prior to full time entry into the student affairs field?
4. Do CSAOs, DOHs, and FTs have similar perceptions of the
importance of these entry level competencies?
Of the 453 CSAOs, DOHs, and FTs who were mailed a copy of the
instrument, 260 (57.4%) useable instruments were returned. A break¬
down of the rate of return indicated that 91 of 150 (60.67%) CSAOs, 94
of 141 (66.67%) DOHs and 75 of 162 (46.30%) of FTs representing 48
(59%) of the 81 preparation programs returned usable instruments.
The data included in this chapter are presented to address the
four questions for investigation in this study and will be organized in
to the following sections: a) demographic profile of respondents; b)
data on possession of competencies; c) data on importance of compe¬
tencies; d) statistical comparisons among groups; and e) a chapter
summary. A copy of the research instrument appears in Appendix A.
Demographic Profile of Respondents
A summary of demographic information for respondents in all
three groups is provided in Table 1. Total respondents to the study
were 260 including 75 FTs, 94 DOHs, and 91 CSAOs. Responses to
the item pertaining to institutional type revealed that the majority of
all respondents (77.7%) are currently employed at public institutions.
There were some differences on this item between groups. An over¬
whelming majority (90.7%) of FTs and DOHs (85.1%) were employed in
the public sector while the CSAO group reported a somewhat smaller
number working in public higher education (59.3%).

TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE FOR FACULTY (FTs), DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs)
AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICER'S (CSAOs)
CHARACTERISTIC
FTs
DOHs
CSAOs
CUMULATIVE
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
Institutional Type
Public
68
90.7
80
85.1
54
59.3
202
77.7
Private
7
9.3
14
14.9
37
40.7
58
22.3
Institutional Enrollment
Under 5000
4
5.3
0
—
35
38.5
39
15
5000 - 9999
13
17.3
23
24.5
19
20.9
55
21.2
10000 - 14999
12
16
21
22.3
12
15.4
47
18.1
15000 - 20000
12
16
15
16
9
9.9
36
13.9
over 20000
34
45.3
35
37.2
14
15.4
83
31.9
Time at Current Position Level
Less than five years
13
17.3
51
54.3
34
37.8
98
37.8
5-10 years
15
20
22
23.4
29
32.2
66
25.5
11 - 15 years
22
29.3
16
17
14
15.6
52
20.1
more than 15 years
25
33.3
5
5.3
13
14.4
43
16.6
l
i_n
I

TABLE 1 Continued
CHARACTERISTICS FTs DOHs CSAOs CUMULATIVE
Time Employed in Student
Affairs Higher Education
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
Less than 5 years
2
2.7
4
4.3
2
2.2
8
3.1
5-10 years
6
8.2
27
29
7
7.7
40
15.6
11 - 15 years
22
30.1
31
33.3
29
31.9
82
31.9
more than 15 years
43
58.9
31
33.3
53
58.2
127
49.4
Age
25 - 35 years
3
4
33
35.9
10
11
46
17.8
36 - 45 years
30
40
43
46.7
44
48.4
117
45.4
46 - 55 years
23
30.7
13
14.1
30
33
66
25.6
over 55 years
19
24.3
3
3.3
7
7.7
28
10.9
Highest Earned Degree
Bachelor's
0
...
4
4.3
0
—
4
1.5
Master's
3
4
56
59.2
26
28.6
85
32.7
Specialist
0
...
0
—
1
1.1
1
.4
Doctorate
72
96
34
36.2
64
70.3
170
65.4
"58

TABLE 1 Continued
CHARACTERISTIC FTs DOHs CSAOs CUMULATIVE
Advanced Degree in a Field
Related to Higher Education
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
Master's
Yes
47
62.7
71
75.5
60
65.9
178
68.5
NO
Doctorate
28
37.3
23
24.5
31
34.1
82
31.5
U1
Yes
70
93.3
33
35.1
55
60.4
158
60.8
sO
1
No
5
6.7
61
64.9
36
39.6
102
39.2
Membership in Professional
Association
148 56.9
107 41.2
180 69.2
25 9.6
113 43.5
ACPA
ACUHO
NASPA
NANDAC
Other

-60-
The population in this study reported much variation in the size
of respective employing institutions. No clear majority of the pop¬
ulation worked in a particular size institution with respect to enroll¬
ment although, the largest number (31.9%) worked in institutions with
enrollments over 20,000 students. Again, there were differences
among the groups with respect to enrollment at employing institutions.
A majority of FTs (45.3%) reported employment at institutions with
over 20,000 enrolled students. More DOHs (37.2%) worked at large
institutions of over 20,000 students, but their numbers were more
equally spread among the other size ranges with the exception of the
under 5000 category. No DOHs reported employment in institutions of
that size, not surprising given the fact that all DOHs in the population
directed programs which housed 3000 or more students on campus.
The largest number of CSAOs (38.5%) reported employment at institu¬
tions with enrollment under 5000.
The largest number of the total population (37.8%) reported that
they had been employed at their current position level for less than
five years. Variations among the groups revealed that a large number
of FTs (33.3%) had worked at their current level for over 15 years
with the next largest group of FTs (29.3%) reporting employment at
their current level for 11-15 years. Both practitioner groups differed
with FTs. The majority of DOHs (54.3%) reported employment at their
current level for less than five years. The greatest number of CSAOs
have worked at their current level either for less than five years
(37.8%) or from 5-10 years (32.2%).

-61-
The majority of the population of respondents reported employ¬
ment in student affairs/higher education for more than 15 years
(49.4%). This was consistent among all three groups with the largest
number of each group reporting such an employment commitment for
over 15 years.
The largest portion of the population reported their ages between
36-45 years (45.4%). This was consistent among each of the three
groups with the largest percentage of each group reporting this age
range.
The majority of the population indicated that a doctorate was the
highest earned degree (65.4%). Some differences among groups reveal¬
ed that FTs reported the highest number of earned doctorates (96%)
followed by CSAOs (70.3%) and DOHs (36.2%).
Differences among the three groups were noted among respon¬
dents with advanced degrees in a field related to higher education.
FTs reported the largest percentage of doctorates (93.3%) followed by
CSAOS (60.4%) and DOHs (35.1%). DOHs reported the largest percen¬
tage of master's degrees earned in a field related to higher education
(75.5%) followed by CSAOs (65.9%) and FTs (62.7%).
All respondents were asked to indicate the institution (s) where
any advanced degrees were earned. A summary of responses indicated
that particular institutions were the choice of many of the respon¬
dents. Among the 42 institutions identified as those where FTs earned
master's degrees, Teacher's College of Columbia University (5)
and Indiana University (5) were named most. FTs identified 34 differ¬
ent institutions where their doctoral degrees were earned with Indiana

-62-
University (7), Michigan State (5), Ohio State (4), Teacher's College,
Columbia (4), Florida State (3), and University of Iowa (3) named
most often. CSAOs identified 51 different institutions where the group
earned master's degrees. Southern Illinois University (6), Michigan
State (6), Syracuse University (4), and Indiana University (4) were
named most often. CSAOs identified 36 different institutions where the
group reported earning doctoral degrees. Indiana University (8),
Michigan State (6), Ohio State (3), and Florida State (3) were named
most often. DOHs identified 63 different institutions where the group
reported earning master's degrees. Indiana University (10) and
Michigan State (7) were the only institutions named by more than two
DOHs. DOHs, as a group, reported the smallest number having
earned a doctorate (34). Of that number, 22 institutions were identi¬
fied by the group as the degree granting institution. Indiana
University (5) and Michigan State (5) were the only institutions named
by more than two DOHs.
Membership in professional associations was reviewed for the total
population. It is indicated in Table 1 that the largest number of
respondents (69.2%) reported membership in the National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), followed by membership in
American College Personnel Association (ACPA) (56.9%). A large
number of respondents (43.5%) reported membership in professional
associations other than those identified on the research instrument.
The two practitioner groups in the population (DOHs and CSAOs)
were asked to respond to two specific questions. Their responses to

TABLE 2
SPECIFIC PRACTITIONER RESPONDENT (DOH AND CSAO) DATA
DOIl
CSAO
Characteristic
N
Percent
N
Percent
Number of your staff hired in first professional
student affairs job since employed at current
position level
i
O'-
Less than 5
22
23.4
17
19.5
5-10
22
23.4
29
33.3
11 - 20
20
21.3
11
12.6
more than 20
30
31.9
30
33.5
Number of your staff hired in first professional
student affairs job with master's degree in field
related to higher education.
Less than 5
5-10
11 - 20
26
28.3
21
24.7
25
27.2
29
34.1
17
18.5
16
18.8
24
26.1
19
22.4
more than 20

-64-
these items are summarized in Table 2. Each group was asked to
report the number of full time staff they had hired in a first pro¬
fessional student affairs job since being employed at their current
position level. The largest percentages of both DOHs and CSAOs
reported hiring more than 20 such staff (DOH - 31.9%, CSAO - 33.5%).
DOHs and CSAOs were each asked to indicate how many of these newly
hired student affairs staff had earned a master's degree in a field
related to higher education. The results revealed a smaller percentage
of each group had hired more than 20 staff trained in higher education
(DOH - 26%, CSAO - 22.4%).
FTs were asked to respond to three items in the research in¬
strument specific to their group. It is shown - in Table 3 that the
largest percentage of FTs (76.8%) reported that in the time they had
served as a faculty member at their respective institution, over 50
students had received a master's degree from that particular pre¬
paration program. Most FTs (57.3%) were not currently serving in a
administrative capacity in either academic or student affairs and many
(50.7%) have never served in an administrative capacity in either
student or academic affairs. Among those FTs who currently serve or
have served in an administrative capacity in student or academic
affairs the largest percentages reported service in residence
hall/housing (41.3%), counseling center (40%), or dean of students
office (42.7%).
Data on Possession of Competencies
One of the four primary objectives of this study was to determine
whether graduate training programs in student personnel administration
were actually preparing recent master's degree recipients with

TABLE 3
SPECIFIC FACULTY RESPONDENT (FT) DATA
CHARACTERISTIC
FT
N PERCENT
Number of students graduating from your academic program with a master's
degree since you have been employed In your current professional capacity.
Less than 10
2
2.9
10 - 20
3
A. 4
1
O
21 - 50
11
15.9
cn
More than 50
53
76.8
Currently serving in administrative capacity in student affairs or
academic affairs.
Yes
32
42.7
No
43
57.3
If not currently, have ever served in administrative capacity in student
affairs or academic affairs.
Yes
37
49.3
No
38
50.7

TABLE 3 Continued
CHARACTERISTIC
Current or previous administrative service
Residence Halls/Housing
Student Activities/Unions
Financial Aid
Counseling Center
Career Planning/Placement
Dean of Students Office
Chief Student Affairs Officer
Academic Department Head
Chief Academic Officer
FT
PERCENT
31
22
10
30
10
32
10
16
1
41.3
29.3
13.3
40.0
13.3
42.7
13.3
21.3
1.3

-67-
training in the competencies necessary to function effectively in an
entry level position in student affairs. This objective was stated as
research question one.
1. Do recent graduates of master's level preparation programs in
student personnel administration enter the field of student affairs
with training in entry level competencies as result of their pre¬
paration programs?
The instrument used in this study contained 33 competency items
organized in five conceptual categories. Those categories were:
I Goal Setting
II Consultation
III Communication
IV Assessment and Evaluation
V Environmental and Organizational Management
The extent to which each of the three research groups perceived
that recent master's graduates of preparation programs enter the field
of student affairs with training in the competencies was determined by
asking each group of participants to assess the extent to which they
perceived recent graduates to have possessed each competency. Each
group of participants was asked to assess possession through their
response to the following statement for each competency: "Recent
master's degree graduates possess this competency." Each participant
in the study responded to the statement on the following four-point
scale.
Possession of the Competency
4 - Agree strongly (AS)
3 - Agree (A)
2 - Disagree (D)
- Disagree strongly (DS)
1

-68-
The extent to which each group agreed with the statement for each
category and competency provided the measure to determine the extent
to which each group perceived recent master's graduates to be in
possession of the competencies. Mean scores and standard deviations
for each category and competency were reported and examined to
determine the extent to which each group agreed with possession of
the competencies by recent graduates. Differences between groups
regarding the extent of their agreement with possession will be ex¬
amined later in the study.
I. Goal Setting. Mean scores and standard deviations of faculty
(FTs), director's of housing (DOHs) and chief student affairs officers
(CSAOs) for extent of agreement with possession of the competencies
in the category of goal setting are reported in Table 4. For all
groups, the highest mean scores for extent of agreement on possession
were for competency No. 3, "teach student to deal with the conse¬
quences of their behavior." The lowest FT mean score for extent of
agreement on possession was for competency No. 1, "write goals and
objectives (2.867). The lowest mean scores for both DOHs (2.532) and
CSAOs (2.648) were for extent of agreement on possession of compe¬
tency No. 4, "engage in systematic planning." Mean scores for extent
of agreement with possession for the category of Goal Setting were less
than 3.0 for DOHs (2.750) and CSAOs (2.782) indicating a tendency in
the direction toward the "disagree" response range on possession of
competencies in this category. The mean score for FTs for extent of
agreement with possession for the category of goal setting (3.117)
indicated a tendency in the direction toward the "agree"

TABLE 4
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF AGREEMENT WITH POSSESSION OF COMPETENCIES IN THE
CATEGORY OF GOAL SETTING
FT
a
b
DOH
CSAOC
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
I Goal Setting
3.117
.460
2.750
.424
2.782
.417
1.
Write Goals and Objectives
2.867
.722
2.691
.640
2.756
.641
2.
Identify and Articulate
Institution's goals and policies
to students
3.253
.680
2.830
.580
2.733
.667
3.
Teach students to deal with the
consequences of their behavior
3.311
.661
2.947
.628
3.000
.558
4.
Engage in systematic planning
3.040
.667
2.532
.683
2.648
.621

-70-
range on possession of competencies in his category. Standard devia¬
tions for all groups on all competencies were less than 1.0.
II Consultation. Mean scores and standard deviations for each of
the three groups for extent of agreement with possession of compe¬
tencies in the category of Consultation are reported in Table 5. For
all groups the highest mean scores were for competency No. 5,
"recognize and use expertise of others." The lowest FT mean score
was for competency No. 7, "facilitate staff development through in-
service training (3.080). DOHs reported the lowest mean score for
competency No. 6, "facilitate group problem solving and group decision¬
making" (2.872). The lowest CSAO mean score was for competency
No. 7, "facilitate staff development through in-service training"
(2.644). Mean scores for FTs for every competency in this category
and for the category itself (3.303) were greater than 3.0, indicating a
tendency in the direction toward the "agree" response range or posses¬
sion for this category of competencies. Mean scores of DOHs for all
competencies in this category were less than 3.0. Mean scores of
DOHs (2.921) and CSAOs (2.846) on possession for the category of
Consultation were less than 3.0, indicating a tendency in the direction
of the "disagree" response range for this category of competencies.
Standard deviations for each respondent group were less than 1.0 for
all competencies.
III Communication. Mean scores and standard deviations for each
of the three groups for extent of agreement with possession of the
competencies in the category of Communication are reported in Table 6.
The highest mean score for FTs (3.320) was for competency No. 10,
"make effective use of verbal and non-verbal skills in group

TABLE 5
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF AGREEMENT WITH POSSESSION OF COMPETENCIES
IN THE CATEGORY OF CONSULTATION
FT
a
DOHb
CSAO
C
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN SD MEAN SD MEAN SD
Consultation
3.303
.478
2.921
.422
2,846
.387
5. Recognize and Use Expertise
of Others
3.413
.639
2.979
.604
3.022
.577
6. Facilitate Group Problem Solving
and Group Decision-Making
3.347
.581
2.872
.609
2.824
.529
7. Facilitate Staff Development
Through In-Service Training
3.080
.731
2.935
.656
2.644
.641
8. Work Effectively With A Diversity
Individual Students
3.373
.610
2.892
.616
2.901
.716

TABLE 6
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF AGREEMENT WITH POSSESSION OF COMPETENCIES
IN THE CATEGORY OF COMMUNICATION
FT3 DOHb CSAOC
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
III. Communication
3.020
.387
2.692
.371
2.744
.341
9.
Analyze and Write Means and
Reports
2.838
.663
2.479
.699
2.604
.664
10.
Make Effective Use of Verbal
and Nonverbal Skills in Group
Presentations
3.320
.524
2.862
.541
2.846
.536
11.
Perceive and Accurately Inter¬
pret Attitudes, Beliefs, and
Needs of Others
3.200
.615
2.798
.540
2.791
.483
12.
Represent Student Concerns to
Other Campus Groups
3.054
.660
2.872
.533
2.868
.521
13.
Recognize and Define Confi¬
dentiality Practices and
Procedures
3.307
.636
2.946
.697
3.044
.598
14.
Determining Usage of Office
Management Procedures
2.411
.663
2.193
.612
2.279
.567
a
n=75
b
n=94
c
n=91

-73-
presentations." DOHs (2.946) and CSAOs (3.044) each indicated a
highest mean score for possession of competency No. 13, "recognize
and define confidentiality practices and procedures." All three groups
reported lowest mean scores on possession for competency No. 14,
"determining use of office management procedures." The mean score
for FTs for the category of Communication (3.020) was above 3.0.
Mean scores for DOHs (2.692) and CSAOs (2.744) for the category of
Communication were less than 3.0, indicating a tendency in the direc¬
tion toward the "disagree" range with respect to possession of compe¬
tencies in the this category. Standard deviations for each respondent
group were less than 1.0 for all competencies in this category.
IV Assessment and Evaluation. Mean scores and standard devia¬
tions for each of the three groups for extent of agreement with
possession of the competencies in the category of Assessment and
Evaluation are reported in Table 7. For all groups the highest mean
scores were for competency No. 22, "recognize and analyze inter¬
personal problems." Each group reported a lowest mean score for a
different competency. Mean scores for CSAOs, were less than 3.0 for
every competency in the category. Mean scores for each group for
the category of Assessment and Evaluation were less than 3.0, indi¬
cating a tendency in the direction toward the "disagree" range on
possession for competencies in this category. Standard deviations for
each group were less than 1.0 for all competencies in this category.
V Environmental and Organizational Management. Mean scores
standard deviations of the three research groups for extent of agree¬
ment with possession of the competencies in the category of Environ¬
mental and Organizational Management are reported in Table 8. The

TABLE 7
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF AGREEMENT WITH POSSESSION OF COMPETENCIES
IN THE CATEGORY OF ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
FT'
a
D0Hb
C
CSAO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
IV. Assessment and Evaluation
2.930
.411
2.673
.428
2.611
.415
15.
Assess Student Needs
3.160
.570
2.796
.543
2.744
.646
16.
Analyze and Interpret Program
Needs and Requests
3.000
.601
2.723
.557
2.667
.519
17.
Design Student Programs Based
on Student Needs
3.095
.601
2.798
.681
2.767
.582
18.
Interpret and Understand Various
Evaluation Strategies
2.800
.593
2.489
.668
2.444
.602
19.
Identify and Understand Various
Evaluative Strategies
2.797
.596
2.457
.650
2.449
.544
20.
Design and Implement a Program
to Evaluate Staff
2.547
.599
2.553
.633
2.373
.661
21.
Revise Programs on the Basis of
Evaluation Data
2.773
.727
2.553
.633
2.516
.584
22.
Recognize and Analyze Interper-
sonal Problems
3.253
.572
3.000
.568
2.912
.590
a
b
c
n=75
n=94
n=91

TABLE 8
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOIIs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF AGREEMENT WITH POSSESSION OF
COMPETENCIES IN THE CATEGORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
a b C
FT DOH CSAO
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
V. Environmental and Organizational
Management
2.934
.441
2.630
.431
2.667
.400
23.
Develop and Administer a Budget
2.507
.742
1.925
.797
2.187
.698
24.
Organize Resources (People,
Material) to carry out Program
Activities
3.120
.569
2.787
.602
2.824
.589
25.
Understand Institutional Mission,
Objectives, Expectations
3.013
.668
2.500
.684
2.615
.628
26.
Know and Utilize Effective
Decision-Making Strategies
3.095
.528
2.649
.617
2.670
.633
27.
Accept Authority and Responsi¬
bilities and Delegate as
Appropriate
3.014
.712
2.670
.753
2.802
.600
28.
Identify and Utilize Available
Financial Resources
2.712
.754
2.393
.736
2.495
.721
29.
Mediate Conflict Among Students,
Campus, and/or Community Croups
3.000
.667
2.902
.575
2.813
.536

TABLE 8 Continued
FT
a
DON
C
CSAO
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
30.
Recognize and Accept the Ethical
Consequences of Personal and
Professional Behavior
3.562
.601
2.783
.708
3.011
.548
31.
Select, Train, and Supervise
Staff
2.853
.692
3.022
.534
2.703
.691
32.
Manage Physical Resources and
Facilities
2.733
.664
2.424
.667
2.549
.654
33.
Adjudicate Student Conduct
Effectively
2.707
.610
2.804
.579
2.670
.597
a
n=75
b
n=94
c
n=91

-77-
highest mean scores for FTs (3.562) and CSAOs (3.011) were for
competency No. 30, "recognize and accept the ethical consequences of
personal and professional behavior." The highest mean score for
DOHs (3.022) was for competency No. 31, "select, train, and super¬
vise staff." The lowest mean scores for all groups were for compe¬
tency No. 23, "develop and administer a budget." The mean scores
for all three groups for the category of Environmental and Organiza¬
tional Management were under 3.0, indicating a tendency for each
group in the direction toward the "disagree" range with respect to
possession of competencies in this category. Standard deviations for
each group were less than 1.0 for all competencies in this category.
Summary of Data on Possession of Competencies. Each group
reported its highest mean score on possession for the same competency
in the catagories of Goal Setting, Consultation, and Assessment and
Evaluation. Each group reported its lowest mean score on possession
for the same competency in the categories of Communication and Environ¬
mental and Organizational Management. Mean scores for DOHs were
less than 3.0 for all competencies in categories of Goal Setting, Con¬
sultation, and Communication, and for CSAOs in the category of
Assessment and Evaluation. Mean scores for FTs were greater than
3.0 for all competencies in the category of Consultation. Mean scores
for DOHs and CSAOs were below 3.0 for every category indicating a
tendency in the direction toward the disagree range with respect to
possession of competencies in this study. Mean scores for FTs were
above 3.0 for the categories of Goal Setting (3.117), Consultation
(3.303), and Communication (3.020), indicating a tendency in the

-78-
direction toward the "agree" range on possession of competencies in
these categories. Mean scores for FTs were below 3.0 for the cate¬
gories of Assessment and Evaluation (2.930) and Environmental and
Organizational Management (2.934) indicating a tendency toward the
"disagree" range on possession of competencies in these categories.
Data on Importance of Competencies
Another of the four primary objectives of this study was to
determine to whether these competencies were important for recent
master's degree recipients to have acquired prior to assuming an entry
level position in the student affairs field. This objective was stated as
research question 3.
3. Is it important for recent master's degree graduates of
student personnel preparation programs to have acquired
these competencies prior to full time entry into the student
affairs field?
The extent to which each of the three groups perceived it impor¬
tant for recent master's graduates of preparation programs to have
acquired these competencies was determined by asking each group to
indicate the extent to which they believed each competency was im¬
portant for assuming an entry level staff position. Participants in
each of the three groups assessed the extent of importance for each
competency according to the following four-point scale:
Importance of the Competency
4 - essential (E)
3 - important (I)
2 - of little importance (LI)
1 - not important (N)
Mean scores and standard deviations for each category and competency

-79-
were reported and examined to determine the extent to which each
group found the competencies important for the assumption of entry
level positions in student affairs. Differences between the groups on
the extent of their perception of the importance of these competencies
will be examined later in the study.
I. Goal Setting. Mean scores and standard deviations of faculty
(FTs), directors of housing (DOHs), and chief student affairs officers
(CSAOs) for extent of importance of the competencies in the category
of Goal Setting are reported in Table 9. For DOHs (3.777) and CSAOs
(3.725) the highest mean scores were for competency No. 3, "teach
students to deal with the consequences of their behavior." FTs re¬
ported the highest mean score for competency No. 2, "identify and
articulate institutions goals and policies to students" (3.613). All
three groups reported a lowest mean score for competency No. 1,
"write behavioral objectives." Mean scores for DOHs were greater
than 3.0 for every competency in the category of goal setting. Mean
scores for the category of Goal Setting were greater than 3.0 for FTs
(3.378), DOHs (3.415), and CSAOs (3.410) indicating a tendency in
the direction toward the importance of the competencies in this
category for assuming an entry level staff position. Standard devia¬
tions for each group were less than 1.0 for all competencies in this
category.
II. Consultation. Mean scores and standard deviations of the
three groups for extent of importance of the competencies in the
category of Consultation are reported in Table 10. All three groups
reported the highest mean scores for competency No. 8, "work effective¬
ly with a diversity of individual students and faculty." All three

TABLE 9
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF AGREEMENT WITH IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES
IN THE CATEGORY OF GOAL SETTING
FT
DOH
CSAO
C
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
I. Goal Setting
3.378
.380
3.415
.323
3.410
.362
1.
Write Behavioral Objectives
2.893
.798
3.064
.601
2.989
.645
2.
Identify and Articulate Institu¬
tions Goals and Policies to
Students
3.613
.490
3.436
.560
3.533
.545
3.
Teach Students to Deal with the
Consequences of their Behavior
3.568
.526
3.777
.419
3.725
.473
4.
Engage in Systematic Planning
3.440
.575
3.383
.624
3.385
.553
a
b
a
n=75
â– 4-
O'
II
c
rH
O'
II
C
i
oo
o
I

TABLE 10
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES IN THE CATEGORY OF CONSULTATION
a b C
FT DOH CSAO
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN SD MEAN SD MEAN SD
Consultation
3.573
.374
3.476
.368
3.431
.344
5. Recognize and Use the Expertise
of Others
3.627
.487
3.447
.500
3.429
.498
6. Facilitate Group Problem Solving
and Group Decision-Making
3.507
.50332
3.415
.629
3.396
.555
7. Facilitate Staff Development
Through In-Service Training
3.080
.634
2.935
.582
2.644
.652
8. Work Effectively With a Diversity
of Individual Students and
Faculty
3.773
.421
3.581
.496
3.736
.443

-82-
reported the lowest mean scores for competency No. 7, "facilitate staff
development through in-service training." Mean scores for DOHs and
CSAOs were greater than 3.0 for all competencies except competency
No. 7. Mean scores for FTs were greater than 3.0 for all compe¬
tencies in this category. Mean scores for the category of consultation
were above 3.0 for FTs (3.573), DOHs (3.476) and CSAOs (3.431),
indicating a tendency in the direction of the importance of the compe¬
tencies in this category for assuming an entry level staff position.
Standard deviations for each group were less than 1.0 for all compe¬
tencies in this category.
II. Communication. Mean scores and standard deviations of the
three research groups for extent of importance of the competencies in
the category of Communication are reported in Table 11. The highest
FT mean score was for competency No. 10, "make effective use of
verbal and non-verbal skills in group presentations." The highest
mean scores for DOHs and CSAOs were for competency No. 11,
"perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, and needs of
others." All groups reported the lowest mean scores for competency
No. 14, "determining usage of office management procedures." Mean
scores for the category of Communication were above 3.0 for FTs
(3.341), DOHs (3.287), and CSAOs (3.411), indicating a tendency in
the direction of the importance of these competencies for assuming an
entry level staff position. Standard deviations for each group were
less than 1.0 for all competencies.
IV. Assessment and Evaluation. Mean scores and standard
deviations of the three groups for extent of importance of the compe-

TABLE 11
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES IN THE CATEGORY OF COMMUNICATION
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
FT
a
D0Hb
C
CSA0
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
III. Communication
3.341
.389
3.287
.366
3.412
.339
9.
Analyze and Write Memos
and Reports
3.270
.746
3.351
.599
3.538
.544
10.
Make Effective Use of Verbal
and Non-Verbal Skills in Group
Presentations
3.640
.510
3.479
.563
3.484
.503
11.
Perceive and Accurately Inter-
pret Attitudes, Beliefs and
Needs of Others
3.560
.526
3.489
.524
3.560
.499
12.
Represent Student Concerns to
Other Campus Groups
3.284
.652
3.032
.613
3.396
.555
13.
Recognize and Define Con-
fidentiality Practices and
Procedures
3.507
.578
3.462
.563
3.467
.545
14.
Determining Usage of Office
Management Procedures
2.795
.645
2.914
.620
2.977
.573
a
b
c ^
n=75
n=94
n=91

TABLE 12
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF AGREEMENT WITH IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES
IN THE CATEGORY OF ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
a b c
FT DOH CSAO
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
IV. Assessment and Evaluation
3.330
.446
3.250
.380
3.263
.360
15.
Assess Student Needs
3.573
.597
3.462
.501
3.511
.546
16.
Analyze and Interpret Program
Needs and Requests
3.All
.573
3.277
.495
3.300
.550
17.
Design Student Programs Based
on Student Needs
3.541
.554
3.404
.535
3.511
.546
18.
Interpret and Understand Various
Evaluation Strategies
3.173
.645
3.011
.518
2.989
.508
19.
Identify and Understand Various
Evaluation Strategies
3.176
.627
3.011
.558
3.011
.511
20.
Design and Implement a Program
to Evaluate Staff
3.040
.706
3.223
.625
3.033
.605
21.
Revise Programs on the Basis of
Evaluation Data
3.240
.612
3.191
.534
3.253
.589
22.
Recognize and Analyze Inter-
personal Problems
3.493
.529
3.426
.539
3.484
.565
a
b
c
n=75
n=94
n=91

-85-
tencies in the category of Assessment and Evaluation are reported in
Table 12. All groups reported the highest mean scores for competency
No. 15, "assess student needs." Mean scores for FTs and DOHs were
greater than 3.0 for every competency in this category. Mean scores
for the category of Assessment and Evaluation were greater than 3.0
for FTs (3.330), DOHs (3.250) and CSAOs (3.263), indicating a
tendency in the direction of the importance of the competencies in this
category for assuming an entry level staff position. Standard
deviations for each group were less than 1.0 for all competencies in
this category.
V. Environmental and Organizational Management. Mean scores
and standard deviations of the three research groups for extent of
importance of the competencies in the category of Environmental and
Organizational Management are reported in Table 13. FTs and CSAOs
reported highest mean scores for competency No. 30, "recognize and
accept the ethical consequences of personal and professional behavior."
DOHs reported the highest mean scores for competency No. 31,
"select, train, and supervise staff." FTs and CSAOs reported the
lowest mean scores for competency No. 32, "manage physical resources
and facilities." DOHs reported the lowest mean score for competency
No. 23, "develop and administer a budget." Mean scores for FTs and
DOHs were greater than 3.0 for every competency in this category.
Mean scores for the category of Environmental and Organizational
Management were greater than 3.0 for FTs (3.340), DOHs (3.342), and
CSAOs (3.413), indicating a tendency in the direction of importance of
the competencies in this category for assuming an entry level staff
position. Standard deviations for each group were less than 1.0 for

TABLE 13
MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY (FTs),
DIRECTORS OF HOUSING (DOHs) AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOs)
ON EXTENT OF IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES
IN THE CATEGORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
FT3 DOHb CSAOC
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
V. Environmental and Organizational
Management
3.348
.369
3.342
.322
3.413
.344
23.
Develop and Administer a Budget
3.133
.794
2.892
.729
3.253
.643
24.
Organize Resources (People,
Material) to carry out Program
Activities
3.440
.575
3.415
.557
3.615
.511
25.
Understand Institutional Mission,
Objectives, and Expectations
3.653
.532
3.234
.629
3.549
.563
26.
Know and Utilize Effective
Decision-Making Strategies
3.419
.524
3.383
.551
3.505
.524
27.
Accept Authority and Respon¬
sibility and Delegate as
Appropriate
3.432
.551
3.564
.499
3.582
.496
28.
Identify and Utilize Available
Financial Resources
3.260
.646
3.032
.630
3.220
.533
an=75
•4-
O'
II
e
•O
c
n=91

TABLE 13 Continued
FT
a
DOH
CSAOC
CATEGORY/COMPETENCY
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
29.
Mediate Conflict Among Students,
Campus, and/or Community Groups
3.315
.664
3.315
.553
3.418
.559
30.
Recognize and Accept the Ethical
Consequences of Personal and
Professional Behavior
3.753
.465
3.641
.505
3.637
.483
,
31.
Select, Train, and Supervise
1
Staff
3.320
.640
3.728
.447
3.308
.726
32.
Manage Physical Resources and
Facilities
3.040
.625
3.152
.533
3.110
.657
33.
Adjudicate Student Conduct
Effectively
3.093
.597
3.348
.601
3.341
.654
a
n=75
n=94
c
n=91

-88-
all competencies in this category.
Summary of Data on Importance. Each group reported its highest
mean score on importance for the same competency in the categories of
Consultation and Assessment and Evaluation. Each group reported its
lowest mean score on importance for the same competency in the
categories of Goal Setting, Consultation, and Communication. Mean
scores for FTs were greater than 3.0 for all competencies in the
categories of Consultation; Assessment and Evaluation; and
Environmental and Organizational Management. Mean scores for DOHs
were greater than 3.0 for all competencies in the categories of Goal
Setting and Assessment and Evaluation. Mean scores for CSAOs were
greater than 3.0 for all competencies in the category of Environmental
and Organizational Management. Mean scores for FTs, DOHs, and
CSAOs were greater than 3.0 for each of the five categories indicating
a tendency toward the importance of all competencies in every category
for assuming an entry level staff position.
Statistical Comparison Among Groups
The issue of differences among the three groups for the
dependent variables of possession of entry-level competencies by
recent master's graduates of preparation programs in student personnel
administration and of importance of those competencies for assuming an
entry level staff position has been identified as a primary objective for
this study as stated in research questions 2 and 4.
2. Do chief student affairs officers (CSAOs), directors of
housing (DOHs) and faculty (FTs) have similar perceptions
of the training recent master's degree graduates of
preparation programs in student personnel administration for
the identified entry level competencies?
4. Do CSAOs, DOH, and FTs have similar perceptions of the
importance of these competencies?

-89-
The data in this section have been presented in order to satisfy
the requirements of these research questions in determining 1)
whether differences exist among the three group for the extent of each
group's agreement that recent master's graduates actually possess the
competencies and 2) to determine whether differences exist among the
three research groups for the extent to which each group perceives
each competency to be important for assuming an entry level staff
position.
A total of 260 respondents from all three groups provided the
data base for this study. For purposes of analyzing the data to
determine if significant differences existed among the three groups by
each of the five categories on the research instrument, the General
Linear Model (GLM) Procedure of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS)
for Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used.
Significance was determined in this study at alpha = .05. Of the 260
useable instruments in this study, 27 had at least one missing value,
meaning that they left a blank for a response to possession or
importance on a given competency. For analysis by category, the GLM
procedure for MANOVA takes the mean of the other competencies in
the category with the missing value and substitutes that mean for the
missing value for purposes of computing the overall mean for that
category for that respondent. The GLM-MANOVA for analyzing the
differences among groups for possession and importance by category
could be done using all 260 responses. The GLM-MANOVA test to
determine existence of differences by competency could only use
responses with no missing values. A total of 233 responses were
used, diminishing the useable response sample for each group by
approximately 10%.

-90-
The means for each group on possession and importance of the
competencies used in the GLM-MANOVA analysis are included in Table
29 in Appendix F.
Pair wise comparisons were made where significant differences
were indicated. Duncan's multiple range test was used to determine
between which groups significant differences were indicated for
possession and importance. For post hoc comparison by category, 260
responses were used. Post hoc comparisons by competency used the
233 responses which contained no missing values.
I.Goal Setting.
1. Write behavioral objectives
2. Identify and articulate institution's goals and policies to
students
3. Teach students to deal with the consequences of their
behavior.
4. Engage in systematic planning
Mean scores for each of the three research groups on possession
and importance for the category of Goal Setting are provided in Table
14.
TABLE 14
MEAN SCORES FOR RESEARCH GROUPS ON POSSESSION AND
IMPORTANCE OF GOAL SETTING
Group
N
Possession
Importance
FTs
75
3.117
3.378
DOHs
94
2.750
3.415
CSAOs
91
2.782
3.410
These means were used in the analysis in Table 15.

-91-
TABLE 15
MULTIVARIATE
ANALYSIS
GOAL SETTING
DF=2,257 ALPHA=. 05
F-Value
P>F
Implication
Possession
17.69
.0001
Significant
Importance
.26
.7691
Not Significant
A significant difference among the three groups on extent of
agreement that recent master's graduates of preparation programs
possess competencies in the category of goal setting is indicated in
Table 15. FTs differed significantly with both DOHs and CSAOs in
the extent to which they agree recent graduates of preparation
programs possess competencies in the category of Goal Setting as
shown by Duncan's multiple range test in Table 16.
TABLE 16
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR POSSESSION OF GOAL SETTING
Group
N
Mean
Duncan Grouping
FT
75
3.117
A
CSAO
91
2.782
B
DOH
94
2.750
B
Note.
Means with the
same letter are not
significantly different.
Analysis of individual competencies in the category of Goal Setting has
been summarized in Table 30 of Appendix G. Significant differences
existed among the groups on extent of possession of competencies 2,

-92-
3, and 4 in this category. A significant difference was found on
extent of importance for competency 3. The results of Duncan's
multiple range test, summarized in Table 35 of Appendix H indicate
that FTs differed significantly with DOHs and CSAOs on possession for
competencies 2, 3, and 4. A significant difference existed between
FTs and DOHs on extent of perceived importance of competency 3.
II. Consultation
5. Recognize and facilitate group problem solving and group
decision making
6. Facilitate group problem solving and group decision making
7. Facilitate staff development through in-service training
8. Work effectively with a diversity of individual students and
faculty
Mean scores for each of the three research groups on possession
and importance for the category of Consultation are provided in Table
17. These means were used in the analysis summarized in Table 18.
TABLE 17
MEAN SCORES FOR GROUPS ON POSSESSION AND
IMPORTANCE OF CONSULTATION
Group
B
Possession
Importance
FTs
75
3.303
3.573
DOHs
94
2.921
3.476
CSAOs
91
2.846
3.431
TABLE 18
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, CONSULTATION DF = 2,257 ALPHA = .05
F-Value
P>F
Implication
Possession
26.35
.0001
Significant
Importance
3.26
.0399
Not Significant

-93-
A significant difference among the three groups on extent of
agreement that recent master's graduates of preparation programs
possess competencies in the category of goal setting is indicated in
Table 18. FTs differ significantly with both DOHs and CSAOs in the
extent to which they agree recent graduates of preparation programs
possess competencies in the category of Consultation as shown by
Duncan's multiple range test in Table 19.
TABLE 19
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR POSSESSION OF CONSULTATION
Group
N
Mean
Duncan Grouping
FT
.75
3.303
A
A
DOH
94
2.921
B
B
B
B
CSAO
91
2.846
B
B
Note. Means with the same
letter
are not
significantly different.
Analy
sis of individual
competencies in
the category of Consultation
has been
summarized in
Table
31 of
Appendix G. Significant
differences existed among groups on extent of agreement for
possession of all four competencies in this category. Significant
differences were found on extent of importance for competencies 7 and
8. The results of Duncan's multiple range test, summarized in Table
36 of Appendix H, indicate that FTs differed significantly with DOHs
and CSAOs on possession for competencies 5, 6, and 8. Significant
differences existed between every possible pair of groups on
possession for competency 7. CSAOs differed significantly with both
DOHs and FTs on extent of perceived importance of competency 7.
DOHs diffed significantly with both FTs and CSAOs on extent of
perceived importance of competency 8.

-94-
III Communication
9.Analyze and write memos and reports
10. Make effective use of verbal and nonverbal skills in group
presentations
11. Perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, and
needs of others
12. Represent student concerns to other campus groups
13. Recognize and define confidentiality practices and procedures
14. Determining usage of office management procedures (i.e.
secretarial services, business machine operations, print and
non-print media
Mean scores for each of the three research groups on possession
and importance for the category of Communication are provided in
Table 20. These means were used in the analysis summarized in Table
21.
TABLE 20
MEAN SCORES FOR GROUPS ON POSSESSION AND
IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION
Group
N
Possession
Importance
FTs
75
3.020
3.341
DOHs
94
2.692
3.287
CSAOs
91
2.744
3.412
TABLE 21
MULTIVARIATE
ANALYSIS,
COMMUNICATION
DF = 2,257 ALPHA = .
F-Value
P>F
Implication
Possession
18.77
.0001
Significant
Importance
2.74
.0662
Not Significant
A significant difference among the three groups on extent of
agreement that recent master's graduates of preparation programs

-95-
possess competencies in the category of Communication is indicated in
Table 21. FTs differed significantly with both DOHs and CSAOs in
the extent to which they agree recent graduates of preparation pro¬
grams possess competencies in the category of Communication as shown
by Duncan's multiple range test in Table 22.
DUNCAN'S
MULTIPLE
TABLE 22
RANGE TEST FOR
POSSESSION OF CONSULTATION
Group
N
Mean
Duncan Grouping
FT
75
3.020
A
CSAO
91
2.744
B
B
DOH
94
2.692
B
Note. Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
Analysis of individual competencies in the category of
Communication has been summarized in Table 32 of Appendix G.
Significant differences exist among groups on extent of agreement for
possession of all six competencies in this category. Significant
differences were found on extent of importance for competencies 10 and
12. The results of Duncan's multiple range test, summarized in Table
37 of Appendix H indicate that FTs differed significantly with DOHs
and CSAOs on possession for all competencies in this category. FTs
differed significantly with DOHs and CSAOs on extent of perceived
importance of competency 10. DOHs differed significantly from FTs
and CSAO on extent of perceived importance of competency 12.

-96-
IV Assessment and Evaluation
15. Assess student needs
16. Analyze and interpret program needs and requests
17. Design student programs based on student needs
18. Interpret and understand various evaluation strategies
19. Identify and understand various evaluation strategies
20. Design and implement a program to evaluate staff
21. Revise programs on the basis of evaluation data
22. Recognize and analyze interpersonal problems
Mean scores for each of the three research groups on possession
and importance for the category of Assessment and Evaluation are
provided in Table 23. These means were used in the analysis
summarized in Table 24.
TABLE 23
MEAN SCORES FOR GROUPS ON POSSESSION AND
IMPORTANCE OF ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
Group
N
Possession
Importance
FTs
75
2.930
3.330
DOHs
94
2.673
3.250
CSAOs
91
2.611
3.263
TABLE 24
MULTIVARIATE
ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT
AND EVALUATION
DF = 2,257 ALPHA = .0
F-Value
P>F
Implication
Possession
13.05
.0001
Significant
Importance
.96
.3836
Not Significant

-97-
A significant difference among the three groups on extent of
agreement that recent master's graduates of preparation programs
possess competencies in the category of Assessment and Evaluation is
indicated in Table 24. FTs differed significantly with both DOHs and
CSAOs in the extent to which they agree recent graduates of
preparation programs possess competencies in the category of
Assessment and Evaluation as shown by Duncan's multiple range test in
Table 25.
TABLE 25
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR
POSSESSION OF ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
Group
N
Mean
Duncan Grouping
FT
75
2.930
A
DOH
94
2.673
B
B
CSAO
91
2.611
B
Note. Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
Analysis of individual competencies in the category of Assessment
and Evaluation has been summarized in Table 33 of Appendix G.
Significant differences exist among groups on extent of agreement for
possession of competencies 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 21, 22. Significant
differences were found on extent of importance for competency 20.
The results of Duncan's multiple range test, summarized in Table 38 of
Appendix H, indicate that FTs differed significantly with DOHs and
CSAOs on possession for all competencies in this category where a
significant difference exists. DOHs differed significantly with FTs and
DOHs on the extent of perceived importance of competency 20.

-98-
V. Environmental and Organizational Management
23. Develop and administer a budget
24. Organize resources (people, material) to carry out program
activities.
25. Understand institutional mission, objectives, and expectations
26. Know and utilize effective decision-making strategies
27. Accept authority and responsibility and delegate as
appropriate
28. Identify and utilize
29. Mediate conflict among students, campus, and/or community
groups
30. Recognize and accept the ethical consequences of personal
and professional behavior
31. Select, train, and supervise staff
32. Manage physical resources and facilities
33. Adjudicate student conduct effectively
Mean scores for each of the three research groups on possession
and importance for the category of Environmental and Organizational
Management are provided in Table 26. These means were used in the
analysis summarized in Table 27.
TABLE 26
MEAN SCORES FOR GROUPS ON POSSESSION AND
IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Group
N
Possession
Importance
FTs
75
2.934
3.348
DOHs
94
2.630
3.342
CSAOs
91
2.667
3.413

-99-
TABLE 27
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ENVIRONMENTAL
AND ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
DF = 2,257 ALPHA = .05
F-Value
P>F
Implication
Possession
12.35
.0001
Significant
Importance
1.16
.3139
Not Significant
A significant
difference among
the three
groups on the extent of
agreement that recent master's
graduates
of
preparation programs
possess competencies in the
category
of
Environmental and
Organizational
Management is indicated in
Table 27. FTs differed
significantly with both DOHs and CSAOs in the extent to which they
agree recent graduates of preparation programs possess competencies
in the category of Environmental and Organizational Management as
shown in Duncan's multiple range test in Table 28..
TABLE 28
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR
POSSESSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Group
N
Mean
Duncan Grouping
FT
75
2.934
A
CSAO
91
2.667
B
B
DOH
94
2.630
B
Note. Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

-100-
Analysis of individual competencies in the category of
Environmental and Organizational Management has been summarized in
Table 34 of Appendix G. Significant differences exist among groups
on extent of agreement for possession of competencies 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 30, 31, 33. The results of Duncan's multiple range test,
summarized on Table 39 of Appendix H, indicates that FTs differed
significantly with DOHs and CSAOs on possession for competencies 24,
25, 26, 27, 28. A significant difference was identified for every
possible pair of groups on possession for competencies 23 and 30.
CSAOs and DOHs differed significantly on possession for competency
31. DOHs and FTs differed significantly on possession for competency
32. DOHs differed significantly from FTs and CSAOs on extent of
importance on competencies 23, 25, 28, 31. FTs differed significantly
from CSAOs and FTs on extent of importance of competency 33.
Chapter Summary
The research findings for this study have been presented in this
chapter. The extent to which faculty (FTS), directors of housing
(DOHs), and chief student affairs officers (CSAOs) agree that recent
master's graduates of preparation programs possess professional compe¬
tencies and the extent to which each of the groups agree on the
importance of these competencies for assuming an entry level staff
position in student affairs has been examined. Differences between
groups regarding their respective perceptions of possession of the
competencies by recent graduates and the importance of the compe¬
tencies have been identified and examined.
A summary of this study, findings, conclusions, and implications
and considerations for further study are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Chapter V is comprised of the following sections: a) a summary
of the development of the study, b) findings c) conclusions, d)
implications and considerations for further study.
A Summary of the Development of the Study
Purpose of the Study
The primary purposes of this study were to determine whether or
not professional preparation programs in student personnel adminis¬
tration educated for the development of entry level professional
competencies and to determine the relative importance of these compe¬
tencies for assuming an entry level staff position in the field of
student affairs. Three groups of professionals in the field of
student affairs were compared to determine if differences existed in
their perception of the training graduates with master's degrees
received in their preparation programs for the entry level pro¬
fessional competencies. The perceptions of the three groups were also
compared to determine if differences existed in the extent to which
they perceived the competencies to be important for assuming an entry
level professional position in student affairs.
-101-

-102-
Questions for Investigation
This study was designed to answer the following questions:
1. Do recent graduates of master's level preparation programs
in student personnel administration enter the field of
student affairs with training in entry level competencies as
a result of their preparation programs?
2. Do chief student affairs officers (CSAOs), director's of
housing (DOHs), and faculty (FTs) have similar percep¬
tions of the training recent master's degree graduates of
preparation programs in student personnel administration
receive for the identified entry level competencies?
3. Is it important for recent master's degree graduates from
preparation programs in student personnel administration
to have acquired these competencies prior to full time
entry into the student affairs field?
4. Do CSAOs, DOHs, and FTs have similar perceptions of the
importance of these entry level competencies?
Justification for the Study
The literature in the field of student affairs has identified
concern for issues of standards, quality, and excellence. These
issues have been significant in that they represented outcomes which
more professionals believed the field of student affairs needed in the
preparation of those about to enter the field. LaBarre (1949)
indicated that there was a need for basic work standards in the
student affairs field. She believed preparation programs provided
the logical place to identify criteria upon which professional
standards might be based.
Penn (1973) described the key to excellence in terms of quality
programs and defined standards of acceptable performance. He
noted that professional competence in the field of student affairs was
related to knowledge and specific skills, learned in preparation
programs.

-103-
A recent study to determine attitudes about the quality of
professional preparation programs (Sandeen, 1982) indicated that the
quality of students was too uneven and that lack of academic rigor in
some programs promoted a lack of respect for programs generally.
Several studies have demonstrated that the logical outcomes of
preparation programs are the competencies which graduates of the
programs should acquire prior to entry into the profession (Hanson,
1977; Domeier, 1977, Minetti, 1977). Other studies have indicated
that the acquisition of professional competencies represent a primary
objective of preparation programs (Williamson, 1952; Newton and
Hellenga, 1974). Such competencies have provided a means by which
the productivity of graduate preparation programs for the student
affairs field could be measured. Stamatakos (1981) concluded that
there was no published research evidence to support the notion that
those hired for student affairs positions possess the general skills
and competencies that have been identified in the literature.
This study focused on three groups of professionals in the
student affairs field. Faculty, chief student affairs officers, and
directors of housing were surveyed to determine the extent to which
they agreed that recent master's degree graduates of preparation
programs actually possessed the professional competencies identified in
the literature. The three groups were also asked to assess the extent
to which they believed these competencies were important for assuming
entry level positions in student affairs.
The data collected from this study may provide relevant infor¬
mation for those responsible for training prospective student affairs

-104-
professionals regarding possible review of current training program
standards, expectations, and practicum/internship opportunities. The
results of this study may be of value to trainers and practitioners in
examining potential differences in their perception of training recent
graduates receive in preparation programs.
Conceptual Framework
A modification of the Tommorow's Higher Education model
(T.H.E.) was selected as the conceptual framework for this study.
T.H.E. was coined by the American College Personnel Association
(ACPA) in 1968 for the purpose of developing a strategy for
examining the future of college student affairs. The T.H.E. model
manifests a commitment to the development of the "whole student"
through recognition of needed competencies for student affairs staff
as service agents, control agents, and developmental educators. It
incorporates six competency categories of development: a) goal
setting, b) assessment, c) instruction, d) consultation, e)
evaluation, and f) environmental management. Modifications to the
model were incorporated through a substitution of communications for
instructions consistent with recommendations of Knott (1977). Assess¬
ment and evaluation were combined as one category consistent with
the Delworth and Hanson (1980) model. The 33 competencies used in
this study were derived from Hanson's (Note 2) taxonomy and the
studies of Domeier (1977) and Minetti (1977) and were assigned to
categories of goal setting, consultation, communications, assessment
and evaluation, and environmental and organizational management.

-105-
Review of the Literature
The specific purpose of the literature review was to provide
background on the field of student affairs work as it related to issues
of standards, quality, and excellence in the profession. The emerging
profession was reviewed through an examination of the historical role
of student affairs in high education; identification of criteria as a
profession, examination of professional status; and a review of the
current focus on student development. The development of
preparation programs was traced through a review of background,
selection and standards, content, program models, program
assessments, and recommendations. The issue of professional compe¬
tency was examined in the light of expectations generally ascribed to
the preparation programs.
Methodology
The research population for this study included 150 chief
student affairs officers (CSAOs), 141 director's of housing (DOHs),
and 162 faculty (FTs). The CSAOs and DOHs were employed at four
year public and private post secondary education institutions. The
FTs were employed at institutions with departments offering graduate
programs in student personnel administration leading to a master's
degree.
A two-part research instrument was designed and developed for
distribution to the 453 student affairs professionals included in this
study. Part I of the instrument sought demographic information to
14 questions from FTs and 12 questions from CSAOs and DOHs.
Part II of the instrument asked participants to respond on a four-
point interval scale to 33 professional competencies. For each compe¬
tency, participants were asked to indicate a) the extent to which

-106-
they agreed that recent master's graduates possessed the competency
and b) the extent to which they believed the competency was important
for assuming an entry level staff position in student affairs. The 33
competencies were derived from previous studies on competencies
necessary for student affairs staff (Domeier, 1977; Minetti, 1977;
Hanson, Note 2,). A modification of the Tomorrow's Higher Education
(T.H.E.) model (Miller and Prince, 1976) was used as the foundation
for a conceptual framework, providing categories for which the compe¬
tencies were identified. The categories from the modified T.H.E.
conceptual model and the 33 competencies utilized in the study included
the following:
I.Goal Setting
1. Write behavioral objectives
2. Identify and articulate institution's goals and policies
to students
3. Teach students the consequences of their behavior
4. Engage in systematic planning
II.Consultation
5.
Recognize
and use expertise of others
6.
Facilitate
making.
group
problem solving and
group decision
7.
Facilitate
training.
staff
development through
in-service
8.
Work effectively
with a diversity
of
individual
students and faculty.
III.Communication
9. Analyze and write memos and reports
10. Make effective use of verbal and nonverbal skills in
group presentations

-107-
11. Perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, and
needs of others.
12. Represent student concerns to other campus groups.
13. Recognize and define confidentiality practices and
procedures.
14. Determining usage of office management procedures
(i.e. secretarial services, business machine
separation, print and non print media)
IV. Assessment and Evaluation
15. Assess student needs
16. Analyze and interpret program needs and requests.
17. Design student programs based on student needs.
18. Interpret and understand various evaluation
strategies.
19. Identify and understand various evaluation strategies.
20. Design and implement a program to evaluate staff.
21. Revise programs on the basis of evaluation data.
22. Recognize and analyze interpersonal problems.
V. Environmental and Organizational Management
23. Develop and administer a budget
24. Organize resources (people, material) to carry out
program activities
25. Understand institutional mission, objectives, and
expectation
26. Know and utilize effective decision-making strategies
27. Accept authority and responsibility and delegate as
appropriate
28. Identify and utilize available financial resources
29. Mediate conflict among students, campus, and/or
community groups
30. Recognize and accept the ethical consequences of
personal and professional behavior
31. Select, train, and supervise staff

-108-
32. Manage physical resources, and facilities
33. Adjudicate student conduct matters effectively
The study received formal endorsement from the Vice President
for Student Affairs at the University of Florida and from the
Research and Information Committee of the Association of College and
University Housing Officers - International (ACUHO-I). A letter
from the Vice President accompanied each copy of the instrument. A
letter from the chair the Research and Information Committee at
ACUHO-I accompanied those instruments sent to DOHs.
Initial distribution of the instrument was accomplished through
the mail on May 17, 1983. A response deadline of May 30 was
indicated in the cover letter.
A follow-up procedure was initiated on June 13, 1983 with FTs
who had not responded to the initial distribution. A post card was
sent to all previously non-responding FTs identifying a response
deadline of June 23, 1983.
Upon conclusion of the second follow-up procedure a breakdown
of the rate of return indicated that 75 of 162 (46.3%) FTs,
representing 59% of the preparation programs; 94 of 141 (66.7%)
DOHS; and 91 of 150 (60.7%) CSAOs returned usable instruments.
The data obtained from the responses were analyzed using the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS), an integrated computer system for
data analysis. In analyzing the data collected for this study, three
SAS procedures were used. A frequencies procedure was used to
determine percentage of responses to questions in Part I of the
instrument. The BMDP program, analysis of variance for repeated

-109-
measures, and THE GLM program for multivariate analysis of
variance were appropraitely utilized. Duncan's multiple range test
was used to do post hoc, pair-wise comparisons between groups where
significant differences were indicated.
Findings
The findings in this study are presented in response to each of
the four questions for investigation.
Question 1
Do recent graduates of master's level preparation programs in
student personnel administration enter the field of student affairs
with training in entry level competencies as a result of their
preparation programs?
This question was answered by examining the mean scores
generated by respondents in each of the three groups as they
indicated the extent of their respective agreement for possession of
each competency by recent master's degree graduates. Mean scores
obtained for FTs were above 3.0 on categories of Goal Setting,
Consultation, and Communication which indicated a tendency in the
direction of agreement on possession of competencies in these
categories by recent graduates. Mean scores for FTs were below 3.0
on categories of Assessment and Evaluation and Environmental
Organizational Management which indicated a tendency in the
direction of disagreement on possession of competencies in these
categories by recent graduates.
Mean scores of DOHs and CSAOs were below 3.0 for all five
categores in this study which indicated a tendency in the direction
of disagreement on possession of competencies in all categories by
recent graduates.

-110-
Question 2
Do chief student affairs officers (CSAOs), directors of housing
(DOHs) and faculty (FTs) have similar perceptions of the training
recent master's degree graduates of preparation programs in student
personnel administration receive for the identified entry level
competencies?
This question was answered by determining if statistically
significant differences existed among the mean scores of the three
groups for possession of each category and competency. Statistical
significance for this study was set at alpha = .05. Where significant
differences were found additional testing was done to determine
between which groups there were differences.
Statistically significant differences were found among the groups
on possession of the competencies for all five categories in the
study. For each category, FTs reported a significantly higher
extent of agreement for possession of the competencies that DOHs
and CSAOs. Statistically significant differences were obtained for
the three groups on 29 of the 33 individual competencies. For most
of these competencies FTs reported a significantly higher extent of
agreement for possession by recent graduates than DOHs or CSAOs.
Question 3
Is it important for recent master's degree graduates from
preparation programs in student personnel administration to have
acquired these competencies prior to full time entry into the student
affairs field?

-111-
This question was answered by examining the mean scores
generated by respondents in each of the three groups as they
indicated the extent to which they believed each competency to be
important for assuming an entry level position in student affairs.
Mean scores obtained for the three groups were above 3.0 on
importance for all categories in this study which indicated a
tendency in the direction of the importance of all the competencies
for assuming entry level positions as perceived by respondents in
each of the three groups.
Question 4
Do CSAOs, DOHs, and FTs have similar perceptions of the impor¬
tance of these entry level competencies.
This question was answered by determining if statistically
significant differences existed among the mean scores of the three
groups for importance of each category and competency. Where
significant differences were obtained additional testing was done to
determine between which groups there were significant differences.
No significant differences were found among the three groups
on importance of the competencies for any of the five categories in
the study. Each group perceived the competencies in this study to
be important to the same extent in assuming an entry level position
in student affairs.
Differences between Possession and Importance
This study did not have as an objective the determination of
the differences between possession and importance for the

-112-
competencies. Notice should be taken though, of the fact that the
mean scores for each group for every category on importance were
over 3.0 on a scale that read 4-essential, 3-important, 2-of little
importance, 1-not important. Notice should also be taken that for both
practitioner groups (CSAOs and DOHs), mean scores for those groups
for every category on possession were below 3.0 on a scale that read
"Recent master's degree graduates possess this competency:" 4-agree
strongly, 3-agree, 2-disagree, 1-disagree strongly. No significant
differences were observed among the groups on extent of importance
for any of the five categories. Significant differences were observed
among the groups on extent of agreement with possession for all of the
five categories.
Conclusion
The modified Tomorrow's High Education (T.H.E.) model used
in this study provided a theoretical base upon which quality training
expectations for careers in student affairs could be built. Miller and
Prince (1976), Domeier (1977), Minetti (1977), Hanson (Note 2), and
Delworth and Hanson (1980) identified competencies important for
professionals in the student affairs field to possess in order to
function effectively in entry level positions. Both possession of
these competencies by recent graduates of preparation programs, and
the importance of the competencies for effective function in entry
level positions were tested in this study. Professionals responsible
for the training of new student affairs staff as well as practitioners
responsible for hiring, supervising, and evaluating new staff
provided their perceptions on the variables of possession and

-113-
importance with respect to these competencies. The three groups of
professionals (FTs, DOHs, CSAOs) provided their perceptions of the
extent to which they agreed recent graduates of preparation
programs actually possessed each competency and their perceptions
of the extent to which these competencies were important for
assuming entry level positions in student affairs.
This study provided general support for the modified T.H.E.
model as a conceptual framework for the identification of learning
outcomes of preparation programs in student personnel administration.
The modified T.H.E. model has shown to be effective in providing a
theoretical context for the competencies, proven in this study to be
important outcomes of training programs, designed to prepare young
professionals to enter the field of student affairs.
The following represent conclusions of this study:
1. The results of the study support the conclusion that the
two practitioner groups (DOHs and CSAOs) perceived
doubt as to whether recent master's graduates of
preparation programs possessed the competencies in any of
the categories.
2. The results of the study support the conclusion that the
three groups did not share similar perceptions of the
training recent master's degree graduates of preparation
programs received for the competencies in all categories.
Specifically, faculty perceived a significantly greater
possession of the competencies by recent graduats in all
five categories.
3. The results of the study support the conclusion that all
three groups perceived that the competencies in all
categories were important for assuming an entry level
position in student affairs.
4. The results of the study support the conclusion that the
three groups did share similar perceptions of the
importance of the competencies in all categories for
assuming an entry level position in student affairs.

-114-
5. The results of the study support the conclusion that all
three groups of student affairs professionals found
competencies in the category of Consultation are most
likely to be possessed by recent master's graduates of
preparation programs in student personnel administration.
The three groups also found competencies in the category
of Consultation were most important for assuming an entry
level position in the field of student affairs.
6. The results of the study support the conclusion that all
three groups of student affairs professionals found
competencies in the category of Assessment and Evaluation
were least important for assuming an entry level position
in student affairs.
Implications and Considerations for Further Study
The results of this study have raised a number of issues and
questions which merit additional consideration and further study.
Some of what has been identified in the literature regarding what
"ought to be done" is supported by the results of this study.
1. Content analysis of preparation programs in terms of actual
job function and job expectations is warranted in an effort
to lessen the disparity between training and job
performance (Blaesser and Froehlich 1950; Stroughton,
1957).
2. Increased attention to the development of skills in the
administration and management of higher education on the
part of preparation programs is warranted (Yates, 1977;
Appleton, Briggs, Rhatigan, 1978).
3. Collaboration between faculty and practitioners is war¬
ranted in developing learning expectations and appropriate
measures of the learning outcomes which would reflect the
demands of professional positions in the field of student
affairs.
4. Demonstration by students of competence in areas agreed
to by faculty and practitioners as important in assuming
entry level positions in student affairs is warranted.
5. Consideration might be given to an examination of recent
graduates' perceptions of their own possession of
competencies compared to perceptions of faculty.

-115-
6. Further study is warranted to determine if there is an
effect on perceptions of possession and importance based
on respondent age, length of time employed in the field of
student affairs, and/or whether an advanced degree has
been earned in the area of higher education.
7. Future studies of professional competencies which would
include professionals in other student affairs areas are
warranted.

APPENDIX A
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT FOR FACULTY

AN ASSESSMENT OF STUOENT AFFAIRS PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN RELATION TO SPECIFIED PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES
MAY 1983
The purpose of this study is to determine if student personnel preparation programs educate for the development of entry level professional competencies and to determine
the relative importance of each competency in assuming an entry level staff position.
For the purpose of this study the following definitions have Peen provided.
Student personnel - work within a post secondary education institution which is concerned with both the educational and personal development of students in primarily non¬
classroom activities and the administration of services which support and complement the formal academic process.
Student affairs - the field identified by a division within a post secondary education institution concerned with the provision of services and programs which complement and
supplement the academic mission of higher education institutions.
Entry level position - a position requiring a master’s degree from a professional preparation program in student affairs. Staff in such positions assist in the development and
administration of programs and services for students.
Competencies - abilities, skills, knowledge, and attitudes which permit an individual to carry out job expectations in an acceptable manner
PART I. EMPLOYMENT. ANO DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Answer items 1 through 7 and items 10 through 14 by CIRCLING THE LETTER of the appropriate response(s)
1 . TYPE OF INSTITUTION WHERE YOU
ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED.
a. public
b. private
3 . LENGTH OF TIME IN YOUR CURRENT
POSITION
a. less than 5 years
b. 5 - 10 years
c. 11 - 15 years
d. more than 15 years
5 . YOUR CURRENT AGE.
a. 25 - 35 years d. over 55 years
b. 36 - 45 years
c. 46 - 55 years
2. NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLED AT YOUR
INSTITUTION. d. 15.000 - 20.000
a.under 5000 e over 20.000
t>. 5000 - 9999
C. 10.000 • 14,999
4. LENGTH OF TIME PROFESSIONALLY EMPLOYED
IN STUOENT AFFAIRS/HIGHER EDUCATION
a. less than 5 years
b. 5 - 10 years
c. 11 - 15 years
d. more than 15 years
6. YOUR HIGHEST EARNED OEGREE.
a. bachelor's d. doctorate
b. master's e. other
c. specialist
7. Oo you have an advanced degree (master's and/or doctorate) in a field related to higher education (e g educational administration, counseling, student personnel)7
MASTER'S 00CT0RATE OTHER OEGREE
a. yes b. no a. yes b. no a. yes b. no
8. If you have an advanced degree (master's and /or doctorate) in a field unrelated to higher education, please indicate the field(s) of your degree(s).
MASTER'S DOCTORATE OTHER OEGREE
9.From what institution(s) did you earn advanced degrees (if any)?
MASTER S DOCTORATE OTHER OEGREE
Since you have been employed in your current pro¬
fessional capacity how many students have
graduated from your academic program with a
Master's degree7 (CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE).
a. less than 10 b 10 - 20 c. 21 - 50 d. more
than 50
11 Are you currently serving in an
administrative capacity in stu¬
dent affairs or academic affairs?
(CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE)
a yes b. no
12. If you are not currently serving in an
administrative capacity in student affairs
or academic affairs have you ever served
in an administrative capacity in student
affairs or academic affairs? (CIRCLE YOUR
RESPONSE).
a. yes b. no
if you are currently serving or at one time served in an administrative capacity in student affairs or academic affairs please CIRCLE ALL areas in which you have worked.
a. residence halls/housing
b. student activities/unions
c. financial aid
d. counseling center
e. career planning/placement
f. dean of students office
g. chief student affairs officer
h. college level academic officer
i. academic department head
j. chief academic affairs officer
14. indicate the professional associations in which you hold membership (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
a. American College Personnel Association (ACPA)
b. Association of College and University Housing Officers (ACUHO)
c. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)
d. National Association of Women Dears, Administrators, and Counselors (NAWDAC)
e. Other (please specify)
Return by May 27, 1983 to Randy Hyman. P.0. Box 15208. Gainesville. FL 32604
-117-

-118-
part II.
Your responses to this part of the study should he based upon your perceptions of ill applicants, recently graduated from master’s level preparation programs in student
personnel who have sought consideration for entry level positions in the field of student affairs during the time frame in which you have been employed in your current profes¬
sional capacity.
Since this study hat a dull purpose you are requested to respond to each competency by Indicating 1) if recent master's degree graduates of preparation programs in stu¬
dent personnel have possessed the competency and 2) the importance of the competency for assuming an entry level staff position.
YOU WILL NEED TO RESPOND TO EACH COMPETENCY TWICE BY CIRCLING YOUR ANSWERS ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS:
indicate the extent of your agreement with the following statement
for each competency .
"Recent master's degree graduates possess this competency.""
possession of tho competency
4 - agree strongly (AS)
3 - agree (A)
2- disagree (D)
1 - disagree strongly (DS>
indicate the extent to which you believe each competency is important
for assuming an entry level staff position:
Importance of the competency
4 - essential (E)
3- important (I)
2 - of little importance (LI)
1 - not important (Nl)
I. GOAL SETTING
t Write behavioral objectives
2.Identify and articulate institution"s goals and policies to students .
3.Teach students to deal with the consequences of their behavior
4 . Engage in systematic planning
POSSESSION
AS A D OS
4321
4321
4321
4321
IMPORTANCE
E I U Nl
43 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
II. CONSULTATION
5.Recognize and use expertise of others
6. Facilitate group problem solving and group decision-making
/.Facilitate staff development through in-service training
8.Work effectively with a diversity of individual students and faculty
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2.1
4 3 2*1
4 3 2 1
III. COMMUNICATION
9. Analyze and write memos and reports 4 3 2 1
10. Make effective use of verbal and nonverbal skills in group presentations 4 3 2 1
n Perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, and needs of others 4. 3 2 1
12. Represent student concerns to other campus groups 4 3 2 1
13.Recognize and define confidentiality practices and procedures 4 321
14 Determining usage of office management procedures ii.e.. secretarial services, business
machine operation print and non print media) 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
IV. ASSESSMENT ANO EVALUATION
15.Assess student needs
16 Analyze and interpret program needs and requests
17. Design student programs based on student needs
18.Interpret and understand various evaluation strategies
19 Identify and understand various evaluation strategies .
20. Design and implement a program to evaluate staff
21. Revise programs or the basis of evaluation data
22.Recognize and analyze interpersona. problems
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
V. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
23.Develop and administer a budget
24.Organize resources (people, materia!) to carry out program activities
25.Jndersrand institutional mission, obiectives. and expectations
26. Know and utilize effective decision-making strategies
27. Accept authority and responsibility and delegate as appropriate
28.identify and utilize avai'abie financia; resources
29.Mediate conflict among students, campus, and/or community groups
30. Recognize and accept the ethical consequences of personal and professional behavior
31.Select, train, and supervise staff
32. Manage physical resources and facilities
33. Adjudicate student conduct effectively
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3.21
4 3*2 1
4 3 2 1
4.321
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
Return by May 27. 1983 te Randy Hyman. P.0. Box 15208 Gainesville. FI. 32604

APPENDIX B
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT FOR DIRECTORS OF HOUSING AND
CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS

AN ASSESSMENT OF STUOENT AFFAIRS PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN RELATION TO SPECIFIED PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES
MAY 1983
The purpose of this study is to determine if student personnel preparation programs educate for the development of entry level professional competencies and to determine
the relative importance of each competency in assuming an entry level staff position.
For the purpose of this study the following definitions have Peen provided.
Student personnel • work within a post secondary education institution which is concerned with both the educational and personal development of students in primarily non-
classroom activities and the administration of services which support and complement the formal academic process.
Student affairs • the field identified by a division within a post secondary education institution concerned with the provision of services and programs which complement and
supplement the academic mission of higher education institutions.
Entry level position - a position requiring a master's degree from a professional preparation program in student affairs. Staff in such positions assist in the development and
administration of programs and services for students.
Competencies • abilities, skills, knowledge, and attitudes which permit an individual to carry out job expectations in an acceptable manner.
PART I. EMPLOYMENT. INSTITUTIONAL. ANO OEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Answer items 1 through 7 and items 10 through 12 by CIRCLING THE LETTER of the appropriate response(s).
1 . TYPE OF INSTITUTION WHERE YOU
ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED
a. public
b. private
2. NUMBER OF STUOENTS ENROLLED AT YOUR
INSTITUTION.
a. under 5000 d. 15.000 • 20.000
b. 5000 • 9999 e over 20.000
c. 10.000 • 14.999
3 . LENGTH OF TIME AT YOUR CURRENT
POSITION LEVEL
a. less than 5 years
b. 5 * 10 years
c. 11 - 15 years
d. more than 15 years
4. LENGTH OF TIME PROFESSIONALLY EMPLOYED
IN STUOENT AFFAIRS/HIQHER EDUCATION.
a. less than 5 years
b. 5 - 10 years
c. 11 - 15 years
d. more than 15 years
5 . YOUR CURRENT AGE.
a. 25 - 35 years
b. 36 - 45 years
c. 46 - 55 years
d. over 55 years
6.YOUR HIGHEST EARNED DEGREE.
a. bachelor's d. doctorate
b. master's e. other
c. specialist
7. Do you have an advanced degree (master's and/or doctorate) in a field related to higher education (e.g. educational administration, counseling, student personnel)9
MASTER'S DOCTORATE OTHER OEGREE
a.yes b. no a. yes b. no a. yes b. no
8. If you have an advanced degree (masters and/or doctorate) in a field unrelated to higher education, please indicate the field(s) of your degree(s).
MASTER'S DOCTORATE OTHER OEGREE
9 From what institution(s) did you earn your advanced degrees (if any)
MASTER'S DOCTORATE OTHER DEGREE
10.Since you have been employed at your current position level at a post secondary institution how many of your professional staff (master’s or higher) have been hired in
their first profossional student affairs job? . Note your professional staff means not merely those staff who report directly to you but refers to all staff who ultimately fall under
your span of responsibility) CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE
a less than 5 b. 5 - 10 c. 11 - 20 d. more than 20
11.Of the number of your professional staff tfrom question 1C) hired in their first professional student affairs job. how many have had an advanced degree (master's) in a
related field of higher education (educational administration, counseling, student personnel)?
(CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE).
a. less than 5 b. 5 - 10 c. 11 - 20 d. more than 20
12.indicate which professional associations in which you hold membership. (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
a. American College Personnel Association (ACPA)
b. Association of College and University Housing Officers (ACUHO)
c. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)
d. National Association of Women Oeans. Administrators, and Counselors (NAWOAC)
e. Other (please specify)
Please return by May 27. 1983 to Randy Hyman, P.0. Box 1S208. Gainesville. FI 32604
-120-

-121-
PART II.
Your responses to this part of the study should he based upon your perceptions of all applicants, recently graduated from master's level preparation programs in student
personnel who have sougnt consideration for entry level positions on your staff during the time frame in which you have been employed at your current position level.
Since this study lies a dual purpose you are requested to respond to each competency by Indicating 1) If recant master's degree graduates of preparation programs in stu¬
dent personnel have possessed the competency and 2) the Importance of the competency lor assuming an entry level staff position.
YOU WILL NEED TO RESPONO TO EACH COMPETENCY TWICE BY CIRCLING YOUR ANSWERS ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS:
indicate the extent of your agreement with the following statement
for each competency :
‘Recent master's degree graduates possess this competency."
possession of the competency
4 - agree strongly (AS)
3 - agree (A)
2• disagree (D)
1 - disagree strongly (OS) •
Indicate the extent to which you believe each competency is important
for assuming an entry level staff position:
Importance of the competency
4 • essential (E)
3- important (I)
2 - of little importance (LI)
1 - not important (Nl)
I. GOAL SETTING
1 Write behavioral objectives
2. Identify and articulate institution 's goals and policies to students
3.Teach students to deal with the consequences of their behavior..
4. Engage in systematic planning
POSSESSION
AS A 0 OS
4321
4321
4321
4321
IMPORTANCE
E I U Nl
43 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
II. CONSULTATION
5 . Recognize and use expertise of others
6. Facilitate group problem solving and group decision-making
7 Facilitate staff development through in-service training
8.Work effectively with a diversity of individual students and faculty
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2,1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
III. COMMUNICATION
9 Analyze and write memos and reports
10. Make effective use of verba' and nonverbal skills in group presentations
11 Perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, and needs of others
12 Represent student concerns to other campus groups
13. Recognize and oefine confidentiality practices and procedures
14.Determining usage of office management procedures (i.e.. secretarial services, business
machine operation print and non print media)
4 3 2 1
4321
4-32 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
IV. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
15.Assess student needs
16.Analyze and interpret program needs and requests ....
17.Design student programs based on student needs
18. interpret and understand various evaluation strategies
19. Identify and understand various evaluation strategies
20. Design and implement a program to evaluate staff
21 Revise programs on the basis of evaluation cata
22.Recognize and analyze interpersonal problems
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANO ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
23.Develop and administer a budget
24.Organize resources .people, material) to carry out program activities
25.Understand institutional mission, objectives, and expectations
26. Know and utilize effective decision-making strategies
27 Accept authority and responsibility and delegate as aporooriale
23.Identify and utilize available financial resources
29 M.ediate conflict among students, campus, and/or community grouos
30. Recognize and accept ’he ethical consequences of personal and professional behavior
31.Select, train, and supervise staff
32.Manage physical resources and facilities
33.Adjudicate student conduct effectively
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3,21
4 3*2 1
4 3 2 1
4.321
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
Return by May 27. 1983 to Randy Hyman. P.0. Box 15208. Gainesville. FI. 32604

APPENDIX C
LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM
VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Gainesville, 326n
VICE PRESIDENT FOR
STUDENT AFFAIRS
123 TIGERT HALL
904 392- 1265
May 16, 1983
Dear Colleague:
You are invited to participate in a study of professional graduate
preparation programs in student affairs administration. This study
is being conducted by Randy Hyman, Assistant Director of Housing at
the University of Florida for his Ph.D. degree in Higher Education.
Specifically, the study examines the entry level professional com¬
petencies that are addressed in graduate training programs.
Your participation in this study is very important, as the results
may be of value to those planning professional preparation programs,
and to those who hire entry level staff. The results, of course,
will not identify either individuals or specific institutions, and
your responses will remain confidential.
The instrument is brief, and a recently conducted pilot test revealed
an average completion time of 12 minutes. A self-addressed, stamped
envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
Thank you for your participation and cooperation. Please complete
the enclosed instrument and return it to Randy Hyman by May 30, 1983.
Sincerely.
(y(
Arthur Sandeen
Vice President for
Student Affairs
Randy Hyman
Assistant Director
of Housing
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OP PO R TU N I TY / A F FI RM A TI V E ACTION EMPLOYER
-123-

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Gainesville, 326 ii
VICE PRESIDENT FOR
STUDENT AFFAIRS
123 TIGERT H
9 0 4 392- I2Í
May 16, 1983
Dear Col league:
You are invited to participate in a study of professional graduate
preparation programs in student affairs administration. This study
is being conducted by Randy Hyman, Assistant Director of Housing at
the University of Florida for his Ph.D. degree in Higher Education.
Specifically, the study examines the entry level professional com¬
petencies that are addressed in graduate training programs.
Your participation in this study is very important, as the results
may be of value to those planning professional preparation programs,
and to those who hire entry level staff. The results, of course,
will not identify either individuals or specific institutions, and
your responses will remain confidential.
As the institutional contact for the professional preparation pro¬
gram in college student personnel at your institution (according to
the Directory of Graduate Preparation Programs in College Student
Personnel, ACPA, 1980) we are requesting that you complete one of
the enclosed instruments and select another member of the preparation
faculty to complete the other. The instrument is brief and a recently
conducted pilot test, revealed an average completion time of 12 minutes.
Two self-addressed envelopes have been enclosed for the convenience of
yourself and your identified colleague.
Thank you for your participation and cooperation. We would request
that the enclosed instruments be completed and returned to Randy Hyman
by May 30, 1983-
S¡nee rely
Arthur Sandeen
Vice President for
Student Affairs and
Professor, Educa¬
tional Administration
Randy Hyman
Assistant Director
of Housing
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT O P PO R TU N I T Y / A F F I RM A TI V E ACTION EMPLOYER

APPENDIX D
LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT
FROM RESEARCH AND INFORMATION COMMITTEE

ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY HOUSING OFFICERS
INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL
May 2, 1983
EXECUTIVE BOARO 1982-83
PRESIDENT
WILLIAM P. PALEEN
Olrector of Residence Life
2117 North Balch Hell
Cornell University
Ithaca. NY 14853
Ph (607) 256-5511
1st VICEPRESIOENT
ANNETTE K. SMITH
Assistant Director for Food Service
G-18 Towers
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
Ph (304) 293-2096
2nd VICE-PRESIDENT
JAMES C. GRIMM
Director of Housing
Housing Office
University of Florida
Gainesville. Florida 32611
Ph (904) 392-2173
SECRETARY:
JAMES J. GRUBB
Director of Residence Halls
405 Student Services Building
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee 37916
Ph (615) 974-2571
TREASURER:
CARMEN L VANCE
Olrector of Residential Life—U-22
University of Connecticut
Storrs. Connecticut 06266
Ph (203) 486-3030
Dear Colleague:
Accompanying this letter you will find a survey form which we
are requesting that you complete for the purpose of gathering
information and sharing it with the ACUHO-I membership.
This survey is being conducted by Randy Hyman, a member of the
professional housing staff at the University of Florida. Randy
is doing his dissertation on a topic that we in the housing
profession have discussed many times: Are the student personnel
programs preparing our entry level staff in the competencies we
need? As the discussion of standards for our profession pro¬
gresses, it would be to our advantage to know how you feel about
the competencies of our entry level staff.
We would appreciate your help in completing this survey for
Randy and for ACUHO-I. The results will be published, as well
as forwarded directly to those who participate. Also, Randy's
finished dissertation will be on file with ACUHO-I's R & I
Committee. Any questions on the survey should be directed to
Randy.
PAST PRESIDENT:
GARY B. NORTH
Assistant Vies Chancellor
and Director of Housing
University of Illinois
1203 South Fourth Street
200 Clark Hall
Champaign. Illinois 61820 s*
Ph (217)333-0610
MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
JUDY E. SPAIN
Director of Residence Hails
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie. Wisconsin. 54751
Ph (715) 232-2131
MICHAEL B. HOCTOR
Director, Housing and Residential Life
San Diego State University
5300 Campanile Orive
San Diego, California 92182
Ph (714) 265-5742
Thank you for your assistance in helping to ensure that this
project will be part of ACUHO-I information resources.
Sincerely,
Paul K. Jahr, Chair
Research and Information Committee
Asst. Director of Housing/Residence Life
Southern Illinois Uni versity-Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901
(678) 536-5504
PUBLICATIONS COORDINATOR/
NEWSMAGAZINE EDITOR
ROBERT P. COOKE
Director of Housing
Box 7666
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712
Ph (512)471-3136
THIRTY-FIFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE • UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON • JULY 17-21, 1983
-126-

APPENDIX E
FOLLOW-UP POST CARD

June 13, 1983
Dear Colleague:
Recently you were mailed an instrument as part of a study of
professional graduate preparation programs in student affairs ad¬
ministration. As yet we have not received your completed instrument.
Since your participation in the study is very important we
would request that you please complete the instrument and return
it to Randy Hyman, P.0. Box 15208, Gainesville, FL 32604 by June 23.
If you never received the instrument or misplaced it please contact
me at (904) 392-6091 and I will be happy to send you another copy.
Sincerely,
Randy E. Hyman
Assistant Director of Housing
University of Florida
-128-

APPENDIX F
TABLE LISTING MEAN SCORES FOR EACH GROUP
BY COMPETENCY FOR POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE

-130-
TABLE 29
MEAN SCORES FOR GROUPS BY COMPETENCY FOR VARIABLES OF POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE
COMPETENCY
FTs
a
POSSESSION
DOHsb CSAOsC
IMPORTANCE POSSESSION IMPORTANCE POSSESSION IMPORTANCE
1. Write Behavioral Objectives
2. Identify and Articulate . . .
Policies to Students
3. Teach Students . . . Behavior
4. Engage in Systematic Planning
5. Recognize and Use Expertise of Others
6. Facilitate Group Problem . . .
Decision Making
7. Facilitate Staff Development . . .
Training
8. Work Effectively . . . Students and
Faculty
9. Analyze and Write Memos and Reports
10. Make effective Use . . . Presentations
11. Perceive . . . Interpret
... of Others
12. Represent Student Concerns to . . .
Groups
13. Recognize . . . Confidentiality . . .
2.877
2.923
2.624
3.292
3.631
2.812
3.369
3.585
2.941
3.062
3.462
2.482
3.462
3.600
2.941
3.415
3.539
2.835
3.123
3.446
2.894
3.415
3.800
2.882
2.892
3.292
2.424
3.354
3.677
2.835
3.200
3.600
2.765
3.077
3.354
2.847
3.354
3.523
2.929
3.094
2.795
3.000
3.435
2.759
3.554
3.777
3.012
3.723
3.424
2.651
3.361
3.424
3.096
3.423
3.447
2.831
3.398
3.494
2.663
3.193
3.577
2.952
3.723
3.377
2.602
3.518
3.471
2.855
3.458
3.494
2.783
3.554
3.047
2.880
3.422
3.459
3.024
3.482
Procedures

TABLE 29 Continued
FTs
a
COMPETENCY
POSSESSION
IMPORTANCE
14.
Determinging Usage of Office . . .
Procedures
2.462
2.815
15.
Assess Student Needs
3.185
3.585
16.
Analyze and Interpret . . . Requests
3.015
3.415
17.
Design Student Programs . . . Needs
3.139
3.554
18.
Interpret . . . Evaluation Strategies
2.831
3.185
19.
Identify . . . Evaluation Strategies
2.846
3.185
20.
Design . . . Program
. . . Evaluate Staff
2.615
3.077
21.
Revise Programs . . . Evaluation Data
2.815
3.277
22.
Recognize . . . Interpersonal Problems
3.292
3.554
23.
Develop and Administer a Budget
2.539
3.185
24.
Organize Resources . . . Program
Acitivities
3.139
3.446
25.
Understand Institutional Mission . . .
Expectations
3.000
3.631
26.
Know and Utilize . . . Strategies
3.092
3.494
27.
Accept Authority . . . Delegate as
Appropriate
3.062
3.462
28.
Identify and Utilize . . . Resources
2.785
3.339
DOHs
b
CSAOsC
POSSESSION IMPORTANCE POSSESSION IMPORTANCE
2.141
2.941
2.289
2.9880
2.741
3.482
2.783
3.518
2.694
3.294
2.675
3.313
2.777
3.424
2.735
3.506
2.447
3.024
2.446
3.036
2.424
3.024
2.470
3.036
2.518
3.282
2.386
3.072
2.529
3.235
2.506
3.289
2.965
3.447
2.916
3.482
1.894
2.918
2.169
3.277
2.741
3.435
2.819
3.615
2.459
3.271
2.627
3.566
2.588
3.446
2.651
3.377
2.635
3.565
2.795
3.578
2.353
3.035
2.518
3.241
-131-

TABLE 29 (Continued)
FTs
a
COMPETENCY
POSSESSION
IMPORTANCE
29.
Mediate Conflict . . . Community Groups
3.046
3.369
30.
Recognize and Accept . . . Consequences
. . . Behavior
3.600
3.754
31.
Select, Train, and Supervise Staff
2.892
3.339
32.
Manage Physical Resources and
Facilities
2.754
3.046
33.
Adjudicate Student Conduct
Effectively
2.769
3.123
a
n=75
b
DOHs
CSA0sC
POSSESSION
IMPORTANCE
POSSESSION
IMPORTANCE
2.906
3.329
2.819
3.410
2.777
3.635
3.036
3.627
3.000
3.741
2.735
3.337
2.412
3.165
2.578
3.145
2.788
3.341
2.663
3.337
b
n=85
c
n=83
-132-

APPENDIX G
TABLES LISTING MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE FOR GROUPS BY CATEGORY

-134-
TABLE 30
GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COMPETENCIES IN CATEGORY OF GOAL SETTING
FOR FTs (n=65), DOHs (n=85) AND CSAOs (n=83) DF = 2,230 ALPHA = 0.05
POSSESSION IMPORTANCE
I.
Goal Setting Competencies
F-Value
P>F
Implication
F-Value
P>F
Implication
1.
Write Behavior Objectives
3.00
.0517
N.S.
1.19
.3049
N.S.
2.
Identify and Articulate . . . Policies
to Students
14.92
.0001
Significant
. 2.70
.0691
N.S.
3.
Teach Students . . . Behavior
10.10
.0001
Significant
3.15
.0446
Significant
4.
Engage in Systematic Planning
14.95
.0001
Significant
.61
.5436
N.S.
NOTE: DF = Degree of Freedom
N.S. means Not Significant at .05 alpha level

TABLE 31
GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COMPETENCIES IN CATEGORY OF CONSULTATION
FOR FTs (n=65), AND DOHs (n=85) CSAOs (n=83) DF = 2,230 ALPHA = 0.05
POSSESSION
IMPORTANCE
Consultation Competencies
F-Value
P>F
Implication
F-Value
P>F
Implication
5.
Recognize and Use Expertise of
Others 15.89
.0001
Significant
3.00
.0519
N.S.
6.
Facilitate Group Problems . . .
Decision
Making
24.97
.0001
Significant
1.18
.3079
N.S.
7.
Facilitate Staff Development .
• •
Training
8.80
.0002
Significant
6.15
.0025
Significant
8.
Work Effectively . . . Students
and
Faculty
14.15
.0001
Significant
4.75
.0096
Significant
NOTE: DF = Degrees of Freedom
N.S. means not significant at .05 alpha level
-SCI-

TABLE 32
GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COMPETENCIES IN CATEGORY OF COMMUNICATION
FOR FTs (n=65), AND
DOHs
(n=85) CSAOs
(n=83) DF =
2,230
ALPHA = 0.05
POSSESSION
IMPORTANCE
III.
Communication Competencies
F-Value
P>F
Implication
F-Value
P>F
Implication
9.
Analyze and Write Memos and Reports
9.08
.0002
Significant
2.74
.0668
N.S.
10.
Make Effective Use . . . Presentations
22.96
.0001
Significant
3.82
.0223
Significant
11.
Perceive. . . Interpret ... of Others
14.91
.0001
Significant
.82
.4413
N.S.
12.
Represent Student Concerns to . . .
Groups
3.29
.039
Significant
10.11
.0001
Significant
13.
Recognize . . . Confidentiality . . .
Procedures
8.79
.0002
Significant
.25
.7777
N.S.
14.
Determining Usage of Office . . .
Procedures
5.34
.0054
Significant
1.52
.2206
N.S.
NOTE: DF = Degrees of Freedom
N.S. means not significant at .05 alpha level
-136-

TABLE 33
GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COMPETENCIES IN CATEGORY OF ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
FOR FTs (n=65), AND DOHs (n=85) CSAOs (n=83) DF = 2,230 ALPHA = 0.05
POSSESSION
IMPORTANCE
IV. Assessment and Evaluation Competencies F-Value
P>F
Implication
F-Value
P>F
Implication
15.
Assess Student Needs
13.10
.0001
Significant
.66
.5175
N.S.
16.
Analyze and Interpret . . . Requests
8.31
.0003
Significant
1.21
.3010
N.S.
17.
Design Student Programs . . . Needs
9.64
.0001
Significant
1.13
.3260
N.S.
18.
Interpret . . , Evaluation Strategies
9.40
.0001
Significant
2.14
.1195
N.S.
19.
Identify . . . Evaluation Strategies
10.91
.0001
Significant
2.01
.1361
N.S.
20.
Design . . . Program . . .
Evaluate Staff
2.52
.0827
N.S.
3.22
.0417
Significant
21.
Revise Programs . . . Evaluation Data
5.12
.0067
Significant
.23
.7979
N.S.
22.
Recognize . . . Interpersonal Problems
9.08
.0002
Significant
.77
.4643
N.S.
Note. DF = Degrees of Freedom
NS means not significant at .05 alpha level
-137-

TABLE 34
GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COMPETENCIES IN CATEGORY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
v. :
FOR FTs (n=65), AND
Environmental and Organizational
Management Competencies
DOHs
F-Value
(n=85) CSAOs
POSSESSION
(n=83) DF =
2,230
ALPHA = 0.05
IMPORTANCE
P>F
Implication
F-Value
P>F
Implication
23.
Develop and Administer a Budget
13.98
.0001
Significant
5.91
.0031
Significant
24.
Organize Resources . . . Program
Activities
9.23
.0001
Significant
2.73
.0671
N.S.
25.
Understand Institutional Mission . . .
Expectations
12.37
.0001
Significant
9.80
.0001
Significant
26.
Know and Utilize . . . Strategies
15.15
.0001
Significant
1.04
.3548
N.S.
27.
Accept Authority . . . Delegate as
Appropriate
7.10
.0010
Significant
1.11
.3304
N.S.
28.
Identify and Utilize . . . Resources
6.54
.0017
Significant
5.99
.0029
Significant
29.
Mediate Conflict . . . Community Groups
2.91
.0562
N.S.
.41
.6648
N.S.
30.
Recognize and Accept . . . Consequences
. . . Behavior
33.59
.0001
Significant
1.48
.2293
N.S.
31.
Select, Train, and Supervise Staff
3.78
.0241
Significant
12.41
.0001
Significant
32.
Manage Physical Resources and Facilities
5.03
.0073
Significant
.79
.4545
N.S.
33.
Adjudicate Student Conduct Effectively
1.10
.3344
N.S.
3.12
.0459
Significant
Note. DF = Degrees of Freedom
N.S. means not significant at .05 alpha level
-138-

APPENDIX H
TABLES LISTING RESULTS OF DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR
POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE BY CATEGORY

-140-
TABLE 35
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE
OF
COMPETENCIES IN THE
CATEGORY
OF GOAL SETTING WHERE
ALPHA = .05
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE IDENTIFIED
DF = 230
POSSESSION
IMPORTANCE
I. Goal Setting Competencies
Duncan Grouping
Mean
N
Group
Duncan Grouping
Mean N Group
2.
Identify and Articulate . . .
Policies to
Students
A
3.2923
65
FT
B
B
2.8118
85
DOH
B
2.7590
83
CSAO
3.
Teach Students . . . Behavior
A
3.3692
65
FT
A
3.7765 85 DOH
B
3.0120
83
CSAO
A
B
B A
B
3.7229 83 CSAO
B
2.9412
85
DOH
B
3.5846 65 FT
4.
Engage in Systematic Planning
A
3.0615
65
FT
B
2.6506
83
CSAO
B
B 2.4824 85 DOH
NOTE: Means with the same letter are not significantly different
DF = Degrees of Freedom

TABLE 36
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE
OF COMPETENCIES IN THE CATEGORY OF CONSULTATION WHERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE IDENTIFIED
ALPHA = .05 DF = 230
IMPORTANCE POSSESSION
II.
Consultation Competencies
Duncan Grouping
Mean
N
Group
Duncan
Grouping
Mean
N Group
5.
Recognize and Use Expertise of
Others A
3.642
65
FT
B
3.096
83
CSAO
B
B
2.941
85
DOH
6.
Facilitate Group Problems . .
. Decision
Making
A
3.415
65
FT
B
2.835
85
DOH
B
B
2.831
83
CSAO
7.
Facilitate Staff Development .
. . Training A
3.123
65
FT
A
3.494
85
DOH
A
B
2.894
85
DOH
A
3.446
65
FT
C
2.663
83
CSAO
B
3.193
83
CSAO
-141-

TABLE 36 Continued
IMPORTANCE POSSESSION
II. Consultation Competencies
Duncan Grouping
Mean
N
Group
Duncan Grouping
Mean
N Group
8. Work Effectively . . . Students and
Faculty A
3.415
65
FT
A
3.800
65 FT
A
B
2.952
83
CSAO
A
3.723
83 CSAO
B
2.882
85
DOH
B
3.577
85 DOH
NOTE: Means with the same letter are not significantly different
DF = Degrees of Freedom
-142-

TABLE 37
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE
OF COMPETENCIES IN THE CATEGORY OF COMMUNICATION
WHERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE IDENTIFIED
ALPHA = .05 DF = 230
III.
Communication Competencies
Duncan Grouping
POSSESSION
Mean
N
Group
Duncan Grouping
IMPORATANCE
Mean N
Grout
9.
Analyze and Write Memos and Reports
A
2.892
65
FT
B
2.6024
83
CSAO
B
B
2.424
85
DOH
10.
Make Effective Use . . . Presentations
A
3.354
65
FT
A
3.677
65
FT
B
2.855
83
CSAO
B
3.471
85
DOH
B
B
2.835
85
DOH
B
3.458
83
CSAO
11.
Perceive . . . Interpret ... of Others
A
3.200
65
FT
B
2.783
83
CSAO
B
B
2.765
85
DOH
NOTE: Means with the same letter are not significantly different
DF = Degrees of Freedom
-in-

TABLE 37 Continued
III.
Communication Competencies
Duncan Grouping
POSSESSION
Mean
N
Group
Duncan Grouping
IMPORTANCE
Mean N
Group
12.
Represent Student Concerns to . .
. Groups A
3.077
65
FT
A
3.422
83
CSAO
A
B
2.880
83
CSAO
A
3.354
65
FT
B
B
2.847
85
DOH
B
3.047
85
DOH
13.
Recognize . . . Confidentiality .
, ,
Procedures
A
3.354
65
FT
B
3.024
83
CSAO
B
2.929
85
DOH
B
14.
Determining Usage of Office . . .
A
2.462
65
FT
Procedures
B A
2.289
83
CSAO
B
B
2.141
85
DOH
NOTE: Means with the same letter are not significantly different
DF = Degrees of Freedom
-144-

TABLE 38
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE
OF COMPETENCIES IN THE CATEGORY OF ASSESSMENT
AND EVALUATION WHERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE IDENTIFIED
ALPHA = .05 DF = 230
POSSESSION IMPORTANCE
IV. Assessment and Evaluation Competencies Duncan Grouping Mean N Group Duncan Grouping Mean N
15.
Assess Student Needs
A
3.185
65
FT
B
2.783
83
CSAO
B
B
2.741
85
DOH
16.
Analyze and Interpret . . . Requests
A
3.015
65
FT
B
2.694
85
DOH
B
B
2.675
83
CSAO
17.
Design Student Programs . . . Needs
A
3.139
65
FT
B
2.777
85
DOH
B
B
2.735
83
CSAO
18.
Interpret . . . Evaluation Strategies
A
2.831
65
FT
B
2.447
85
DOH
B
B
2.446
83
CSAO
NOTE: Means with the same letters are not significantly different
DF = Degrees of Freedom
-145-

TABLE 38 Continued
IV. Assessment and Evaluation Competencies Duncan Grouping
19. Identify . . . Evaluation Strategies A
B
B
B
20. Design . . . Program . . . Evaluate Staff
21. Revise Programs . . . Evaluation Data A
B
B
B
22. Recognize Interpersonal Problems A
B
B
B
NOTE: Means with the same letter are not significantly different
DF = Degrees of Freedom
POSSESSION
IMPORTANCE
Mean N Group Duncan Grouping Mean N Group
2.846
65
FT
2.470
83
CSAO
2.424
85
DOH
A
3.282
85
DOH
B
3.077
65
FT
B
B
3.072
83
CSAO
2.815
65
FT
2.529
85
DOH
2.506
83
CSAO
3.292
65
FT
2.965
85
DOH
2.916
83
CSAO
-146-

TABLE 39
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR OF POSSESSION AND IMPORTANCE
OF COMPETENCIES IN THE CATEGORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
WHOSE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE IDENTIFIED
ALPHA = .05 DF = 230
V. Environmental and Organizational
Management Competencies Duncan Grouping
Possession
Mean
N
Group
Duncan Grouping
Importance
Mean
N
Group
23. Develop and Administer a Budget A
2.539
65
FT
A
3.277
83
CSAO
B
2.169
83
CSAO
A
3.185
65
FT
C
1.894
85
DOH
B
2.918
85
DOH
24. Organize Resources . . . Program Activities A
3.139
65
FT
B
2.819
83
CSAO
B
2.741
85
DOH
25. Understand Institutional Mission . . .
Expectation A
3.000
65
FT
A
3.631
65
FT
A
B
2.627
83
CSAO
A
3.566
83
CSAO
B
B
2.459
85
DOH
B
3.271
85
DOH
26. Know and Utilize . . . Resources A
3.092
65
FT
B
2.651
83
CSAO
B
B
2.588
85
DOH
NOTE: Means with the same letter are not significantly different
DF - Degree of freedom
-147-

TABLE 39 Continued
V. Environmental and Organizational
Management Competencies
Possession
Duncan Grouping Mean
27. Accept Authority . . . Delegate as
Appropriate A
B
B
B
28. Identify and Utilize . . . Resources A
B
B
29. Mediate Conflict . . . Community Groups A
A
B A
B
B
30. Recognize and Accept. . . Consequences
A
B
C
3.062
2.795
2.635
2.785
2.518
2.353
3.046
2.906
2.819
2.819
3.600
3.036
2.777
Behavior
Importance
N Group Duncan Grouping Mean N Group
65 FT
83
CSAO
85
DOH
65
FT
A
3.339
65
FT
83
CSAO
A
3.241
83
CSAO
85
DOH
B
3.035
85
DOH
65 FT
85 DOH
83 CSAO
83 CSAO
65 FT
83 CSAO
85 DOH
-148-

TABLE 39 Continued
V. Environmental and Organizational
Management Competencies Duncan Grouping
31. Select, Train, and Supervise Staff A
A
B
B
B
32. Manage Physical Resources and Facilities A
A
B A
B
33.Adjudicate Student Conduct Effectively
Mean
N
Group
Duncan Grouping
Mean
N
Group
3.000
85
DOH
A
3.741
85
DOH
2.892
65
FT
B
3.339
65
FT
B
2.735
83
CSAO
B
3.337
83
CSAO
2.754
65
FT
2.578
83
CSAO
2.412
85
DOH
A
3.341
85
DOH
A
A
3.337
83
CSAO
B
3.323
65
FT
-149-

REFERENCES NOTES
Cross, K.P. Assessment of student development. Paper presented at
the 50th annual meeting of the American College Personnel
Association, Atlanta, March, 1975.
Hanson, G.R. Stop the bandwagon—ACPA wants to get on. (Re¬
search Project Tor American College Personnel Association).
Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas, 1977.
Saddlemire, G. Training concepts in the student personnel specialist.
Speech presented at Bowling Green State University, Bowling
Green, Ohio. 1972.
Smith, M. (Ed.)
toward the
A study of the attitude of behavioral scientists
training and responsibilities of student per
administration
and
concerning
the
development
of clear
relationships
between
student p
ersonnel
administration
and the
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1959.
Stamatakos, L.C. Facing the realities of practice in training. Paper
presented at Michigan State University, 1973.
-150-

REFERENCES
American College Personnel Association. "The role and preparation of
student personnel members in institutions of higher learning."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1967, ÉS, 62-65.
American College Personnel Association. "A student development model
for student affairs in tomorrow's higher education." Journal of
College Student Personnel, 1975, 334-41.
American Council on Education. The student personnel point of view.
American Council on Education studies, series Tj no. 3.
Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, 1937.
American Council on Education. Future needs in student personnel
work. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education and
U. S. Office of Education, 1950.
American Council on Education Committee on Student Personnel Work
(E. G. Williamson, Chairman). The student personnel point of
view. American Council on Education studies, series 6, no. 13.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1949.
American Personnel and Guidance Association. "Ethical standards."
Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1971, 5^, 327-330.
Anderson, G. V. "Professional standards and training for college
personnel workers." Educational and Psychological Measurement,
1948, 8, 451-459. " ~~
Appleton, J., Briggs, D., and Rhatigan, J. Pieces of eight.
Portland: NASPA Institute of Research and Development, 1978.
Arner, T. D., Peterson, W. D., Arner, C. A., Hawkins, L. T. , and
Spooner, S. E. "Student personnel education: A process out¬
come model." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1976, 17,
334-341.
Astman, S. K. "Faculty perception of the student personnel staff:
Implications for survival." Journal of the National Association for
Women Deans and Counselors, 1975, 38, 65~70.
Ayers, A. R. , Tripp, P. , and Russell, J. Student services
administration in higher education. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Wel¬
fare, 1966.
-151-

-152-
Barry, R. , and Wolf, B. Modern issues in guidance personnel work.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, 1957.
Berdie, R. F. "Student personnel work: Definition and redefinition."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1966, 7, 405-409.
Berry, M. "The state of student affairs: A review of the literature."
NASPA Journal, 1976, 13, 2-4.
Blackburn, J. L. Perceived purposes of student personnel
programs by chief student personnel officers as a~ function of
academic preparation and experience (Doctoral dissertation,
Florida State University, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 1970, 30, 3745A - 3746Á"! (University Microfilm No.
70-3815)
Blaesser, W. W. (Ed.). Student personnel work in the post war
college. Washington"! D. C. : American Council oñ Education,
1945.
Blaesser, W. W. "Organizational change and student development."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1978, 22» 109-117.
Blaesser, W. W. , and Froehlich, C. "Major issues and trends in the
graduate training of college personnel workers." Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 1950, 22» 588-595.
Bob, S. H., and Lee, R. J. "The development of a model
state training program for financial aid administrators in
Virginia." Journal of Student Financial Aid, 1979, 9, 15-21.
Bolton, C. R. Recent graduates' perceptions of their doctoral training
programs in college student personnel (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Oklahoma, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts Interna¬
tional , 1974, 22» 1456A. (University Microfilms No. 74-19248)
Borland, D. T., and Thomas, R. E. "Student development
implementation through expanded professional skills." Journal of
College Student Personnel, 1976, 22» 145-149.
Broertjes, V. H. An appraisal of the doctoral program in higher
education at the school of education, Indiana University! based on
a followup study of its graduates (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1965, 26,
5121. (University Microfilm No. 65-14032)
Brown, R.D. Student development in tomorrow's higher education-a
return to the academy. Student Personnel Series, no. 16.
Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1972.
Brown, R. D. "Reaction." In G. H. Knock (Ed.), Perspectives on
the preparation of student affairs professionals. Student Person -
nel Series, no. 22"! Washington, D C.: American College Person¬
nel Association, 1977.

-153-
Brumfield, S. H. "Does the student personnel profession have a
future?" Southern College Personnel Associations Journal, 1979,
2, 33-38.
Cameron, A. R. "An analysis of the interests, educational
preparation, and vocational background of student personnel
deans." NASPA Journal, 1964, 2, 13-14.
Canon, Harry. "Toward professionalism in student affairs: Another
point of view." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1982, 23,
468-473.
Caple, R. B. "Molar model for the training of student personnel
workers." Counselor Education and Supervision, 1972, 12,
31-46.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The purposes and
performances of higher education in the United States. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.
Cooper, A. C. "A proposal for professional preparation of the college
development educator." Report from the Commission of Profes¬
sional Development, Council of Student Personnel Administrators
in Higher Education, 1971.
Cooper, A.C. (Ed.) Student development services in higher educa¬
tion. Statement prepared by the Commission on Professional
Development of the Council of Student Personnel Associations in
Higher Education, 1972.
Cosby, B. "Professional preparation for student personnel work in
higher education." Journal of the National Association for Women
Deans and Counselors^ 1965, 29, 14-18~
Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education. "COSPA
proposal for college student personnel professional preparation."
NASPA Journal, 1965, 3, 45-47.
Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education.
"Guidelines for graduate programs in preparation of student
personnel workers in higher education." Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 1969, 47, 493-498.
Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education. "A
student development point of view of education." Journal of
College Student Personnel, 1970, 11, 474-475.
Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education.
"Student development services in post secondary education."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1974, j_5, 74-78.
Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education.
"Student development services in post secondary education."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1975, li>» 524-528.

-154-
Cowley, W. H. "The nature of student personnel work." Educational
Record, 1936, 17, 198-226.
Cowley, W. H. "Some history and a venture in prophecy." In E. G.
Williamson (Ed.), Trends in student personnel work. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1949.
Cowley, W. H. "Student personnel services in retrospect and
prospect." School and Society, 1957, 85, 19-22.
Cowley, W. H. "Reflections of a troublesome but hopeful Rip Van
Winkle." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1964, 6, 66-73.
Crane, Robert M. "The raison d'etre of a college student personnel
administrator." Improving College and University Teaching, 1965,
13, 19-20.
Crookston, B. B. "An organizational model for student development."
NASPA Journal, 1972, 10, 3-13.
Crookston, B. B. "Student personnel ... all hail and farewell!"
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1976, Sj5, 26-29,
Cross, K. P. "Student personnel work as a profession." Journal of
College Student Personnel, 1973, 14, 77-81.
Davies, T. G. Proposed behavioral competencies for members of the
junior college presidential cabinet (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1971, 31, 5692A. (University Microfilms No. 71-11815)
Davis, I. C. Analysis of a graduate program for college student
personnel work based on determined criteria (Doctoral disser¬
tation^ Indi am a University, 1956). Dissertation Abstracts Inter¬
national, 1957, _17, 572. (University Microfilms No. 17-766)
Delworth, U. , and Hanson, G. Student Services. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1980.
Delworth, U. , and Yarris, E. "Concepts and process in the new
training roles." In U. Delworth (Ed.), New Directions for stu¬
dent services: Training competent staff no. 2. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1978.
Dewey, M. E. "The student personnel worker of 1980." Journal of
National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 1972, 35,
59-64.
Dewey, M. E. "Systems philosophy as professional preparation." In
G. H. Knock (Ed.), Perspective on the preparation of student
affairs professionals. Student Personnel Series no. 22.
Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1977.

-155-
Domeier, P. E. A study to examine the training of student affairs
administrators for specified competency tasks (Doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1977, 38, 2580A. (University Microfilms
No. 77-25,234) —
Emmet, T. A. A guide to programs of training for college and
university student personnel workers. University of Detroit,
M
Feder, D. D. "Next step in the personnel profession." Occupations,
1948, 27, 5-10.
Feder, D. D. "The emerging role of the professional personnel
worker." In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Personnel sciences in educa¬
tion: The fifty-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part III Chicago: University ol Chicago
Press, 1959.
Flexner, A. Is social work a profession? School and Society, 1915, I,
901-911.
Foy, J. E. Career patterns of student personnel administrators
(Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). Disser¬
tation Abstracts International, 1970, 3J., 100A. (University
Microfilms No. 70-9534)
Gimmestad, U. , and Goldsmith, E. 11 Admissions policies for graduate
programs in counselor education." Counselor Education and
Supervision, 1973, 12, 172-177.
Goldsmith, J. "Competence assessment within a professional training
program." New directions for experimental learning, 1979, 3,
53-63.
Greenleaf, E. A. "Preparation of student personnel staff to meet
flexibility and diversity in higher education." In G. H. Knock
(Ed.), Perspectives on the preparation of student affairs profes¬
sionals . Student Personnel Series no. 22. Washington, D.C.:
American College Personnel Association, 1977.
Hanson, G. R. and Lenning, D.T. "Evaluating student development
programs." In G. Kuh (Ed.), Evaluation in student affairs.
Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1979.
Hartley, D. "A cooperative graduate program in student personnel
work." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1969, 1_0, 174-176.
Hill, G. E. and Green, D. A. "The selection preparation, and
professionalization of guidance workers." Review of Educational
Research, 1960, 30, 115-130.

-156-
Holland, E. E. and Kleinberg, R. K. "Student affairs personnel:
partners or second class citizens." Improving College and Uni¬
versity Teaching, 1974, 22, 115-116.
Howtz, Patricia, "Internships in student personnel programs." Journal
of College Student Personnel, 1967, 8, 322-326
Hoyt, D. P. , and Rhatigan, J. J. "Professional preparation of junior
and senior college student personnel administrators." Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 1968, 47, 263-270.
Hullfish, J. G. "Advising a graduate student who wants to be a dean
of men." Paper reported in the Proceedings Twenty-third Annual
Conference of the National Association of Deans and Advisors of
Men, Cincinnati, 1941, 80-91.
Humphries, J. W. "Student personnel professionals: Is there a
future?" Educational Record, 1977, 58, 39—65.
Johnson, Walter F. "The counselor and his professional education."
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1959, 37, 694-695.
Jones, J. D. "Student personnel work: Current state and future
directions." NASPA Journal, 1978, 15>, 2-11.
Keim, M. C. (Ed.). Directory of graduate preparation programs in
college student personnel. Falls Church, VA. : American College
Personnel Association, 1980.
Kir kb ride, V. "Practicum experience in the master's degree program
for personnel work." Journal of National Association for Women
Deans and Counselors, 1972, ^4, 80-84.
Klopf, G. "Design for counselor preparation." Journal of National
Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 1963, 26, 5~9~
Knock, G. H. "Toward possession of a specialized body of knowledge
and skills." In G. H. Knock (Ed.), Perspectives on the prepa¬
ration of student affairs professionals. Student personnel series
no. 22. Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Asso¬
ciation, 1977.
Knott, E. J. "Some perspectives on carts and horses in student
development." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1977, 18,
434-444.
Koch, R. G. The professional education of student personnel
workers in higher education at Teacher's College, Columbia Uni¬
versity, 1913-1938 (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University,
1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1967, 21_, 2839A.
(University Microfilms No. 67-02815)
Koile, E. A. "Student affairs: forever the bridesmaid." NASPA
Journal, 1966, 4, 65-72.

-157-
Kuh, G. D., Greenlee, E. , and Lardy, B. W. "A profile of graduate
students in college student personnel." Journal of College Stu¬
dent Personnel, 1978, _19, 531-536.
LaBarre, C. Graduate training for educational personnel work.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1948.
Leonard, E. A. Origins of personnel services in American
Higher Education. Minneapolis: University ol Minnesota Press,
1955"!
Lloyd-Jones, E. "The beginnings of our profession." In E. G.
Williamson (Ed.), Trends in student personnel work. Minneapo¬
lis: University of Minnesota Press, 1949.
Lloyd-Jones, E. "Implications of the Wrenn Report for counselor
education." Counselor Education and Supervision, 1962, 2,
17-25.
Lynam, W. J. A study of the administrative competencies needed by
the community college academic dean and a model of their
translation into behavioral statements related to administrative
training experiences (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970). dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 32,
130A. (University Microfilms No. 71-18242)
Marler, J. D. An appraisal of the doctoral preparation of college
student personnel administrators in the department of admin¬
istration and higher education at Michigan State University,
1965-1977 (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978, 39, 1233A-
1234A. (University Microfilms No. 7815148)
Meabon, D. D., Bailey, W. R. and Witten, C. H. "The competent
student activities administrator." Journal of College Student
Personnel, 1975, ^6, 100-106.
McCleary, L. E. Competency based educational administration and
application to related field. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Office of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1973. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 077 136)
McDaniel, R. R. "Organization theory and the preparation of student
personnel workers." NASPA Journal, 1972, H), 101-105.
McGovern, T. V. and Tinsley, H. "A longitudinal investigation of the
graduate assistant work-trining experience." Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1976, L7, 130-133.
Miller, T. K., and Carpenter, D. S. "Professional preparation
for today and tomorrow." In D. Creamer (Ed.), Student devel¬
opment in higher education, Cincinnati, American College Person¬
nel Association, 1980.

-158-
Miller, T. J., and Prince, J. S. The future of student affairs. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 197(n
Minetti, R. H. An analytical description of the relationship
between the academic training and assistantship experiences of
master's degree programs in student personnel administration
(Doctoral dissertation 7 Michigan State University, 1977). Disser¬
tation Abstracts International, 1978, 38, 5955A. (University
Microfilms No. 7803534)
Mueller, K. H. "Criteria for evaluating professional status."
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1959, y]_, 410-417.
Mueller, K. H. Student personnel work in higher education. Boston:
Houghton-Miffin Co., 1961.
Nash, R. Saurman, K., and Sousa, G. "Student affairs personnel as
partners in the instructional venture." NASPA Journal, 1975, 13,
57-58.
Newton, F. B., and Hellenga, G. "Assessment of learning and pro¬
cess objectives in student personnel training programs." Journal
of College Student Personnel 15, 1974, 1_5, 492-497.
Newton, F. B. and Richardson, R. C. "Expected entry level
competencies of student personnel workers." Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1976, Vt_, 426-430.
Nygreen, G. T. "Professional preparation for student personnel
service." NASPA Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Conference,
Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1965.
Ny green, G. T. "Professional status for student personnel adminis¬
trators." Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators
of Student Affairs, 1968, 5, 283-291.
O'Banion, T. A core program proposal for the professional prepa-
ration of college and university student personnel workers
(Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 19¿6). Disser¬
tation Abstracts International, 1967, 27, 2361A. (University
Microfilms No. 67-305)
O'Banion, T. "Program proposal for preparing college student
personnel workers." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1969,
10, 249-253.
Ostroth, D. D. Procedures and criteria used in selecting entry-level
college student personnel professionals (Doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts Interna¬
tional , 1977, 38, 1265A. (University Microfilms No. 77-10,214)

-159-
Ostroth, D. D. "Competencies for entry level professionals: What do
employers look for when hiring new staff?" Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1981, 22, 5-11.
Painter, E. G. "Communication is the key: Graduate programs for
student personnel." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1979,
20, 81-82.
Parker, C. A. "The place of counseling in the preparation of student
personnel workers." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 45,
254-261.
Parker, C. A. "Institutional self renewal in higher education."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1971, 12, 405-409.
Penn, J. R. "Professional accreditation: A key to excellence."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1974, 1_5, 257-259.
Penn, J. R., Manspeaker, J. , and Millette, B. "The model merry-
go-round." NASPA Journal, 1975, 1_2, 222-224.
Penny, J. F. "Student personnel work: A profession stillborn."
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969, £7, 958-962.
Penny, J. F. Perspective and Challenge in College Student Personnel
Work. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1972.
Peterson, W. J. "What the doctor prescribed: A process-outcome
approach to student personnel education." In G. H. Knock
(Ed.), Perspectives on the preparation of student affairs pro¬
fessionals^ Student Personnel Series, no. 22^ Washington,
D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1977.
Pottinger, Paul S. "Competence assessment: Comments on
experimental learning." New Direction for Experimental Learning,
1979, 3, 25-39.
Prior, J. "The reorganization of student personnel services: Facing
reality." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1973, 14,
202-205.
Rentz, A. L. "A triadic model master's program in student
development." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1976, 17,
453-458.
Rhatigan, J. J. The professional preparation of student personnel
administrators as perceived by practitioners and faculty-trainers
(doctoral dissertation, The University ol Iowa, 1965). Disser¬
tation Abstracts International, 1966, 26, 5830. (University Micro-
films No. 66-03484)
Rhatigan, J. J. "Professional preparation of student personnel
administrators as perceived by practitioners and faculty."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1968, 9, 17-23.

-160-
Rhatigan, J. J. "Student services vs. student development: Is there
a difference?" Journal of the National Association of Women Deans
and Counselors, 1975, 38, 51-59.
Riker, H. C. "Learning by doing. In G. H. Knock (Ed.),
Perspectives on the preparation of student affairs professionals.
Student personnel Series, no. 22"! Washington, D. C. : American
College Personnel Association, 1977.
Robinson, D. W. "An analysis of three statements relative to the
preparation of college student personnel workers." Journal of
College Student Personnel 1966, 7, 254-256.
Rockey, M. C. Doctoral preparation programs in selective universities
in the United States (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni¬
versity , 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33,
6135A. (University Microfilms No. 73-1280*))
Rodgers, R. F. "Student personnel work as social intervention." In
G. H. Knock (Ed.), Perspectives on the preparation of student
affairs professionals. Student Personnel Series no. 22.
Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1977.
Saddlemire, G. "Of men personnel administrators in colleges and
universities." Occupations, 1950, 29, 190-193.
Sandeen, C. A. "Professional preparation programs in student person¬
nel services in higher education: A national assessment by chief
student affairs officers." NASPA Journal, 1982 , 2!0, 51-58.
Shaffer, R. "An emerging role of student personnel—contributing to
organizational effectiveness. "Journal of College Student Person¬
nel, 1973, 14, 386-391.
Shaffer, R. , and Martinson, W. Student personnel services in higher
education. New York: The Center lor Applied Research In
Education, Inc., 1966.
Shoeben, E. J., Jr. "Psychology and student personnel work."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1967, 8, 239-245.
Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Administration.
Better teaching in school administration. A competency approach
to improving institutional preparation programs in educational
administration! Nashville, Tenn. : Author, 1955.
Spooner, S. "Preparing the student development specialist: The
process-outcome model applied." Journal of College Student
Personnel, 1979, 20, 45-53.

-161-
Stamatakos, L. C. "Preprofessional and professional obstacles to
student development." In D. Creamer (Ed.), Student develop¬
ment in higher education. Cincinnati: American College Person¬
nel Association, 1980.
Stamatakos, L. C. "Student affairs programs toward professionalism
recommendations for action." Journal of College Student
Personnel, 1981, 22, 105-112.
Stroughton, Robert W. "The preparation of counselors and personnel
workers." Review of Educational Research, 1957, 27, 174-185.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (Ed.). Educational evaluation and deci¬
sion-making . Itasca, 1117! Peacock, 1971.
Tracey, J. L. "The current status of Master's programs in college
student personnel." NASPA Journal, 1971, 106-110.
Trow, J. A. "From the field: The future of student affairs."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1978, j_9, 282-283.
Trueblood, D. L. "The educational preparation of the college student
personnel leader of the future." In G. Klopf (Ed.), College
Student Personnel in the Years Ahead. Washington, D.C.:
American College Personnel Association, 1966, 7, 77-84.
Turner, F. H. "Report of the committee on the preparation for the
work of a dean of men." Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual
Conference of the National Association of Deans and Advisors of
Men, Philadelphia, 1936, 17-49.
Upcraft, M. L. "Does training make a difference?" NASPA Journal,
1971, 9, 134-137.
Useem, R. H. "Professionalizing an academic occupation: The case
of student personnel work." Journal of the National Assocciation
for Women Deans and Counselors, 1964, 27! 94-101.
Wellman, F. E. "Selection of students for preparation in college
personnel work." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1955, 34,
24-27.
Wilensky, H. C. "The professionalization of everyone?" American
Journal of Sociology, 1964, 70, 137-158.
Williamson, E. G. (Ed.). Trends in student personnel work.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1949.

-162-
Williamson, E. G. "Essentials of professional training for student
personnel workers in the south." Southern College Personnel
Association Work Conference. Swannanoa, North Carolina, 1952.
Williamson, E. G. "Professional preparation of student personnel
workers." School and Society, 1958, 86, 3-5.
Williamson, E. G. Student Personnel Services in Colleges and
Universities, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
Wise, W. M. "The implications of the student personnel philosophy."
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1951, 11, 681-690.
Woolf, D. "Developing professional competence in the applied
behavioral sciences." New Directions for Experimental Learning,
1980, 8, 1-16.
Woolf, M. D. , and Woolf, J. A. The student personnel program. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1953.
Wrenn, C. G. "Selection and education of student personnel
workers." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1952, 31, 9~14.
Wrenn, C. G., and Darley, J. "An appraisal of the profession of
personnel work." In E. G. Williamson (Ed.), Trends in student
personnel work. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1949.
Yates, J. M. The perception of chief student personnel administra¬
tors and coordinators of preparation programs regarding tKe
Intended learning outcomes of doctoral programs in student per¬
sonnel administration (Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State
University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 38,
1265A - 1266A. (University Microfilms No. 77-19, 214)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Randy E. Hyman was born on March 26, 1952, in Newark, New
York. He was raised in Palmyra, New York, where he graduated from
Palmyra-Macedon Central High School in 1970.
Mr. Hyman attended undergraduate school at Buffalo State College
in the State University of New York system. He graduated in 1974
with a Bachelor of Science degree in speech pathology and audiology.
Upon graduation Mr. Hyman entered graduate school at the University
of Vermont where he was awarded a Master of Education degree in
college student personnel administration in 1976.
In the summer of 1976, Mr. Hyman accepted a position as a
Resident Instructor at the University of South Florida in Tampa,
Florida. In that capacity Mr. Hyman was responsible for the super¬
vision of three men's residence halls. He also served as an instructor
in the Communicology Department, teaching a course on speech and
hearing disorders. Mr. Hyman was promoted to the position of
Director of Housing and Food Service for the New College campus of
the University of South Florida in 1977.
In 1979, Mr. Hyman accepted an appointment as an Assistant
Director of Housing at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida,
a position he has held to the present time. He entered the doctoral
program in educational administration and administration at the Univer¬
sity of Florida as a part-time student in 1980.
163

164
Mr. Hyman met his wife, Robi, while working at the University of
South Florida in Tampa. They were married in June of 1978 and have
a son, Drew, born in February, 1982. Mrs. Hyman has been em¬
ployed, since 1979 as a special education teacher with the Alachua
County School Board. The Hymans currently reside in Gainesville,
Florida.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
C.
C. Arthur Sandeen, Chairman
Professor of Educational Administration
and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
es L. Wattenbarger
ofessor of Educational Ad
and Supervision
ministration
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
Professor of Instructional Leadership
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Educational Administration and Supervision in the
College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
December, 1983
Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08556 8524



I
82
Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District, 407 N.Y.S. 2d 874
(App. Div. 1978).
Erdmann, R. L., & Neal, A. S. Word legibility as a function of
letter legibility, with word size, word familiarity, and resolution as parameters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 403-409.
Ewing, N. J. Minimum competency testing and the handicapped: Major
issues. High School Journal, 1979, 6k3, 114-119.
Ferguson, G. A. Statistical analysis in psychology and education
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Flaugher, R. L., Melton, R. S., & Myers, C. T. Item rearrangement
under typical test conditions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1968, 28, 813-824.
Florida Department of Education. A resource manual for the development
and evaluation of special programs for exceptional students (Vol.
I-A) Exceptional student programs: An overview^ Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida, 1979.
Florida Department of Education. Statistical Report: 1980-81.
State and district report of results, Series 81-05. Tallahssee, FL: Division of Public Schools, February 1981.
Fonda, G. An evaluation of large type. New Outlook for the Blind,
1968, 62, 233-239.
Gaffney, R. F., & Maguire, T. 0. Use of optically scored test answer
sheets with young children. Journal of Educational Measurement,
1971, 8, 103-106.
Gearheart, B. R., & Willenberg, E. P. Application of pupil assessment
information for the special education teacher [Znd ed.). Denver: Love, 1974.
Greenberg, L. Test development procedures for including handicapped
students in New Jersey's state assessment program. Trenton, NJ: State Department of Education, 1980.
Grise", P. J. Florida's minimum competency testing program for handicapped students. Exceptional Chi 1dren, 1980, 47, 186-193.
Grise", P. J. Personal communication, October 11, 1981.
Hartley, J., Davies, L., & Burnhill, P. Alternatives in the typographic design of questionnaires. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1977, 50, 299-304.


(b) individualized determinations, (c) differential diplomas and standards, and (d) differential assessment procedures.
Exemptions for handicapped students. The extent to which handicapped students should be required to pass (or be held exempt from) a competency test as a prerequisite to a high school diploma is an important concern in the area of MCT. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (1979) indicated that of the 17 states currently requiring competency testing prior to high school graduation, 6 require all or selected categories of handicapped students to take the competency test. The remaining 11 states have not specified any policies regarding the handicapped student. These results are congruent with the survey findings of Smith and Jenkins (1980) that the majority of states have not "established or finalized11 their positions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of handicapped students from the MCT programs.
Ewing (1979) refers to 11 classifications of handicapped individuals (speech impaired, mentally retarded, deaf, hard of hearing, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, ortho-pedically impaired, other health impaired, deaf-blind, multi-handicapped,
and learning disabled) and indicates that the "heterogeneity of the handicapped population prohibits any reasonable expectation that handicapped students be either systematically included or excluded from competency test requirements" (p. 115). For example, it would be difficult to legally justify the exclusion of an academically competent handicapped child from MCT on the basis of physical


34
Georgia, Kansas, and Louisiana) have indicated the formal provision of special testing procedures for categorical groups of handicapped students.
The state surveys also indicate that current modifications tend to concentrate on the severely handicapped populations. For example, the MCT for visually and hearing impaired individuals has been modified by using braille, large size print, audio supplement, or sign language (McClung, 1979; McClung & Pullin, 1978; Smith & Jenkins, 1980). On the other hand, some handicapping conditions (educable mental retardation) have received no testing modifications (McClung & Pullin, 1978), and the mildly handicapped students have received minimal attention.
Education specialists in the state of Florida are apparently well
aware of the problems involved with testing handicapped learners.
McCarthy (1980) stated that Florida has the most elaborate legislative
regulations to date. The statutes provide for
appropriate modification of testing instruments and procedures for students with identified handicaps or disabilities in order to ensure that the results of the testing represent the student's achievement, rather than reflecting the student's impaired sensory, manual, speaking, or psychological process skills, except where such skills are the factors the test purports to measure. (Florida Statutes, Chapter 232, Section 246)
According to the Florida Administrative Code, the following test modifications have been proposed for handicapped students:
1. Flexible scheduling
The student may be administered a test during several brief sessions so long as all testing is completed by the final allowed test date specified by the Commissioner.


38
a. Transferring answers from the test booklet to the answer sheet caused confusion and anxiety, and the students lost their places. Suggestions were made to have the students mark the answers in the test booklets or respond orally.
b. The wording of directions should be simplified. Administrators should be able to paraphrase instructions. Directions should be repeated or examples re-explained if the student does not understand.
c. Directions should be read aloud to ensure each student understands the task.
d. Markers would help alleviate the problem of students losing their places.
It was also recommended that several variables be considered when determining a student's eligibility for inclusion in the minimum competency testing program. Handicapped students who had previous experience in taking standardized tests appeared to perform better than those who had not. Elementary and secondary special education students who had been staffed into resource rooms performed better than those special education students who had been staffed into self-contained classrooms. It was also recommended that any student functioning at a level two or more years below the content level of the test should be excluded from the test.
Florida. Another study was conducted in the state of Florida by
-
JoEllen Perez (1980). Based on the New Jersey study, a review of the literature, and opinions of teachers and consultants throughout the state of Florida, Perez concluded there were five major areas that


79
what, where, not, end, first, last apparently do require any additional emphasis to aid in comprehension.
Learning disabled students appeared to benefit (10% gain) from alterations in line length. Other students performed similarly on passages set in justified and unjustified manner.
It appears that the order of item presentation does not make a difference in the performance of any category of student. If the student is proficient with a task, he appears to be able to demonatrate his ability regardless of placement within the test. Similarly, answer bubble placement does not appear to affect performance of any type of student.
As a result of observations made throughout the study, it appears that teachers may wish to give consideration to the importance of test taking skills. The performance of mildly handicapped students may be enhanced from direct instruction of such skills as recognizing basic direction words (above, different, choose, other), learning how to follow written directions, and using short cuts for answering reading comprehension questions. Teachers may also wish to familiarize students with the physical layout of the test.
Conclusions
There was a significant difference between modified and standard tests on the total test scores and for the example subtest in favor of the modified test. Emotionally handicapped and LD students performed most similarly in all instances, as did normal and EH students. Educable mentally retarded students consistently performed lower than any other category. There were no interactions


95
allow your child to participate in this study, please sign and date this form. There will always be the option available to withdraw your consent for your child's participation in this study at any time without prejudice. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Susan Beattie
************************^ Signatures:
Subject Date Witness Date
Relationship if other than Date Principal Investiga- Date
subject tor's name and address



PAGE 1

$1 $66(660(17 2) 678'(17 $))$,56 35(3$5$7,21 352*5$06 ,1 5(/$7,21 72 352)(66,21$/ &203(7(1&,(6 %\ 5$1'< ( +<0$1 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

7R 0\ 'DG 5LFKDUG +\PDQ ZKR ILUVW VDLG WR PH VWDU DQG WR -HVXV &KULVW WKH VWDU ZKR SURYLGHG PH ZLWK WKH GLUHFWLRQ +LWFK \RXU ZDJRQ WR D FRQWUROOHG P\ ZDJRQ DQG

PAGE 3

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nV DVVLVWDQFH WKURXJK WKH GXUDWLRQ RI P\ GRFWRUDO SURJUDP KDV FRPH WR H[HPSOLI\ IRU PH WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH ZRUG VXSSRUW f f f LQ

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

9 6800$5< &21&/86,21 $1' )8785( &216,'(5$7,216 $ 6XPPDU\ RI WKH 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH 6WXG\ )LQGLQJV &RQFOXVLRQV ,PSOLFDWLRQV DQG &RQVLGHUDWLRQV IRU )XUWKHU 6WXG\ $33(1',; $ 5(6($5&+ ,167580(17 )25 )$&8/7< % 5(6($5&+ ,167580(17 )25 ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 & /(77(5 2) (1'256(0(17 )520 9,&( 35(6,'(17 )25 678'(17 $))$,56 /(77(5 2) (1'256(0(17 )520 5(6($5&+ $1' ,1)25n 0$7,21 &200,77(( ( )2//2:83 3267 &$5' ) 7$%/( /,67,1* 0($1 6&25(6 )25 ($&+ *5283 %< &203(7(1&< )25 3266(66,21 $1' ,03257$1&( %< &$7(*25< 7$%/(6 /,67,1* 08/7,9$5,$7( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( )25 *52836 %< &$7(*25< + 7$%/(6 /,67,1* 5(68/76 2) '81&$1n6 08/7,3/( 5$1*( 7(67 )25 3266(66,21 $1' ,03257$1&( %< &$7(*25< 5()(5(%&( 127(6 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+, &$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

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f ZHUH DVVHVVHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH\ EHOLHYHG UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DFWXDOO\ SRVVHVVHG WKH SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG ZKHWKHU WKH\ EHOLHYHG WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZHUH LPSRUWDQW IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KH WKUHH JURXSV ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU RU QRW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV E\ UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV DQG RI LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU HQWU\ OHYHO VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SRVLWLRQV $ PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH 7RPRUURZnV +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 7+(f PRGHO FRPPLVVLRQHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ DQG YL

PAGE 7

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n VSRQVH UDWH RI b RI IDFXOW\ b RI GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ DQG b RI FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV ZDV DFKLHYHG 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ LQGLFDWHG WKH 7+( PRGHO ZDV DQ DSSURSULDWH IUDPHZRUN IRU WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH LPSRUWDQW OHDUQLQJ RXWFRPHV RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ &KLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV DQG GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ LQGLFDWHG GRXEW DV WR ZKHWKHU UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVVHG FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ DQ\ RI WKH ILYH FRQFHSWXDO FDWHJRULHV (DFK RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ DOO FDWHJRULHV ZHUH LPSRUWDQW IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KH WKUHH JURXSV GLG QRW KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WUDLQLQJ UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV UHFHLYHG IRU WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV )DFXOW\ SHUFHLYHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHU SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV E\ UHFHQW JUDGn XDWHV LQ DOO FRQFHSWXDO FDWHJRULHV 7KH WKUHH JURXSV GLG KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ DOO ILYH FDWHJRULHV IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV f f YLO

PAGE 8

&+$37(5 '(6&5,37,21 2) 7+( 678'< ,QWURGXFWLRQ 3URIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU LQGLYLGXDOV VHHNLQJ D FDUHHU LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ KDV EHHQ D VXEMHFW RI PXFK FRQFHUQ DPRQJ SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQV IDFXOW\ WUDLQHUV DQG VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SUDFWLWLRQHUV 7UDGLWLRQDOO\ LW ZDV DVVXPHG WKDW SHRSOH ZKR EHFDPH SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV FDPH IURP WKH WHDFKLQJ UDQNV +LOO DQG *UHHQ f &RXQVHOLQJ ZDV WKH SULPDU\ LI QRW RQO\ FRPSRQHQW RI IRUPDO WUDLQLQJ 5HFHQW VWXGLHV RQ WKH LVVXH RI SUHSDUDWLRQ KDYH FRQFOXGHG WKDW SURIHVVLRQDO DFDGHPLF SUHSDUDWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ZDV FULWLFDOO\ LPSRUWDQW IRU D FDUHHU LQ WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG 5KDWLJDQ 1HZWRQ DQG 5LFKDUGVRQ 0LQHWWL 0LOOHU DQG &DUSHQWHU 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ 6WDPDWDNRV f 7KH QHHG KDV EHHQ DFNQRZOHGJHG IRU D EURDGEDVHG IRXQGDWLRQ RI DFDGHPLF SUHSDUDWLRQ LQ SDUWLFXODU FRUH DUHDV LQFOXGLQJ VWXG\ LQ SV\FKRORJ\ FXOWXUH DQG FKDQJH SKLORVRSK\ ILn QDQFH SODQQLQJ DQG FXUULFXOXP LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ FRXQVHOOLQJ HWKLFV DQG D VXSHUYLVHG ZRUN H[SHULHQFH 7UXHEORRG SS DV FLWHG LQ 0LQHWWL S f ([SDQVLRQ RI WKH VWXGHQW SRSXODWLRQ LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ EHJLQQLQJ LQ WKH HDUO\ nV SODFHG LQFUHDVHG GHPDQGV RQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV WR DGGUHVV WKH PXOWLSOH QHHGV RI WKLV QHZ

PAGE 9

SRSXODWLRQ 7KH GHPDQG IRU JUDGXDWHV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV ZDV JUHDWHU WKDQ WKH VXSSO\ SURGXFHG E\ UHODWLYHO\ IHZ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV ,Q UHVSRQVH WR WKLV GHPDQG IRU WUDLQHG VWXn GHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV WKH QXPEHU RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV H[n SDQGHG GXULQJ WKH nV DQG HDUO\ nV 3UHSDUDWLRQ IRU DQ\ SURIHVVLRQ GHULYHV IURP DQ RSHUDWLRQDO ILHOG IRU ZKLFK WKHUH LV D WD[RQRPLFDOO\ RUGHUHG VHW RI UROHV DQG IXQFWLRQV WR EH SHUIRUPHG WKURXJK WKH XWLOL]DWLRQ RI D VXEVWDQWLYH NQRZOHGJH EDVH ZKLFK LV DSSURSULDWHO\ JURXQGHG LQ WKHRU\ DQG SKLORVRSK\ 6HOHFWLRQ LV D PDWWHU RI LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI LQGLYLGXDOV SUHVXPHG WR EH FDSDEOH RI PDVWHULQJ VXFK NQRZOHGJH LQ RUGHU WR SHUIRUP VSHFLILF UROHV ZLWKLQ WKH H[LVWLQJ RSHUDWLRQDO ILHOG 'HZH\ f 'HVLJQLQJ HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDPV ZKLFK ZLOO UHVXOW LQ VWXGHQWVn SRVVHVVLQJ UHTXLVLWH NQRZOHGJH DQG VNLOOV LV WKH FKDUJH RI WKH SHUVRQ HQJDJHG LQ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV (GXFDWRUV RI SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ DQ\ ILHOG PXVW KHOS VWXGHQWV XQGHUVWDQG DQG DSSUHn FLDWH WKH FXUUHQW VWDWH RI SUDFWLFH DQG DOVR JDLQ D SHUVSHFWLYH RQ IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQW .QRFN f $OWKRXJK WKH QHHG IRU SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ KDV EHHQ UHFRJQL]HG DQG DFFHSWHG LQ WKH DUHD RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV TXDOLW\ SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU WKH ILHOG LV VWLOO D PDWWHU ZKHUH TXHVWLRQV FDQ EH UDLVHG .QRFN f 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f KDYH LGHQWLILHG ILYH PDMRU LQWHUUHODWn HG FRPSRQHQWV ZKLFK WKH\ YLHZ DV IL[HG HVVHQWLDO FRUH FDWHJRULHV RI WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQ 7KH\ EHOLHYHG WKDW f KLVWRU\ DQG SKLORVRSK\ f UHOHYDQW WKHRULHV f PRGHOV RI SUDFWLFH f SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG f PDQDJHPHQW DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV DV FRPSRQHQWV GHILQHG WKH VWUXFWXUH RI WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQ

PAGE 10

3URIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ DW WKH PDVWHUnV OHYHO PXVW SURYLGH EDFNn JURXQG RU KLVWRU\ SKLORVRSK\ DQG WKHRU\ LQ EXLOGLQJ IRXQGDWLRQV IRU HIIHFWLYH SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ LQ D EURDG FRQWH[W 7UXHEORRG 2n%DQLRQ 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f 6XFK SUHSDUDWLRQ PXVW DOVR SURYLGH RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ DQG DSSOLFDWLRQ RI VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU HIIHFWLYH IXQFWLRQLQJ LQ IXOO WLPH SURIHVVLRQDO VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SRVLWLRQV 'RPHLHU 0LQHWWL 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ 6WDPDWDNRV f 7KHVH RSSRUWXQLWLHV DUH JHQHUDOO\ SURYLGHG WKURXJK SUDFWLFXPV LQWHUQVKLSV DQG DVVLVWDQWVKLSV $ PRGHO FRUH FXUULFXOXP IRU PDVWHUnV GHJUHH HQWU\ OHYHO VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SUDFWLWLRQHUV ZDV GHYHORSHG E\ 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f 7KLV FRUH FXUULFXOXP ZDV GHYHORSHG LQ FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH QHHG WR UHH[DPLQH WKH YDULHW\ RI UROHV VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV DVVXPH DQG WR DOORZ IRU WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI QHZ LGHDV FRQFHSWV DQG PRGHOV RI SUDFWLFH 6XFK D FXUULFXOXP ZRXOG SHUPLW D FRQWLQXRXV HYROXWLRQ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH FKDQJLQJ QHHGV RI WKH SURIHVVLRQ DQG FXUUHQW PRGHOV RI SUDFWLFH 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQnV FXUULFXOXP FRPSRQHQWV LQFOXGHG WKH IROORZLQJ f KLVWRU\ DQG SKLORVRSK\ f WKHRU\ f PRGHOV RI SUDFWLFH DQG UROH RULHQWDWLRQ f FRUH FRPSHWHQFLHV f VSHFLDOL]HG FRPSHWHQFLHV f DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG PDQDJHPHQW f SUDFWLFXP RU ILHOG ZRUN f DGGLWLRQDO WKHRU\ DQG WRRO FRXUVHV 7KH &RXQFLO RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $GPLQLVWUDWRUV &263$f LGHQn WLILHG WKH SXUSRVH RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHn PHQW 7KH JRDO RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LV WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI SHUVRQV ZKR LQ DGGLWLRQ WR KDYLQJ REWDLQHG D KLJK OHYHO RI VHOI GHYHORSPHQW KDYH VNLOOV LQ FROODERUDWLQJ ZLWK RWKHUV LQ WKHLU VHOI GHYHORSPHQW

PAGE 11

7KH\ PXVW EH DEOH WR XVH FRPSHWHQFLHV RI DVVHVVPHQW JRDO VHWWLQJ DQG FKDQJH SURFHVVHV DV DSSURSULDWH LQ LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKH UROHV RI FRQVXOWDQW DGPLQLVWUDWRU DQG LQVWUXFWRU LQ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK LQGLYLGXDOV JURXSV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV &RRSHU S f 7KH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV XQGHUVFRUHV WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 6XFK SURJUDPV WKURXJK WKHLU FRXUVH ZRUN DQG ILHOG H[SHULHQFH KDYH VRXJKW WR SURYLGH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV ZLWK WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV QHFHVVDU\ WR IXQFWLRQ DGHTXDWHO\ LQ WKH ILHOG 3XUSRVH 7KH SULPDU\ SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU RU QRW SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVn WUDWLRQ HGXFDWHG IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV 3HUFHSWLRQV RI WKUHH JURXSV RI SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU RU QRW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH WUDLQLQJ JUDGXDWHV ZLWK PDVWHUfV GHJUHHV UHFHLYHG LQ WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV IRU WKH HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV 7KH SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV ZHUH DOVR FRPSDUHG WR GHWHUPLQH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDO SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 4XHVWLRQV IRU ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV GHVLJQHG WR DQVZHU WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV 'R UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI PDVWHUnV OHYHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ HQWHU WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZLWK WUDLQLQJ LQ HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV DV D UHVXOW RI WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV" 'R FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf 'LUHFWRUV RI +RXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG IDFXOW\ )7Vf KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WUDLQLQJ UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ

PAGE 12

VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ UHFHLYH IRU WKH LGHQWLILHG HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV" ,V LW LPSRUWDQW IRU UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV IURP VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV WR KDYH DFTXLUHG WKHVH FRPSHWHQn FLHV SULRU WR WKH IXOO WLPH HQWU\ LQWR WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG" 'R &6$2V '2+V DQG )7V KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV" -XVWLILFDWLRQ IRU WKH 6WXG\ 7KH QHHG IRU FRPSHWHQWO\ WUDLQHG VWDII KDV EHHQ D FRQFHUQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SURIHVVLRQDOV IRU RYHU WKLUW\ \HDUV /D%DUUH f REVHUYHG WKDW GHVSLWH LQFUHDVHG QHHGV IRU SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHUV QR DVVXUDQFHV FRXOG EH JLYHQ WKDW WKH ZRUN ZRXOG EH GRQH E\ FRPSHWHQWO\ WUDLQHG SHUVRQV XQOHVV VRPH PHDVXUHV RI WKHLU SURILFLHQF\ ZHUH GHn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f ,Q DQRWKHU VWXG\ RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO 5RFNH\ f LGHQWLILHG NH\ FRPSRQHQWV RI D &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO SUHSDn UDWLRQ SURJUDP WR EH TXDOLW\ IDFXOW\ DQG VWXGHQWV VXIILFLHQW HODERn UDWLRQ RI WKH SURJUDP VWURQJ VXSSRUWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWV LQVWLWXWLRQDO

PAGE 13

UHVRXUFHV D ZHOOFRQFHLYHG FXUULFXOXP DQG RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU SUDFWLFDO ZRUN H[SHULHQFHV $ PRUH UHFHQW VWXG\ VRXJKW WR GHWHUPLQH WKH DWWLWXGHV RI FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf DERXW WKH TXDOLW\ RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 6DQGHHQ f 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW DOWKRXJK JUDGXDWH WUDLQLQJ LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN ZDV IRXQG WR EH RI FRQVLGHUDEOH LPSRUWDQFH RQO\ WKUHH SHUFHQW RI WKH &6$2V LQ WKH VWXG\ UDWHG RYHUDOO SURJUDP TXDOLW\ DV H[FHOOHQW DQG RQO\ VL[ SHUFHQW UDWHG IDFXOW\ DV H[FHOOHQW 6DQGHHQfV f VWXG\ LGHQWLILHG PDMRU SUREOHPV ZLWK FXUUHQW SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV WKH SURJUDPV DUH WRR PXFK RULHQWHG WRZDUG FRXQVHOLQJ WKH TXDOLW\ RI VWXGHQWV LV WRR XQHYHQ DQG WKH ODFN RI DFDGHPLF ULJRU LQ VRPH SURJUDPV JHQHUDWHV D ODFN RI UHVSHFW ZKHQ WKH\ DUH FRPSDUHG WR RWKHU JUDGXDWH SURJUDPV &DQRQ f QRWHG WKDW PDUJLQDO VWXGHQWV FRH[LVWHG ZLWK WKRVH JHQHUDOO\ FRQFHGHG WR EH RI KLJK TXDOLW\ DQG FRQFOXGHG WKDW VWXGHQW DIIDLUV GLYLVLRQV UHIOHFWHG WKHVH H[WUHPHV LQ ERWK WKH TXDOLW\ DQG WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKHLU SURJUDPV DQG VHUYLFHV ,VVXHV RI VWDQGDUGV TXDOLW\ DQG H[FHOOHQFH KDYH EHHQ VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKDW WKH\ UHSUHVHQWHG RXWFRPHV ZKLFK PRVW SURIHVVLRQDOV EHOLHYHG WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV QHHGHG LQ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKRVH DERXW WR HQWHU WKH ILHOG 3HQQ f GHVFULEHG WKH NH\ WR H[FHOOHQFH LQ WHUPV RI TXDOLW\ SURJUDPV DV UHODWHG WR DSSURSULDWH FXUULFXOXP RIIHULQJV DGHTXDWH OHDUQLQJ UHVRXUFHV DQG GHILQHG VWDQGDUGV RI DFFHSWDEOH SHUIRUPDQFH +H XUJHG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI FXUULFXOXP JXLGHOLQHV DQG DQ DFFUHGLWDWLRQ ERG\ WR HYDOXDWH DQG DFFUHGLW SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ WKH ILHOG 6WDPDWDNRV 1RWH f SURPRWHG WKH VWDQGDUGL]DWLRQ RI WUDLQLQJ DQG DFFUHGLWDWLRQ VHHLQJ WKLV DV D VWHS

PAGE 14

FORVHU WR WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DV D SURIHVVLRQ +H LQGLFDWHG WKH QHHG IRU JHQHUDOO\ VHW VWDQGDUGV RI SHUIRUPDQFHV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 3HQQ f VXSSRUWHG WKLV YLHZSRLQW E\ REVHUYLQJ WKDW SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFH LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZDV UHODWHG WR NQRZOHGJH DQG VSHFLILF VNLOOV OHDUQHG LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV &XUULFXOXP JXLGHOLQHV KDYH EHHQ DGGUHVVHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ $&3$f &RXQFLO RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQV &263$f DQG RWKHUV 2n%DQLRQ 5KDWLJDQ f 0DQ\ RI WKH SURJUDPV OLVWHG LQ WKH PRVW UHFHQW LVVXH f RI WKH $&3$fV 'LUHFWRU\ RI *UDGXDWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 3URJUDPV LQ &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO SURYLGHG FRXUVH RIIHULQJV DV ZHOO DV RWKHU GHYHORSPHQWDO H[SHULHQFHV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK FXUULFXODU UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 7R GDWH QR FUHGHQWLDOV RU VWDQGDUGV DUH UHTXLUHG E\ VWDWHV UHJLRQDO DFFUHGLWLQJ DJHQFLHV RU SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQV IRU HQWU\ LQWR WKH ILHOG RI VWXn GHQW DIIDLUV 5KDWLJDQ f QRWHG WKDW WKH LVVXH RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ ZDV H[WUHPHO\ FRPSOH[ 6XFK FRPSOH[LW\ ZDV GXH WR PXOWLSOH DUHDV RI VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ PDQ\ OHYHOV RI WUDLQLQJ DQG GLIIHUHQW VL]HV DQG W\SHV RI LQVWLWXWLRQV WR EH VHUYHG ,Q KLV VWXG\ RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ KH FRQFOXGHG WKHUH ZDV DQ XUJHQW QHHG IRU UHVHDUFK WKDW UHODWHG WUDLQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV WR SURIHVVLRQDO HIIHFWLYHQHVV 6XFK UHVHDUFK PXVW LQYROYH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI VNLOOV DWWLWXGHV DQG NQRZOHGJH WKDW HIIHFWLYH DGPLQLVn WUDWRUV SRVVHVV 5KDWLJDQ f 7KH ORJLFDO RXWFRPHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DUH WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZKLFK JUDGXDWHV RI WKH SURJUDPV VKRXOG DFTXLUH SULRU WR HQWU\ LQWR WKH SURIHVVLRQ 6XFK FRPSHWHQFLHV KDYH EHHQ LGHQWLILHG LQ VHYHUDO VWXGLHV

PAGE 15

'RPHLHU 0LQHWWL +DQVRQ 1RWH f DQG KDYH SURYLGHG D PHDQV E\ ZKLFK WKH SURGXFWLYLW\ RI JUDGXDWH WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO FDQ EH PHDVXUHG ,Q WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D SURJUDP IRU HYDOXDWLQJ RXWFRPHV RI DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP FHUWDLQ EDVLF DVn VXPSWLRQV PXVW EH FRQVLGHUHG 7KH NLQGV RI FKDQJHV LQ EHKDYLRU SDWWHUQV LQ KXPDQ EHLQJV ZKLFK WKH SURJUDP VHHNV WR EULQJ DERXW DUH LWV HGXFDWLRQDO REMHFWLYHV $Q HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP LV DSSUDLVHG E\ ILQGLQJ RXW KRZ IDU WKH REMHFWLYHV RI WKH SURJUDPV DUH DFWXDOO\ EHLQJ UHDOL]HG 3UHYLRXV VWXGLHV KDYH LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI SURIHVVLRQn DO FRPSHWHQFLHV UHSUHVHQWV D SULPDU\ REMHFWLYH RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV :LOOLDPVRQ 1HZWRQ DQG +HOOHQJD f ,Q D VWXG\ WKDW H[DPLQHG WKH WUDLQLQJ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV IRU VSHFLILHG FRPSHWHQF\ WDVNV 'RPHLHU f UHFRPPHQGHG H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH SXUSRVHV DQG TXDOLW\ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV LQ UHODWLRQ WR VSHFLILHG FRPSHWHQFLHV 6KH LQGLFDWHG WKDW ZLWK VRPH PRGLILFDWLRQ KHU TXHVWLRQQDLUH FRXOG EH XWLOL]HG DV DQ DVVHVVPHQW LQVWUXPHQW RU DV D JXLGH WR FRPSHWHQF\ GHYHORSPHQW LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV $ VLPLODU VWXG\ E\ 0LQHWWL f VRXJKW WR GHWHUPLQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH DFDGHPLF WUDLQLQJ DQG DVVLVWDQWVKLS H[SHULHQFHV LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV E\ LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH ORFXV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU ZRUN LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV +H LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH VWXG\ DGGUHVVHG WKH VKRXOG EH RU LGHDO IRU SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ S f +H UHFRPPHQGHG IXUWKHU VWXG\ WR LQYHVWLJDWH DQG FRPSDUH ZLWK ZKDW LQ UHDOLW\ LV RFFXUULQJ LQ WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV

PAGE 16

6WDPDWDNRV f LQ DQ H[WHQVLYH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ GRQH DV SDUW RI D UHYLHZ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURJUHVV WRZDUG SURIHVVLRQDOLVP LGHQWLILHG ILYH FULWLFDO FRQFHUQV 7KH TXDOLW\ RI VWXGHQWV DGPLWWHG WR SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LV LQFRQFHLYDEO\ EURDG ORRVH LQFRQVLVWHQW DQG ODFNLQJ LQ UHDVRQDEOH VWDQGDUGV S f $ UHYLHZ RI H[LVWLQJ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP OLWHUDWXUH UHYHDOV D JODULQJ ODFN RI VSHFLILFLW\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH NQRZOHGJH WR EH OHDUQHG DQG WKH VNLOOV VWXGHQWV DUH H[SHFWHG WR DFTXLUH S f :LWKLQ DQG EHWZHHQ DFWXDO DQG SURSRVHG SUHSDUDWLRQ SURn JUDPV WKHUH LV OLWWOH RU QR FRQVLVWHQF\ LQ QDWXUH FRQWHQW HPSKDVLV RU GXUDWLRQ S f ,Q JHQHUDO DIWHU VWXGHQWV KDYH VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRPSOHWHG D SURJUDP RI VWXG\ LQ D W\SLFDO SURJUDP WKH SURIHVVLRQ FDQQRW EH DVVXUHG WKDW WKH\ ZLOO EH DGHTXDWHO\ RU UHDVRQDEO\ YHOO SUHSDUHG WR FDUU\ RXW WKH YDULHW\ RI UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV SDUWLFXn ODU WR MRE HQWU\ SRVLWLRQV RU WKDW WKH\ KDYH WKH OHDGHUVKLS SRWHQWLDO DQG GHSWK RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJV QHFHVVDU\ IRU XSZDUG PRELOLW\ S f ,I LW LV GHWHUPLQHG WKDW VRPH SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DUH QRW LQ DQ\ UHDO VHQVH WUXO\ SUHSDULQJ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV EXW DUH ERRWOHJJLQJ WKHP WKURXJK FRXQVHORU SXSLO SHUVRQn QHO RU HGXFDWLRQDO SV\FKRORJ\ SURJUDPV VKRXOG VXFK LQVWLn WXWLRQV EH OLVWHG LQ DVVRFLDWLRQ VSRQVRUHG GLUHFWRULHV RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV" 6XFK OLVWLQJV GR SURYLGH SURJUDPV ZLWK D VHQVH RI XQGHVHUYHG OHJLWLPDF\ S f ([WHQVLYH UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH RQ SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ OHG 6WDPDWDNRV f WR FRQFOXGH WKDW WKHUH LV QR SXEOLVKHG UHVHDUFK HYLGHQFH WR VXSSRUW WKH QRWLRQ WKDW f WKRVH KLUHG IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SRVLWLRQV GR LQ IDFW SRVVHVV WKH JHQHUDO VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV WKDW FKDUDFWHUL]H SRVLWLRQV VRXJKW RU ILOOHG RU f SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV HGXFDWH VSHFLILFDOO\ DQG DGHTXDWHO\ IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI DJUHHG XSRQ VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV %URZQ &RXQFLO RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQV 1HZWRQ DQG +HOOHQJD 1HZWRQ DQG 5LFKDUGVRQ 3DUNHU 5HQW] DV FLWHG LQ 6WDPDWDNRV S f

PAGE 17

7KH VSHFLILF UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV RI 'RPHLHU 0LQHWWL DQG 5KDWLJDQ VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH FRQFOXVLRQV RI 6WDPDWDNRV KDYH OHG WKLV UHVHDUFKHU WR SXUVXH WKH VWXG\ RI SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU HQWU\ OHYHO SURn IHVVLRQDOV LQ WKH PDQQHU RXWOLQHG LQ WKH SXUSRVH VWDWHPHQW &RQFHSWXDO )UDPHZRUN 3URIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ KDV DV LWV SXUSRVH WKH WUDLQLQJ DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV HTXLSSLQJ WKHP ZLWK H[SHUWLVH LQ WKH LQWHJUDWHG GHYHORSPHQW RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 3URIHVn VLRQDOO\ SUHSDUHG VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII PXVW VKDUH D FRPPRQ FRQFHUQ IRU WKH QDWXUH DQG HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI LQVWLWXWLRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DV WKHVH LQVWLWXWLRQV DIIHFW DQG DUH DIIHFWHG E\ VWXGHQWV 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f 3URIHVVLRQDO WUDLQLQJ VKRXOG HQDEOH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII WR DVVXPH D YDULHW\ RI UROHV LQFOXGLQJ FRQVXOWDQW DGPLQLVWUDWRU FRXQVHORU LQVWUXFWRU DQG UHVHDUFKHU &RRSHU 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f 3UHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SUHSDUH SHUVRQV WR XVH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ FDWHJRULHV VXFK DV DVVHVVPHQW JRDO VHWWLQJ DQG FKDQJH SURFHVVHV WR HIIHFWLYHO\ LPSOHPHQW WKH DIRUH QDPHG UROHV 7KH OLWHUDWXUH RQ SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU ZRUN LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV UHIOHFWV WKH FRQFHUQ RI PDQ\ SURIHVVLRQDOV DERXW ODFN RI TXDOLW\ DQG VFRSH .QRWW f $FFRUGLQJ WR RQH VWXG\ WKH HPSKDVLV LQ WUDLQLQJ VKRXOG EH SODFHG XSRQ WKH SUDFWLFDO DFTXLVLWLRQ RI VNLOOV 1HZWRQ DQG 5LFKDUGVRQ f 7KHUH LV DQ LQFUHDVHG HPSKDVLV RQ D EURDGHU VHW RI FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV .QRWW f LGHQWLILHG VXFK FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ FDWHJRULHV RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DVVHVVPHQW HYDOXDWLRQ DQG UHVHDUFK FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZULWWHQ DQG YHUEDOf JRDO VHWWLQJ OHDGHUVKLS DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ +H REVHUYHG WKDW

PAGE 18

PDQ\ JUDGXDWH WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV PD\ UHTXLUH VRPH UHYDPSLQJ LQ RUGHU WR EHFRPH VROLG SURJUDPV IRU SUHSDULQJ JHQHUDOLVWV ZLWK WKHVH FRPSHn WHQFLHV 0LOOHU DQG &DUSHQWHU f EHOLHYHG WKDW RSWLPDO SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ FRPELQHV D PDVWHU\ RI D ERG\ RI NQRZOHGJH DQG D FOXVWHU RI VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI SHUVRQDO GHYHORSPHQW 7KH\ QRWHG WKDW SURIHVVLRQDO FUHGLELOLW\ DQG H[FHOOHQFH RI SUDFWLFH ZHUH GLUHFWO\ GHSHQGHQW XSRQ WKH TXDOLW\ RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ f 7KH\ SRVWXODWHG WKDW WKHUH ZHUH LGHQWLILDEOH VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV HVVHQWLDO WR WKH JURZWK RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV WKH OHDUQLQJ RI ZKLFK FRXOG EH V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ IDFLOLWDWHG WKURXJK SURJUDPV RI SURIHVn VLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ $ QXPEHU RI PRGHOV DQG SKLORVRSKLHV KDYH EHHQ DGYDQFHG WR VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI TXDOLW\ SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ 6SRRQHU 5HQW] 0HDERQ %DLOH\ DQG :LWWHQ 'HZH\ f $ WKRURXJK UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH KDV OHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR VHOHFW D PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH 7RPRUURZnV +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ PRGHO DV WKH FRQFHSWXn DO IUDPHZRUN IRU WKLV VWXG\ 7+( DQ DFURQ\P ZKLFK VWDQGV IRU 7RPRUURZnV +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ ZDV FRLQHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ $&3$f LQ IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI GHYHORSLQJ D VWUDWHJ\ IRU H[DPLQLQJ WKH IXWXUH RI FROOHJH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN 0LOOHU DQG 3ULQFH f 7KH HVVHQFH RI 7+( SURMHFW ZDV WR UHFRQFHSWXDOL]H WKURXJK V\VWHPDWLF UHYLHZ UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG FKDQJH WKH IXQGDPHQWDO FRQFHSWLRQV DERXW WKH VSHFLILF UROHV IXQFWLRQV PHWKn RGV DQG SURFHGXUHV WKDW FKDUDFWHUL]H IXWXUH SHUVRQQHO SUDFWLFH 7+( HPSKDVL]HG VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW LQ D PRYH DZD\ IURP D VWDWXV

PAGE 19

EDVHG VWDIILQJ DSSURDFK WRZDUG D FRPSHWHQF\EDVHG DSSURDFK $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ f 7KH 7+( PRGHO H[WHQGHG LGHDV DGYDQFHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ LQ WKH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 3RLQW RI 9LHZ f 7KLV VWDWHPHQW LGHQWLILHG WKH FRPPLWPHQW RI WKH SURIHVVLRQ WR VHUYLFHV WR DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH ZKROH VWXGHQW 7KLV FRPPLWPHQW ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ RI QHHGHG FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII DV VHUYLFH DJHQWV FRQWURO DJHQWV DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO HGXFDWRUV 7KH &RXQFLO RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQV LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ DGYDQFHG HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH VDPH SKLORVRSK\ LQ WKHLU ZRUN $ 6WXGHQW 'HYHORSPHQW 3RLQW RI RI 9LHZ RI (GXFDWLRQ f 7+( HPSKDVL]HV VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW ,WV WKHRUHWLFDO EDVH LV HFOHFWLF LQ WKDW LW VWUHVVHV D FRPELQDWLRQ RI FRJQLWLYH DQG DIIHFWLYH GHYHORSPHQW ,W LQFRUSRUDWHV VL[ FRPSHWHQF\ FDWHJRULHV RI GHYHORSn PHQW *RDO6HWWLQJf§WKH SURFHVV RI VWDWLQJ WKH JHQHUDO RXWFRPH GHVLUHG DQG WKHQ GHILQLQJ WKH PRUH VSHFLILF UHVXOWV REMHFn WLYHVf WKDW JXLGH WKH VWHSV LQ DFKLHYLQJ WKH JRDOV DQG WKDW SURYLGH HYLGHQFH RI DFFRPSOLVKPHQW 0LOOHU DQG 3ULQFH S f $VVHVVPHQWf§WKH SURFHVV WKURXJK ZKLFK VWXGHQWV JURXSV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ DFTXLUH DQG XVH GDWD IURP D YDULHW\ RI VRXUFHV WR GHVFULEH DSSUDLVH DQG PRGLI\ WKHLU RZQ GHYHORSPHQW S f ,QVWUXFWLRQf§D FKDQJH VWUDWHJ\ ZKLFK VHHNV WR SURYLGH ERWK NQRZOHGJH DQG SUDFWLFH DSSO\LQJ ZKDW LV OHDUQHG ,W VHHNV WR LQWHJUDWH DIIHFWLYH DQG FRJQLWLYH OHDUQLQJ WKURXJK UHFRJQLn WLRQ RI LQGLYLGXDO OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV DQG QHHGV &RQVXOWDWLRQf§WKH DFWLYLW\ RU SURFHVV LQ ZKLFK RQH SHUVRQ HQJDJHV ZLWK DQRWKHU SHUVRQ JURXS RU DJHQF\ LQ RUGHU WR LGHQWLI\ WKH QHHGV DQGRU FDSDELOLWLHV RI WKDW SHUVRQ JURXS RU DJHQF\ DQG WKHQ WR SODQ LQLWLDWH LPSOHPHQW DQG HYDOXDWH DFWLRQ GHVLJQHG WR PHHW DQGRU GHYHORS WKRVH QHHGV DQGRU FDSDELOLWLHV S f

PAGE 20

(QYLURQPHQWDO 0DQDJHPHQWf§D SRVLWLYH FROODERUDWLYH HIIRUW E\ DOO FRPPXQLW\ PHPEHUV WR RUJDQL]H WKHLU UHVRXUFHV WR PD[Ln PL]H WKHLU OLYLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV (YDOXDWLRQf§D FRQWLQXRXV SURFHVV RI GHOLQHDWLQJ REWDLQLQJ DQG SURYLGLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLWK ZKLFK WR MXGJH YDULRXV FKRLFHV 6WXIIOHEHDP f 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f LGHQWLILHG IRXU FULWLFDO EDVLF FRPSHn WHQF\ DUHDV f DVVHVVPHQW DQG HYDOXDWLRQ f WHDFKLQJ RU WUDLQLQJ f FRQVXOWDWLRQ DQG f FRXQVHOLQJ 7KHVH DUHDV ZHUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI 7+( ,Q DQ $&3$ VSRQVRUHG SURMHFW +DQVRQ 1RWH f GHYHORSHG D WD[RQRP\ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV XVLQJ 7+( DV D FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH SURMHFW ZDV WR UHYLHZ WKH FRPSHWHQF\EDVHG HGXFDn WLRQ PRYHPHQW WR GHWHUPLQH LWV SRWHQWLDO IRU DSSOLFDWLRQ WR SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN +DQVRQ GHYHORSHG FRPSHWHQFLHV RI ZKLFK RQO\ WZHQW\ ZHUH UDWHG E\ D SDQHO RI H[n SHUWV LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN DV ORZHU WKDQ YHU\ LPSRUn WDQW )RU WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU KDV VHOHFWHG WKH 7+( PRGHO DV D FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN ZLWK PLQRU UHYLVLRQ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH VWXG\ LV WR H[DPLQH WKH WUDLQLQJ JUDGXDWHV UHFHLYH IRU HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH UHFRPPHQn GDWLRQ RI .QRWW f WKH FDWHJRU\ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ KDV EHHQ VXEVWLWXWHG IRU LQVWUXFWLRQ LQ WKH RULJLQDO 7+( IRUPDW $VVHVVPHQW DQG HYDOXDWLRQ KDYH EHHQ FRPELQHG DV RQH FDWHJRU\ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f PRGHO 7KH FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU XVH LQ WKLV VWXG\ KDYH EHHQ GHULYHG IURP +DQVRQnV 1RWH f WD[RQRP\ DQG WKH VWXGLHV RI 'RPHLHU f DQG 0LQHWWL f DQG KDYH EHHQ LGHQWLILHG ZLWK DQG DVVLJQHG WR FDWHJRULHV RI JRDO VHWWLQJ FRQVXOWDWLRQ

PAGE 21

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n VLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV EHFDXVH WKLV LQYHVWLJDWRU EHOLHYHG WKH\ UHSUHn VHQWHG WKH PRVW LPPHGLDWH DQG PHDVXUDEOH SURGXFW RI D PDVWHUnV OHYHO JUDGXDWH SURJUDP LQ WHUPV RI FRPSHWHQFLHV DFTXLUHG DQG H[SHFWHG

PAGE 22

)LQGLQJV ZHUH OLPLWHG WR PHDVXUHPHQWV RI FRPSHWHQFLHV SHUFHLYHG E\ SUDFWLWLRQHUV DQG IDFXOW\ WUDLQHUV 7KH UHVXOWV FDQ EH JHQHUn DOL]HG WR SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV JHQHUDOO\ DV DOO SURJUDPV OLVWHG LQ WKH $&3$ GLUHFWRU\ ZHUH VXUYH\HG 5HVXOWV FDQQRW EH JHQHUDOL]HG EH\RQG WKH VSHFLILF SUDFWLWLRQHU SRSXODWLRQV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI FRPSHn WHQFLHV KHOG E\ UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV DQG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKRVH FRPSHWHQFLHV FDQQRW EH JHQHUDOL]HG WR WKH WRWDO SUDFWLWLRQHU SRSXn ODWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV OLPLWHG WR WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SUDFWLWLRQHUV DQG IDFXOW\ WUDLQHUV DW IRXU \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV DZDUGLQJ DW OHDVW D EDFKHORUV GHJUHH 7KH UHVXOW FDQQRW EH JHQHUDOL]HG WR D VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SUDFWLWLRQHU SRSXODWLRQ HPSOR\HG DW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV RU SURSULHWDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQV 'HILQLWLRQV 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHOf§ZRUN ZLWKLQ D SRVW VHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQ FRQFHUQHG ZLWK ERWK WKH HGXFDWLRQDO DQG SHUVRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI VWXGHQWV LQ SULPDULO\ QRQ FODVVURRP DFWLYLWLHV DQG WKH DGPLQLVWUDn WLRQ RI VHUYLFHV ZKLFK VXSSRUW DQG FRPSOLPHQW WKH IRUPDO DFDGHPLF 6WXGHQW DIIDLUVf§WKH GLYLVLRQ ZLWKLQ D SRVW VHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWX WLRQ FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH SURYLVLRQ RI VHUYLFHV DQG SURJUDPV IRU VWXGHQWV ZKLFK FRPSOHPHQW DQG VXSSOHPHQW WKH DFDGHPLF PLVVLRQ RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV 'RPHLHU S f (QWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQf§JHQHUDOO\ D SRVLWLRQ UHTXLULQJ D PDVWHUfV GHJUHH IURP D SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP DQG QR IXOO WLPH H[SHULn HQFH LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 6WDII LQ VXFK SRVLWLRQV DVVLVW LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI SURJUDPV DQG VHUYLFHV IRU VWXGHQWV

PAGE 23

3UDFWLWLRQHUVf§SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWRUV HQJDJHG LQ IXOO WLPH HPSOR\PHQW LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO LQ D GLYLVLRQ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KH\ PD\ EH DGPLQLVWUDWRUV FRXQVHORUV SURJUDP IDFLOLWDWRUV RU FRQVXOWDQWV 0LQHWWL S f &KLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUf§WKH FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ DGPLQLVWUDWRU ZKR LV LPPHGLDWHO\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH GLUHFWLRQ DQG FRRUGLQDWLRQ RI WKH SURJUDPV VWDII DQG VHUYLFHV RI WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV GLYLn VLRQ LPP 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJf§WKH FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ DGPLQLVWUDWRU ZKR LV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH GLUHFWLRQ DQG FRRUGLQDWLRQ RI SURJUDPV VWDII DQG VHUYLFHV RI WKH KRXVLQJ GHSDUWPHQW KRXVLQJ GHSDUWPHQW LV RQH RI WKH GHSDUWPHQWV WKDW FRPSULVH 'LYLVLRQ RI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV WKH 7KH WKH (QWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHVf§DELOLWLHV VNLOOV NQRZOHGJH DQG DFWLYLWLHV ZKLFK SHUPLW DQ LQGLYLGXDO WR FDUU\ RXW MRE H[SHFWDWLRQV LQ D ILUVW SURIHVVLRQDO SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV LQ D PLQLPDOO\ DFFHSWDEOH PDQQHU )DFXOW\ WUDLQHUVf§SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWRUV HQJDJHG LQ IXOO WLPH HPSOR\ PHQW DV IDFXOW\ WHDFKLQJ DQG DGYLVLQJ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV HQUROOHG LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 3URIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQf§WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI EDFNJURXQG NQRZOHGJH VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU DVVXPLQJ D IXOO WLPH SRVLn WLRQ LQ WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQ 6XFK SUHSDUDWLRQ LV PRVW JHQHUDOO\ DFTXLUHG ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI D IRUPDO DFDGHPLF GHJUHH DZDUGLQJ SURJUDP DW D JUDGXDWH LQVWLWXWLRQ RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 2YHUYLHZ RI WKH 6WXG\ &KDSWHU SUHVHQWHG WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ SXUSRVH DQG MXVWLILFDWLRQ IRU WKH VWXG\ FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN DVVXPSWLRQV OLPLWDWLRQV DQG GHILQLWLRQV 5HOHYDQW OLWHUDWXUH DQG UHVHDUFK SHUWDLQLQJ WR WKH SURIHVn VLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DQG SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ &KDSWHU ,, 7KH PHWKRGRORJ\ DQG GHVLJQ XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ DUH GHVFULEHG LQ &KDSWHU ,,, 7KH GDWD FROOHFWHG DQG DQDO\]HG LQ WKLV VWXG\ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ &KDSWHU ,9 $ GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWV FRQFOXVLRQV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV LV SUHVHQWHG LQ &KDSWHU 9

PAGE 24

&+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 7KLV FKDSWHU ZLOO SURYLGH DQ RYHUYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH DV LW SHUWDLQV WR SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KUHH JHQHUDO DUHDV ZLOO EH UHYLHZHG VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DV DQ HPHUJLQJ SURIHVVLRQ GHYHORSPHQW RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURn IHVVLRQDOV 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO DV DQ (PHUJLQJ 3URIHVVLRQ +LVWRULFDO 5ROH LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN KDV EHHQ ZHOO GRFXn PHQWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH /HRQDUG &RZOH\ 0XHOOHU $\HUV 7ULSS DQG 5XVVHO 6KDIIHU DQG 0DUWLQVRQ $SSOH WRQ %ULJJV DQG 5KDWLJDQ f 'DWLQJ EDFN WR WKH IRXQGLQJ RI +DUYDUG &ROOHJH LQ D VLPLODU WKHPH ZDV REVHUYHG KLJKHU HGXFDn WLRQ ZDV SULYDWHO\ FRQWUROOHG DQG PDLQWDLQHG D VWURQJ UHOLJLRXV HPSKDn VLV 8QWLO DERXW SUHVLGHQWV DQG IDFXOW\ HQJDJHG LQ DQ H[DJn JHUDWHG W\SH RI VWXGHQW VHUYLFHV FRQFHUQLQJ WKHPVHOYHV SULPDULO\ ZLWK WKH GHSRUWPHQW RI WKH VWXGHQWV LQ DVVXULQJ SLRXV DWWLWXGHV DQG GLOLJHQFH LQ DFDGHPLF SXUVXLWV 7KH PRVW SUHVVLQJ VHUYLFH QHHG ZDV WKH SURYLVLRQ RI KRXVLQJ 2QH RI WKH FKLHI SXUSRVHV LQ WKH

PAGE 25

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f 7KHVH GHYHORSPHQWV EURXJKW ZLWK WKHP D GLIIHUHQW VHW RI VWXGHQW QHHGV WKDW UHTXLUHG VWDII DWWHQWLRQ LQ PRUH GLYHUVH ZD\V 7KH DSSRLQWPHQWV RI WKH ILUVW GHDQV RI ZRPHQ DQG PHQ DURXQG WKH WXUQ RI WKH FHQWXU\ VLJQDOHG WKH HPHUJHQF\ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN $SSOHWRQ %ULJJV DQG 5KDWLJDQ f LGHQWLILHG IDFWRUV ZKLFK FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH RULJLQV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI ODQG JUDQW LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG WKH ULVH RI SXEOLF FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV ,QFUHDVLQJ HQUROOPHQWV DQG DFFRPSDQ\LQJ LQFUHDVH LQ KHWHURn JHQHLW\ RI VWXGHQW SRSXODWLRQV 6RFLDO SROLWLFDO DQG LQWHOOHFWXDO IHUPHQW LQ WKH QDWLRQ 5LVH RI FRHGXFDWLRQ DQG LQFUHDVH LQ QXPEHUV RI ZRPHQ HQWHUn LQJ LQVWLWXWLRQV ,QWURGXFWLRQ RI HOHFWLYH V\VWHPV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ (PSKDVLV RQ YRFDWLRQDOLVP RYHU WUDGLWLRQDO OLEHUDO DUWV ,PSDFW RI VFLHQFH DQG WKH VFLHQWLILF PHWKRG (PHUJLQJ VLJQV RI IXQGDPHQWDO VWUXJJOH EHWZHHQ HPSLULFLVP DQG KXPDQLVP &RUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ LQWHOOHFWXDOLVP DQG LPSHUVRQDOLVP RQ WKH SDUW RI IDFXOW\ HGXFDWHG LQ *HUPDQ LQVWLWXWLRQV ([SDQGLQJ LQGXVWULDOLVP DQG XUEDQL]DWLRQ

PAGE 26

7KH YLHZ RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DV D VRFLDO VWDWXV SKHQRPHQRQ (VWDEOLVKPHQW RI D WUXH XQLYHUVLW\ V\VWHP ,PSDFW RI OLEHUDO LPPLJUDWLRQ ODZV LQ 86 &KDQJLQJ UROHV RI VWXGHQWV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 7KH QHHGV RI LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWV ZHUH LGHQWLILHG DV WKH SULPDU\ IRFXV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VWDII 7KH EXLOGLQJ RI D VRXQG VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SURJUDP FDOOHG IRU GHGLFDWLRQ E\ ERWK DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG IDFXOW\ WR D SKLORVRSK\ EDVHG RQ DOO WKH QHHGV RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQW %ODHVVHU f 6XFK D SKLORVRSK\ DFFRUGLQJ WR 7KH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 3RLQW RI 9LHZ ZDV JURXQGHG LQ WKH VXSSRUW RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQnV EDVLF SXUSRVHV WKH SUHVHUYDWLRQ WUDQVPLVVLRQ DQG HQULFKPHQW RI FXOWXUHf§WKH SURGXFW RI VFKRODUVKLS UHVHDUFK DQG KXPDQ H[SHULHQFH $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RI (GXFDWLRQ f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f &RZOH\ f REVHUYHG WKH WKUHH IXQFWLRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ WR EH FRUH FRPSOHPHQWDU\ DQG FRQWLQXLW\ +H FRQFOXGHG WKDW VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN ZDV FRPSOHPHQWDU\ DQG WKDW LWV PLVVLRQ ZDV WKH SURYLVLRQ RI QRQDFDGHPLF SURJUDPV DQG VHUYLFHV IRU VWXGHQWV

PAGE 27

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f 7KH WHUP SURIHVVLRQDOf JHQHUDOO\ UHIHUUHG WR DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZKR SHUIRUPHG WDVNV WKDW ZHUH RI PRUH WKDQ XVXDO GLIILFXOW\ DQG UHTXLUHG D ORQJ SHULRG RI SUHSDUDWLRQ DQG HGXFDWLRQ UHVXOWLQJ LQ WKH DWWDLQPHQW RI D KLJKHU GHJUHH RI VNLOO DQG NQRZOHGJH -RKQVRQ f )OH[QHU f REVHUYHG WKDW D SHUVRQ ZDV D SURIHVVLRQDO LI KHVKH GHYRWHG KLVKHU HQWLUH WLPH WR D SDUWLFXODU DFWLYLW\ +H LQGLFDWHG WKDW VXFK DFWLYLWLHV KDG WR EH LQWHOOHFWXDO LQ QDWXUH DQG KDYH GHILQLWH SXUSRVH /OR\G-RQHV f UHPDUNHG WKDW WKH GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ PDUN RI D SURIHVVLRQ ZDV WKH SRVVHVVLRQ RI DQ LQWHOOHFWXDO WHFKQLTXH DFTXLUHG E\ VSHFLDO WUDLQLQJ ZKLFK FRXOG EH DSSOLHG WR VRPH VSKHUH RI HYHU\GD\ OLIH S f $ JRRG GHDO RI HPSKDVLV ZDV SODFHG XSRQ WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI VSHFLDO NQRZOHGJH RU VSHFLDO WUDLQLQJ 7KH $PHULFDQ 3HUVRQQHO DQG *XLGDQFH $VVRFLDWLRQ $*3$f GHOLQHDWHG WKH PDUNV RI D SURIHVVLRQ DV IROORZV 3RVVHVVLRQ RI D ERG\ RI VSHFLDOL]HG NQRZOHGJH VNLOOV DQG DWWLWXGHV NQRZQ DQG SUDFWLFHG E\ LWV PHPEHUV

PAGE 28

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f RI WKH GLIILFXOWLHV LQ LGHQWLI\LQJ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLn VWUDWLRQ DV D SURIHVVLRQ KDV EHHQ WKH SUREOHP RI HVWDEOLVKLQJ FOHDU FXW ERXQGDULHV DURXQG WKH ODUJHU IXQFWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVn WUDWLRQ :UHQQ DQG 'DUOH\ f /DFN RI FRKHVLRQ DQG FRRUGLQDWLRQ RI WKH VHSDUDWH SHUVRQQHO IXQFWLRQV KDV FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH SUREOHP RI LGHQWLW\ DV D SURIHVVLRQ 7UDGLWLRQDOO\ ZKHQ D ERG\ RI NQRZOHGJH RU OLWHUDWXUH H[LVWV DQG HQRXJK SHRSOH DUH WKRURXJKO\ EDVHG LQ LW SUDFn WLFLQJ LWV SULQFLSOHV D SURIHVVLRQ LV ERUQ %DVLF SULQFLSOHV IRU VWXn GHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DUH VWLOO IRXQG LQ

PAGE 29

SKLORVRSK\ SV\FKRORJ\ VRFLRORJ\ DQG WKH KXPDQLWLHV DV ZHOO DV LQ PDQDJHPHQW DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ &UDQH f 8VHHP f KDV REVHUYHG WKDW WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ DQ RFFXSDWLRQ DQG D SURIHVVLRQ OLHV LQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK LWV FOXVWHU RI VNLOOV LV EDFNHG E\ D FRQVLVWHQW ERG\ RI WKHRULHV DQG SULQFLSOHV 6KH EHOLHYHG WKDW VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ZDV D QSURIHVVLRQDOL]LQJ RFFXSDWLRQ LQ WKH VHQVH WKHUH ZDV DQ LQFUHDVLQJ DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH WKHRUHWLFDO SULQFLSOHV RXW RI ZKLFK VKRXOG IORZ WKH VNLOOHG SHUIRUPDQFH 7KLV REVHUYDWLRQ RI SURIHVVLRQDOL]LQJf RI RFFXSDWLRQV ZDV DOVR REVHUYHG E\ :LOHQVN\ f ZKR QRWHG WKDW WKH ODEHO ZDV ORRVHO\ DSSOLHG WR LQFUHDVLQJ VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG WUDQVIHUDELOLW\ RI VNLOO WKH SUROLIHUDWLRQ RI REMHFWLYH VWDQGDUGV RI ZRUN WKH VSUHDG RI WHQXUH DUUDQJHPHQWV OLFHQVLQJ RU FHUWLILFDWLRQ DQG WKH JURZWK RI VHUYLFH RFFXSDWLRQV &RQFHUQ IRU WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DV D SURIHVVLRQ KDV EHHQ ZLGHO\ H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH &RZOH\ :UHQQ DQG 'DUOH\ $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ /OR\G-RQHV )HGHU 0XHOOHU 3HQQ\ 3HQQ 6WDPDWDNRV f :UHQQ DQG 'DUOH\ KDYH SURYLGHG SHUKDSV WKH EHVW DQG PRVW ZLGHO\ DFFHSWHG FULWHULD WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN GHVHUYHV LGHQWLW\ DV D SURIHVVLRQ 7KH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI VWDQGDUGV RI VHOHFWLRQ DQG WUDLQLQJ 7KH GHILQLWLRQ RI MRE WLWOHV DQG IXQFWLRQV 7KH SRVVHVVLRQ RI VSHFLDOL]HG NQRZOHGJH DQG VNLOOV 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI D SURIHVVLRQDO FRQVFLRXVQHVV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO JURXS 7KH VHOI LPSRVLWLRQ RI VWDQGDUGV RI DGPLVVLRQ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 30

/HJDO UHFRJQLWLRQ RI WKH YRFDWLRQ 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI D FRGH RI HWKLFV 7KH SHUIRUPDQFH RI D VRFLDOO\ QHHGHG IXQFWLRQ f ,Q WKHLU VWXG\ :UHQQ DQG 'DUOH\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN ZDV QRW \HW D SURIHVVLRQ f 2I WKH HLJKW FULWHULD HVWDEOLVKHG WR PHDVXUH SURIHVVLRQDOLVP WKH\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH JUHDWHVW EDUULHU WR VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN ZDV WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI VWDQGDUGV RI VHOHFWLRQ DQG WUDLQLQJ 7RR PDQ\ VWDII LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZHUH VHOHFWHG EHFDXVH WKH\ ZHUH DOUHDG\ HPSOR\HG E\ DQ LQVWLWXWLRQ LQ VRPH FDSDFLW\ 7KH\ DOVR REVHUYHG SUREOHPV ZLWK VSHFLILF VHOHFWLRQ FULWHULD DQG XQFOHDU WUDLQLQJ H[SHFWDWLRQV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH GHPDQGV RI WKH ZRUN 6WDPDWDNRV f XVHG :UHQQ DQG 'DUOH\nV f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f

PAGE 31

$PRQJ WKH SULPDU\ QHHGV LGHQWLILHG E\ :LOOLDPVRQ f ZDV WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI KLJK VWDQGDUGV RI VHOHFWLRQ DQG RI SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFH IRU WKH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VWDII 7KHUH KDV EHHQ DQ LQFUHDVHG UHFRJQLWLRQ RI WKH QHHG IRU PRUH DWWHQWLRQ WR RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DQG PDQDJHPHQW VNLOOV ERWK LQ WUDLQLQJ DQG LQ DSSOLFDWLRQ %RUODQG DQG 7KRPDV $SSOHWRQ %ULJJV DQG 5KDWLJDQ 0F'DQLHO f &URVV f VXSSRUWHG %URZQ f LQ XUJLQJ LQFUHDVHG DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH LQWHJUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO IXQFWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH DFDGHPLF DUHDV 7KLV SRVWXUH UHFHLYHG VWURQJ VXSSRUW DV ZHOO IURP &URRNVWRQ f 7KH VWDWXV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DV D SURIHVVLRQ KDV YDULHG DFFRUGLQJ WR SHUFHSWLRQV RI KRZ ZHOO WKH ILHOG KDV DGGUHVVHG LWV PLVVLRQ DQG SXUSRVH .QRFN f REVHUYHG WKH ODFN RI SURJUHVV WRZDUG DFKLHYHPHQW RI SURIHVVLRQDO VWDWXV ZKLFK KDV EHHQ FLWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH )HGHU .RLOH 6KRHEHQ 1\JUHHQ 3HQQ\ f +H IXUWKHU VXSSRUWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI GHILQLQJ RSHUDWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DQG WKHQ GHYHORSLQJ VNLOOV DQG SURFHGXUHV IRU IXOILOOLQJ VXFK SXUSRVHV &RZOH\ %HUGLH 3DUNHU &URRNVWRQ &URRNVWRQ DQG 0LOOHU DQG 3ULQFH f 6DGGOHPLUH QRWHG WKDW VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUDFWLWLRQHUV PXVW EH FRQYLQFn HG RI WKHLU VWDWXV DV HGXFDWRUV DQG VKRXOG GLVSOD\ FRQILGHQFH LQ WKHLU OHJLWLPDF\ LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DV YLVLEOH FRQWULEXWRUV WR WKH DWWDLQPHQW RI WKH HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ 1RWH f &RQIXVLRQ DERXW LGHQWLW\ UROH DQG SXUSRVH KDV EHHQ DW WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RI WKLV LVVXH RI SURIHVVLRQDOLVP 'HZH\ f REVHUYHG WRR OLWWOH SHUWLQHQW GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH UROH DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 2WKHUV +ROODQG DQG .OHLQEHUJ f QRWHG

PAGE 32

SUREOHPV VWHPPLQJ IURP WKH QRPHQFODWXUH RI WKH ILHOG DQG LPSOLHG WKDW WKH ZLWKKROGLQJ RI IDFXOW\ VWDWXV WR VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUDFWLWLRQHUV UHOHJDWHG WKHP WR VHFRQG FODVV VWDWXV $ VWXG\ E\ $VWPDQQ f WR DVFHUWDLQ IDFXOW\ SHUFHSWLRQV WRZDUG VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VHUYLFHV IRXQG WKDW IDFXOW\ GLGQnW IXOO\ DFFHSW FROOHDJXHV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DV HTXDOV 6WXGHQW DIIDLUV ZDV SHUFHLYHG DV D ODUJH FRPSOH[ RI RSHUDWLRQV ZLWK YDJXH LOOGHILQHG SXUSRVH EHLQJ RQO\ UHPRWHO\ QHFHVVDU\ WR WKH UHDOL]DWLRQ RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO JRDOV DQG LPSUDFWLFDO LQ EXGJHW WHUPV $FFRUGLQJ WR 3ULRU f WKH SODQOHVV JHUU\ EXLOGLQJ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VHUYLFHV RYHU VHYHUDO GHFDGHV KDV UHVXOWHG LQ FRQIOLFWLQJ DQG LOORJLFDO PL[WXUHV RI IXQFWLRQV DQG UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV S f $V D UHVXOW VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO KDV EHHQ VXVFHSWLEOH WR D YDULHW\ RI PLVSHUFHSWLRQV RI LWV UROH DQG IDOVH H[SHFWDWLRQV RI WKLV FRPSHWHQFH :UHQQ DQG 'DUOH\ f EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH VWDWXV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO KDV QRW EHHQ HQKDQFHG EHFDXVH RI D ODFN RI ZHOO DFFHSWHG VWDQGDUGV RI DFDGHPLF SUHSDUDWLRQ 7KH ILHOG KDV IDLOHG WR QRWLI\ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ ZKDW WKRVH HVWDEOLVKHG LQ WKH ILHOG FRQVLGHUHG WR EH MRE IXQFWLRQ DQG DGHTXDWH TXDOLILFDWLRQV ,W KDV EHHQ UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUDFWLWLRQHUV FODULI\ WUDGLWLRQDO UROHV DQG DJJUHVVLYHO\ SXUVXH QHZ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK LQVWLWXWLRQV 3HQQ 0DQVSHDNHU DQG 0LOOHWWH %HUU\ f 0RUH DWWHQWLRQ VKRXOG EH GLUHFWHG WRZDUG SURIHVVLRQDO WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV %HUU\ f 7KH SURIHVVLRQDO IXWXUH RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO GHSHQGV RQ SUHVHQW OHDGHUVKLS DQG WKH WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV %UXPILHOG f

PAGE 33

6WXGHQW 'HYHORSPHQW 7KH OLWHUDWXUH KDV RIIHUHG HYLGHQFH RI WKH SHUFHLYHG QHHG IRU VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO WR GLUHFW DWWHQWLRQ WR PRUH DFDGHPLF DQG FXUULFXODU FRQFHUQV :LVH 1DVK 6DXUPDQ DQG 6RXVD 0LOOHU DQG 3ULQFH -RQHV f 7KLV QHHG KDV EHHQ LQFOXGHG DV SDUW RI DQ RYHUDOO PRYH DZD\ IURP DQ HPSKDVLV RQ VHUYLFHV DQG LQFUHDVHG DWWHQWLRQ RQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI VWXGHQWV 7KLV WUDQVLWLRQ KDV DVVXPHG D SUHYDLOLQJ VHUYLFH VWDWXV YLHZ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ WKDW PXVW PRYH PRUH LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI D SUHYHQWLYH SURDFWLYH FROODERUDWLYH UROH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW SKLORVRSK\ +DQVRQ DQG /HQQLQJ f DFNQRZOHGJHG WKDW WKLV VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW FRQFHSW IRU KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ UHFHLYHG VWURQJ KLVWRULFDO VXSSRUW IURP WKH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 3RLQW RI 9LHZ $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RI (GXFDWLRQ f ZKLFK XUJHG DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH ZKROH VWXGHQW +DQVRQ DQG /HQQLQJ f EHOLHYHG WKDW VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW IRFXVHG PRUH RQ LVVXHV RI DWWLWXGH PRUDO DQG YDOXH GHYHORSPHQW LQ DVVLVWLQJ VWXGHQWV LQ WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI GHYHORSPHQWDO VNLOOV %URZQ f YLHZHG D UROH FKDQJH IRU VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW VWDII DV GLDJQRVWLFLDQV FRQVXOWDQWV SURJUDPPHUV LQVWUXFWRUV EHKDYLRUDO VFLHQWLVWV DQG UHVHDUFKHUV &URRNVWRQ f EHOLHYHG WKDW VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DV KLVWRULFDOO\ GHILQHG ZDV QR ORQJHU D YLDEOH FRQFHSW DQG WKDW VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW VKRXOG EH XVHG WR GHVFULEH PRUH DFFXUDWHO\ WKH XQGHUO\LQJ SKLORVRSK\ RI WKH ILHOG &URRNVWRQ f LQGLFDWHG WKDW VWDII QHHGHG WR DGMXVW IURP D VWDWXVEDVHG UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK VWXGHQWV WR D UHODWLRQVKLS EDVHG RQ FRPSHWHQF\ DQG FROODERUDWLRQ &URVV 1RWH f VWUHVVHG WKDW LI WKH ILHOG ZDV WR PDNH VXEVWDQWLDO

PAGE 34

SURJUHVV DQG JDLQ WKH UHVSHFW RI VWXGHQWV DQG DFDGHPLF FROOHDJXHV LW ZRXOG KDYH WR EHJLQ WR HGXFDWH D QHZ JHQHUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW VSHFLDOLVWV 6RPH SUDFWLWLRQHUV LQ WKH ILHOG KDYH UHJDUGHG WKH VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW WKUXVW DV D SDVVLQJ SKHQRPHQRQ EXW KDYH QRZ EHJXQ WR YLHZ LW DV D PRGHO WR MXVWLI\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHUV RQ FDPSXVHV +XPSKULHV f +DQVRQ DQG /HQQLQJ f REVHUYHG WKDW WKH &DUQHJLH &RPPLVVLRQ f FODLPHG WKDW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH ZKROH VWXGHQW ZDV QRW UHDOLVWLF WKDW WRWDOLVP LQ WKH FDPSXV DSSURDFK WR VWXGHQWV ZDV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH PLVVLRQ RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 6WXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW KDV EHHQ KDPSHUHG E\ REVWDFOHV RI GHHS URRWHG ZRUN KDELWV URXWLQHV EHOLHIV DWWLWXGHV DQG SHUFHSWLRQV RI SUDFWLWLRQHUV ZKR KDYH EHHQ WUDGLWLRQDOO\ WUDLQHG 6WDPDWDNRV f 2WKHUV FODLPHG WKDW OLWWOH UHFRJQLWLRQ KDV EHHQ JLYHQ WR WKH IDFW WKDW VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW PXVW EH LPSOHPHQWHG LQ DUHDV ZKHUH VWXGHQWV KDYH XQZLOOLQJ FRQWDFW ZLWK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DUHDV VXFK DV VWXGHQW FRQGXFW UHJLVWUDUV RIILFH DGPLVVLRQV RIILFH 7URZ f $OWKRXJK KH DFNQRZOHGJHG WKH GDWHGQHVV RI WKH VHUYLFH FRQFHSW 5KDWLJDQ f UDLVHG LVVXH ZLWK WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW PXFK PRUH ZLOO EHFRPH SRVVLEOH LI ZH PRYH RUJDQL]DWLRQDOO\ GLUHFWO\ LQWR WKH DFDGHPLF KLHUDUFK\ 5KDWLJDQ f DGYRFDWHG D EURDGHQLQJ RI WKH VHUYLFH FRQFHSW DQG DQ LQFUHDVHG XVH RI WKH FODVVURRP YHKLFOH DV D WRRO IRU SURJUDP GHOLYHU\ 6KDIIHU f FRQFOXGHG WKDW LQ RUGHU WR UHPDLQ D VLJQLILFDQW IRUFH LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ WKH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ILHOG PXVW FRQWULEXWH WR WKH WRWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV DQG QRW IRFXV H[FOXVLYHO\ RQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQW

PAGE 35

'HYHORSPHQW RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 3UHSDUDWLRQ 3URJUDPV %DFNJURXQG 7UDLQLQJ IRU VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ SULRU WR :RUOG :DU ,, FRQVLVWHG ODUJHO\ RI H[SHULHQFH UHFHLYHG RQ WKH MRE /D%DUUH f 0DQ\ SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DV ZHOO DV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ JHQHUDOO\ GLG QRW VXSSRUW WKH QRWLRQ WKDW SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ ZDV D QHFHVVDU\ SUHUHTXLVLWH WR HQWU\ LQWR WKH ILHOG 7XUQHU +XOOILVK 1\JUHHQ f +XOOILVK f VSRNH LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH FRQWHQWLRQ RI VRPH WKDW JRRG GHDQV DUH ERUQ QRW PDGH D FRQFHSW JHQHUDOO\ UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH FKURPRVRPH WKHRU\ 2WKHUV VXSSRUWHG WKH QRWLRQ WKDW D EHWWHU EDFNJURXQG IRU D SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRXOG EH LQ DQ DFDGHPLF GLVFLSOLQH 1\JUHHQ f $ VWXG\ GRQH WR GHWHUPLQH UROH SHUFHSWLRQV RI FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV UHYHDOHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV OLWWOH FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH ZD\ D FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHU &6$2f ZDV WUDLQHG DQG WKH ZD\ LQ ZKLFK D &6$2 SHUFHLYHG KLVKHU UROH 8SFUDIW f $ VWXG\ WR GHWHUPLQH LI GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG LQ FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUVn SHUFHSWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SURJUDPV EDVHG XSRQ ZKHWKHU WKH\ ZHUH DFDGHPLFDOO\ WUDLQHG LQ WKH ILHOG UHYHDOHG PL[HG UHVXOWV %ODFNEXUQ f $FDGHPLF SUHSDUDWLRQ FRQWULEXWHG WRZDUG HPSKDVLV RQ FRXQVHOLQJ HGXFDWLRQDO UHIRUP DQG PRGHOV IRU EHKDYLRUDO OHDUQLQJ 3UDFWLFDO H[SHULHQFH FRQWULEXWHG WR HPSKDVLV XSRQ UHVHDUFK DQG QHHGV RI VWXGHQWV $Q HDUOLHU VWXG\ E\ 6DGGOHPLUH f RI PDOH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV VKRZHG GLIIHUHQW WLWOHV EHLQJ XVHG IRU WKH FKLHI PDOH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRU )RUW\IRXU DQG D KDOI SHUFHQW ZHUH IXOO SURIHVVRUV DQG

PAGE 36

b KHOG WHDFKLQJ DSSRLQWPHQWV 2QO\ b KDG QR DFDGHPLF UDQN $ ODWHU VWXG\ E\ )R\ f RI FDUHHU SDWWHUQV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV UHYHDOHG WKDW b RI WKRVH ZRUNLQJ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV KDG JUDGXDWH GHJUHH WUDLQLQJ LQ JXLGDQFH FRXQVHOLQJ RU VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO (LJKW\VL[ SHUFHQW RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV EHOLHYHG WKDW IRUPDO WUDLQLQJ RI QHZ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV ZDV RI JUHDW LPSRUWDQFH +LVWRULFDOO\ WKH ILUVW IRUPDO WUDLQLQJ SURJUDP EHJDQ DW 7HDFKHUVn &ROOHJH &ROXPELD 8QLYHUVLW\ /D%DUUH %DUU\ DQG :ROI /OR\G-RQHV .ORSI f LQ (DUO\ FRQFHSWV RI HGXFDWLRQDO SHUVRQQHO ZRUN ZHUH FRQILQHG WR YRFDWLRQDO JXLGDQFH 3DUDOOHO WR WKLV ZDV WKH HPSKDVLV RQ FRXQVHOLQJ DQG JXLGDQFH %\ D SURVSHFWLYH YRFDWLRQDO JXLGDQFH ZRUNHU FRXOG ILQG FRXUVHZRUN DW VFKRROV WKH QHRSK\WH GHDQ DW %DUU\ DQG :ROI f 7KH FRQWULEXWLRQV RI WUDLQLQJ ZHUH IHOW WR EH LPSURYHG SUDFWLFH DGYDQFHG WKHRU\ SURGXFWLRQ RI WUDLQHG ZRUNHUV DQG SURPRWLRQ RI WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO 7KH SULPDU\ LVVXHV UHODWHG WR WUDLQLQJ LGHQWLILHG WKHQ DQG UHOHYDQW WRGD\ LQFOXGHG FRQWHQW PHWKRGRORJ\ VHOHFWLRQ DQG HYDOXDWLRQ %DUU\ DQG :ROI f 6HOHFWLRQ DQG 6WDQGDUGV :UHQQ f FRQVLGHUHG fWKH LVVXHV RI VHOHFWLRQ DQG VWDQGDUGV WR EH WKH PDMRU XQUHVROYHG SUREOHPV LQ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUDFWLWLRQHUV +H EHOLHYHG JUDGXDWH LQVWLWXWLRQV VKRXOG DFFHSW WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU DGPLWWLQJ LQWR WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV RQO\ WKRVH ZKR GHPRQVWUDWHG VRPH HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG VXFFHHG LQ WKH JUDGXDWH SURJUDP DQG RQ WKH MRE $QGHUVRQ f XUJHG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI VWDQGDUGV WKDW ZRXOG VHUYH DV FULWHULD IRU VHOHFWLRQ RI

PAGE 37

JUDGXDWH WUDLQHHV ,W ZDV EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH EHVW DSSOLFDQWV VKRXOG EH VRFLDOO\ VHQVLWLYH HPRWLRQDOO\ PDWXUH DQG LQWHOOHFWXUDOO\ DEOH :UHQQ f 7KH\ PXVW VKRZ HYLGHQFH RI VXIILFLHQW PRWLYDWLRQ WRZDUG WKH UROHV DQG IXQFWLRQ RI WKH ILHOG :RROI DQG :RROI f EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LQ WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI WUDLQHHV VKRXOG EH WKH SKLORVRSK\ DQG DWWLWXGH RI WKH FDQGLGDWH $ VWXG\ RI WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI VWXGHQWV IRU SUHSDUDWLRQ LQ FROOHJH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN UHYHDOHG DQ LQDGHTXDF\ RI H[LVWLQJ LQVWUXPHQWV WR PHDVXUH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV EHOLHYHG WR EH UHODWHG WR VXFFHVVIXO SHUIRUPDQFH LQ WKH ILHOG :HOOPDQ f 7KH VWXG\ DOVR UHYHDOHG D ODFN RI YDOLG REMHFWLYH FULWHULD IRU VHOHFWLRQ :HOOPDQ f $ ODWHU VWXG\ RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP DGPLVVLRQ SROLFLHV LQGLFDWHG D KHDY\ HPSKDVLV RQ SUHGLFWRUV RI DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV DV LQLWLDO VFUHHQLQJ FULWHULD VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWV JUDGH SRLQW DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ OHWWHUV *LPPHVWDG DQG *ROGVPLWK f 7KH LVVXH RI VWDQGDUGV KDV PRVW UHFHQWO\ EHHQ DGGUHVVHG ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI ZKDW VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG DFFHSWDEOH WUDLQLQJ LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DQG KRZ WKLV WUDLQLQJ DFFHSWDELOLW\ FRXOG EH PHDVXUHG 6WDPDWDNRV f DQDO\]HG :UHQQ DQG 'DUOH\nV f WUDGLWLRQDO FULWHULD RU SURIHVVLRQDOLVP 6WDPDWDNRV H[DPLQHG VWDQGDUGV RI DGPLVVLRQ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH E\ DGGUHVVLQJ VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV DUH H[SHFWHG WR KDYH RU DFWXDOO\ SRVVHVV DW WKH WLPH WKH\ HQWHU WKH SUDFWLFH RI WKH SURIHVVLRQ S f ,Q UHYLHZLQJ SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV 0LQHWWL 2VWURWK DQG +DQVRQ 1RWH f 6WDPDWDNRV f LQGLFDWHG WKDW FRPSHWHQFLHV EHOLHYHG WR EH LPSRUWDQW IRU VWDII WR SRVVHVV KDG EHHQ LGHQWLILHG ,Q D UHYLHZ RI SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK RQ WKH LVVXH RI SUHSDUDWLRQ VWDQGDUGV

PAGE 38

%URZQ &RXQFLO RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQV 1HZWRQ DQG +HOOHQJHU 1HZWRQ DQG 5LFKDUGVRQ 3DUNHU DQG 5HQW] f 6WDPDWDNRV f FRXOG ILQG QR HYLGHQFH WKDW Df HPSOR\HUV FRQVFLRXVO\ DWWHPSW WR GHWHUPLQH LI DSSOLFDQWV IRU SRVLWLRQV DFWXDOO\ SRVVHVV WKH H[SHFWHG FRPSHWHQFLHV Ef WKRVH KLUHG IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SRVLWLRQV GR SRVVHVV WKH H[SHFWHG FRPSHWHQFLHV Ff SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV HGXFDWH VSHFLILFDOO\ DQG DGHTXDWHO\ IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI DJUHHG XSRQ VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV S f &RQWHQW &RQWHQW IRU WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO KDV EHHQ WKH VRXUFH RI FRQVLGHUDEOH FRQWURYHUV\ DPRQJ SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ WKH ILHOG ,QLWLDO SURJUDPV VRXJKW WR SURYLGH VWURQJ JURXQGLQJ LQ FRXQVHOn LQJ DQG JXLGDQFH DV LW ZDV WKH EHOLHI WKDW VXFK ZDV WKH SULPDU\ EDFNn JURXQG QHFHVVDU\ WR DGHTXDWHO\ SUHSDUH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUDFWLWLRQn HUV :LOOLDPVRQ :UHQQ 0XHOOHU 3DUNHU f 3DUNHU f WRRN WKH SRVLWLRQ WKDW HGXFDWLRQ DV D FRXQVHORU EDVHG XSRQ DQ DGHTXDWH SKLORVRSK\ RI LQGLYLGXDO GHYHORSPHQW ZLWKLQ JXLGHOLQHV WKDW ZLOO EHQHILW WKH HQWLUH VRFLHW\ ZDV FUXFLDO WR DGHTXDWH IXQFWLRQLQJ DV DQ HIIHFWLYH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRU S f 7KH YDOXH RI DQ RYHUDOO JHQHUDOLVW DSSURDFK WR SUHSDUDWLRQ KDV EHHQ DFNQRZOHGJHG DQG VXSSRUWHG SULPDULO\ WKURXJK WKH HIIRUWV RI WKH SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQV &RXQFLO RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQV $PHULFDQ 3HUVRQQHO DQG *XLGDQFH $VVRFLDWLRQ $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ f 5RELQVRQ f DQDO\]HG VWDWHPHQWV DERXW SUHSDUDWLRQ JHQHUDWHG E\ HDFK RI WKH WKUHH SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQV WR GHWHUPLQH VXEVWDQWLYH DUHDV RI f

PAGE 39

UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG DXWKRULW\ f SXUSRVHV DQG JRDOV f SURSRVHG FXUULFXOXP DQG WUDLQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV DQG f HPSKDVLV DQG XQLTXH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ,Q WKH ILUVW FDWHJRU\ RI UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG DXWKRULW\ 5RELQVRQ IRXQG WKH $3*$ VWDWHPHQW WR EH WKH PRVW FRPSUHKHQVLYH LQ WKH VHFRQG FDWHJRU\ SXUSRVH DQG JRDOV WKH &263$ VWDWHPHQW ZDV WKH PRVW FRPSUHKHQVLYH 5RELQVRQ IRXQG JHQHUDO DJUHHPHQW DPRQJ DOO VWDWHPHQWV RQ WKH WKLUG FDWHJRU\ S f +H FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH WKUHH VWDWHPHQWV UHSUHVHQWHG JHQHUDO DJUHHPHQW RQ ZKDW RXJKW WR EH b LQFOXGHG LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DQG KH UHFRPPHQGHG VHHNLQJ FRQVHQVXV RQ RQH VWDWHPHQW IRU WKH ILHOG 6XFK FRQVHQVXV ZDV ERWK VRXJKW DQG DFKLHYHG YLD VXEVHTXHQW VWDWHPHQW UHYLVLRQV E\ $&3$ f DQG &263$ f ZKLFK UHIOHFWHG WKH FRRSHUDWLYH DJUHHPHQW UHFRPPHQGHG E\ 5RELQVRQ f $VVRFLDWLRQ VWDWHPHQWV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR RWKHU VWXGLHV 5KDWLJDQ 2n%DQLRQ f DQG HDUOLHU ZULWLQJV RI :LOOLDPVRQ f VXSSRUWHG WKH FODLP IRU D FRPPRQ FRUH RI NQRZOHGJH WKDW DOO VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VWDII VKRXOG SRVVHVV 2n%DQLRQ f GHYLVHG D FXUULFXOXP WKHRU\ ZKLFK VWDWHG WKDW SURJUDP LV GHULYHG IURP SXUSRVH DQG IXQFWLRQ S f +LV VWXG\ WR GHWHUPLQH WKH FRUH RI H[SHULHQFHV WKDW VKRXOG EH FRPPRQ WR DOO VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUDFWLWLRQHUV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQFOXGHG f SV\FKRORJ\ f FRXQVHOLQJ SULQFLSOHV DQG WHFKQLTXHV f SUDFWLFXP LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN f RYHUYLHZ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ f VWXG\ RI WKH FROOHJH VWXGHQW f VRFLRORJ\DQWKURSRORJ\ DQG f KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ +H DOVR IRXQG WKDW WKH XVH RI WKH FXUULFXODU WKHRU\ ZDV HIIHFWLYH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ D FRUH SURJUDP RI SUHSDUDWLRQ

PAGE 40

1XPHURXV VWXGLHV +RZW] 'DYLV :LOOLDPVRQ 5KDWLJDQ 5RFNH\
PAGE 41

3UHSDUDWLRQ 3URJUDPV LQ &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO f FDQ EH FODVVLILHG LQ RQH RI 5RGJHUVn IRXU W\SHV 7KH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO HGXFDWLRQ SURFHVVRXWFRPH PRGH UHIHUUHG WR DV 6SHG 3RP LV EDVHG XSRQ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW SULQFLSOHV ,W V\QWKHVL]HG HOHPHQWV RI OHDUQHU FHQWHUHG DQG FRPSHWHQF\EDVHG HGXFDWLRQ $UQHU 3HWHUVRQ $UQHU +DZNLQV 6SRRQHU 3HWHUVRQ 6SRRQHU f 7KH 6SHG 3RP PRGHO ZDV EXLOW RQ WKUHH FRPSRQHQWV VXEVWDQWLYH NQRZOHGJH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI VNLOOV DQG WHFKQLTXHV DQG SHUVRQDO GHYHORSPHQW DQG LQWHJUDWLRQ 6SRRQHU f UHFRJQL]HG WKDW REMHFWLYH DVVHVVPHQW WRROV ZHUH QHHGHG 7KH EHQHILWV RI WKH PRGHO ZHUH LWV ZLGH DUUD\ RI FRXUVHV DQG OHDUQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV DQG WKH HPSKDVLV RQ WUDLQLQJ WR D SHUVRQnV VWUHQJWKV %URZQ f EHOLHYHG WKH JUHDWHVW VWUHQJWK RI WKH PRGHO ZDV LWV EUHDNGRZQ RI HGXFDWLRQ DQG FRQWHQW DUHDV LQWR WKH WKUHH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG FRPSRQHQWV 5HQW] f SURSRVHG D WULDGLF PRGHO HPSKDVL]LQJ Df WKUHH LQWHUUHODWHG FRUHV RI OHDUQLQJ FODVVURRP LQWHUQVKLS DQG VHOIKRRGf DQG Ef D VKDULQJ WDVN IRUFH DQ LQWHJUDWLQJ DJHQW RI OHDUQLQJf 7KH PRGHO ZDV SURSRVHG DV D UHVXOW RI SHUFHLYHG ZHDNQHVVHV LQ HQWU\ OHYHO HPSOR\PHQW SRVLWLRQV UHODWHG MRE UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQ RI DQG E\ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV 5HQW] f VXSSRUWV +RZW] f VWURQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ IRU D ILHOG EDVHG LQWHUQVKLS FRQFXUUHQW ZLWK FODVVURRP ZRUN 2WKHU PRGHOV REVHUYHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH LQFOXGHG D VWXGHQW DFWLYLWLHV PRGHO 0HDERQ %DLOH\ :LWWHQ f D FRRSHUDWLRQ PRGHO +DUWOH\ f D PRODU PRGHO &DSOH f ILQDQFLDO DLG PRGHO %RE /HH f DQG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ PRGHO 3DLQWHU f 0LOOHU DQG 3ULQFH f SURSRVHG DQ LQWHJUDWHG PRGHO EDVHG XSRQ WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI

PAGE 42

FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ DUHDV RI JRDO VHWWLQJ DVVHVVPHQW LQVWUXFWLRQ FRQVXOWDWLRQ PLOLHX PDQDJHPHQW DQG HYDOXDWLRQ 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f LQGLFDWHG WKDW DFTXLVLWLRQ RI FULWLFDO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ VLPLODU DUHDV RI DVVHVVPHQW DQG HYDOXDWLRQ LQVWUXFWLRQ FRXQVHOLQJ DQG FRQVXOWDWLRQ VKRXOG EH WKH SULPDU\ IRFXV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 3UHSDUDWLRQ 3URJUDP $VVHVVPHQWV &RZOH\ f QRWHG WKH WHQGHQF\ WR PDNH DSSRLQWPHQWV WR NH\ SHUVRQQHO SRVLWLRQV IRU UHDVRQV KDYLQJ OLWWOH WR GR ZLWK SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU VXFK GXWLHV +LOO DQG *UHHQ f 6WDPDWDNRV f PDGH UHIHUHQFH WR WKH FURVVRYHUV HQWHULQJ RYHU ILHOG HYHU\ \HDU IURP RWKHU IDFXOW\ SRVLWLRQV EXVLQHVV LQGXVWU\ WKH PLOLWDU\ WKH FOHUJ\ DOO ZLWK OLWWOH RU QR SUHYLRXV WUDLQLQJ RU H[SHULHQFH LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZRUN 8SFUDIW f FRQFOXGHG WKDW IRUPDO SUHSDUDWLRQ KDV OLWWOH HIIHFW RQ WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SUDFWLWLRQHUVf SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKHLU ZRUN $W SUHVHQW SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DUH DGPLQLVWHUHG WKURXJK GHSDUWPHQWV RI FRXQVHOLQJ DQG JXLGDQFH SV\FKRORJ\ HGXFDWLRQDO $ SV\FKRORJ\ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ RU HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ :KHQ D VHSDUDWH SURJUDP H[LVWV LW LV LQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\ LQ QDWXUH LQYROYLQJ FRXUVH RIIHULQJV IURP D ZLGH UDQJH RI GHSDUWPHQWV ZLWK GLUHFW DIILOLDWLRQ WR FRXQVHOLQJ RU KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ *UHHQOHDI f &RVE\ f SHUFHLYHG WKH KHDY\ HPSKDVLV RQ FRXQVHOLQJ DV D VRXUFH RI UROH FRQIOLFW IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SUDFWLWLRQHUV KHDYLO\ HQJDJHG LQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ $ VWXG\ E\ &RPPLVVLRQ 9 RI WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $GPLQLVWUDWRUV 1$63$f RI WKH DWWLWXGHV RI EHKDYLRUDO VFLHQWLVWV WRZDUG WKH WUDLQLQJ DQG UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV UHYHDOHG WKDW D VLJQLILFDQW QXPEHU RI

PAGE 43

EHKDYLRUDO VFLHQWLVWV EHOLHYHG VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SUDFWLWLRQHUV ZHUH YHU\ LQDGHTXDWHO\ WUDLQHG DQG WKDW WKH\ ODFNHG D WKRURXJK XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH SUREOHPV ZLWK ZKLFK WKH\ GHDOW DQG WKH HIIHFWV RI WKHLU ZRUN RQ VWXGHQWV DQG IDFXOW\ 6PLWK 1RWH f 3HWHUVRQ f RIIHUHG D WKRURXJK VXPPDU\ RI WKH DVVHVVHG FULWLFLVPV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO HGXFDWLRQ KDV QRW EHHQ VXIILFLHQWO\ JURXQGHG LQ WKHRU\ DQG UHVHDUFK *UDGXDWH SURJUDPV KDYH EHHQ WRR HFOHFWLF 4XDOLW\ RI SURJUDPV LV LQFRQVLVWHQW )HZ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO HGXFDWRUV KDYH EHHQ WUDLQHG IRU WKHLU UROHV 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO HGXFDWRUV IDLO WR SUDFWLFH ZKDW WKH\ SUHDFK *UDGXDWH VWXGHQWV KDYH EHHQ XVHG DV FKHDS ODERU HJ UHVLGHQFH KDOOVf 5DWLR RI VWXGHQWV WR IDFXOW\ LV RIWHQ LQH[FXVDEOH 4XDOLW\ RI WKHVHV DQG GLVVHUWDWLRQV LV EHORZ PLQLPXP VWDQGDUGV $ QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ GRQH DVVHVVLQJ JUDGXDWH SUHSDUDn WLRQ SURJUDPV DW SDUWLFXODU LQVWLWXWLRQV 'DYLV %URHUWMHV %ROWRQ 0DUOHU f ,Q DVVHVVLQJ WKH RSLQLRQV RI UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV DV WR WKH TXDOLW\ DQG HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKHVH SURJUDPV WKH ILQGLQJV UHYHDOHG JHQHUDO VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH SURJUDPV ZLWK UHFRPn PHQGDWLRQ IRU LQFUHDVHG IRFXV RQ H[SHULHQWLDO FRPSRQHQWV SUDFWLFXPV DQG LQWHUQVKLSVf $ JHQHUDO SURILOH VWXG\ E\ .XK *UHHQOHH DQG /DUG\ f VXSSRUWHG WKHVH ILQGLQJV

PAGE 44

$ ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ RI WKH JUDGXDWH DVVLVWDQWVKLS ZRUN WUDLQLQJ H[SHULHQFH KLJKOLJKWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI H[SHULHQWLDO OHDUQLQJ LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 0F*RYHUQ DQG 7LQVOH\ f 9DULRXV WUHQGV LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ KDYH EHHQ REVHUYHG 7KHUH KDV EHHQ LQFUHDVHG HPSKDVLV RQ WUDLQLQJ IRU WKH JHQHUDOLVW UDWKHU WKDQ VSHFLDOLVWV (PPHW f 7KHUH LV D WUHQG DZD\ IURP FRXQVHOLQJ DQG JXLGDQFH FRXUVHV DV D SUHUHTXLVLWH IRU VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN (PPHW f 5LNHU f REVHUYHG WKDW SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DUH SODFLQJ PRUH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RQ VWXGHQWV IRU GHPRQVWUDWLQJ OHDUQLQJ DQG VNLOO DWWDLQPHQW DQG XWLOL]LQJ IDFXOW\ PRUH DV VXSHUYLVRUV DQG UHVRXUFH SHUVRQV +H EHOLHYHG WKDW DV WKH FRQFHSW RI FRPSHWHQF\EDVHG FXUULFXOXP UHFHLYHV JUHDWHU DWWHQWLRQ FDUHIXOO\ SODQQHG OHDUQLQJ PRGXOHV ZRXOG UHSODFH FRQWHQW FRXUVHV 1HHGV 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 3UDFWLFXPV DQG LQWHUQVKLSV KDYH EHHQ UHFRJQL]HG DV YDOXDEOH FRPSRQHQWV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV .LUNEULGH f UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW f SUDFWLFXPV EH RIIHUHG DW WKH HQG RI WKH IRUPDO WUDLQLQJ SURJUDP f JUHDWHU HPSKDVLV EH SODFHG RQ H[SRVXUH WR JHQHUDOLVWV WKDQ VSHFLDOLVWV f D WHDP RI VXSHUYLVRUV UDWKHU WKDQ LQGLYLGXDOV EH XWLOL]HG S f ,QFUHDVHG UHFRJQLWLRQ ZDV PDGH RI WKH QHHG WR DQDO\]H WUDLQLQJ FRQWHQW LQ WHUPV RI DFWXDO MRE IXQFWLRQ DQG MRE H[SHFWDWLRQV LQ DQ HIIRUW WR OHVVHQ WKH GLVSDULW\ EHWZHHQ WUDLQLQJ DQG MRE SHUIRUPDQFH %ODHVVHU DQG )URHOLFK 6WURXJKWRQ f 3UHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV PXVW LQFUHDVH WKHLU DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG PDQDJHPHQW RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ $SSOHWRQ %ULJJV

PAGE 45

5KDWLJDQ f 7KHUH KDV EHHQ D VWURQJ HQGRUVHPHQW IRU D VKDUSHU IRFXV RQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW %ODHVVHU 0F'DQLHO f $ VWXG\ E\
PAGE 46

'HYHORSLQJ EDVLF FRPSHWHQFLHV RI WKH VXFFHVVIXO SURIHVVLRQDO KDV EHHQ VHHQ DV WKH SXUSRVH RI SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ :ROIH f f :LOOLDPVRQ f LQ QRWLQJ WKH GLYHUVLW\ RI QHHGHG SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV DV D SUREOHP GLPHQVLRQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO WUDLQLQJ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI FRPSHWHQF\ LQ RQHnV RZQ VSHFLDOW\ DV ZHOO DV LQ WKHLU UROH ZLWK ZRUNLQJ ZLWK FROOHDJXHV IDFXOW\ DQG VWDIIf ZDV FULWLFDO 6WXGLHV KDYH EHHQ GRQH WR GHWHUPLQH VSHFLILF FRPSHWHQFLHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH DGHTXDWH IXQFWLRQ LQ SURIHVVLRQDO KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ /\QDP 'DYLHV f $ VWXG\ E\ 'RPHLHU f GHYHORSHG FRPSHWHQF\ WDVNV XVHG E\ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV DQG H[DPLQHG WKH WUDLQLQJ RI DGPLQLVWUDWRUV IRU WKH WDVNV 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV GLG QRW DJUHH RQ WKH DSSOLFDELOLW\ DQG IUHTXHQF\ RI XVLQJ WKH WDVNV LQ WKHLU SUHVHQW SRVLWLRQV 7KH\ DOVR GLG QRW DJUHH RQ WKH VRXUFHV RI WUDLQLQJ WKH\ KDG IRU HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ WDVN 0LQHWWL f GHYHORSHG D OLVW RI HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH ORFXV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ ZDV WKH IRUPDO VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP RU DQ DVVLVWDQWVKLS 2VWURWK f XWLOL]HG 0LQHWWLnV f FRPSHWHQFLHV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW FULWHULD HPSOR\HUV XVHG LQ HYDOXDWLQJ FDQGLGDWHV VHHNLQJ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQV LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV +DQVRQ 1RWH f JHQHUDWHG D OLVW RI FRPSHWHQFLHV XVLQJ WKH 'HOSKL WHFKQLTXH DQG FODVVLI\LQJ WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV DFFRUGLQJ WR GLPHQVLRQV RI WKH 7+( PRGHO 0LOOHU DQG 3ULQFH f $ VWXG\ E\ 1HZWRQ DQG +HOOHQJD f WR GHWHUPLQH DSSURSULDWH JRDOV REMHFWLYHV DQG D GLUHFWLRQ IRU VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW D FRPSHWHQF\ EDVHG DSSURDFK ZDV WKH SUHIHUUHG PRGH IRU WUDLQLQJ FRPSDUHG WR WUDGLWLRQDO FRXUVHFHQWHUHG DSSURDFKHV 5LNHU f DOVR FDOOHG IRU D

PAGE 47

PRYH WRZDUG D FRPSHWHQF\ EDVHG PRGXOH PRGHO LQ OLHX RI PRUH WUDGLn WLRQDO RIIHULQJV &RPSHWHQF\ DVVHVVPHQW KDV UHSUHVHQWHG DQ DSSURDFK WKDW HYDOn XDWHV SHUIRUPDQFHV MXGJHV DELOLW\ DQG PHDVXUHV ZKDW FDQ EH GHPRQVWUDWHG *ROGVPLWK f 1HZ ZD\V RI LGHQWLI\LQJ DQG PHDVXULQJ FRPSHWHQFLHV DUH QHHGHG WR DVVXUH WKDW WKH DELOLW\ WR SHUIRUP FRPSHWHQWO\ LV WKH XOWLPDWH JRDO 7KH SULPDU\ FRQFHUQ VKRXOG EH JLYHQ WR WKH DVVHVVPHQW DQG HYDOXDWLRQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO SHUIRUPDQFH RXWFRPHV 3RWWLQJHU f 'HOZRUWK DQG
PAGE 48

SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DQG WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG PHDVXUHPHQW RI FRPSHWHQFLHV LGHQWLILHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH 7KH QH[W FKDSWHU GHVFULEHV WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ DQG GHVLJQ GHYHORSHG DQG XWLOL]HG LQ LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 49

&+$37(5 ,,, 5(6($5&+ '(6,*1 $1' 0(7+2'2/2*< 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV GHVLJQHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV HGXFDWHG VSHFLILFDOO\ IRU WKH GHYHOn RSPHQW RI HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV 7KUHH JURXSV RI SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH WUDLQLQJ JUDGXDWHV ZLWK PDVWHUnV GHJUHHV UHFHLYHG LQ WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV IRU WKH HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG WR GHWHUPLQH WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII 7KLV FKDSWHU LGHQWLILHV DQG GHVFULEHV WKH IROORZLQJ DVSHFWV RI WKH VWXG\ UHVHDUFK REMHFWLYHV UHVHDUFK SRSXODWLRQV GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW HQGRUVHPHQW RI WKH VWXG\ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH LQVWUXn PHQW WUHDWPHQW RI WKH GDWD DQG D FKDSWHU VXPPDU\ 5HVHDUFK 2EMHFWLYHV 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH LI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV HGXFDWHG IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV 7KH REMHFWLYH RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV WR SURYLGH DQVZHUV WR WKH IROORZn LQJ UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV 'R UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI PDVWHUnV OHYHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ HQWHU WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZLWK WUDLQLQJ LQ HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV DV D UHVXOW RI WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV"

PAGE 50

'R FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ '2+f DQG IDFXOW\ )7Vf KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WUDLQLQJ UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ UHFHLYH IRU WKH LGHQWLILHG HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV" ,V LW LPSRUWDQW IRU UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV IURP VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV WR KDYH DFTXLUHG WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV SULRU WR IXOO WLPH HQWU\ LQWR WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG" 'R &6$2V '2+V DQG )7V KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV" 5HVHDUFK 3RSXODWLRQ 7KH UHVHDUFK SRSXODWLRQ IRU WKLV VWXG\ LQFOXGHG VHOHFWHG VDPSOHV RI FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf DQG GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DW IRXU \HDU SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH SRVW VHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG IDFXOW\ )7Vf HPSOR\HG DW LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK GHSDUWn PHQWV RIIHULQJ JUDGXDWH SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ OHDGLQJ WR D 0DVWHUnV GHJUHH $ UDQGRP VDPSOH RI &6$2V ZDV VHOHFWHG IURP WKH YRWLQJ GHOHJDWH GLUHFWRU\ RI WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $GPLQLVWUDWRUV 1$63$f 2QH KXQGUHG DQG IRUW\RQH '2+V DW LQVWLWXWLRQV ZKLFK KRXVH RU PRUH VWXGHQWV LQ XQLYHUVLW\RSHUDWHG UHVLGHQWLDO IDFLOLWLHV ZHUH VHOHFWHG IURP WKH GLUHFWRU\ RI WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $&8+2,f 2QH KXQGUHG DQG VL[W\WZR )7V ZHUH VHOHFWHG IURP WKH 'LUHFWRU\ RI *UDGXDWH 3UHSDUDWLRQ 3URJUDPV LQ &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ f 1R VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ UHSRUWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH ZKLFK LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI ERWK VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SUDFWLWLRQHUV DQG IDFXOW\ WUDLQn HUV UHJDUGLQJ WUDLQLQJ LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV IRU VSHFLILHG SURIHVn VLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV ,QGHHG WKHUH LV QR SXEOLVKHG UHVHDUFK WR

PAGE 51

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n VLRQDO DQG HGXFDWLRQDO UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU DOO SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII SRVLWLRQV LQ WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV GLYLVLRQ 'LUHFWRUV RI +RXVLQJ ZHUH VHOHFWHG EHFDXVH WKH\ UHSUHVHQW D VWXGHQW DIIDLUV GHSDUWPHQW ZKLFK IUHTXHQWO\ PDLQWDLQV D ODUJH QXPEHU RI SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII +RXVLQJ GHSDUWPHQWV SURYLGLQJ UHVLGHQFH IDFLOLWLHV IRU VWXGHQWV RU PRUH KLUH DQG SURYLGH IRU D ODUJHU QXPEHU RI SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII WKDQ GR KRXVLQJ GHSDUWPHQW ZKLFK SURYLGH IDFLOLWLHV IRU IHZ WKDQ VWXGHQWV 'HSDUWPHQWV RI WKDW VL]H DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR PDLQWDLQ DQ DQQXDO RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW ODUJH HQRXJK WR VXSSRUW D SURIHVVLRQDOO\ WUDLQHG UHVLGHQFH KDOO VWDII $ VWXG\ E\ 2VWURWK f VXSSRUWV WKH REVHUYDWLRQ WKDW E\ IDU PRUH HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDO SRVLWLRQV DUH DYDLODEOH LQ WKH KRXVLQJUHVLGHQFH OLIH GHSDUWPHQW WKDQ ZLWKLQ WKH RWKHU GHSDUWPHQWV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV )DFXOW\ ZHUH VHOHFWHG SULPDULO\ EHFDXVH WKH\ DVVXPH WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU SURYLGLQJ WKH IRUPDO DFDGHPLF DQG DSSOLHG SUHSDUDWLRQ LQ JUDGXDWH SURJUDPV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN 7KHLU UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LV WR GLUHFW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV ZKR

PAGE 52

UHSUHVHQW SURVSHFWLYH HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDOV LQWR WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH ,QVWUXPHQW ([WHQVLYH UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV RI FRPSHn WHQFLHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII
PAGE 53

'RPHLHU f GHGXFWLYHO\ JHQHUDWHG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FRPSHWHQF\ WDVNV XQGHU WKH IROORZLQJ FDWHJRULHV EXGJHW PDQDJHPHQW FRRSHUDWLYH UHODWLRQVKLSV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ OHDGHUVKLS SHUVRQQHO PDQDJHPHQW SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW UHVHDUFK DQG HYDOXDWLRQ DQG VWXGHQW FRQWDFW 7KLV UHVHDUFKHU DGGHG WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV WR WKH WD[RQRP\ GHYHORSHG IRU HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQF\ GHYLDWLRQ &RPSHWHQF\ WDVNV IURP 'RPHLHUnV VWXG\ ZKLFK RYHUODSSHG ZLWK +DQVRQnV VWXG\ ZHUH HOLPLQDWHG 0LQHWWL f GHULYHG HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV MXGJHG WR EH LPSRUWDQW IRU HQWU\ OHYHO VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII FRPSHWHQFLHV XQGHU WKH IROORZLQJ FDWHJRULHV +H LGHQWLILHG WKHVH FRXQVHOLQJ KXPDQ UHODWLRQV DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO VNLOOV WKHRU\ DQG SUDFWLFH RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG PDQDJHPHQW UHVHDUFK WHVWLQJ DQG PHDVXUHPHQW KLVWRULFDO SKLORVRSKLFDO DQG VRFLDO IRXQGDWLRQV PHHWLQJ VWXGHQW QHHGV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO SXUSRVH DQG UROH LGHQWLW\ 7KLV UHVHDUFKHU DGGHG FRPSHn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

PAGE 54

, *RDO 6HWWLQJ :ULWH EHKDYLRUDO REMHFWLYHV ,GHQWLI\ DQG DUWLFXODWH LQVWLWXWLRQnV JRDOV DQG SROLFLHV WR VWXGHQWV 7HDFK VWXGHQWV WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKHLU EHKDYLRU (QJDJH LQ V\VWHPDWLF SODQQLQJ ,, &RQVXOWDWLRQ 5HFRJQL]H DQG XVH H[SHUWLVH RI RWKHUV f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f ,9 $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ $VVHVV VWXGHQW QHHGV $QDO\]H DQG LQWHUSUHW SURJUDP QHHGV DQG UHTXHVWV 'HVLJQ VWXGHQW SURJUDPV EDVHG RQ VWXGHQW QHHGV ,QWHUSUHW DQG XQGHUVWDQG YDULRXV HYDOXDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV ,GHQWLI\ DQG XQGHUVWDQG YDULRXV HYDOXDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV 'HVLJQ DQG LPSOHPHQW D SURJUDP WR HYDOXDWH VWDII

PAGE 55

5HYLVH SURJUDPV RQ WKH EDVLV RI HYDOXDWLRQ GDWD 5HFRJQL]H DQG DQDO\]H LQWHUSHUVRQDO SUREOHPV 9 (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW 'HYHORS DQG DGPLQLVWHU D EXGJHW 2UJDQL]H UHVRXUFHV SHRSOH PDWHULDOf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f LQ ZKLFK DGYDQFHG GHJUHHV ZHUH HDUQHG DQG PHPEHUVKLS LQ SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQV 7KRVH UHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH SUDFWLWLRQHU LQVWUXPHQW ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH WKH QXPEHU RI WKHLU SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII ZKR KDYH EHHQ KLUHG LQ D ILUVW SURIHVVLRQDO VWXGHQW MRE VLQFH WKH\ KDYH VHUYHG DW WKHLU FXUUHQW SRVLWLRQ OHYHO DW WKHLU FXUUHQW LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG DQ\ SUHYLRXV LQVWLWXWLRQVf DQG KRZ PDQ\ VXFK

PAGE 56

HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII HDUQHG D 0DVWHUnV GHJUHH LQ D ILHOG UHODWHG WR VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KRVH UHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH IDFXOW\ LQVWUXPHQW ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH KRZ PDQ\ VWXGHQWV KDG JUDGXDWHG IURP WKH UHVSRQGHQWnV DFDGHPLF SURJUDP ZLWK D PDVWHUnV GHJUHH LI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV KDG HYHU FXUUHQWO\ RU DW RQH WLPHf VHUYHG LQ DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FDSDFLW\ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DQG LI VR LQ ZKDW FDSDFLW\ 3DUW ,, RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW UHTXHVWHG WKDW UHFLSLHQWV LQ HDFK VDPSOH UHVSRQG WR HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ E\ LQGLFDWLQJ f LI UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ KDYH SRVVHVVHG WKH FRPSHWHQF\ DQG f WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQn F\ IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ 7KH UHFLSLHQWV RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW ZHUH DVNHG WR UHVSRQG WZLFH WR HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ E\ FLUFOLQJ WKH QXPEHU ZKLFK EHVW UHIOHFWHG IROORZLQJ NH\ ,QGLFDWH WKH H[WHQW RI \RXU DJUHHPHQW ZLWK WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQW IRU HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ 5HFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ SRVVHVV WKLV FRPSHWHQF\ 3RVVHVVLRQ RI &RPSHWHQF\ 'LVDJUHH VWURQJO\'6f 'LVDJUHH 'f $JUHH $f $JUHH VWURQJO\ $6f WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ EDVHG RQ WKH ,QGLFDWH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK \RX EHOLHYH HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ LV LPSRUWDQW IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ ,PSRUWDQFH RI WKH &RPSHWHQF\ 1RW LPSRUWDQW 1,f 2I OLWWOH LPSRUWDQFH /,f ,PSRUWDQW ,f 1RW LPSRUWDQW 1,f 7KH LQVWUXPHQW ZDV SLORW WHVWHG DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD XVLQJ ILYH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VWDII DQG ILYH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV LQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP IRU VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KH SLORW WHVW UHTXHVWHG f UHVSRQGHQWVn HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV f UHVSRQGHQWVn XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH LQWHQW RI WKH VWXG\ DQG f DQ\ VXJJHVWLRQV WKH\ FRXOG RIIHU

PAGE 57

)HHGEDFN IURP D b UHWXUQ RQ WKH SLORW WHVW HQDEOHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR PDNH QHFHVVDU\ UHYLVLRQV DQG DOWHUDWLRQV LQ WKH LQVWUXPHQW W $OO FRPSHWHQFLHV ZHUH HYDOXDWHG WR EH DSSURSULDWH IRU XVH LQ WKH VWXG\ $V D UHVXOW RI WKH SLORW WHVW DQG H[WHQVLYH HYDOXDWLRQ DQG FULWLTXH E\ PHPEHUV RI WKH IDFXOW\ DQG VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII IDFH YDOLGLW\ ZDV DVVXPHG IRU WKH LQVWUXPHQW $OWKRXJK LW PD\ KDYH EHHQ SRVVLEOH WR JHQHUDWH VLPLODU GDWD E\ PHDQV RI RWKHU LQVWUXPHQWDWLRQ IRU H[DPSOH VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZVf WKUHH FRQVLGHUDWLRQV TXDOLILHG WKH XVH RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW f WKH H[WHQVLYH QDWXUH RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ WR EH JDWKHUHG DQG WKH FRQVHTXHQW GDWD DQDO\VLV f ILQDQFLDO DQG WLPH FRQVWUDLQWV DQG f WKH QHHG WR DYRLG WKH SRVVLEOH ELDV DQG VXEMHFWLYLW\ RQ WKH SDUW RI ERWK WKH UHVHDUFKHU DQG UHVSRQGHQWV %RUJ +LOOZD\ 0DFRE\ DQG 0DFRE\ DV FLWHG LQ 'RPHLHU S f (QGRUVHPHQW RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KDW WKH QHHG H[LVWV WR FRQGXFW DGGLWLRQDO UHVHDUFK LQ WKLV DUHD KDV UHFHLYHG VWURQJ VXSSRUW LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH 6DQGHHQ 6WDPDWDNRV 'RPHLHU 0LQHWWL 1HZWRQ DQG 5LFKDUGVRQ 5KDWLJDQ f 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ PD\ EH RI VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUHVW DQG YDOXH WR DOO SURIHVVLRQDOV ZKR SUDFWLFH DQG WHDFK LQ WKH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SURIHVVLRQ 7KH UHVXOWV PD\ SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ XVHIXO WR WKRVH ZKR SODQ DQG GHYHORS SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DV ZHOO DV SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH NLQG RI WUDLQLQJ HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDOV KDYH UHFHLYHG $ OHWWHU RI HQGRUVHPHQW IRU WKH VWXG\ ZDV SURYLGHG E\ WKH 9LFH 3UHVLGHQW RI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV DW WKH 8QLYHUn VLW\ RI )ORULGD WKH 6XSHUYLVRU RI WKH VWXG\ ZKRVH RZQ LQWHUHVWV LQ WKLV DUHD SDUDOOHO WKRVH RI WKH UHVHDUFKHU 7KH UHVHDUFKHU DOVR VRXJKW

PAGE 58

DQG REWDLQHG D OHWWHU RI VXSSRUW DQG HQGRUVHPHQW IURP WKH 5HVHDUFK DQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH RI WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $&8+2,f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f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n SRUW IRU WKH VWXG\ ZDV VHQW WZR ZHHNV DIWHU WKH ILUVW PDLORXW WR

PAGE 59

UHFLSLHQWV ZKR KDG IDLOHG WR UHVSRQG WR WKH LQLWLDO UHTXHVW 6HH $SSHQGL[f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n WHQF\ LPSRUWDQW RU QRW LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH DVVXPSWLRQ RI DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ 7KH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP 6$6f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nV OHYHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ HQWHU WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV

PAGE 60

ZLWK WUDLQLQJ LQ HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV DV D UHVXOW RI WKHLU WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV" 'R &6$26 '2+V DQG )7V KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WUDLQLQJ UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ UHFHLYH IRU WKH LGHQWLILHG HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV" ,V LW LPSRUWDQW IRU UHFHQW PDVWHUn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nV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW ZDV SHUIRUPHG WR GHWHUPLQH EHWZHHQ ZKDW JURXSV D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH H[LVWHG &KDSWHU 6XPPDU\ 7KH GHVLJQ DQG PHWKRGRORJ\ HQFRUSRUDWHG LQ WKH VWXG\ KDV EHHQ RXWOLQHG LQ WKLV FKDSWHU FRQVLVWLQJ RI Df UHVHDUFK REMHFWLYHV Ef UHVHDUFK SRSXODWLRQV Ff GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW Gf

PAGE 61

HQGRUVHPHQW RI WKH VWXG\ Hf DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW DQG If WUHDWPHQW RI WKH GDWD &KDSWHU ,9 SUHVHQWHG D GHWDLOHG UHYLHZ DQG GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH GDWD REWDLQHG LQ WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 62

&+$37(5 ,9 35(6(17$7,21 2) 7+( '$7$ 7KH GDWD SUHVHQWHG LQ WKLV FKDSWHU ZHUH FROOHFWHG IURP D UHn VHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW DGPLQLVWHUHG WR WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV IDFXOW\ )7Vf DW LQVWLWXWLRQV RIIHULQJ PDVWHUnV GHJUHH SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf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nV OHYHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ HQWHU WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZLWK WUDLQLQJ LQ HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV DV D UHVXOW RI WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV" 'R FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG IDFXOW\ )7Vf KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WUDLQLQJ UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ UHFHLYH IRU WKH LGHQWLILHG HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV"

PAGE 63

,V LW LPSRUWDQW IRU UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV IURP VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV WR KDYH DFTXLUHG WKHVH FRPSHn WHQFLHV SULRU WR IXOO WLPH HQWU\ LQWR WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG" 'R &6$2V '2+V DQG )7V KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV" 2I WKH &6$2V '2+V DQG )7V ZKR ZHUH PDLOHG D FRS\ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW bf XVHDEOH LQVWUXPHQWV ZHUH UHWXUQHG $ EUHDNn GRZQ RI WKH UDWH RI UHWXUQ LQGLFDWHG WKDW RI bf &6$2V RI bf '2+V DQG RI bf RI )7V UHSUHVHQWLQJ bf RI WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV UHWXUQHG XVDEOH LQVWUXPHQWV 7KH GDWD LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV FKDSWHU DUH SUHVHQWHG WR DGGUHVV WKH ? IRXU TXHVWLRQV IRU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ DQG ZLOO EH RUJDQL]HG LQ WR WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQV Df GHPRJUDSKLF SURILOH RI UHVSRQGHQWV Ef GDWD RQ SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV Ff GDWD RQ LPSRUWDQFH RI FRPSHn WHQFLHV Gf VWDWLVWLFDO FRPSDULVRQV DPRQJ JURXSV DQG Hf D FKDSWHU VXPPDU\ $ FRS\ RI WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW DSSHDUV LQ $SSHQGL[ $ 'HPRJUDSKLF 3URILOH RI 5HVSRQGHQWV $ VXPPDU\ RI GHPRJUDSKLF LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU UHVSRQGHQWV LQ DOO WKUHH JURXSV LV SURYLGHG LQ 7DEOH 7RWDO UHVSRQGHQWV WR WKH VWXG\ ZHUH LQFOXGLQJ )7V '2+V DQG &6$2V 5HVSRQVHV WR WKH LWHP SHUWDLQLQJ WR LQVWLWXWLRQDO W\SH UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH PDMRULW\ RI DOO UHVSRQGHQWV bf DUH FXUUHQWO\ HPSOR\HG DW SXEOLF LQVWLWXWLRQV 7KHUH ZHUH VRPH GLIIHUHQFHV RQ WKLV LWHP EHWZHHQ JURXSV $Q RYHUn ZKHOPLQJ PDMRULW\ bf RI )7V DQG '2+V bf ZHUH HPSOR\HG LQ WKH SXEOLF VHFWRU ZKLOH WKH &6$2 JURXS UHSRUWHG D VRPHZKDW VPDOOHU QXPEHU ZRUNLQJ LQ SXEOLF KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ bf

PAGE 64

7$%/( '(02*5$3+,& 352),/( )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(5n6 &6$2Vf &+$5$&7(5,67,& )7V '2+V &6$2V &808/$7,9( 1 3HUFHQW 1 3HUFHQW 1 3HUFHQW 1 3HUFHQW ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 7\SH 3XEOLF 3ULYDWH ,QVWLWXWLRQDO (QUROOPHQW 8QGHU f§ f RYHU 7LPH DW &XUUHQW 3RVLWLRQ /HYHO /HVV WKDQ ILYH \HDUV \HDUV \HDUV PRUH WKDQ \HDUV

PAGE 65

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG &+$5$&7(5,67,&6 )7V 1 3HUFHQW 7LPH (PSOR\HG LQ 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ /HVV WKDQ \HDUV \HDUV \HDUV PRUH WKDQ \HDUV $JH \HDUV \HDUV \HDUV RYHU \HDUV +LJKHVW (DUQHG 'HJUHH %DFKHORUnV f§ 0DVWHUnV 6SHFLDOLVW f§ 'RFWRUDWH '2+V &6$2V &808/$7,9( 3HUFHQW 1 3HUFHQW 1 3HUFHQW FQ RR

PAGE 66

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG &+$5$&7(5,67,& )7V 1 $GYDQFHG 'HJUHH LQ D )LHOG 5HODWHG WR +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 0DVWHUV
PAGE 67

7KH SRSXODWLRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ UHSRUWHG PXFK YDULDWLRQ LQ WKH VL]H RI UHVSHFWLYH HPSOR\LQJ LQVWLWXWLRQV 1R FOHDU PDMRULW\ RI WKH SRSn XODWLRQ ZRUNHG LQ D SDUWLFXODU VL]H LQVWLWXWLRQ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR HQUROOn PHQW DOWKRXJK WKH ODUJHVW QXPEHU bf ZRUNHG LQ LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK HQUROOPHQWV RYHU VWXGHQWV $JDLQ WKHUH ZHUH GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ WKH JURXSV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR HQUROOPHQW DW HPSOR\LQJ LQVWLWXWLRQV $ PDMRULW\ RI )7V bf UHSRUWHG HPSOR\PHQW DW LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK RYHU HQUROOHG VWXGHQWV 0RUH '2+V bf ZRUNHG DW ODUJH LQVWLWXWLRQV RI RYHU VWXGHQWV EXW WKHLU QXPEHUV ZHUH PRUH HTXDOO\ VSUHDG DPRQJ WKH RWKHU VL]H UDQJHV ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH XQGHU FDWHJRU\ 1R '2+V UHSRUWHG HPSOR\PHQW LQ LQVWLWXWLRQV RI WKDW VL]H QRW VXUSULVLQJ JLYHQ WKH IDFW WKDW DOO '2+V LQ WKH SRSXODWLRQ GLUHFWHG SURJUDPV ZKLFK KRXVHG RU PRUH VWXGHQWV RQ FDPSXV 7KH ODUJHVW QXPEHU RI &6$2V bf UHSRUWHG HPSOR\PHQW DW LQVWLWXn WLRQV ZLWK HQUROOPHQW XQGHU 7KH ODUJHVW QXPEHU RI WKH WRWDO SRSXODWLRQ bf UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH\ KDG EHHQ HPSOR\HG DW WKHLU FXUUHQW SRVLWLRQ OHYHO IRU OHVV WKDQ ILYH \HDUV 9DULDWLRQV DPRQJ WKH JURXSV UHYHDOHG WKDW D ODUJH QXPEHU RI )7V bf KDG ZRUNHG DW WKHLU FXUUHQW OHYHO IRU RYHU \HDUV ZLWK WKH QH[W ODUJHVW JURXS RI )7V bf UHSRUWLQJ HPSOR\PHQW DW WKHLU FXUUHQW OHYHO IRU \HDUV %RWK SUDFWLWLRQHU JURXSV GLIIHUHG ZLWK )7V 7KH PDMRULW\ RI '2+V bf UHSRUWHG HPSOR\PHQW DW WKHLU FXUUHQW OHYHO IRU OHVV WKDQ ILYH \HDUV 7KH JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI &6$2V KDYH ZRUNHG DW WKHLU FXUUHQW OHYHO HLWKHU IRU OHVV WKDQ ILYH \HDUV bf RU IURP \HDUV bf

PAGE 68

7KH PDMRULW\ RI WKH SRSXODWLRQ RI UHVSRQGHQWV UHSRUWHG HPSOR\n PHQW LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUVKLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ IRU PRUH WKDQ \HDUV bf 7KLV ZDV FRQVLVWHQW DPRQJ DOO WKUHH JURXSV ZLWK WKH ODUJHVW QXPEHU RI HDFK JURXS UHSRUWLQJ VXFK DQ HPSOR\PHQW FRPPLWPHQW IRU RYHU \HDUV 7KH ODUJHVW SRUWLRQ RI WKH SRSXODWLRQ UHSRUWHG WKHLU DJHV EHWZHHQ \HDUV bf 7KLV ZDV FRQVLVWHQW DPRQJ HDFK RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV ZLWK WKH ODUJHVW SHUFHQWDJH RI HDFK JURXS UHSRUWLQJ WKLV DJH UDQJH 7KH PDMRULW\ RI WKH SRSXODWLRQ LQGLFDWHG WKDW D GRFWRUDWH ZDV WKH KLJKHVW HDUQHG GHJUHH bf 6RPH GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ JURXSV UHYHDOn HG WKDW )7V UHSRUWHG WKH KLJKHVW QXPEHU RI HDUQHG GRFWRUDWHV bf IROORZHG E\ &6$2V bf DQG '2+V bf 'LIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV ZHUH QRWHG DPRQJ UHVSRQn GHQWV ZLWK DGYDQFHG GHJUHHV LQ D ILHOG UHODWHG WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ )7V UHSRUWHG WKH ODUJHVW SHUFHQWDJH RI GRFWRUDWHV bf IROORZHG E\ &6$26 bf DQG '2+V bf '2+V UHSRUWHG WKH ODUJHVW SHUFHQn WDJH RI PDVWHUnV GHJUHHV HDUQHG LQ D ILHOG UHODWHG WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ bf IROORZHG E\ &6$2V bf DQG )7V bf $OO UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH WKH LQVWLWXWLRQVf ZKHUH DQ\ DGYDQFHG GHJUHHV ZHUH HDUQHG $ VXPPDU\ RI UHVSRQVHV LQGLFDWHG WKDW SDUWLFXODU LQVWLWXWLRQV ZHUH WKH FKRLFH RI PDQ\ RI WKH UHVSRQn GHQWV $PRQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQV LGHQWLILHG DV WKRVH ZKHUH )7V HDUQHG PDVWHUnV GHJUHHV 7HDFKHUnV &ROOHJH RI &ROXPELD 8QLYHUVLW\ f DQG ,QGLDQD 8QLYHUVLW\ f ZHUH QDPHG PRVW )7V LGHQWLILHG GLIIHUn HQW LQVWLWXWLRQV ZKHUH WKHLU GRFWRUDO GHJUHHV ZHUH HDUQHG ZLWK ,QGLDQD

PAGE 69

8QLYHUVLW\ f 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH f 2KLR 6WDWH f 7HDFKHUnV &ROOHJH &ROXPELD f )ORULGD 6WDWH f DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ RI ,RZD f QDPHG PRVW RIWHQ &6$2V LGHQWLILHG GLIIHUHQW LQVWLWXWLRQV ZKHUH WKH JURXS HDUQHG PDVWHUnV GHJUHHV 6RXWKHUQ ,OOLQRLV 8QLYHUVLW\ f 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH f 6\UDFXVH 8QLYHUVLW\ f DQG ,QGLDQD 8QLYHUVLW\ f ZHUH QDPHG PRVW RIWHQ &6$2V LGHQWLILHG GLIIHUHQW LQVWLWXWLRQV ZKHUH WKH JURXS UHSRUWHG HDUQLQJ GRFWRUDO GHJUHHV ,QGLDQD 8QLYHUVLW\ f 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH f 2KLR 6WDWH f DQG )ORULGD 6WDWH f ZHUH QDPHG PRVW RIWHQ '2+V LGHQWLILHG GLIIHUHQW LQVWLWXWLRQV ZKHUH WKH JURXS UHSRUWHG HDUQLQJ PDVWHUnV GHJUHHV ,QGLDQD 8QLYHUVLW\ f DQG 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH f ZHUH WKH RQO\ LQVWLWXWLRQV QDPHG E\ PRUH WKDQ WZR '2+V '2+V DV D JURXS UHSRUWHG WKH VPDOOHVW QXPEHU KDYLQJ HDUQHG D GRFWRUDWH f 2I WKDW QXPEHU LQVWLWXWLRQV ZHUH LGHQWLn ILHG E\ WKH JURXS DV WKH GHJUHH JUDQWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQ ,QGLDQD 8QLYHUVLW\ f DQG 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH f ZHUH WKH RQO\ LQVWLWXWLRQV QDPHG E\ PRUH WKDQ WZR '2+V 0HPEHUVKLS LQ SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQV ZDV UHYLHZHG IRU WKH WRWDO SRSXODWLRQ ,W LV LQGLFDWHG LQ 7DEOH WKDW WKH ODUJHVW QXPEHU RI UHVSRQGHQWV bf UHSRUWHG PHPEHUVKLS LQ WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $GPLQLVWUDWRUV 1$63$f IROORZHG E\ PHPEHUVKLS LQ $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ $&3$f bf $ ODUJH QXPEHU RI UHVSRQGHQWV bf UHSRUWHG PHPEHUVKLS LQ SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQV RWKHU WKDQ WKRVH LGHQWLILHG RQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW 7KH WZR SUDFWLWLRQHU JURXSV LQ WKH SRSXODWLRQ '2+V DQG &6$2Vf ZHUH DVNHG WR UHVSRQG WR WZR VSHFLILF TXHVWLRQV 7KHLU UHVSRQVHV WR

PAGE 70

7$%/( 63(&,),& 35$&7,7,21(5 5(6321'(17 '2+ $1' &6$2f '$7$ ', &6$2 &KDUDFWHULVWLF 3HUFHQW 3HUFHQW 1XPEHU RI \RXU VWDII KLUHG LQ ILUVW SURIHVVLRQDO VWXGHQW DIIDLUV MRE VLQFH HPSOR\HG DW FXUUHQW SRVLWLRQ OHYHO /HVV WKDQ PRUH WKDQ L 2n /2 1XPEHU RI \RXU VWDII KLUHG LQ ILUVW SURIHVVLRQDO VWXGHQW DIIDLUV MRE ZLWK PDVWHUnV GHJUHH LQ ILHOG UHODWHG WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ /HVV WKDQ PRUH WKDQ

PAGE 71

WKHVH LWHPV DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH (DFK JURXS ZDV DVNHG WR UHSRUW WKH QXPEHU RI IXOO WLPH VWDII WKH\ KDG KLUHG LQ D ILUVW SURn IHVVLRQDO VWXGHQW DIIDLUV MRE VLQFH EHLQJ HPSOR\HG DW WKHLU FXUUHQW SRVLWLRQ OHYHO 7KH ODUJHVW SHUFHQWDJHV RI ERWK '2+V DQG &6$2V UHSRUWHG KLULQJ PRUH WKDQ VXFK VWDII '2+ b &6$2 bf '2+V DQG &6$2V ZHUH HDFK DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH KRZ PDQ\ RI WKHVH QHZO\ KLUHG VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII KDG HDUQHG D PDVWHUnV GHJUHH LQ D ILHOG UHODWHG WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 7KH UHVXOWV UHYHDOHG D VPDOOHU SHUFHQWDJH RI HDFK JURXS KDG KLUHG PRUH WKDQ VWDII WUDLQHG LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ '2+ b &6$2 bf )7V ZHUH DVNHG WR UHVSRQG WR WKUHH LWHPV LQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQn VWUXPHQW VSHFLILF WR WKHLU JURXS ,W LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH WKDW WKH ODUJHVW SHUFHQWDJH RI )7V bf UHSRUWHG WKDW LQ WKH WLPH WKH\ KDG VHUYHG DV D IDFXOW\ PHPEHU DW WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH LQVWLWXWLRQ RYHU VWXGHQWV KDG UHFHLYHG D PDVWHUnV GHJUHH IURP WKDW SDUWLFXODU SUHn SDUDWLRQ SURJUDP 0RVW )7V bf ZHUH QRW FXUUHQWO\ VHUYLQJ LQ D DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FDSDFLW\ LQ HLWKHU DFDGHPLF RU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DQG PDQ\ bf KDYH QHYHU VHUYHG LQ DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FDSDFLW\ LQ HLWKHU VWXGHQW RU DFDGHPLF DIIDLUV $PRQJ WKRVH )7V ZKR FXUUHQWO\ VHUYH RU KDYH VHUYHG LQ DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FDSDFLW\ LQ VWXGHQW RU DFDGHPLF DIIDLUV WKH ODUJHVW SHUFHQWDJHV UHSRUWHG VHUYLFH LQ UHVLGHQFH KDOOKRXVLQJ bf FRXQVHOLQJ FHQWHU bf RU GHDQ RI VWXGHQWV RIILFH bf 'DWD RQ 3RVVHVVLRQ RI &RPSHWHQFLHV 2QH RI WKH IRXU SULPDU\ REMHFWLYHV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU JUDGXDWH WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ZHUH DFWXDOO\ SUHSDULQJ UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH UHFLSLHQWV ZLWK

PAGE 72

7$%/( 63(&,),& )$&8/7< 5(6321'(17 )7f '$7$ &+$5$&7(5,67,& 1 3(5&(17 1XPEHU RI VWXGHQWV JUDGXDWLQJ IURP \RXU DFDGHPLF SURJUDP ZLWK D PDVWHUnV GHJUHH VLQFH \RX KDYH EHHQ HPSOR\HG LQ \RXU FXUUHQW SURIHVVLRQDO FDSDFLW\ /HVV WKDQ O 2n /Q 0RUH WKDQ &XUUHQWO\ VHUYLQJ LQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FDSDFLW\ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RU DFDGHPLF DIIDLUV
PAGE 73

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG &+$5$&7(5,67,& &XUUHQW RU SUHYLRXV DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VHUYLFH 5HVLGHQFH +DOOV+RXVLQJ 6WXGHQW $FWLYLWLHV8QLRQV )LQDQFLDO $LG &RXQVHOLQJ &HQWHU &DUHHU 3ODQQLQJ3ODFHPHQW 'HDQ RI 6WXGHQWV 2IILFH &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHU $FDGHPLF 'HSDUWPHQW +HDG &KLHI $FDGHPLF 2IILFHU )7 3(5&(17

PAGE 74

f WUDLQLQJ LQ WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV QHFHVVDU\ WR IXQFWLRQ HIIHFWLYHO\ LQ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KLV REMHFWLYH ZDV VWDWHG DV UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ RQH 'R UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI PDVWHUnV OHYHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ HQWHU WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZLWK WUDLQLQJ LQ HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV DV UHVXOW RI WKHLU SUHn SDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV" 7KH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ FRQWDLQHG FRPSHWHQF\ LWHPV RUJDQL]HG LQ ILYH FRQFHSWXDO FDWHJRULHV 7KRVH FDWHJRULHV ZHUH *RDO 6HWWLQJ ,, &RQVXOWDWLRQ ,,, &RPPXQLFDWLRQ ,9 $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ 9 (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW 7KH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH WKUHH UHVHDUFK JURXSV SHUFHLYHG WKDW UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV HQWHU WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZLWK WUDLQLQJ LQ WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ DVNLQJ HDFK JURXS RI SDUWLFLSDQWV WR DVVHVV WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ SHUFHLYHG UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV WR KDYH SRVVHVVHG HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ (DFK JURXS RI SDUWLFLSDQWV ZDV DVNHG WR DVVHVV SRVVHVVLRQ WKURXJK WKHLU UHVSRQVH WR WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQW IRU HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ 5HFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV SRVVHVV WKLV FRPSHWHQF\ (DFK SDUWLFLSDQW LQ WKH VWXG\ UHVSRQGHG WR WKH VWDWHPHQW RQ WKH IROORZLQJ IRXUSRLQW VFDOH 3RVVHVVLRQ RI WKH &RPSHWHQF\ $JUHH VWURQJO\ $6f $JUHH $f 'LVDJUHH 'f 'LVDJUHH VWURQJO\ '6f

PAGE 75

7KH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK HDFK JURXS DJUHHG ZLWK WKH VWDWHPHQW IRU HDFK FDWHJRU\ DQG FRPSHWHQF\ SURYLGHG WKH PHDVXUH WR GHWHUPLQH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK HDFK JURXS SHUFHLYHG UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV WR EH LQ SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV 0HDQ VFRUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK FDWHJRU\ DQG FRPSHWHQF\ ZHUH UHSRUWHG DQG H[DPLQHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK HDFK JURXS DJUHHG ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV E\ UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV 'LIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ JURXSV UHJDUGLQJ WKH H[WHQW RI WKHLU DJUHHPHQW ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ ZLOO EH H[n DPLQHG ODWHU LQ WKH VWXG\ *RDO 6HWWLQJ 0HDQ VFRUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI IDFXOW\ )7Vf GLUHFWRUnV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI JRDO VHWWLQJ DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH )RU DOO JURXSV WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUHV IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW RQ SRVVHVVLRQ ZHUH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R WHDFK VWXGHQW WR GHDO ZLWK WKH FRQVHn TXHQFHV RI WKHLU EHKDYLRU 7KH ORZHVW )7 PHDQ VFRUH IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW RQ SRVVHVVLRQ ZDV IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R ZULWH JRDOV DQG REMHFWLYHV f 7KH ORZHVW PHDQ VFRUHV IRU ERWK '2+V f DQG &6$2V f ZHUH IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW RQ SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHn WHQF\ 1R HQJDJH LQ V\VWHPDWLF SODQQLQJ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU '2+V f DQG &6$2V f LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ WRZDUG WKH GLVDJUHH UHVSRQVH UDQJH RQ SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU )7V IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI JRDO VHWWLQJ f LQGLFDWHG D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ WRZDUG WKH DJUHH

PAGE 76

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) $*5((0(17 :,7+ 3266(66,21 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) *2$/ 6(77,1* &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' *RDO 6HWWLQJ :ULWH *RDOV DQG 2EMHFWLYHV ,GHQWLI\ DQG $UWLFXODWH ,QVWLWXWLRQnV JRDOV DQG SROLFLHV WR VWXGHQWV 7HDFK VWXGHQWV WR GHDO ZLWK WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKHLU EHKDYLRU (QJDJH LQ V\VWHPDWLF SODQQLQJ DQ E Q F Q

PAGE 77

UDQJH RQ SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ KLV FDWHJRU\ 6WDQGDUG GHYLDn WLRQV IRU DOO JURXSV RQ DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV ZHUH OHVV WKDQ ,, &RQVXOWDWLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHn WHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RQVXOWDWLRQ DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH )RU DOO JURXSV WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUHV ZHUH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R 0 UHFRJQL]H DQG XVH RI RWKHUV 7KH ORZHVW )7 PHDQ VFRUH ZDV IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R IDFLOLWDWH VWDII GHYHORSPHQW WKURXJK LQ VHUYLFH WUDLQLQJ f '2+V UHSRUWHG WKH ORZHVW PHDQ VFRUH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R IDFLOLWDWH JURXS SUREOHP VROYLQJ DQG JURXS GHFLVLRQn PDNLQJ f 7KH ORZHVW &6$2 PHDQ VFRUH ZDV IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R IDFLOLWDWH VWDII GHYHORSPHQW WKURXJK LQVHUYLFH WUDLQLQJ f 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU )7V IRU HYHU\ FRPSHWHQF\ LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ DQG IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ LWVHOI f ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ WRZDUG WKH DJUHH UHVSRQVH UDQJH RU SRVVHVn VLRQ IRU WKLV FDWHJRU\ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV 0HDQ VFRUHV RI '2+V IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ ZHUH OHVV WKDQ 0HDQ VFRUHV RI '2+V f DQG &6$2V f RQ SRVVHVVLRQ IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RQVXOWDWLRQ ZHUH OHVV WKDQ LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH GLVDJUHH UHVSRQVH UDQJH IRU WKLV FDWHJRU\ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV 6WDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK UHVSRQGHQW JURXS ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV ,OO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUH IRU )7V f ZDV IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R PDNH HIIHFWLYH XVH RI YHUEDO DQG QRQYHUEDO VNLOOV LQ JURXS

PAGE 78

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) $*5((0(17 :,7+ 3266(66,21 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) &2168/7$7,21 )7 '2+ &6$2 &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' ,, &RQVXOWDWLRQ 5HFRJQL]H DQG 8VH ([SHUWLVH RI 2WKHUV )DFLOLWDWH *URXS 3UREOHP 6ROYLQJ DQG *URXS 'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJ )DFLOLWDWH 6WDII 'HYHORSPHQW 7KURXJK ,Q6HUYLFH 7UDLQLQJ :RUN (IIHFWLYHO\ :LWK $ 'LYHUVLW\ Q Q Q ,QGLYLGXDO 6WXGHQWV

PAGE 79

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) $*5((0(17 :,7+ 3266(66,21 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) &20081,&$7,21 )7 '2+ &6$2 &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' ,,, &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $QDO\]H DQG :ULWH 0HDQV DQG 5HSRUWV 0DNH (IIHFWLYH OOVH RI 9HUEDO DQG 1RQYHUEDO 6NLOOV LQ *URXS 3UHVHQWDWLRQV 3HUFHLYH DQG $FFXUDWHO\ ,QWHUn SUHW $WWLWXGHV %HOLHIV DQG 1HHGV RI 2WKHUV 5HSUHVHQW 6WXGHQW &RQFHUQV WR 2WKHU &DPSXV *URXSV 5HFRJQL]H DQG 'HILQH &RQILn GHQWLDOLW\ 3UDFWLFHV DQG 3URFHGXUHV 'HWHUPLQLQJ 8VDJH RI 2IILFH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URFHGXUHV D Q E Q F Q

PAGE 80

SUHVHQWDWLRQV '2+V f DQG &6$2V f HDFK LQGLFDWHG D KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUH IRU SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQF\ 1R UHFRJQL]H DQG GHILQH FRQILGHQWLDOLW\ SUDFWLFHV DQG SURFHGXUHV $OO WKUHH JURXSV UHSRUWHG ORZHVW PHDQ VFRUHV RQ SRVVHVVLRQ IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R GHWHUPLQLQJ XVH RI RIILFH PDQDJHPHQW SURFHGXUHV 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU )7V IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ f ZDV DERYH 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU '2+V f DQG &6$2V f IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ ZHUH OHVV WKDQ LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFn WLRQ WRZDUG WKH GLVDJUHH UDQJH ZLWK UHVSHFW WR SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHn WHQFLHV LQ WKH WKLV FDWHJRU\ 6WDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK UHVSRQGHQW JURXS ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ ,9 $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDn WLRQV IRU HDFK RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH )RU DOO JURXSV WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUHV ZHUH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R UHFRJQL]H DQG DQDO\]H LQWHUn SHUVRQDO SUREOHPV (DFK JURXS UHSRUWHG D ORZHVW PHDQ VFRUH IRU D GLIIHUHQW FRPSHWHQF\ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU &6$2V ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU HYHU\ FRPSHWHQF\ LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU HDFK JURXS IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ ZHUH OHVV WKDQ LQGLn FDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ WRZDUG WKH GLVDJUHH UDQJH RQ SRVVHVVLRQ IRU FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ 6WDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK JURXS ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ 9 (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW 0HDQ VFRUHV VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI WKH WKUHH UHVHDUFK JURXSV IRU H[WHQW RI DJUHHn PHQW ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI (QYLURQn PHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH

PAGE 81

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) $*5((0(17 :,7+ 3266(66,21 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) $66(660(17 $1' (9$/8$7,21 &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< )7n D '2+E & &6$2 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' ,9 $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ $VVHVV 6WXGHQW 1HHGV $QDO\]H DQG ,QWHUSUHW 3URJUDP 1HHGV DQG 5HTXHVWV 'HVLJQ 6WXGHQW 3URJUDPV %DVHG RQ 6WXGHQW 1HHGV ,QWHUSUHW DQG 8QGHUVWDQG 9DULRXV (YDOXDWLRQ 6WUDWHJLHV ,GHQWLI\ DQG 8QGHUVWDQG 9DULRXV (YDOXDWLYH 6WUDWHJLHV 'HVLJQ DQG ,PSOHPHQW D 3URJUDP WR (YDOXDWH 6WDII 5HYLVH 3URJUDPV RQ WKH %DVLV RI (YDOXDWLRQ 'DWD 5HFRJQL]H DQG $QDO\]H ,QWHUSHUn VRQDO 3UREOHPV D E F Q Q Q

PAGE 82

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2,,Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) $*5((0(17 :,7+ 3266(66,21 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) (19,5210(17$/ $1' 25*$1,=$7,21 0$1$*(0(17 D E & )7 '2+ &6$2 &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 9 (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW 'HYHORS DQG $GPLQLVWHU D %XGJHW 2UJDQL]H 5HVRXUFHV 3HRSOH 0DWHULDOf WR FDUU\ RXW 3URJUDP $FWLYLWLHV 8QGHUVWDQG ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 0LVVLRQ 2EMHFWLYHV ([SHFWDWLRQV .QRZ DQG 8WLOL]H (IIHFWLYH 'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJ 6WUDWHJLHV $FFHSW $XWKRULW\ DQG 5HVSRQVLn ELOLWLHV DQG 'HOHJDWH DV $SSURSULDWH ,GHQWLI\ DQG 8WLOL]H $YDLODEOH )LQDQFLDO 5HVRXUFHV 0HGLDWH &RQIOLFW $PRQJ 6WXGHQWV &DPSXV DQGRU &RPPXQLW\ &URXSV D Q E Q F Q

PAGE 83

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG )7 D '2+ &6$2 &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 5HFRJQL]H DQG $FFHSW WKH (WKLFDO &RQVHTXHQFHV RI 3HUVRQDO DQG 3URIHVVLRQDO %HKDYLRU 6HOHFW 7UDLQ DQG 6XSHUYLVH 6WDII 0DQDJH 3K\VLFDO 5HVRXUFHV DQG R L )DFLOLWLHV $GMXGLFDWH 6WXGHQW &RQGXFW (IIHFWLYHO\ Q Q Q

PAGE 84

KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUHV IRU )7V f DQG &6$2V f ZHUH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R UHFRJQL]H DQG DFFHSW WKH HWKLFDO FRQVHTXHQFHV RI SHUVRQDO DQG SURIHVVLRQDO EHKDYLRU 7KH KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUH IRU '2+V f ZDV IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R VHOHFW WUDLQ DQG VXSHUn YLVH VWDII 7KH ORZHVW PHDQ VFRUHV IRU DOO JURXSV ZHUH IRU FRPSHn WHQF\ 1R GHYHORS DQG DGPLQLVWHU D EXGJHW 7KH PHDQ VFRUHV IRU DOO WKUHH JURXSV IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]Dn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n PHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU '2+V ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ FDWHJRULHV RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ &RQn VXOWDWLRQ DQG &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG IRU &6$2V LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU )7V ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RQVXOWDWLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU '2+V DQG &6$2V ZHUH EHORZ IRU HYHU\ FDWHJRU\ LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ WRZDUG WKH GLVDJUHH UDQJH ZLWK UHVSHFW WR SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV VWXG\ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU )7V ZHUH DERYH IRU WKH FDWHJRULHV RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ f &RQVXOWDWLRQ f DQG &RPPXQLFDWLRQ f LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH

PAGE 85

GLUHFWLRQ WRZDUG WKH DJUHHf UDQJH RQ SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKHVH FDWHJRULHV 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU )7V ZHUH EHORZ IRU WKH FDWHn JRULHV RI $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ f DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW f LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ WRZDUG WKH GLVDJUHH UDQJH RQ SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKHVH FDWHJRULHV 'DWD RQ ,PSRUWDQFH RI &RPSHWHQFLHV $QRWKHU RI WKH IRXU SULPDU\ REMHFWLYHV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH WR ZKHWKHU WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZHUH LPSRUWDQW IRU UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH UHFLSLHQWV WR KDYH DFTXLUHG SULRU WR DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQ LQ WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG 7KLV REMHFWLYH ZDV VWDWHG DV UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ ,V LW LPSRUWDQW IRU UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV WR KDYH DFTXLUHG WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV SULRU WR IXOO WLPH HQWU\ LQWR WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG" 7KH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV SHUFHLYHG LW LPSRUn WDQW IRU UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV WR KDYH DFTXLUHG WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ DVNLQJ HDFK JURXS WR LQGLFDWH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ EHOLHYHG HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ ZDV LPn SRUWDQW IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ 3DUWLFLSDQWV LQ HDFK RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV DVVHVVHG WKH H[WHQW RI LPSRUWDQFH IRU HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH IROORZLQJ IRXUSRLQW VFDOH ,PSRUWDQFH RI WKH &RPSHWHQF\ HVVHQWLDO (f LPSRUWDQW ,f RI OLWWOH LPSRUWDQFH /,f QRW LPSRUWDQW 1f 0HDQ VFRUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK FDWHJRU\ DQG FRPSHWHQF\

PAGE 86

ZHUH UHSRUWHG DQG H[DPLQHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK HDFK JURXS IRXQG WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH DVVXPSWLRQ RI HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQV LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 'LIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH JURXSV RQ WKH H[WHQW RI WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZLOO EH H[DPLQHG ODWHU LQ WKH VWXG\ *RDO 6HWWLQJ 0HDQ VFRUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI IDFXOW\ )7Vf GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf IRU H[WHQW RI LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH )RU '2+V f DQG &6$2V f WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUHV ZHUH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R WHDFK VWXGHQWV WR GHDO ZLWK WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKHLU EHKDYLRU )7V UHn SRUWHG WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R LGHQWLI\ DQG DUWLFXODWH LQVWLWXWLRQV JRDOV DQG SROLFLHV WR VWXGHQWV f $OO WKUHH JURXSV UHSRUWHG D ORZHVW PHDQ VFRUH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R ZULWH EHKDYLRUDO REMHFWLYHV 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU '2+V ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU HYHU\ FRPSHWHQF\ LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI JRDO VHWWLQJ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU )7V f '2+V f DQG &6$2V f LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ WRZDUG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ 6WDQGDUG GHYLDn WLRQV IRU HDFK JURXS ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ ,, &RQVXOWDWLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV IRU H[WHQW RI LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RQVXOWDWLRQ DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH $OO WKUHH JURXSV UHSRUWHG WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUHV IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R ZRUN HIIHFWLYHn O\ ZLWK D GLYHUVLW\ RI LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWV DQG IDFXOW\ $OO WKUHH

PAGE 87

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) $*5((0(17 :,7+ ,03257$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) *2$/ 6(77,1* D E & )7 '2+ &6$2 &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' *RDO 6HWWLQJ :ULWH %HKDYLRUDO 2EMHFWLYHV ,GHQWLI\ DQG $UWLFXODWH ,QVWLWXn WLRQV *RDOV DQG 3ROLFLHV WR 6WXGHQWV 7HDFK 6WXGHQWV WR 'HDO ZLWK WKH &RQVHTXHQFHV RI WKHLU %HKDYLRU (QJDJH LQ 6\VWHPDWLF 3ODQQLQJ DQ E Q D Q

PAGE 88

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) ,03257$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) &2168/7$7,21 &6$2 &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' ,, &RQVXOWDWLRQ 5HFRJQL]H DQG 8VH WKH ([SHUWLVH RI 2WKHUV )DFLOLWDWH *URXS 3UREOHP 6ROYLQJ DQG *URXS 'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJ )DFLOLWDWH 6WDII 'HYHORSPHQW 7KURXJK ,Q6HUYLFH 7UDLQLQJ :RUN (IIHFWLYHO\ :LWK D 'LYHUVLW\ RI ,QGLYLGXDO 6WXGHQWV DQG )DFXOW\ DQ E Q &Q

PAGE 89

UHSRUWHG WKH ORZHVW PHDQ VFRUHV IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R IDFLOLWDWH VWDII GHYHORSPHQW WKURXJK LQVHUYLFH WUDLQLQJ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU '2+V DQG &6$2V ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV H[FHSW FRPSHWHQF\ 1R 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU )7V ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHn WHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI FRQVXOWDWLRQ ZHUH DERYH IRU )7V f '2+V f DQG &6$2V f LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHn WHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ 6WDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK JURXS ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHn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f '2+V f DQG &6$2V f LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ 6WDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK JURXS ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV ,9 $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV IRU H[WHQW RI LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSH

PAGE 90

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) ,03257$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) &20081,&$7,21 &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< )7 D '2OE & &6$2 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' ,,, &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $QDO\]H DQG :ULWH 0HPRV DQG 5HSRUWV 0DNH (IIHFWLYH 8VH RI 9HUEDO DQG 1RQ9HUEDO 6NLOOV LQ *URXS 3UHVHQWDWLRQV 3HUFHLYH DQG $FFXUDWHO\ ,QWHUn SUHW $WWLWXGHV %HOLHIV DQG 1HHGV RI 2WKHUV 5HSUHVHQW 6WXGHQW &RQFHUQV WR 2WKHU &DPSXV *URXSV 5HFRJQL]H DQG 'HILQH &RQn ILGHQWLDOLW\ 3UDFWLFHV DQG 3URFHGXUHV 'HWHUPLQLQJ 8VDJH RI 2IILFH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URFHGXUHV D E F Q Q Q L RR /2 ,

PAGE 91

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) $*5((0(17 :,7+ ,03257$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) $66(660(17 $1' (9$/8$7,21 D )7 '+E &6$& &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' ,9 $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ $VVHVV 6WXGHQW 1HHGV $QDO\]H DQG ,QWHUSUHW 3URJUDP 1HHGV DQG 5HTXHVWV 'HVLJQ 6WXGHQW 3URJUDPV %DVHG f RQ 6WXGHQW 1HHGV ,QWHUSUHW DQG 8QGHUVWDQG 9DULRXV (YDOXDWLRQ 6WUDWHJLHV ,GHQWLI\ DQG 8QGHUVWDQG 9DULRXV (YDOXDWLRQ 6WUDWHJLHV 'HVLJQ DQG ,PSOHPHQW D 3URJUDP WR (YDOXDWH 6WDII 5HYLVH 3URJUDPV RQ WKH %DVLV RI (YDOXDWLRQ 'DWD 5HFRJQL]H DQG $QDO\]H ,QWHUn SHUVRQDO 3UREOHPV D Q E Q F Q

PAGE 92

WHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH $OO JURXSV UHSRUWHG WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUHV IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 1R DVVHVV VWXGHQW QHHGV 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU )7V DQG '2+V ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU HYHU\ FRPSHWHQF\ LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU )7V f '2+V f DQG &6$2V f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f '2+V f DQG &6$2V f LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ 6WDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK JURXS ZHUH OHVV WKDQ IRU

PAGE 93

7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 $1' 67$1'$5' '(9,$7,216 )25 )$&8/7< )7Vf ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* '2+Vf $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 &6$2Vf 21 (;7(17 2) ,03257$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) (19,5210(17$/ $1' 25*$1,=$7,21$/ 0$1$*(0(17 )7 '2+E &6$2& &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 9 (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW 'HYHORS DQG $GPLQLVWHU D %XGJHW 2UJDQL]H 5HVRXUFHV 3HRSOH 0DWHULDOf WR FDUU\ RXW 3URJUDP $FWLYLWLHV 8QGHUVWDQG ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 0LVVLRQ 2EMHFWLYHV DQG ([SHFWDWLRQV .QRZ DQG 8WLOL]H (IIHFWLYH 'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJ 6WUDWHJLHV $FFHSW $XWKRULW\ DQG 5HVSRQn VLELOLW\ DQG 'HOHJDWH DV $SSURSULDWH ,GHQWLI\ DQG 8WLOL]H $YDLODEOH )LQDQFLDO 5HVRXUFHV W Q Q F Q

PAGE 94

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG '2+ &6$2& &$7(*25<&203(7(1&< 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0($1 6' 0HGLDWH &RQIOLFW $PRQJ 6WXGHQWV &DPSXV DQGRU &RPPXQLW\ *URXSV 5HFRJQL]H DQG $FFHSW WKH (WKLFDO &RQVHTXHQFHV RI 3HUVRQDO DQG 3URIHVVLRQDO %HKDYLRU 6HOHFW 7UDLQ DQG 6XSHUYLVH 6WDII 0DQDJH 3K\VLFDO 5HVRXUFHV DQG )DFLOLWLHV $GMXGLFDWH 6WXGHQW &RQGXFW (IIHFWLYHO\ Q Q Q

PAGE 95

DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ 6XPPDU\ RI 'DWD RQ ,PSRUWDQFH (DFK JURXS UHSRUWHG LWV KLJKHVW PHDQ VFRUH RQ LPSRUWDQFH IRU WKH VDPH FRPSHWHQF\ LQ WKH FDWHJRULHV RI &RQVXOWDWLRQ DQG $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ (DFK JURXS UHSRUWHG LWV ORZHVW PHDQ VFRUH RQ LPSRUWDQFH IRU WKH VDPH FRPSHWHQF\ LQ WKH FDWHJRULHV RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ &RQVXOWDWLRQ DQG &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU )7V ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH i FDWHJRULHV RI &RQVXOWDWLRQ $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU '2+V ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRULHV RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ DQG $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU &6$2V ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU )7V '2+V DQG &6$2V ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU HDFK RI WKH ILYH FDWHJRULHV LQGLFDWLQJ D WHQGHQF\ WRZDUG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ HYHU\ FDWHJRU\ IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ 6WDWLVWLFDO &RPSDULVRQ $PRQJ *URXSV 7KH LVVXH RI GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV IRU WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI SRVVHVVLRQ RI HQWU\OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV E\ UHFHQW PDVWHUfV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG RI LPSRUWDQFH RI WKRVH FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ KDV EHHQ LGHQWLILHG DV D SULPDU\ REMHFWLYH IRU WKLV VWXG\ DV VWDWHG LQ UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV DQG 'R FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG IDFXOW\ )7Vf KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WUDLQLQJ UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ IRU WKH LGHQWLILHG HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV" 'R &6$2V '2+ DQG )7V KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV"

PAGE 96

7KH GDWD LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ KDYH EHHQ SUHVHQWHG LQ RUGHU WR VDWLVI\ WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI WKHVH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ f ZKHWKHU GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVW DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXS IRU WKH H[WHQW RI HDFK JURXSfV DJUHHPHQW WKDW UHFHQW PDVWHUfV JUDGXDWHV DFWXDOO\ SRVVHVV WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG f WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVW DPRQJ WKH WKUHH UHVHDUFK JURXSV IRU WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK HDFK JURXS SHUFHLYHV HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ WR EH LPSRUWDQW IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ $ WRWDO RI UHVSRQGHQWV IURP DOO WKUHH JURXSV SURYLGHG WKH GDWD EDVH IRU WKLV VWXG\ )RU SXUSRVHV RI DQDO\]LQJ WKH GDWD WR GHWHUPLQH LI VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV E\ HDFK RI WKH ILYH RQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW WKH *HQHUDO /LQHDU 0RGHO */0f 3URFHGXUH RI WKH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP 6$6f IRU 0XOWLYDULDWH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 0$129$f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b

PAGE 97

7KH PHDQV IRU HDFK JURXS RQ SRVVHVVLRQ DQG LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV XVHG LQ WKH */00$129$ DQDO\VLV DUH LQFOXGHG LQ 7DEOH LQ $SSHQGL[ ) 3DLU ZLVH FRPSDULVRQV ZHUH PDGH ZKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH LQGLFDWHG 'XQFDQnV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH EHWZHHQ ZKLFK JURXSV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH LQGLFDWHG IRU SRVVHVVLRQ DQG LPSRUWDQFH )RU SRVW KRF FRPSDULVRQ E\ FDWHJRU\ UHVSRQVHV ZHUH XVHG 3RVW KRF FRPSDULVRQV E\ FRPSHWHQF\ XVHG WKH UHVSRQVHV ZKLFK FRQWDLQHG QR PLVVLQJ YDOXHV ,*RDO 6HWWLQJ :ULWH EHKDYLRUDO REMHFWLYHV ,GHQWLI\ DQG DUWLFXODWH LQVWLWXWLRQnV JRDOV DQG SROLFLHV WR VWXGHQWV 7HDFK VWXGHQWV WR GHDO ZLWK WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKHLU EHKDYLRU (QJDJH LQ V\VWHPDWLF SODQQLQJ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU HDFK RI WKH WKUHH UHVHDUFK JURXSV RQ SRVVHVVLRQ DQG LPSRUWDQFH IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ DUH SURYLGHG LQ 7DEOH 7$%/( 0($1 6&25(6 )25 5(6($5&+ *52836 21 3266(66,21 $1' ,03257$1&( 2) *2$/ 6(77,1* *URXS 1 3RVVHVVLRQ ,PSRUWDQFH )7V '2+V &6$2V 7KHVH PHDQV ZHUH XVHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 98

7$%/( 08/7,9$5,$7( $1$/<6,6 *2$/ 6(77,1* )9DOXH 3!) 3RVVHVVLRQ ,PSRUWDQFH $ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RQ H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW WKDW UHFHQW PDVWHUfV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI JRDO VHWWLQJ LV LQGLFDWHG LQ 7DEOH )7V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK ERWK '2+V DQG &6$2V LQ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ DJUHH UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ DV VKRZQ E\ 'XQFDQfV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW LQ 7DEOH ') $/3+$ ,PSOLFDWLRQ 6LJQLILFDQW 1RW 6LJQLILFDQW 7$%/( '81&$1n6 08/7,3/( 5$1*( 7(67 )25 3266(66,21 2) *2$/ 6(77,1* *URXS 1 0HDQ 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ )7 $ &6$2 % '2+ % 1RWH 0HDQV ZLWK WKH VDPH OHWWHU DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW $QDO\VLV RI LQGLYLGXDO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI *RDO 6HWWLQJ KDV EHHQ VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH RI $SSHQGL[ 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG DPRQJ WKH JURXSV RQ H[WHQW RI SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV

PAGE 99

DQG LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ $ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG RQ H[WHQW RI LPSRUWDQFH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI 'XQFDQn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

PAGE 100

$ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RQ H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW WKDW UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI JRDO VHWWLQJ LV LQGLFDWHG LQ 7DEOH )7V GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK ERWK '2+V DQG &6$2V LQ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ DJUHH UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RQVXOWDWLRQ DV VKRZQ E\ 'XQFDQnV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW LQ 7DEOH 7$%/( '81&$1n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nV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH RI $SSHQGL[ + LQGLFDWH WKDW )7V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK '2+V DQG &6$2V RQ SRVVHVVLRQ IRU FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG EHWZHHQ HYHU\ SRVVLEOH SDLU RI JURXSV RQ SRVVHVVLRQ IRU FRPSHWHQF\ &6$2V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK ERWK '2+V DQG )7V RQ H[WHQW RI SHUFHLYHG LPSRUWDQFH RI FRPSHWHQF\ '2+V GLIIHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK ERWK )7V DQG &6$2V RQ H[WHQW RI SHUFHLYHG LPSRUWDQFH RI FRPSHWHQF\

PAGE 101

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fV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV

PAGE 102

SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ LV LQGLFDWHG LQ 7DEOH )7V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK ERWK '2+V DQG &6$2V LQ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ DJUHH UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURn JUDPV SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DV VKRZQ E\ 'XQFDQnV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW LQ 7DEOH 7$%/( '81&$1n6 08/7,3/( 5$1*( 7(67 )25 3266(66,21 2) &2168/7$7,21 *URXS 1 0HDQ 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ )7 $ &6$2 % % '2+ % 1RWH 0HDQV ZLWK WKH VDPH OHWWHU DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW $QDO\VLV RI LQGLYLGXDO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ KDV EHHQ VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH RI $SSHQGL[ 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVW DPRQJ JURXSV RQ H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW IRU SRVVHVVLRQ RI DOO VL[ FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG RQ H[WHQW RI LPSRUWDQFH IRU FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG 7KH UHVXOWV RI 'XQFDQnV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH RI $SSHQGL[ + LQGLFDWH WKDW )7V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK '2+V DQG &6$2V RQ SRVVHVVLRQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ )7V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK '2+V DQG &6$2V RQ H[WHQW RI SHUFHLYHG LPSRUWDQFH RI FRPSHWHQF\ '2+V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP )7V DQG &6$2 RQ H[WHQW RI SHUFHLYHG LPSRUWDQFH RI FRPSHWHQF\

PAGE 103

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

PAGE 104

$ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RQ H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW WKDW UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ LV LQGLFDWHG LQ 7DEOH )7V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK ERWK '2+V DQG &6$2V LQ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ DJUHH UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ DV VKRZQ E\ 'XQFDQnV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW LQ 7DEOH 7$%/( '81&$1n6 08/7,3/( 5$1*( 7(67 )25 3266(66,21 2) $66(660(17 $1' (9$/8$7,21 *URXS 1 0HDQ 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ )7 $ '2+ % % &6$2 % 1RWH 0HDQV ZLWK WKH VDPH OHWWHU DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW $QDO\VLV RI LQGLYLGXDO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ KDV EHHQ VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH RI $SSHQGL[ 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVW DPRQJ JURXSV RQ H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW IRU SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG RQ H[WHQW RI LPSRUWDQFH IRU FRPSHWHQF\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI 'XQFDQnV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH RI $SSHQGL[ + LQGLFDWH WKDW )7V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK '2+V DQG &6$2V RQ SRVVHVVLRQ IRU DOO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ ZKHUH D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH H[LVWV '2+V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK )7V DQG '2+V RQ WKH H[WHQW RI SHUFHLYHG LPSRUWDQFH RI FRPSHWHQF\

PAGE 105

9 (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW 'HYHORS DQG DGPLQLVWHU D EXGJHW 2UJDQL]H UHVRXUFHV SHRSOH PDWHULDOf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

PAGE 106

7$%/( 08/7,9$5,$7( $1$/<6,6 (19,5210(17$/ $1' 25*$1,=$7,21$/ 0$1$*(0(17 ') $/3+$ )9DOXH 3!) ,PSOLFDWLRQ 3RVVHVVLRQ 6LJQLILFDQW ,PSRUWDQFH 1RW 6LJQLILFDQW $ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RQ WKH H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW WKDW UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW LV LQGLFDWHG LQ 7DEOH )7V GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK ERWK '2+V DQG &6$2V LQ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ DJUHH UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVV FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW DV VKRZQ LQ 'XQFDQnV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW LQ 7DEOH 7$%/( '81&$1n6 08/7,3/( 5$1*( 7(67 )25 3266(66,21 2) (19,5210(17$/ $1' 25*$1,=$7,21$/ 0$1$*(0(17 *URXS 1 0HDQ 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ )7 $ &6$2 % % '2+ % 1RWH 0HDQV ZLWK WKH VDPH OHWWHU DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW

PAGE 107

$QDO\VLV RI LQGLYLGXDO FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW KDV EHHQ VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH RI $SSHQGL[ 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVW DPRQJ JURXSV RQ H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW IRU SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFLHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI 'XQFDQn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f GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf DJUHH WKDW UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVV SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHn WHQFLHV DQG WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK HDFK RI WKH JURXSV DJUHH RQ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV KDV EHHQ H[DPLQHG 'LIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ JURXSV UHJDUGLQJ WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH SHUFHSWLRQV RI SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV E\ UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV DQG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHn WHQFLHV KDYH EHHQ LGHQWLILHG DQG H[DPLQHG $ VXPPDU\ RI WKLV VWXG\ ILQGLQJV FRQFOXVLRQV DQG LPSOLFDWLRQV DQG FRQVLGHUDWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU VWXG\ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ &KDSWHU 9

PAGE 108

&+$37(5 9 6800$5< &21&/86,216 $1' )8785( &216,'(5$7,216 &KDSWHU 9 LV FRPSULVHG RI WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQV Df D VXPPDU\ RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH VWXG\ Ef ILQGLQJV Ff FRQFOXVLRQV Gf LPSOLFDWLRQV DQG FRQVLGHUDWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU VWXG\ $ 6XPPDU\ RI WKH 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH 6WXG\ 3XUSRVH RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KH SULPDU\ SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU RU QRW SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVn WUDWLRQ HGXFDWHG IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH FRPSHn WHQFLHV IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KUHH JURXSV RI SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH WUDLQLQJ JUDGXDWHV ZLWK PDVWHUnV GHJUHHV UHFHLYHG LQ WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV IRU WKH HQWU\ OHYHO SURn IHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV 7KH SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV ZHUH DOVR FRPSDUHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG LQ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ SHUFHLYHG WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV WR EH LPSRUWDQW IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDO SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV

PAGE 109

4XHVWLRQV IRU ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV GHVLJQHG WR DQVZHU WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV 'R UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI PDVWHUnV OHYHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ HQWHU WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZLWK WUDLQLQJ LQ HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV DV D UHVXOW RI WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV" 'R FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf GLUHFWRUnV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG IDFXOW\ )7Vf KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSn WLRQV RI WKH WUDLQLQJ UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ UHFHLYH IRU WKH LGHQWLILHG HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV" ,V LW LPSRUWDQW IRU UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV IURP SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ WR KDYH DFTXLUHG WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV SULRU WR IXOO WLPH HQWU\ LQWR WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG" 'R &6$2V '2+V DQG )7V KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV" -XVWLILFDWLRQ IRU WKH 6WXG\ 7KH OLWHUDWXUH LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV KDV LGHQWLILHG FRQFHUQ IRU LVVXHV RI VWDQGDUGV TXDOLW\ DQG H[FHOOHQFH 7KHVH LVVXHV KDYH EHHQ VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKDW WKH\ UHSUHVHQWHG RXWFRPHV ZKLFK PRUH SURIHVVLRQDOV EHOLHYHG WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV QHHGHG LQ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKRVH DERXW WR HQWHU WKH ILHOG /D%DUUH f LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV D QHHG IRU EDVLF ZRUN VWDQGDUGV LQ WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG 6KH EHOLHYHG SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SURYLGHG WKH ORJLFDO SODFH WR LGHQWLI\ FULWHULD XSRQ ZKLFK SURIHVVLRQDO VWDQGDUGV PLJKW EH EDVHG 3HQQ f GHVFULEHG WKH NH\ WR H[FHOOHQFH LQ WHUPV RI TXDOLW\ SURJUDPV DQG GHILQHG VWDQGDUGV RI DFFHSWDEOH SHUIRUPDQFH +H QRWHG WKDW SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFH LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZDV UHODWHG WR NQRZOHGJH DQG VSHFLILF VNLOOV OHDUQHG LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV

PAGE 110

$ UHFHQW VWXG\ WR GHWHUPLQH DWWLWXGHV DERXW WKH TXDOLW\ RI SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 6DQGHHQ f LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH TXDOLW\ RI VWXGHQWV ZDV WRR XQHYHQ DQG WKDW ODFN RI DFDGHPLF ULJRU LQ VRPH SURJUDPV SURPRWHG D ODFN RI UHVSHFW IRU SURJUDPV JHQHUDOO\ 6HYHUDO VWXGLHV KDYH GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW WKH ORJLFDO RXWFRPHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DUH WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZKLFK JUDGXDWHV RI WKH SURJUDPV VKRXOG DFTXLUH SULRU WR HQWU\ LQWR WKH SURIHVVLRQ +DQVRQ 'RPHLHU 0LQHWWL f 2WKHU VWXGLHV KDYH LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV UHSUHVHQW D SULPDU\ REMHFWLYH RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV :LOOLDPVRQ 1HZWRQ DQG +HOOHQJD f 6XFK FRPSHWHQFLHV KDYH SURYLGHG D PHDQV E\ ZKLFK WKH SURGXFWLYLW\ RI JUDGXDWH SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV IRU WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG FRXOG EH PHDVXUHG 6WDPDWDNRV f FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR SXEOLVKHG UHVHDUFK HYLGHQFH WR VXSSRUW WKH QRWLRQ WKDW WKRVH KLUHG IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SRVLWLRQV SRVVHVV WKH JHQHUDO VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV WKDW KDYH EHHQ LGHQWLILHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH 7KLV VWXG\ IRFXVHG RQ WKUHH JURXSV RI SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG )DFXOW\ FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV DQG GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ ZHUH VXUYH\HG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ DJUHHG WKDW UHFHQW PDVWHUnV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DFWXDOO\ SRVVHVVHG WKH SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV LGHQWLILHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH 7KH WKUHH JURXSV ZHUH DOVR DVNHG WR DVVHVV WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ EHOLHYHG WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZHUH LPSRUWDQW IRU DVVXPLQJ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQV LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KH GDWD FROOHFWHG IURP WKLV VWXG\ PD\ SURYLGH UHOHYDQW LQIRUn PDWLRQ IRU WKRVH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WUDLQLQJ SURVSHFWLYH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV

PAGE 111

SURIHVVLRQDOV UHJDUGLQJ SRVVLEOH UHYLHZ RI FXUUHQW WUDLQLQJ SURJUDP VWDQGDUGV H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG SUDFWLFXPLQWHUQVKLS RSSRUWXQLWLHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ PD\ EH RI YDOXH WR WUDLQHUV DQG SUDFWLWLRQHUV LQ H[DPLQLQJ SRWHQWLDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WUDLQLQJ UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV UHFHLYH LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV &RQFHSWXDO )UDPHZRUN $ PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH 7RPPRURZnV +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ PRGHO 7+(f ZDV VHOHFWHG DV WKH FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN IRU WKLV VWXG\ 7+( ZDV FRLQHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ $&3$f LQ IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI GHYHORSLQJ D VWUDWHJ\ IRU H[DPLQLQJ WKH IXWXUH RI FROOHJH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KH 7+( PRGHO PDQLIHVWV D FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH ZKROH VWXGHQW WKURXJK UHFRJQLWLRQ RI QHHGHG FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII DV VHUYLFH DJHQWV FRQWURO DJHQWV DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO HGXFDWRUV ,W LQFRUSRUDWHV VL[ FRPSHWHQF\ FDWHJRULHV RI GHYHORSPHQW Df JRDO VHWWLQJ Ef DVVHVVPHQW Ff LQVWUXFWLRQ Gf FRQVXOWDWLRQ Hf HYDOXDWLRQ DQG If HQYLURQPHQWDO PDQDJHPHQW 0RGLILFDWLRQV WR WKH PRGHO ZHUH LQFRUSRUDWHG WKURXJK D VXEVWLWXWLRQ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQV IRU LQVWUXFWLRQV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV RI .QRWW f $VVHVVn PHQW DQG HYDOXDWLRQ ZHUH FRPELQHG DV RQH FDWHJRU\ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f PRGHO 7KH FRPSHWHQFLHV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH GHULYHG IURP +DQVRQnV 1RWH f WD[RQRP\ DQG WKH VWXGLHV RI 'RPHLHU f DQG 0LQHWWL f DQG ZHUH DVVLJQHG WR FDWHJRULHV RI JRDO VHWWLQJ FRQVXOWDWLRQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQV DVVHVVPHQW DQG HYDOXDWLRQ DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQDO PDQDJHPHQW

PAGE 112

5HYLHZ RI WKH /LWHUDWXUH 7KH VSHFLILF SXUSRVH RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ ZDV WR SURYLGH EDFNJURXQG RQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZRUN DV LW UHODWHG WR LVVXHV RI VWDQGDUGV TXDOLW\ DQG H[FHOOHQFH LQ WKH SURIHVVLRQ 7KH HPHUJLQJ SURIHVVLRQ ZDV UHYLHZHG WKURXJK DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH KLVWRULFDO UROH RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV LQ KLJK HGXFDWLRQ LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI FULWHULD DV D SURIHVVLRQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO VWDWXV DQG D UHYLHZ RI WKH FXUUHQW IRFXV RQ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV ZDV WUDFHG WKURXJK D UHYLHZ RI EDFNJURXQG VHOHFWLRQ DQG VWDQGDUGV FRQWHQW SURJUDP PRGHOV SURJUDP DVVHVVPHQWV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 7KH LVVXH RI SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHn WHQF\ ZDV H[DPLQHG LQ WKH OLJKW RI H[SHFWDWLRQV JHQHUDOO\ DVFULEHG WR WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 0HWKRGRORJ\ 7KH UHVHDUFK SRSXODWLRQ IRU WKLV VWXG\ LQFOXGHG FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf GLUHFWRUfV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG IDFXOW\ )7Vf 7KH &6$2V DQG '2+V ZHUH HPSOR\HG DW IRXU \HDU SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH SRVW VHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV 7KH )7V ZHUH HPSOR\HG DW LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK GHSDUWPHQWV RIIHULQJ JUDGXDWH SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ OHDGLQJ WR D PDVWHUfV GHJUHH $ WZRSDUW UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW ZDV GHVLJQHG DQG GHYHORSHG IRU GLVWULEXWLRQ WR WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 3DUW RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW VRXJKW GHPRJUDSKLF LQIRUPDWLRQ WR TXHVWLRQV IURP )7V DQG TXHVWLRQV IURP &6$2V DQG '2+V 3DUW ,, RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW DVNHG SDUWLFLSDQWV WR UHVSRQG RQ D IRXU SRLQW LQWHUYDO VFDOH WR SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV )RU HDFK FRPSHn WHQF\ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH Df WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK

PAGE 113

WKH\ DJUHHG WKDW UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV SRVVHVVHG WKH FRPSHWHQF\ DQG Ef WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ EHOLHYHG WKH FRPSHWHQF\ ZDV LPSRUWDQW IRU DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZHUH GHULYHG IURP SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV RQ FRPSHWHQFLHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII 'RPHLHU 0LQHWWL +DQVRQ 1RWH f $ PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH 7RPRUURZnV +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 7+(f PRGHO 0LOOHU DQG 3ULQFH f ZDV XVHG DV WKH IRXQGDWLRQ IRU D FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN SURYLGLQJ FDWHJRULHV IRU ZKLFK WKH FRPSHn WHQFLHV ZHUH LGHQWLILHG 7KH FDWHJRULHV IURP WKH PRGLILHG 7+( FRQFHSWXDO PRGHO DQG WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV XWLOL]HG LQ WKH VWXG\ LQFOXGHG WKH IROORZLQJ ,*RDO 6HWWLQJ :ULWH EHKDYLRUDO REMHFWLYHV ,GHQWLI\ DQG DUWLFXODWH LQVWLWXWLRQnV JRDOV DQG SROLFLHV WR VWXGHQWV 7HDFK VWXGHQWV WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKHLU EHKDYLRU (QJDJH LQ V\VWHPDWLF SODQQLQJ ,,&RQVXOWDWLRQ 5HFRJQL]H DQG XVH H[SHUWLVH RI RWKHUV )DFLOLWDWH JURXS SUREOHP VROYLQJ DQG JURXS GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ )DFLOLWDWH VWDII GHYHORSPHQW WKURXJK LQVHUYLFH WUDLQLQJ :RUN HIIHFWLYHO\ ZLWK D GLYHUVLW\ RI LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWV DQG IDFXOW\ ,OO&RPPXQLFDWLRQ $QDO\]H DQG ZULWH PHPRV DQG UHSRUWV 0DNH HIIHFWLYH XVH RI YHUEDO DQG QRQYHUEDO VNLOOV LQ JURXS SUHVHQWDWLRQV

PAGE 114

3HUFHLYH DQG DFFXUDWHO\ LQWHUSUHW DWWLWXGHV EHOLHIV DQG QHHGV RI RWKHUV 5HSUHVHQW VWXGHQW FRQFHUQV WR RWKHU FDPSXV JURXSV 5HFRJQL]H DQG GHILQH FRQILGHQWLDOLW\ SUDFWLFHV DQG SURFHGXUHV 'HWHUPLQLQJ XVDJH RI RIILFH PDQDJHPHQW SURFHGXUHV LH VHFUHWDULDO VHUYLFHV EXVLQHVV PDFKLQH VHSDUDWLRQ SULQW DQG QRQ SULQW PHGLDf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f WR FDUU\ RXW SURJUDP DFWLYLWLHV 8QGHUVWDQG LQVWLWXWLRQDO PLVVLRQ REMHFWLYHV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQ .QRZ DQG XWLOL]H HIIHFWLYH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ VWUDWHJLHV $FFHSW DXWKRULW\ DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG GHOHJDWH DV DSSURSULDWH ,GHQWLI\ DQG XWLOL]H DYDLODEOH ILQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHV 0HGLDWH FRQIOLFW DPRQJ VWXGHQWV FDPSXV DQGRU FRPPXQLW\ JURXSV 5HFRJQL]H DQG DFFHSW WKH HWKLFDO FRQVHTXHQFHV RI SHUVRQDO DQG SURIHVVLRQDO EHKDYLRU 6HOHFW WUDLQ DQG VXSHUYLVH VWDII

PAGE 115

0DQDJH SK\VLFDO UHVRXUFHV DQG IDFLOLWLHV $GMXGLFDWH VWXGHQW FRQGXFW PDWWHUV HIIHFWLYHO\ 7KH VWXG\ UHFHLYHG IRUPDO HQGRUVHPHQW IURP WKH 9LFH 3UHVLGHQW IRU 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DQG IURP WKH 5HVHDUFK DQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH RI WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $&8+2,f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bf )7V UHSUHVHQWLQJ b RI WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV RI bf '2+6 DQG RI bf &6$2V UHWXUQHG XVDEOH LQVWUXPHQWV 7KH GDWD REWDLQHG IURP WKH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH DQDO\]HG XVLQJ WKH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP 6$6f DQ LQWHJUDWHG FRPSXWHU V\VWHP IRU GDWD DQDO\VLV ,Q DQDO\]LQJ WKH GDWD FROOHFWHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ WKUHH 6$6 SURFHGXUHV ZHUH XVHG $ IUHTXHQFLHV SURFHGXUH ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH SHUFHQWDJH RI UHVSRQVHV WR TXHVWLRQV LQ 3DUW RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW 7KH %0'3 SURJUDP DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH IRU UHSHDWHG

PAGE 116

PHDVXUHV DQG 7+( */0 SURJUDP IRU PXOWLYDULDWH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZHUH DSSURSUDLWHO\ XWLOL]HG 'XQFDQnV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW ZDV XVHG WR GR SRVW KRF SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV EHWZHHQ JURXSV ZKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH LQGLFDWHG )LQGLQJV 7KH ILQGLQJV LQ WKLV VWXG\ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ UHVSRQVH WR HDFK RI WKH IRXU TXHVWLRQV IRU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ 4XHVWLRQ 'R UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI PDVWHUnV OHYHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ HQWHU WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ZLWK WUDLQLQJ LQ HQWU\ OHYHO FRPSHWHQFLHV DV D UHVXOW RI WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV" 7KLV TXHVWLRQ ZDV DQVZHUHG E\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH PHDQ VFRUHV JHQHUDWHG E\ UHVSRQGHQWV LQ HDFK RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV DV WKH\ LQGLFDWHG WKH H[WHQW RI WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH DJUHHPHQW IRU SRVVHVVLRQ RI HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ E\ UHFHQW PDVWHUn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

PAGE 117

4XHVWLRQ 'R FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV &6$2Vf GLUHFWRUV RI KRXVLQJ '2+Vf DQG IDFXOW\ )7Vf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nV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV IURP SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ WR KDYH DFTXLUHG WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV SULRU WR IXOO WLPH HQWU\ LQWR WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG"

PAGE 118

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n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

PAGE 119

FRPSHWHQFLHV 1RWLFH VKRXOG EH WDNHQ WKRXJK RI WKH IDFW WKDW WKH PHDQ VFRUHV IRU HDFK JURXS IRU HYHU\ FDWHJRU\ RQ LPSRUWDQFH ZHUH RYHU RQ D VFDOH WKDW UHDG HVVHQWLDO LPSRUWDQW RI OLWWOH LPSRUWDQFH QRW LPSRUWDQW 1RWLFH VKRXOG DOVR EH WDNHQ WKDW IRU ERWK SUDFWLWLRQHU JURXSV &6$2V DQG '2+Vf PHDQ VFRUHV IRU WKRVH JURXSV IRU HYHU\ FDWHJRU\ RQ SRVVHVVLRQ ZHUH EHORZ RQ D VFDOH WKDW UHDG 5HFHQW PDVWHUV GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV SRVVHVV WKLV FRPSHWHQF\ DJUHH VWURQJO\ DJUHH GLVDJUHH GLVDJUHH VWURQJO\ 1R VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH REVHUYHG DPRQJ WKH JURXSV RQ H[WHQW RI LPSRUWDQFH IRU DQ\ RI WKH ILYH FDWHJRULHV 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH REVHUYHG DPRQJ WKH JURXSV RQ H[WHQW RI DJUHHPHQW ZLWK SRVVHVVLRQ IRU DOO RI WKH ILYH FDWHJRULHV &RQFOXVLRQ 7KH PRGLILHG 7RPRUURZnV +LJK (GXFDWLRQ 7+(f PRGHO XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ SURYLGHG D WKHRUHWLFDO EDVH XSRQ ZKLFK TXDOLW\ WUDLQLQJ H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU FDUHHUV LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV FRXOG EH EXLOW 0LOOHU DQG 3ULQFH f 'RPHLHU f 0LQHWWL f +DQVRQ 1RWH f DQG 'HOZRUWK DQG +DQVRQ f LGHQWLILHG FRPSHWHQFLHV LPSRUWDQW IRU SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV ILHOG WR SRVVHVV LQ RUGHU WR IXQFWLRQ HIIHFWLYHO\ LQ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQV %RWK SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV E\ UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DQG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU HIIHFWLYH IXQFWLRQ LQ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQV ZHUH WHVWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 3URIHVVLRQDOV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH WUDLQLQJ RI QHZ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII DV ZHOO DV SUDFWLWLRQHUV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU KLULQJ VXSHUYLVLQJ DQG HYDOXDWLQJ QHZ VWDII SURYLGHG WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RQ WKH YDULDEOHV RI SRVVHVVLRQ DQG

PAGE 120

LPSRUWDQFH ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV 7KH WKUHH JURXSV RI SURIHVVLRQDOV )7V '2+V &6$2Vf SURYLGHG WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ DJUHHG UHFHQW JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DFWXDOO\ SRVVHVVHG HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ DQG WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV ZHUH LPSRUWDQW IRU DVVXPLQJ HQWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQV LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KLV VWXG\ SURYLGHG JHQHUDO VXSSRUW IRU WKH PRGLILHG 7+( PRGHO DV D FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN IRU WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI OHDUQLQJ RXWFRPHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KH PRGLILHG 7+( PRGHO KDV VKRZQ WR EH HIIHFWLYH LQ SURYLGLQJ D WKHRUHWLFDO FRQWH[W IRU WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV SURYHQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ WR EH LPSRUWDQW RXWFRPHV RI WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV GHVLJQHG WR SUHSDUH \RXQJ SURIHVVLRQDOV WR HQWHU WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 7KH IROORZLQJ UHSUHVHQW FRQFOXVLRQV RI WKLV VWXG\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ VXSSRUW WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH WZR SUDFWLWLRQHU JURXSV '2+V DQG &6$2Vf SHUFHLYHG GRXEW DV WR ZKHWKHU UHFHQW PDVWHUnV JUDGXDWHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV SRVVHVVHG WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ DQ\ RI WKH FDWHJRULHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ VXSSRUW WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH WKUHH JURXSV GLG QRW VKDUH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WUDLQLQJ UHFHQW PDVWHUn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

PAGE 121

7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ VXSSRUW WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW DOO WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV IRXQG FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ RI &RQVXOWDWLRQ DUH PRVW OLNHO\ WR EH SRVVHVVHG E\ UHFHQW PDVWHUf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f ,QFUHDVHG DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI VNLOOV LQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG PDQDJHPHQW RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ RQ WKH SDUW RI SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LV ZDUUDQWHG
PAGE 122

)XUWKHU VWXG\ LV ZDUUDQWHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKHUH LV DQ HIIHFW RQ SHUFHSWLRQV RI SRVVHVVLRQ DQG LPSRUWDQFH EDVHG RQ UHVSRQGHQW DJH OHQJWK RI WLPH HPSOR\HG LQ WKH ILHOG RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DQGRU ZKHWKHU DQ DGYDQFHG GHJUHH KDV EHHQ HDUQHG LQ WKH DUHD RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ )XWXUH VWXGLHV RI SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV ZKLFK ZRXOG LQFOXGH SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ RWKHU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DUHDV DUH ZDUUDQWHG

PAGE 123

$33(1',; $ 5(6($5&+ ,167580(17 )25 )$&8/7<

PAGE 124

$1 $66(660(17 2) 678'(17 $))$,56 35(3$5$7,21 355$06 ,1 5(/$7,21 72 63(&,),(' 352)(66,21$/ &203(7(1&,(6 0$< 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ LV WR GHWHUPLQH LI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV HGXFDWH IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH RI HDFK FRPSHWHQF\ LQ DVVXPLQJ DQ HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII SRVLWLRQ )RU WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH IROORZLQJ GHILQLWLRQV KDYH 3HHQ SURYLGHG 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO f ZRUN ZLWKLQ D SRVW VHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQ ZKLFK LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK ERWK WKH HGXFDWLRQDO DQG SHUVRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI VWXGHQWV LQ SULPDQO\ QRQ FODVVURRP DFWLYLWLHV DQG WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI VHUYLFHV ZKLFK VXSSRUW DQG FRPSOHPHQW WKH IRUPDO DFDGHPLF SURFHVV 6WXGHQW DIIDLUV f WKH ILHOG LGHQWLILHG 3\ D GLYLVLRQ ZLWKLQ D SRVW VHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQ FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH SURYLVLRQ RI VHUYLFHV DQG SURJUDPV ZKLFK FRPSOHPHQW DQG VXSSOHPHQW WKH DFDGHPLF PLVVLRQ RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV (QWU\ OHYHO SRVLWLRQ f D SRVLWLRQ UHTXLULQJ D PDVWHUfV GHJUHH IURP D SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 6WDII LQ VXFK SRVLWLRQV DVVLVW LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI SURJUDPV DQG VHUYLFHV IRU VWXGHQWV &RPSHWHQFLHV DELOLWLHV VNLOOV NQRZOHGJH DQG DWWLWXGHV ZQLFK SHUPLW DQ LQGLYLGXDO WR FDUU\ RXW MRE H[SHFWDWLRQV LQ DQ DFFHSWDEOH PDQQHU 3$57 (03/2<0(17 $12 2(02*5$3+,& ,1)250$7,21 $QVZHU LWHPV WKURXJK DQG LWHPV WKURXJK E\ &,5&/,1* 7+( /(77(5 RI WKH DSSURSULDWH UHVSRQVHVf 7<3( 2) ,167,787,21 :+(5( <28 $5( &855(17/< (03/2<(' D SXEOLF E SULYDWH 180%(5 2) 678'(176 (152//(' $7 <285 ,167,787,21 G D XQGHU fQLO H RYHU f f f E F /(1*7+ 2) 7,0( ,1 <285 &855(17 326,7,21 D OHVV WKDQ \HDUV E \HDUV F \HDUV G PRUH WKDQ \HDUV <285 &855(17 $*( D \HDUV G RYHU \HDUV E \HDUV F \HDUV /(1*7+ 2) 7,0( 352)(66,21$//< (03/2<(' ,1 678'(17 $))$,56+,*+(5 ('8&$7,21 D OHVV WKDQ \HDUV E \HDUV F \HDUV G PRUH WKDQ \HDUV <285 +,*+(67 ($51(' 2(*5(( D EDFKHORUnV G GRFWRUDWH E PDVWHUnV H RWKHU F VSHFLDOLVW 2R \RX KDYH DQ DGYDQFHG GHJUHH PDVWHUnV DQGRU GRFWRUDWHf LQ D ILHOG UHODWHG WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ H J HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ FRXQVHOLQJ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHOff 0$67(5n6 '2&725$7( D \HV QR D \HV E QR 27+(5 2(*5(( D \HV E QR ,I \RX KDYH DQ DGYDQFHG GHJUHH PDVWHUnV DQG RU GRFWRUDWHf LQ D ILHOG XQUHODWHG WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ SOHDVH LQGLFDWH WKH ILHOGVL RI \RXU GHJUHHVf 0$67(5n6 22&725$7( 27+(5 2(*5(( )URP ZKDW LQVWLWXWLRQVf GLG \RX HDUQ DGYDQFHG GHJUHHV LI DQ\f" 0$67(5n6 22&725$7( 27+(5 2(*5(( 6LQFH \RX KDYH EHHQ HPSOR\HG LQ \RXU FXUUHQW SURn IHVVLRQDO FDSDFLW\ KRZ PDQ\ VWXGHQWV KDYH JUDGXDWHG IURP \RXU DFDGHPLF SURJUDP ZLWK D 0DVWHUnV GHJUHHf &,5&/( <285 5(63216(f D OHVV WKDQ E F G PRUH WKDQ $UH \RX FXUUHQWO\ VHUYLQJ LQ DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FDSDFLW\ LQ VWXn GHQW DIIDLUV RU DFDGHPLF DIIDLUV" &,5&/( <285 5(63216(f D \HV E QR ,I \RX DUH QRW FXUUHQWO\ VHUYLQJ LQ DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FDSDFLW\ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RU DFDGHPLF DIIDLUV KDYH \RX HYHU VHUYHG LQ DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FDSDFLW\ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RU DFDGHPLF DIIDLUV" &,5&/( <285 5(63216(f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
PAGE 125

SDUW ,,
PAGE 126

$33(1',; % 5(6($5&+ ,167580(17 )25 ',5(&7256 2) +286,1* $1' &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56

PAGE 127

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f WKH ILHOG LGHQWLILHG E\ D GLYLVLRQ ZLWKLQ D SRVW VHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQ FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH SURYLVLRQ RI VHUYLFHV DQG SURJUDPV ZKLFK FRPSOHPHQW DQG VXSSOHPHQW WKH DFDGHPLF PLVVLRQ RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV (QWU\ OHYHO SRVWWOHQ D SRVLWLRQ UHTXLULQJ D PDVWHUnV GHJUHH IURP D SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 6WDII LQ VXFK SRVLWLRQV DVVLVW LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI SURJUDPV DQG VHUYLFHV IRU VWXGHQWV &RPSHWHQFLHV DELOLWLHV VNLOOV NQRZOHGJH DQG DWWLWXGHV ZKLFK SHUPLW DQ LQGLYLGXDO WR FDUU\ RXW MRE H[SHFWDWLRQV LQ DQ DFFHSWDEOH PDQQHU 3$57 (03/2<0(17 ,167,787,21$/ $12 2(02*5$3+,& ,1)250$7,21 $QVZHU LWHPV WKURXJK DQG LWHPV WKURXJK E\ &,5&/,1* 7+( /(77(5 RI WKH DSSURSULDWH UHVSRQVHVf 7<3( 2) ,167,787,21 :+(5( <28 $5( &855(17/< (03/2<(' D SXEOLF E SULYDWH 180%(5 2) 6782(176 (152//(' $7 <285 ,167,787,21 DXQGHU G E F H RYHU /(1*7+ 2) 7,0( $7 <285 &855(17 326,7,21 /(9(/ D OHVV WKDQ \HDUV E \HDUV F \HDUV G PRUH WKDQ \HDUV /(1*7+ 2) 7,0( 352)(66,21$//< (03/2<(' ,1 678'(17 $))$,56+,*+(5 ('8&$7,21 D OHVV WKDQ \HDUV E \HDUV F \HDUV G PRUH WKDQ \HDUV <285 &855(17 $*( D \HDUV E \HDUV F \HDUV G RYHU \HDUV <285 +,*+(67 ($51(' 2(*5(( D EDFKHORUnV G GRFWRUDWH E PDVWHUnV H RWKHU F VSHFLDOLVW 'R \RX KDYH DQ DGYDQFHG GHJUHH PDVWHUnV DQGRU GRFWRUDWHf LQ D ILHOG UHODWHG WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ H J HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ FRXQVHOLQJ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHOf 0$67(5n6 D \HV E QR &75$7( D \HV E QR 27+(5 2(*5(( D \HV E QR ,I \RX KDYH DQ DGYDQFHG GHJUHH PDVWHUV DQGRU GRFWRUDWHf LQ D ILHOG XQUHODWHG WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ SOHDVH LQGLFDWH WKH ILHOGVf RI \RXU GHJUHHVf 0$67(5n6 ,&725$7( 27+(5 2(*5(( )URP ZKDW LQVWLWXWLRQVf GLG \RX HDUQ \RXU DGYDQFHG GHJUHHV LI DQ\f 0$67(5n6 '2&725$7( 27+(5 '(*5(( 6LQFH \RX KDYH EHHQ HPSOR\HG DW \RXU FXUUHQW SRVLWLRQ OHYHO DW D SRVW VHFRQGDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQ KRZ PDQ\ RI \RXU SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII PDVWHUnV RU KLJKHUf KDYH EHHQ KLUHG LQ WKHLU ILUVW SURIHVVLRQDO VWXGHQW DIIDLUV _E 1RWH \RXU SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII PHDQV QRW PHUHO\ WKRVH VWDII ZKR UHSRUW GLUHFWO\ WR \RX EXW UHIHUV WR DOO VWDII ZKR XOWLPDWHO\ IDOO XQGHU \RXU VSDQ RI UHVSRQVLELOLW\f &,5&/( <285 5(63216( D OHVV WKDQ E F f G PRUH WKDQ 2I WKH QXPEHU RI \RXU SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII IIURP 4XHVWLRQ &f KLUHG LQ WKHLU ILUVW SURIHVVLRQDO VWXGHQW DIIDLUV MRE KRZ PDQ\ KDYH KDG DQ DGYDQFHG GHJUHH PDVWHUnVf LQ D UHODWHG ILHOG RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ FRXQVHOLQJ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHOf" &,5&/( <285 5(63216(f D OHVV WKDQ E f F G PRUH WKDQ LQGLFDWH ZKLFK SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQV LQ ZKLFK \RX KROG PHPEHUVKLS &,5&/( $// 7+$7 $33/
PAGE 128

3$57 ,,
PAGE 129

$33(1',; & /(77(5 2) (1'256(0(17 )520 9,&( 35(6,'(17 )25 678'(17 $))$,56

PAGE 130

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ *DLQHVYLOOH 9,&( 35(6,'(17 )25 678'(17 $))$,56 7,*(57 +$// 0D\ 'HDU &RO OHDJXH L
PAGE 131

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ *DLQHVYLOOH LL 9,&( 35(6,'(17 )25 678'(17 $))$,56 7, *( 57 + r 0D\ 'HDU &RO OHDJXH
PAGE 132

$33(1',; /(77(5 2) (1'256(0(17 )520 5(6($5&+ $1' ,1)250$7,21 &200,77((

PAGE 133

$662&,$7,21 2) ,17(51$7,21$/ &2//(*( $1' 81,9(56,7< +286,1* 2)),&(56 ,17(51$7,21$/ 0D\ (;(&87,9( %2$52 35(6,'(17 :,//,$0 3 3$/((1 2OUHFWRU RI 5HVLGHQFH /LIH 1RUOK %HOFK +DOO &RUQHOO 8QLYHUVLW\ ,WKDFD 1< 3K f VW 9,&( 35(6,2(17 $11(77( 60,7+ $VVLVWDQW 2OUHFWRU IRU )RRG 6HUYLFH 7RZHUV :HVW 9LUJLQLD 8QLYHUVLW\ 0RUJDQWRZQ :HVW 9LUJLQLD 3K f QG 9,&(35(6,'(17 -$0(6 & *5,00 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJ +RXVLQJ 2IILFH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD 3K f 6(&5(7$5< -$0(6 *58%% 'LUHFWRU RI 5HVLGHQFH +DOOV 6WXGHQW 6HUYLFHV %XLOGLQJ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7HQQHVVHH .QR[YLOOH 7HQQHVVHH 3K f 75($685(5 &$50(1 / 9$1&( 'LUHFWRU RI 5HVLGHQWLDO /LIHf§8 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &RQQHFWLFXW 6WRUUV &RQQHFWLFXW 3K f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n JUHVVHV LW ZRXOG EH WR RXU DGYDQWDJH WR NQRZ KRZ \RX IHHO DERXW WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV RI RXU HQWU\ OHYHO VWDII :H ZRXOG DSSUHFLDWH \RXU KHOS LQ FRPSOHWLQJ WKLV VXUYH\ IRU 5DQG\ DQG IRU $&8+2, 7KH UHVXOWV ZLOO EH SXEOLVKHG DV ZHOO DV IRUZDUGHG GLUHFWO\ WR WKRVH ZKR SDUWLFLSDWH $OVR 5DQG\nV ILQLVKHG GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZLOO EH RQ ILOH ZLWK $&8+2,nV 5 t &RPPLWWHH $Q\ TXHVWLRQV RQ WKH VXUYH\ VKRXOG EH GLUHFWHG WR 5DQG\ 3$67 35(6,'(17 *$5< % 1257+ $VVLVWDQW 9OFD &KDQFHOORU DQG 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJ 7KDQN \RX IRU \RXU DVVLVWDQFH LQ KHOSLQJ WR HQVXUH WKDW WKLV SURMHFW ZLOO EH SDUW RI $&8+2, LQIRUPDWLRQ UHVRXUFHV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI ,OOLQRLV 6RXWK )RXUWK 6WUHHW &ODUN +DOO &KDPSDLJQ ,OOLQRLV 3K f 0(0%(56$7/$5*( -8'< ( 63$,1 'LUHFWRU RI 5HVLGHQFH +DLOV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI :LVFRQVLQ6WRXW 0HQRPRQLH :LVFRQVLQ 3K f 0,&+$(/ % +2&725 'LUHFWRU +RXVLQJ DQG 5HVLGHQWLDO /LIH 6DQ 'LHJR 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ &DPSDQLOH 'ULYH 6DQ 2LHJR &DOLIRUQLD 3K f 6LQFHUHO\ 3DXO -DKU &KDLU 5HVHDUFK DQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH $VVW 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJ5HVLGHQFH /LIH 6RXWKHUQ ,OOLQRLV 8QL YHUVLW\&DUERQGDOH &DUERQGDOH ,/ f 38%/,&$7,216 &225',1$725 1(:60$*$=,1( (',725 52%(57 3 &22.( 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJ %R[ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV $XVWLQ 7H[DV 3K f 7+,57<),)7+ $118$/ &21)(5(1&( f 81,9(56,7< 2) :$6+,1*721 f -8/<

PAGE 134

$33(1',; ( )2//2:83 3267 &$5'

PAGE 135

-XQH 'HDU &ROOHDJXH 5HFHQWO\ \RX ZHUH PDLOHG DQ LQVWUXPHQW DV SDUW RI D VWXG\ RI SURIHVVLRQDO JUDGXDWH SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGn PLQLVWUDWLRQ $V \HW ZH KDYH QRW UHFHLYHG \RXU FRPSOHWHG LQVWUXPHQW 6LQFH \RXU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKH VWXG\ LV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW ZH ZRXOG UHTXHVW WKDW \RX SOHDVH FRPSOHWH WKH LQVWUXPHQW DQG UHWXUQ LW WR 5DQG\ +\PDQ 3 %R[ *DLQHVYLOOH )/ E\ -XQH ,I \RX QHYHU UHFHLYHG WKH LQVWUXPHQW RU PLVSODFHG LW SOHDVH FRQWDFW PH DW f DQG ZLOO EH KDSS\ WR VHQG \RX DQRWKHU FRS\ 6LQFHUHO\ $VVLVWDQW 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD

PAGE 136

$33(1',; ) 7$%/( /,67,1* 0($1 6&25(6 )25 ($&+ *5283 %< &203(7(1&< )25 3266(66,21 $1' ,03257$1&(

PAGE 137

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

PAGE 138

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG &203(7(1&< 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( 'HWHUPLQJLQJ 8VDJH RI 2IILFH 3URFHGXUHV $VVHVV 6WXGHQW 1HHGV $QDO\]H DQG ,QWHUSUHW 5HTXHVWV 'HVLJQ 6WXGHQW 3URJUDPV 1HHGV ,QWHUSUHW (YDOXDWLRQ 6WUDWHJLHV ,GHQWLI\ (YDOXDWLRQ 6WUDWHJLHV 'HVLJQ 3URJUDP (YDOXDWH 6WDII 5HYLVH 3URJUDPV (YDOXDWLRQ 'DWD 5HFRJQL]H ,QWHUSHUVRQDO 3UREOHPV 'HYHORS DQG $GPLQLVWHU D %XGJHW 2UJDQL]H 5HVRXUFHV 3URJUDP $FLWLYLWLHV 8QGHUVWDQG ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 0LVVLRQ ([SHFWDWLRQV .QRZ DQG 8WLOL]H 6WUDWHJLHV $FFHSW $XWKRULW\ 'HOHJDWH DV $SSURSULDWH ,GHQWLI\ DQG 8WLOL]H 5HVRXUFHV '2+V &6$2V& 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&(

PAGE 139

7$%/( &RQWLQXHGf &203(7(1&< 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( 0HGLDWH &RQIOLFW &RPPXQLW\ *URXSV 5HFRJQL]H DQG $FFHSW &RQVHTXHQFHV %HKDYLRU 6HOHFW 7UDLQ DQG 6XSHUYLVH 6WDII 0DQDJH 3K\VLFDO 5HVRXUFHV DQG )DFLOLWLHV $GMXGLFDWH 6WXGHQW &RQGXFW (IIHFWLYHO\ DQ E '2+V &6$Vr 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( &Q

PAGE 140

$33(1',; 7$%/(6 /,67,1* 08/7,9$5,$7( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( )25 *52836 %< &$7(*25<

PAGE 141

7$%/( *(1(5$/ /,1($5 02'(/6 352&('85( 08/7,9$5,$7( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 &$7(*25< 2) *2$/ 6(77,1* )25 )7V Q f '2+V Q f $1' &6$2V Q f ') $/3+$ 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( *RDO 6HWWLQJ &RPSHWHQFLHV )9DOXH ,PSOLFDWLRQ )9DOXH ,PSOLFDWLRQ :ULWH %HKDYLRU 2EMHFWLYHV ,GHQWLI\ DQG $UWLFXODWH 3ROLFLHV WR 6WXGHQWV 7HDFK 6WXGHQWV %HKDYLRU (QJDJH LQ 6\VWHPDWLF 3ODQQLQJ 16 6LJQLILFDQW 6LJQLILFDQW 6LJQLILFDQW 16 16 6LJQLILFDQW 16 127( ') 'HJUHH RI )UHHGRP 16 PHDQV 1RW 6LJQLILFDQW DW DOSKD OHYHO

PAGE 142

7$%/( *(1(5$/ /,1($5 02'(/6 352&('85( 08/7,9$5,$7( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 &$7(*25< 2) &2168/7$7,21 )25 )7V Q f $1' '2+V Q f &6$2V Q f ') $/3+$ 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( ,, &RQVXOWDWLRQ &RPSHWHQFLHV )9DOXH 3!) ,PSOLFDWLRQ )9DOXH 3!) ,PSOLFDWLRQ 5HFRJQL]H DQG 8VH ([SHUWLVH RI 2WKHUV 6LJQLILFDQW 16 )DFLOLWDWH *URXS 3UREOHPV 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ 6LJQLILFDQW 16 )DFLOLWDWH 6WDII 'HYHORSPHQW f f 7UDLQLQJ 6LJQLILFDQW 6LJQLILFDQW :RUN (IIHFWLYHO\ 6WXGHQWV DQG )DFXOW\ 6LJQLILFDQW 6LJQLILFDQW 127( ') 'HJUHHV RI )UHHGRP 16 PHDQV QRW VLJQLILFDQW DW DOSKD OHYHO

PAGE 143

7$%/( *(1(5$/ /,1($5 02'(/6 352&('85( 08/7,9$5,$7( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 &$7(*25< 2) &20081,&$7,21 )25 )7V Q f $1' '2+V Q f &6$2V Q f ') $/3+$ 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( ,,, &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &RPSHWHQFLHV )9DOXH 3!) ,PSOLFDWLRQ )9DOXH 3!) ,PSOLFDWLRQ $QDO\]H DQG :ULWH 0HPRV DQG 5HSRUWV 6LJQLILFDQW 16 0DNH (IIHFWLYH 8VH 3UHVHQWDWLRQV 6LJQLILFDQW 6LJQLILFDQW 3HUFHLYH ,QWHUSUHW RI 2WKHUV 6LJQLILFDQW 16 5HSUHVHQW 6WXGHQW &RQFHUQV WR *URXSV 6LJQLILFDQW 6LJQLILFDQW 5HFRJQL]H &RQILGHQWLDOLW\ 3URFHGXUHV 6LJQLILFDQW 16 'HWHUPLQLQJ 8VDJH RI 2IILFH 3URFHGXUHV 6LJQLILFDQW 16 127( ') 'HJUHHV RI )UHHGRP 16 PHDQV QRW VLJQLILFDQW DW DOSKD OHYHO

PAGE 144

7$%/( *(1(5$/ /,1($5 02'(/6 352&('85( 08/7,9$5,$7( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 &$7(*25< 2) $66(660(17 $1' (9$/8$7,21 )25 )7V Q f $1' '2+V Q f &6$2V Q f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

PAGE 145

7$%/( *(1(5$/ /,1($5 02'(/6 352&('85( 08/7,9$5,$7( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 &$7(*25< 2) (19,5210(17$/ $1' 25*$1,=$7,21$/ 0$1$*(0(17 )25 )7V Q f $1' '2+V Q f &6$2V Q f ') $/3+$ 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( 9 (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW &RPSHWHQFLHV )9DOXH 3!) 'HYHORS DQG $GPLQLVWHU D %XGJHW 2UJDQL]H 5HVRXUFHV 3URJUDP f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

PAGE 146

$33(1',; + 7$%/(6 /,67,1* 5(68/76 2) '81&$1n6 08/7,3/( 5$1*( 7(67 )25 3266(66,21 $1' ,03257$1&( %< &$7(*25<

PAGE 147

7$%/( '81&$1n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

PAGE 148

7$%/( '81&$1n6 08/7,3/( 5$1*( 7(67 )25 3266(66,21 $1' ,03257$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) &2168/7$7,21 :+(5( 6,*1,),&$17 ',))(5(1&(6 :(5( ,'(17,),(' $/3+$ ') ,03257$1&( 3266(66,21 ,, &RQVXOWDWLRQ &RPSHWHQFLHV 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 *URXS 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 5HFRJQL]H DQG 8VH ([SHUWLVH RI 2WKHUV $ )7 % &6$2 % % '2+ )DFLOLWDWH *URXS 3UREOHPV 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ $ )7 % '2+ % % &6$2 )DFLOLWDWH 6WDII 'HYHORSPHQW 7UDLQLQJ $ )7 $ $ % '2+ $ & &6$2 % 1 *URXS '2+ )7 &6$2

PAGE 149

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG ,03257$1&( 3266(66,21 ,, &RQVXOWDWLRQ &RPSHWHQFLHV 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 *URXS 'XQFDQ *URXS LQ 0HDQ 1 *URXS :RUN (IIHFWLYHO\ 6WXGHQWV DQG )DFXOW\ $ )7 $ )7 $ % &6$2 $ &6$2 % '2+ % '2+ 127( 0HDQV ZLWK WKH VDPH OHWWHU DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW ') r 'HJUHHV RI )UHHGRP

PAGE 150

7$%/( '81&$1n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

PAGE 151

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( ,,, &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &RPSHWHQFLHV 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 *URXS 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 *URXS 5HSUHVHQW 6WXGHQW &RQFHUQV WR *URXSV $ )7 $ &6$2 $ % &6$2 $ )7 % % '2+ % '2+ 5HFRJQL]H &RQILGHQWLDOLW\ f f 3URFHGXUHV $ )7 % &6$2 % '2+ % 'HWHUPLQLQJ 8VDJH RI 2IILFH $ )7 3URFHGXUHV % $ &6$2 % % '2+ 127( 0HDQV ZLWK WKH VDPH OHWWHU DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW ') 'HJUHHV RI )UHHGRP

PAGE 152

7$%/( '81&$1n6 08/7,3/( 5$1*( 7(67 )25 3266(66,21 $1' ,03257$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) $66(660(17 $1' (9$/8$7,21 :+(5( 6,*1,),&$17 ',))(5(1&(6 :(5( ,'(17,),(' $/3+$ ') 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( ,9 $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ &RPSHWHQFLHV 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 *URXS 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 $VVHVV 6WXGHQW 1HHGV $ )7 % &6$2 % % '2+ $QDO\]H DQG ,QWHUSUHW 5HTXHVWV $ )7 % '2+ % % &6$2 'HVLJQ 6WXGHQW 3URJUDPV 1HHGV $ )7 % '2+ % % &6$2 f U+ ,QWHUSUHW (YDOXDWLRQ 6WUDWHJLHV $ )7 % '2+ % % &6$2 127( 0HDQV ZLWK WKH VDPH OHWWHUV DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW ') 'HJUHHV RI )UHHGRP

PAGE 153

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG ,9 $VVHVVPHQW DQG (YDOXDWLRQ &RPSHWHQFLHV 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ ,GHQWLI\ (YDOXDWLRQ 6WUDWHJLHV $ % % % 'HVLJQ 3URJUDP (YDOXDWH 6WDII 5HYLVH 3URJUDPV (YDOXDWLRQ 'DWD $ % % % 5HFRJQL]H ,QWHUSHUVRQDO 3UREOHPV $ % % % 127( 0HDQV ZLWK WKH VDPH OHWWHU DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW ') 'HJUHHV RI )UHHGRP 3266(66,21 ,03257$1&( 0HDQ 1 *URXS 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 )7 &6$2 '2+ $ '2+ % )7 % % &6$2 )7 '2+ &6$2 )7 '2+ &6$2

PAGE 154

7$%/( '81&$1n6 08/7,3/( 5$1*( 7(67 )25 2) 3266(66,21 $1' ,03257$1&( 2) &203(7(1&,(6 ,1 7+( &$7(*25< 2) (19,5210(17$/ $1' 25*$1,=$7,21$/ 0$1$*(0(17 :+26( 6,*1,),&$17 ',))(5(1&(6 :(5( ,'(17,),(' $/3+$ ') 9 (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW &RPSHWHQFLHV 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 3RVVHVVLRQ 0HDQ 1 *URXS 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ ,PSRUWDQFH 0HDQ 1 *URXS f 'HYHORS DQG $GPLQLVWHU D %XGJHW $ )7 $ &6$2 % &6$2 $ )7 & '2+ % '2+ 2UJDQL]H 5HVRXUFHV 3URJUDP $FWLYLWLHV $ )7 % &6$2 % '2+ 8QGHUVWDQG ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 0LVVLRQ b ([SHFWDWLRQ $ )7 $ )7 $ &6$2 $ &6$2 % % '2+ % '2+ .QRZ DQG 8WLOL]H 5HVRXUFHV $ )7 % &6$2 % % '2+ 127( 0HDQV ZLWK WKH VDPH OHWWHU DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW ') 'HJUHH RI IUHHGRP

PAGE 155

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG 9 (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 3RVVHVVLRQ ,PSRUWDQFH 0DQDJHPHQW &RPSHWHQFLHV 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 *URXS 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 *URXS $FFHSW $XWKRULW\ 'HOHJDWH DV $SSURSULDWH $ )7 % &6$2 % % '2+ ,GHQWLI\ DQG 8WLOL]H 5HVRXUFHV $ )7 $ )7 % &6$2 $ &6$2 % '2+ % '2+ 0HGLDWH &RQIOLFW &RPPXQLW\ *URXSV $ )7 $ '2+ % $ &6$2 % % &6$2 5HFRJQL]H DQG $FFHSW &RQVHTXHQFHV %HKDYLRU $ )7 % &6$2 & '2+

PAGE 156

7$%/( &RQWLQXHG (QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW &RPSHWHQFLHV 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 6HOHFW 7UDLQ DQG 6XSHUYLVH 6WDII $ $ % % % 0DQDJH 3K\VLFDO 5HVRXUFHV DQG )DFLOLWLHV $ $ % $ % $GMXGLFDWH 6WXGHQW &RQGXFW (IIHFWLYHO\ 0HDQ 1 *URXS 'XQFDQ *URXSLQJ 0HDQ 1 '2+ $ '2+ )7 % )7 % &6$2 % &6$2 )7 &6$2 '2+ $ '2+ $ $ &6$2 % )7

PAGE 157

5()(5(1&(6 127(6 &URVV .3 $VVHVVPHQW RI VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH WK DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RO WKH $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ $WODQWD 0DUFK +DQVRQ *5 6WRS WKH EDQGZDJRQf§$&3$ ZDQWV WR JHW RQ 5Hn VHDUFK 3URMHFW 7RU $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQf 8QSXEOLVKHG PDQXVFULSW 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV 6DGGOHPLUH 7UDLQLQJ FRQFHSWV LQ WKH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VSHFLDOLVW 6SHHFK SUHVHQWHG DW %RZOLQJ *UHHQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ %RZOLQJ *UHHQ 2KLR 6PLWK 0 (Gf $ VWXG\ RI WKH DWWLWXGH RI EHKDYLRUDO VFLHQWLVWV WRZDUG WKH WUDLQLQJ DQ RQVLELOLWLHV VWX HUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQD FRQFHUPQ UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ VWXGHQW DYLRUD PHQW HUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQ QSXRLLVQHD PDQXVFULSW FRPPLVVLRQ 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $GPLQLVWUDWRUV 6WDPDWDNRV /& )DFLQJ WKH UHDOLWLHV RI SUDFWLFH LQ WUDLQLQJ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\

PAGE 158

5()(5(1&(6 $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ 7KH UROH DQG SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO PHPEHUV LQ LQVWLWXWLRQV RI KLJKHU OHDUQLQJ -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ $ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW PRGHO IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV LQ WRPRUURZnV KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO B! $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ 7KH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO SRLQW RI YLHZ $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ VWXGLHV VHULHV 7L QR :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ )XWXUH QHHGV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ DQG 8 6 2IILFH RI (GXFDWLRQ $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH RQ 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO :RUN ( :LOOLDPVRQ &KDLUPDQf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n FRPH PRGHO -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $VWPDQ 6 )DFXOW\ SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VWDII ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU VXUYLYDO -RXUQDO RI WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU :RPHQ 'HDQV DQG &RXQVHORUV $\HUV $ 5 7ULSS 3 DQG 5XVVHOO 6WXGHQW VHUYLFHV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ :DVKLQJWRQ '& 86 2IILFH RI (GXFDWLRQ 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOn IDUH

PAGE 159

%DUU\ 5 DQG :ROI % 0RGHUQ LVVXHV LQ JXLGDQFH SHUVRQQHO ZRUN 1HZ
PAGE 160

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aKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 1HZ
PAGE 161

&RZOH\ : + 7KH QDWXUH RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN (GXFDWLRQDO 5HFRUG &RZOH\ : + 6RPH KLVWRU\ DQG D YHQWXUH LQ SURSKHF\ ,Q ( :LOOLDPVRQ (Gf 7UHQGV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN 0LQQHDSROLV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 0LQQHVRWD 3UHVV &RZOH\ : + 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VHUYLFHV LQ UHWURVSHFW DQG SURVSHFW 6FKRRO DQG 6RFLHW\ &RZOH\ : + 5HIOHFWLRQV RI D WURXEOHVRPH EXW KRSHIXO 5LS 9DQ :LQNOH -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO &UDQH 5REHUW 0 7KH UDLVRQ GnHWUH RI D FROOHJH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRU ,PSURYLQJ &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ 7HDFKLQJ &URRNVWRQ % % $Q RUJDQL]DWLRQDO PRGHO IRU VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW 1$63$ -RXUQDO &URRNVWRQ % % 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DOO KDLO DQG IDUHZHOO 3HUVRQQHO DQG *XLGDQFH -RXUQDO A &URVV 3 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN DV D SURIHVVLRQ -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 'DYLHV 7 3URSRVHG EHKDYLRUDO FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU PHPEHUV RI WKH MXQLRU FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWLDO FDELQHW 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f 'DYLV & $QDO\VLV RI D JUDGXDWH SURJUDP IRU FROOHJH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN EDVHG RQ GHWHUPLQHG FULWHULD 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUn WDWLRQA ,QGLDQD 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUn QDWLRQDO 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f 'HOZRUWK 8 DQG +DQVRQ 6WXGHQW 6HUYLFHV 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 'HOZRUWK 8 DQG
PAGE 162

'RPHLHU 3 ( $ VWXG\ WR H[DPLQH WKH WUDLQLQJ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV IRU VSHFLILHG FRPSHWHQF\ WDVNV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ 9r 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO } $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV (PPHW 7 $ $ JXLGH WR SURJUDPV RI WUDLQLQJ IRU FROOHJH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHUV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 'HWURLW *7 )HGHU ' 1H[W VWHS LQ WKH SHUVRQQHO SURIHVVLRQ 2FFXSDWLRQV )HGHU ' 7KH HPHUJLQJ UROH RI WKH SURIHVVLRQDO SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHU ,Q 1 % +HQU\ (Gf 3HUVRQQHO VFLHQFHV LQ HGXFD WLRQ 7KH ILIW\HLJKWK \HDUERRN RI WKH 1DWLRQDO 6RFLHW\ IRU WKH 6WXG\ RI (GXFDWLRQ 3DUW ,OL &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ R7 &KLFDJR 3UHVV )OH[QHU $ ,V VRFLDO ZRUN D SURIHVVLRQ" 6FKRRO DQG 6RFLHW\ )R\ ( DWWHUQV RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHU WDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFUR *LPPHVWDG 8 DQG *ROGVPLWK ( $GPLVVLRQV SROLFLHV IRU JUDGXDWH SURJUDPV LQ FRXQVHORU HGXFDWLRQ &RXQVHORU (GXFDWLRQ DQG 6XSHUYLVLRQ *ROGVPLWK &RPSHWHQFH DVVHVVPHQW 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU SURJUDP ZLWKLQ D SURIHVVLRQDO WUDLQLQJ H[SHULPHQWDO OHDUQLQJ *UHHQOHDI ( $ 3UHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VWDII WR PHHW IOH[LELOLW\ DQG GLYHUVLW\ LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ ,Q + .QRFN (G f 3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVn VLRQDOV 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 6HULHV QR :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ +DQVRQ 5 DQG /HQQLQJ '7 (YDOXDWLQJ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV ,Q .XK (Gf (YDOXDWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ +DUWOH\ $ FRRSHUDWLYH JUDGXDWH SURJUDP LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 8f +LOO ( DQG *UHHQ $ 7KH VHOHFWLRQ SUHSDUDWLRQ DQG SURIHVVLRQDOL]DWLRQ RI JXLGDQFH ZRUNHUV 5HYLHZ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK

PAGE 163

+ROODQG ( ( DQG .OHLQEHUJ 5 6WXGHQW DIIDLUV SHUVRQQHO SDUWQHUV RU VHFRQG FODVV FLWL]HQV ,PSURYLQJ &ROOHJH DQG 8QLn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f 'LUHFWRU\ RI JUDGXDWH SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ FROOHJH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO )DOOV &KXUFK 9$ $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ .LUNEULGH 9 3UDFWLFXP H[SHULHQFH LQ WKH PDVWHUnV GHJUHH SURJUDP IRU SHUVRQQHO ZRUN -RXUQDO RI 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU :RPHQ 'HDQV DQG &RXQVHORUV .ORSI 'HVLJQ IRU FRXQVHORU SUHSDUDWLRQ -RXUQDO RI 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI :RPHQ 'HDQV DQG &RXQVHORUV aa .QRFN + 7RZDUG SRVVHVVLRQ RI D VSHFLDOL]HG ERG\ RI NQRZOHGJH DQG VNLOOV ,Q + .QRFN (Gf 3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ WKH SUHSDn UDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VHULHV QR :DVKLQJWRQ & $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRn FLDWLRQ .QRWW ( 6RPH SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ FDUWV DQG KRUVHV LQ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO .RFK 5 7KH SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHUV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DW 7HDFKHUnV &ROOHJH &ROXPELD 8QLn YHUVLW\ 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ &ROXPELD 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO A $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f .RLOH ( $ 6WXGHQW DIIDLUV IRUHYHU WKH EULGHVPDLG 1$63$ -RXUQDO

PAGE 164

.XK *UHHQOHH ( DQG /DUG\ % : $ SURILOH RI JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV LQ FROOHJH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXn GHQW 3HUVRQQHO /D%DUUH & *UDGXDWH WUDLQLQJ IRU HGXFDWLRQDO SHUVRQQHO ZRUN :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ /HRQDUG ( $ 2ULJLQV RI SHUVRQQHO VHUYLFHV LQ $PHULFDQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 0LQQHDSROLV 8QLYHUVLW\ R" 0LQQHVRWD 3UHVV 7Z7 /OR\G-RQHV ( 7KH EHJLQQLQJV RI RXU SURIHVVLRQ ,Q ( :LOOLDPVRQ (Gf 7UHQGV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN 0LQQHDSRn OLV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 0LQQHVRWD 3UHVV /OR\G-RQHV ( ,PSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH :UHQQ 5HSRUW IRU FRXQVHORU HGXFDWLRQ &RXQVHORU (GXFDWLRQ DQG 6XSHUYLVLRQ /\QDP : WKH $ VWXGY RI WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH FRPSHWHQFLHV QHHGHG E FRPPXQLW\ WUDQVODWLRQ LQWR HPLF HDQ DQ PR WUDLQLQ 7 &2 EHKDYLRUDO VWDWHPHQWV UHODWH 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH PYHUVLW\ $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFUR LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO PV 1R f 0DUOHU $Q DSSUDLVDO RI WKH GRFWRUDO VWXGHQW DUDWLRQ RI LVWUDWLRQ DQ SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV KLJKHU 'RFWRUD X FDWLRQ VVHUWDWLRQ LQ W DW 0LF 0LF DUWPHQW DQ 6WDWH FROOHJH DGPLQ f $ LJDQ 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R fWDWH QLYHUVLW QLYHUVLW\ $ 0HDERQ ' %DLOH\ : 5 DQG :LWWHQ & + 7KH FRPSHWHQW VWXGHQW DFWLYLWLHV DGPLQLVWUDWRU -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 0F&OHDU\ / ( &RPSHWHQF\ EDVHG HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG DSSOLFDWLRQ WR UHODWHG ILHOG :DVKLQJWRQ & 8 6 2IILFH RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH 2IILFH RI (GXFDWLRQ (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f 0F'DQLHO 5 5 2UJDQL]DWLRQ WKHRU\ DQG WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHUV 1$63$ -RXUQDO +f 0F*RYHUQ 7 9 DQG 7LQVOH\ + $ ORQJLWXGLQDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH JUDGXDWH DVVLVWDQW ZRUNWULQLQJ H[SHULHQFH -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 0LOOHU 7 DQG &DUSHQWHU 6 3URIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU WRGD\ DQG WRPRUURZ ,Q &UHDPHU (Gf 6WXGHQW GHYHO RSPHQW LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ &LQFLQQDWL $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQ QHO $VVRFLDWLRQ

PAGE 165

0LOOHU 7 DQG 3ULQFH 6 7KH IXWXUH RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 0LQHWWL 5 + $Q DQDO\WLFDO GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH DFDGHPLF WUDLQLQJ DQG DVVLVWDQWVKLS H[SHULHQFHV RI PDVWHUr V GHJUHH SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUn WDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f 0XHOOHU + &ULWHULD IRU HYDOXDWLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO VWDWXV 3HUVRQQHO DQG *XLGDQFH -RXUQDO
PAGE 166

2VWURWK ' &RPSHWHQFLHV IRU HQWU\ OHYHO SURIHVVLRQDOV :KDW GR HPSOR\HUV ORRN IRU ZKHQ KLULQJ QHZ VWDII"f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f 3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURn IHVVLRQDOV 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 6HULHV QR 7) :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ 3RWWLQJHU 3DXO 6 &RPSHWHQFH DVVHVVPHQW &RPPHQWV RQ H[SHULPHQWDO OHDUQLQJ 1HZ 'LUHFWLRQ IRU ([SHULPHQWDO /HDUQLQJ 3ULRU 7KH UHRUJDQL]DWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VHUYLFHV )DFLQJ UHDOLW\ -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 5HQW] $ / $ WULDGLF PRGHO PDVWHUnV SURJUDP LQ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 5KDWLJDQ 7KH SURIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV DV SHUFHLYHG E\ SUDFWLWLRQHUV DQG IDFXOW\WUDLQHUV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RO ,RZD f 'LVVHU WDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFUR ILOPV 1R f 5KDWLJDQ 3URIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV DV SHUFHLYHG E\ SUDFWLWLRQHUV DQG IDFXOW\ -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO

PAGE 167

5KDWLJDQ 6WXGHQW VHUYLFHV YV VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH" -RXUQDO RI WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI :RPHQ 'HDQV DQG &RXQVHORUV 5LNHU + & /HDUQLQJ E\ GRLQJ ,Q + .QRFN (Gf 3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ WKH RUHRDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV D QR 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ DVKLQJWRQ URIHVVLRQDOV $PHULFDQ 5RELQVRQ : $Q DQDO\VLV RI WKUHH VWDWHPHQWV UHODWLYH WR WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI FROOHJH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHUV -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 5RFNH\ 0 & 'RFWRUDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VHOHFWLYH XQLYHUVLWLHV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH 8QLn YHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f 5RGJHUV 5 ) 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUN DV VRFLDO LQWHUYHQWLRQ ,Q + .QRFN (Gf 3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW DII DLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 6HULHV QR :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ 6DGGOHPLUH 2I PHQ SHUVRQQHO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV 2FFXSDWLRQV 6DQGHHQ & $ 3URIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ VWXGHQW SHUVRQn QHO VHUYLFHV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ $ QDWLRQDO DVVHVVPHQW E\ FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV 1$63$ -RXUQDO : 6KDIIHU 5 $Q HPHUJLQJ UROH RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHOf§FRQWULEXWLQJ WR RUJDQL]DWLRQDO HIIHFWLYHQHVV -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQn QHO 6KDIIHU 5 DQG 0DUWLQVRQ : 6WXGHQW SHUVRQQHO VHUYLFHV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 168

6WDPDWDNRV / & 3UHSURIHVVLRQDO DQG SURIHVVLRQDO REVWDFOHV WR VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW ,Q &UHDPHU (Gf 6WXGHQW GHYHORS PHQW LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ &LQFLQQDWL $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQ QHO $VVRFLDWLRQ 6WDPDWDNRV / & 6WXGHQW DIIDLUV SURJUDPV WRZDUG PHQGDWLRQV IRU DFWLRQ -RXUQDO RI UHFR SURIHVVLRQDOLVP &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 6WURXJKWRQ 5REHUW : 7KH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI FRXQVHORUV DQG SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHUV 5HYLHZ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6WXIIOHEHDP / (Gf (GXFDWLRQDO HYDOXDWLRQ DQG GHFLn VLRQPDNLQJ ,WDVFD ,OO7O 3HDFRFN 7UDFH\ / 7KH FXUUHQW VWDWXV RI 0DVWHUnV SURJUDPV LQ FROOHJH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO 1$63$ -RXUQDO 7URZ $ )URP WKH ILHOG 7KH IXWXUH RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO '" 7UXHEORRG / 7KH HGXFDWLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH FROOHJH VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO OHDGHU RI WKH IXWXUH ,Q .ORSI (Gf &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO LQ WKH
PAGE 169

:LOOLDPVRQ ( (VVHQWLDOV RI SURIHVVLRQDO WUDLQLQJ IRU VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHUV LQ WKH VRXWK 6RXWKHUQ &ROOHJH 3HUVRQQHO $VVRFLDWLRQ :RUN &RQIHUHQFH 6ZDQQDQRD 1RUWK &DUROLQD :LOOLDPVRQ ( 3URIHVVLRQDO SUHSDUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SHUVRQQHO ZRUNHUV 6FKRRO DQG 6RFLHW\ ! :LOOLDPVRQ ( 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 6HUYLFHV LQ &ROOHJHV DQG 8QLYHUVLWLHV 1HZ
PAGE 170

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 5DQG\ ( +\PDQ ZDV ERUQ RQ 0DUFK LQ 1HZDUN 1HZ
PAGE 171

0U +\PDQ PHW KLV ZLIH 5REL ZKLOH ZRUNLQJ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 6RXWK )ORULGD LQ 7DPSD 7KH\ ZHUH PDUULHG LQ -XQH RI DQG KDYH D VRQ 'UHZ ERUQ LQ )HEUXDU\ 0UV +\PDQ KDV EHHQ HPn SOR\HG VLQFH DV D VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU ZLWK WKH $ODFKXD &RXQW\ 6FKRRO %RDUG 7KH +\PDQV FXUUHQWO\ UHVLGH LQ *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD

PAGE 172

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

PAGE 173

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


OF FLORIDA
3 1262
C31262085568276C


50
Setting
ft
The subjects were removed from their regular classrooms and taken to one room where the standard and modified tests were administered to a group of approximately 2-7 students. Before beginning the test the following statement was read to the subjects.
Today you are going to take a special test. You probably have seen questions like these in your classroom work. I want you to take your time and answer as many questions as you can. Raise your hand if you have any questions. Are there any questions now? Good luck!
The tests were administered on two consecutive days. The students were given items #1-60 of their respective test during the first session which lasted approximately 60-75 minutes. Items #61-100 were administered on the next day with that session lasting approximately 45-60 minutes. Upon completion of the test, the subjects returned to their regular classroom setting.
Variables
The effects of the experimental procedure on students1 test performance scores was measured. Four groups of students were evaluated using two different test formats; performance scores on the total test and comparable subtests were analyzed.
The independent variables in this study were type of student and test type. Students were characterized as normal, learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, or educable mentally retarded. Tests


94
Dear Parent,
I am currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida. I am in the process of conducting a study regarding the effect of physical test item modifications on the performance of third grade students. This form is asking parents for their written consent to have their son or daughter participate in the study.
The study will be conducted within the Alachua County School System. We will be asking each child to take a 100 item test, which should take approximately 90 minutes. There will be two tests utilized; a standard form and a modified version. There are no discomforts or risks anticipated for any of the students. Additionally, there will be no monetary compensation offered. The test scores obtained in this study will remain confidential and will not be recorded in any of the student's permanent records. The scores will be merely used to compare the achievement of different groups, based on individual test modifications.
As educators, we are continually striving to discover the most appropriate way of assessing individual children's cognitive abilities. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide valuable information regarding the test taking abilities of elementary aged children under different circumstances.
I would be most willing to answer any questions you may have regarding the goals or procedures of this effort. If you agree to


29
the task and are not attempting any task that is unclear. In an attempt to measure skills and not the ability to read, procedures in New York (CIift, 1979), Virginia, New Jersey, and North Carolina (Grise", 1981) allow the math and reading sections of the minimum competency test to be read to some handicapped students, while Florida allows only the math and writing portions to be read to the handicapped students (Florida Statutes 232.246, 1979).
In addition to problems of decoding directions, some handicapped students also exhibit problems of attention. In a study by Margolis, Brannigan, and Penner (1978) directions were modified for 16 children who were labeled as impulsive. Test administrators read the examples orally, and presented the logic behind choosing the correct answer. The investigators were successful in teaching the children how to examine tasks deliberately and logically. Instead of reacting to a new and uncertain situation in their traditionally habitual and impulsive manner, the children began to solve tasks systematically and rationally.
Answer Format
Within test booklet response. Several studies support the procedure of having students answer directly in their answer booklet as opposed to transferring answers to a separate answer sheet. Muller, Calhoun, and Orling (1972) suggested that the transfer of answers to separate answer sheets required ability in (a) encoding, (b) short term memory, and (c) motor coordination. Their study found that normal third, fourth, and sixth graders answered more items correctly


39
required modification. They consisted of (a) clear presentation of directions and addition of supplemental directions and sample items, (b) various alternatives for indicating responses (i.e., marking answers in the test booklet or giving answers orally); (c) access to an audio presentation of some items; (d) clear print format and print size; and (e) adequate spacing that would facilitate processing of the task.
On the basis of this information, Perez (1980) placed the major emphasis of Florida's modified test on the stimulus/response mode. Using 48 learning disabled (LD) eleventh graders from the Dade County area, Perez administered a modified assessment test with the following changes:
1. One group of students took the test augmented with audio support.
2. Another group of students took a large print (18 pt.) version of the test.
3. A third group took the standard sized print test.
4. All students had unlimited time for responding to test items.
5. Templates or markers (5" x 8" white) were available for all students to use.
6. All students had the option of responding to a test item by
-
circling or underlining (a) the entire item or (b) the corresponding letter in the test booklet.
Results of the study indicated that the large print presentation was superior to the regular print format in five of eight skills


CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Tests can be useful tools. If adequately designed and used properly, they can direct teachers to the specific strengths and weaknesses of any child. Tests can be used to determine degrees of deficits, facilitate appropriate placement, and be of assistance in the development of instructional strategies. The information obtained from tests is also useful in evaluating skills, planning lessons and curriculum, and determining amounts of progress that have been made. In essence, tests can be used to constructively analyze problems and serve as a basis for remediation.
Unfortunately, tests are not always designed and implemented sensibly or in the best interest of the child. Often test items do not measure what they purport to measure and a child's true ability is not adequately assessed. Although a child may cognitively know a skill, the manner in which the skill is tested may frequently affect his ability to demonstrate proficiency. The same skill presented in a different manner/mode may elicit a totally different response. Possibly, the greatest inequities of testing may be occurring with the handicapped population at the elementary level.
Salvia and Ysseldyke (1978) denote the fact that test items often measure the student's ability to "receive a stimulus and then
70


sense of humor. When life becomes difficult we will remember the "pulled hamstrings", smile, and forge on.
Sincere thanks are also extended to those individuals who provided access to the population of special students and assisted in data collection. Without the help of Maryellen Maher, Rosalie Boone, Jam's Wilson, and Maureen Gale this study would have never come to full fruition. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. And to two very wonderful friends, Gayle McBride and Chip Voorneveld, I could never express how much your caring and concern have meant to me. You are so special and I appreciate all the times that you were there for me. An enormous amount of thanks go to my friend and world's best typist, Leila Cantara. I will always respect and admire
her ability and high standards.
And to my family, "thank you" seems hardly enough for all you've
done. To my parents, I will always be grateful for your instilling the philosophy of "you can do anything you put your mind to." It gave me the strength to endure many difficult times. To my son, Matthew, thank you for being such a wonderful baby. You never fussed at staying with grandparents, babysitters, neighbors, and friends so that I could study and write. I appreciate it and love you so much.
Unfortunately, there are no expressions of thanks and love great enough to extend to my best friend, my love, and husband, John. Without him I would fail to exist. Thank you for tolerating the moods, understanding the frustration, minimizing the chaos, and always being

ill


modifications included alterations in line lengths, inclusion of examples, the use of boldface type for emphasis, placement of answer bubbles, and the arrangement of items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty. Eighty students were randomly selected from four populations; i.e., normal, learning disabled (LD), emotionally handicapped (EH), and educable mentally retarded (EMR) students. The students were matched within each category according to reading ability and then randomly assigned to either the modified or the standard test group. Data were analyzed at a level of significance of a = .05.
The results indicated that overall total test scores were significantly higher on the modified test than on the standard test. There were no significant differences between test form scores for four out of five modification subtests. Performance scores on the example subtest however, were significantly higher on the modified version than on the standard test version. Performance scores for emotion-ally handicapped and LD students were statistically similar as were the scores for normal and EH students. EMR students consistently scored lower than other categories of students.
Results of a post hoc analysis indicated that modifications of physical test format may have some merit in mastery level situations. Mean performance scores on the modified test surpassed mastery criteria for 32 percent of the subskill sections failed by the students taking the standard test.
It appears that simple modifications can be made in minimum competency tests that affect the performance of students. These
ix


there. Your professional expertise was invaluable and certainly made my road easier to travel. Thank you for coming into my life and bringing a happiness very few people are fortunate enough to experience.
And last, but definitely not least, a special thank you to Joshua who was responsible for my initially undertaking this degree. I'll never forget you.

i v


Sample 1 Well Balanced Page
i
Sample 2 Imbalanced Page
Figure 1


30
in their booklets (on a ratio of 3:1) than on a separate answer sheet. Gaffney and Maguire (1971) stated that separate answer sheets were invalid for use with normal children below fifth grade. Other results supporting the use of direct response in the test booklet were stated by Cashen and Ramseyer (1969) for normal children in grades 1-2, Beck (1974) with normal children in grades 3-4, Majors and Michael (1975) for normal seventh and eighth graders, Clark (1968) for slow learners, and Greenberg (1980) for handicapped (EH, LD, EMR) fourth graders.
Placement of answer bubbles. Since the literature appeared to support the procedure of marking answers within individual test booklets, studies that pertained to the most effective placement of the answer bubbles were of interest. Only one report was available on the physical arrangement of answers. Hartley, Davies, and Burnhill (1977) compared four answer forms that varied in the placement of the bubbles to the left or right of the answers. The results indicated that normal 11-12 year old children demonstrated no significant preference for any particular placement. No studies were found that investigated a handicapped population.
Theoretically, when answer bubbles are positioned on the left, the following perceptual errors may occur within an elementary handicapped (EMR, EH, LD) population: (a) reversals; when the child moves (right to left) across the number to fill in the bubble, he may reverse the foil "ol2" to read "21 answer bubble", or (b) visual mismatching; when a child attempts to shade in one of the four answer


APPENDIX D SAMPLE TESTMODIFIED
DIRECTIONS: The list of words in each box is in alphabetical order. (Remember, that means A,B,C order.) Choose the word to go in the blank that will keep each list in alphabetical order.
ear
light
101


18
talking, writing, spelling, or arithmetic. They do not include learning problems which are primarily due to visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, to mental retardation, to emotional disturbance, or to an environmental deprivation (Florida Department of Education, 1979).
The normal student is one who appears to be functioning within normal limits in the classroom and is not eligible for additional educational services.
Unjustified lines are created by the arrangement of type and uniform spacing so that lines are set according to their natural length. This is opposed to justified line lengths where alterations in spacing cause every line to end at the same distance from the right-hand edge of the paper. Justified lines are traditionally found in textbooks, newspapers, and magazines.
Summary
Testing appears to be an inescapable phenomenon in today's educa tional system. Each year over 250 million standardized tests are administered to America's 44 million school children (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982). The positive benefits to be gained from testing include provision of additional educational support services, appropriate educational placement, and curriculum modifications. Unfortunately, tests can also have negative implications. Inaccurate assessments or interpretations can result in misdiagnosis, inappropriate placement, and inefficient instructional goals and techniques.
Some of these negative results may be due to the unintentional measurement of a child's inability to respond to the stimulus-


36
Department, may be presented; the test administrator may read a script version of the test to the student; however, the reading portion of the test must be read by visual or tactile means. (Proposed State Board Rule 6A-1.943, State of Florida, 1980)
As progressive as the Florida modifications may be in compari-son with those of other states, they may be somewhat misleading. The current emphasis appears to be on the more general "procedural11 modifications (i.e., where and when of testing) than on the actual construction of the test. Although these modifications may be beneficial, it would appear that mildly handicapped populations may require additional test modifications involving test design and physical formatting (i.e., issues dealing with print, color, spacing, consistency, or realism).
There is little research data available in the area of specific test modifications on test performance of handicapped learners. Although many educators espouse the legal and educational need for such modifications (Denninger, 1979; Kaluzny, 1979; McCarthy, 1980; McClung & Pullin, 1978; Smith & Jenkins, 1980) there have been only three known studies using modified formats for state assessment tests.
State Research Studies
New Jersey. A project in New Jersey under the direction of Lydia Greenberg, Coordinator of State Testing Program, New Jersey State Department of Education (1980), compared group performances of special children on modified state assessment tests. The New Jersey Minimum Basic Skills Test was field tested with fourth, seventh, tenth, and


33
continually failed in the past. Poor self-concepts and extremely low frustration levels only complicate an already difficult task.
(d) Memory problems. These children often demonstrate deficiencies in the ability to store and retrieve auditory and/or visual stimulus. Although they may be able to learn the task initially, they become plagued with the inability to recall the information after a period of time.
(e) Language deficits. Mildly handicapped individuals frequently demonstrate weak oral and written language skills. Complex linguistic passages become difficult to understand and the child simply does
not know what is being asked of him let alone do_ it.
(f) Transfer difficulties. These children tend to have problems structuring, generalizing, and seeing relationships. They appear to be unable to integrate smaller parts into a whole.
These deficits make it difficult for the handicapped child to learn or respond by traditional means. Ideally, a learning environment will control for these variables. It is this control that then allows optimum learning and assessment to occur.
Current Research in MCT Modifications for
Handicapped Individuals
According to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (1979) only seven states have already made or are in the process of making special accommodations in MCT procedures for handicapped children. This is supported by the finding of Smith and Jenkins (1980) that five of the reporting states (Colorado, Florida,


52
6. There is no difference in the performance of various groups of students on selected test items as a function of unjustified line lengths.
Data Analysis
The data analysis was conducted in the following manner. There was a comparison of test scores on the standard and modified test form for each of the handicapped (LD, EH, EMR) and normal groups. Two factor analyses of variance (ANOVA) were completed for the total test performance score and performance on each set of similar items. Main effects and interactions were analyzed and subsequent follow-up analyses were completed as necessary; the 5 percent level of confidence was used for all tests. Tables were prepared for the total test scores and each set of test modification items. Additionally, a post hoc comparison of student performance on certain skill cluster of items was completed; differences between modified and standard test performance were evaluated using criteria developed by the Florida State Department of Education.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to compare total test performance scores of two tests between four groups of students. Performances of each group of students on selected test item modifications were also investigated as were differences in skill mastery levels.
Eighty third grade students from Alachua County and metropolitan Orlando, Florida, participated in the study. Twenty students were


CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Chapter III includes a description of the methods and procedures used in this study. There are two major sections in this chapter; the first is a description of subjects, and the second is a descrip-tion of the experimental procedures including materials, setting, variables, hypotheses, and data analysis.
Method
The research was conducted in Alachua County and in the city of Orlando, which is comprised of three counties (Orange, Seminole, and

Osceola). Alachua County is located in north central Florida, encompasses an area of approximately 965 square miles, and has a population of 133,817. Metropolitan Orlando is located in cental Florida, is approximately 2600 square miles, and has a population of 723,903.
Four categories of students from the third grade participated in the study. These included normal students and those students with such mildly handicapping conditions as learning disabilities (LD), emotional handicaps (EH), and educable mental retardation (EMR). Criteria used in the determination of these mildly handicapping
45


40
tested. Large print also showed improved scores when compared to audio support in four of eight skills. There was no skill where
regular print or audio support was preferred to large print. To accommodate the large print, however, the size of the booklets was also enlarged. Grise' (1980) noted that the older students expressed
their dislike, as the booklet size was awkward to handle and it tended to draw attention to the disability.
Some students reported confusion with the audio support presentation of the test. They found it difficult to cope with the combined auditory and visual stimuli:.- The markers provided in the study were not used by any of the secondary students, although some were seen using their pencils to mark their place. Finally, it did not appear to be possible to use the psychological and IEP data of individual LD students to predict maximum performance on tests with specific modifications.
University of Florida Research
The most current study was conducted by Beattie and Algozzine (1981) at the University of Florida. An analysis of the State Student Assessment Test-Part I (SSAT-I) (grade 3 and 5) and a review of the literature indicated that several general physical format modifications could be implemented as potential aids to mildly handicapped students. Specifically, the following changes were made in the standard format to create a modified test.
1. The order of selected items was changed to reflect a hier-
archial progression of skills whenever possible.


CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
America spends $70 billion annually on education, and administers over 250 million tests. As a result of such enormous expenditures of time and money, one may assume that America is a fully literate society. Unfortunately, this appears to be untrue. A congressional survey revealed that 13 percent of our 17-year-old youths are functional illiterates (Pabian, 1979). Another survey published in 1973 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) supported these data and stated that an estimated one million American youths, between the ages of 12 and 17, can not read at a fourth grade level and can therefore be labeled as illiterate (cited in McClung, 1977). Ysseldyke and Algozzine (1982) cited Copperman's report that America's academic performance and standards have shown a marked decline since the mid-1960's.
Today's eighth grader reads approximately as well as the average seventh grader just ten years ago and computes about as well as the average sixth grader of that period. On college admissions tests only about a quarter of our current high-school graduates attain the level recorded by the average high school graduate in the early 1960's. (Copperman, 1978, p. 15)
Several explanations have been offered in regard to America's
educational plight. The National Academy of Education panel has
1


6
4. There has been a reorganization and greater utilization of human resources throughout the state based on the needs of the student. Specificity in purpose has contributed to greater efficiency in the performance of teaching personnel. Program planning and education procedures established by administrators have also shown marked improvements.
5. Standardized tests measure students against students. In contrast, MCT measures the mastery of skills. This characteristic can be used to regroup students by skill levels rather than by age, permit report cards to be based on continuums, and allow each student to learn at his/her own pace. If executed with caution, these changes could lessen a student's feeling of failure and enhance the chance of success.
Pabian (1979) noted that in the early 60's, the quality of teaching in the urban ghetto was relatively low, with 40 percent of the high school graduates being classified as functional illiterates. The Pygmalion effect dominated as teachers, observing students having difficulty learning academics, attributed the difficulty to socioeconomic factors and stopped trying to teach the impossible. Pinkney (1979) feels the MCT program in Florida has counteracted this Pygmalion effect. He maintains that the teachers' expectation level for students has increased and that the students are working harder to learn.
Negative effects. On the other hand, there are educators who express a concern that MCT will have negative effects on our educational system (Madaus, 1981). Pinkney (1979) addressed the


42
10. Arrows were placed in the lower right-hand corner of pages to indicate continuing sections of the test. Stop signs were positioned similarly, denoting an end to each skill section.
A total of 679 third and fifth grade learning disabled (LD) students from seven counties in Florida participated in the study. Results indicated that the third and fifth grade LD students' performance on the modified SSAT-I was comparable to or better than that on the regular SSAT-I for approximately 75 percent of the test items evaluated. Detailed analysis of specific modifications revealed that (a) both third and fifth grade LD students performed consistently higher on modified test items presenting coins face up; (b) third grade LD students performed better on the modified sequencing section (the skill was not presented in the fifth grade test); and (c) there was no significant difference between the LD students' performance on tests printed in standard type and their performance on tests printed in enlarged print.
Summary
The review of the literature revealed very few studies that applied to physical test modifications designed for mildly handicapped elementary aged children. Due to current legal and educational issues involved in non-discriminatory testing, there is a definite need for additional research.
Print authorities appear to support the use of boldface lowercase print as an effective means for emphasizing important words or concepts.


97
DIRECTIONS: Read the story in each box. Choose the best answer for each question.
The bee bit the puppy on his nose. The puppy ran to the dish of water. He put his nose in the water.
In the Fall, witches fly through the sky on brooms. Once a witch bumped into a cloud Her broom broke and she fell to the ground.
29. Who bit the puppy?
the man the cat the bee the dog
31. What did the witch do?
bump into a cloud sing a song scare people
c
) win the race
30. Where did the puppy run?
CD to his mother
CD to his dish of water
CD to the lake
O to a tree
32. When do witches fly in
the sky?
CD in the clouds r-> in the Fall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ a
CD on a broom CD over the moon


12
and not the handicapping condition (Gearheart & Willenberg, 1974; Marsh, Gearheart, & Gearheart, 1978; McCarthy, 1980; Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1978). For example, traditionally most competency testing programs have been restricted to paper and pencil tests.
Educators must be able to verify that this type of assessment accurately measures the competencies being taught and fulfills
standards of test reliability and validity. Otherwise, it becomes the legal responsibility of policy makers to eliminate potential discrimination against handicapped individuals and devise differential assessment procedures.
Test Modifications and Competency Testing
Research concerning test modifications appears to be relatively limited in nature. In addition to a paucity of data based studies, there has also been a tendency to narrowly restrict the target populations to adults, the visually impaired, and the physically handicapped. Traditional test modifications for these students have been braille or enlarged print, the use of a head pointer, or an aide to transcribe answers.
Test modifications for the mildly handicapped student have typically been "procedural" or environmental in nature. Examples of
such modifications include a reduction in group size, a change in administrative setting, or a waiver of time limits. Researchers are now, however, becoming aware of the possible need to modify the
actual test itself. This has been demonstrated through the modifications of the minimum competency tests administered in New Jersey and


CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The following literature review examines the nature and extent of current knowledge concerning physical test modifications for normal and mildly handicapped (LD, EMR, EH) populations. It specifically addresses (a) print, (b) line length, (c) the arrangement of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty, (d) physical layout (workspace, cells per page), (e) administration (directions, increased ratio of example per skill change), and (f) answer format (separate answer sheet, answer bubble placement). A review of current research in the area of minimum competency test modifications and characteristic needs of handicapped individuals is also included.
Background

Information in this review was obtained from several sources.
These included (a) an ERIC search, (b) examination of the Current Index of Journals in Education (CUE), and (c) examination of the Educational Index. The descriptor utilized for the ERIC search was "test construction modifications.11 The descriptors used for the second and third sources were "test construction," "test modifications,11
20


Physical Layout ..................... 26
Administration ..................... 28
Answer Format ..................... 29
Unverified Modification; Increased Example/Skill Ratio 31
Characteristic Needs of Handicapped Individuals ...... 32
Current Research in MCT Modifications for Handicapped
Individuals ...................... 33
State Research Studies ................. 36
University of Florida Research ............. 40
Summary .......................... 42
CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES ............ 45
Method .......................... 45
Experimental Procedures .................. 48
Materials........................ 48
Setting......................... 50
Variables........................ 50
Hypotheses ....................... 51
Data Analysis...................... 52
Summary .......................... 52
CHAPTER IV RESULTS .................... 54
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........... 70
Discussion of Findings ................... 72
Test Form Analyses ................... 72
Category Analyses ................... 73
Post Hoc Analyses ................... 73
Observations ....................... 75
vi


THE EFFECT OF PHYSICAL TEST FORMAT MODIFICATIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THIRD GRADE MILDLY HANDICAPPED
AND NORMAL STUDENTS
BY
SUSAN BEATTIE
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
1982


0
37
twelfth grade handicapped students, assessing reading and math skills. The areas of handicapping conditions included communication impaired, mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, ortho-pedically handicapped, chronically ill, perceptually impaired, neurologically impaired, multiply handicapped, and socially maladjusted. In contrast with their performance on the standard test, the students in grades 7, 10, and 12 had higher scores on the revised reading test. There was no significant difference between student performance on the revised and standard math subtests at any grade level. Even with the noted reading score improvement, however, the handicapped population still scored below the normal group of students.
Based on the analysis of the field test, the following modifications appeared to have the greatest impact in the study according to Greenberg (1980):
1. The print was enlarged.
2. Time limits were extended (approximately twice the normal amount of time allotted). The teacher was asked not to mention any time limit.
3. Practice tests were developed for the handicapped students at the four grade levels. The purpose of this was to acquaint the students with test taking techniques. It was administered one to two weeks before the actual testing.
4. Students could be tested alone or in small groups.
At the conclusion of the field testing, administrators made the following recommendations:


93
Please have your child return this form to school as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Susan Beattie
******************^^
Parent of
(child's name)
Parent signature
Date


modifications appeared to have a greater effect on the performance of handicapped students than on that of normal students. Continued research in the area of minimum competency test modifications appears warranted.

x


78
answering questions to another passage (upper right quadrant). This posed potential problems in this study along with affecting the math hierarchy. It was corrected by repeatedly demonstrating the correct order to each student individually and monitoring activity closely.
Implications
In an instance when mastery criteria are of utmost importance, it appears that the modifications made in this study, alterations in physical formatting, have some merit. Students taking the modified test achieved mastery level criteria in eight of 25 sub-skills that were not mastered on the standard version. Mastery achievement on the modified subtests may contribute to the self-concept and positive attitude of the mildly handicapped learner and possibly facilitate his acquisition of a standard diploma in some states.
As indicated in the post hoc analysis of EMR students1 performance on the example subtest, these students may indeed know how to perform a skill but demonstrate proficiency more readily when examples are provided. The test scores of emotionally handicapped students also appeared to be affected (10% gain) by the inclusion of examples.
Learning Disabled and emotionally handicapped students1 scores improved 10% with the use of boldface type. Other students however did not appear to benefit from the additional attention created by boldface type. Basically students who know such clue words as who,


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................... 11
ABSTRACT ......................... viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .................. 1
Current Interest in Minimum Competency Programs ...... 2
Minimum Competency Testing Within a Competency Based
Education Framework ................. 3
Reactions to Minimum Competency Testing ........ 5
Impact of MCT on Handicapped Individuals ....... 8
Test Modifications and Competency Testing ....... 12
Statement of the Problem ................. 13
Purpose ....................... 13
Related Questions ................... 14
Limitations ...................... 15
Delimitations ..................... 16
Definition of Terms ................... 17
Summary ......................... 18
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........... 20
Background ........................ 20
Verified Test Modifications ................ 22
Print ........................ 22
Line Length ...................... 23
Item Grouping ..................... 25
v


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EXXEYG0RT_66VK8H INGEST_TIME 2017-07-12T21:05:40Z PACKAGE AA00002179_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


48
Experimental Procedures
Each of the 80 randomly selected subjects was asked to complete a 100 item test. All testing occurred in a designated classroom in the school; students took the test in small groups of 2-7. The effects of various test modifications on the performance of four groups of students were evaluated using appropriate inferential statistics.
Materials
The students were randomly assigned to take one of two tests,
either a standard or modified version. Each test contained 100 items
with multiple choice answers; answers were marked within the test
booklet. The test items were identical in content, differing only in
physical format. Internal consistency estimates for standard and
modified total tests ranged from .85 to .96. Reliability measures
for the five modification subtests generally ranged from .61 to .94,
with three subtests scores falling below .60. Refer to Table 2 for
the reliability of the total test and each subtest by category.
The standard test consisted of five groups of 20 items. These items were characterized by exclusion of examples in transition from
skill to skill (#1-20), an inconsistent method of denoting emphasis (#21-40), placement of answer bubbles to the left of the foils (#41-60), a presentation of skills in a mixed hierarchy of difficulty (#61-80), and justified line lengths (#81-100). A sample test in standard format is included in Appendix C.


100
DIRECTIONS: Read the story and answer the question.
93.
Bob and J im were football team, points. Jim sco Altogether, how Bob and Jim scor
on the same Bob scored 21 d 7 points, many points did e?
95.
There are 15 boys in Miss Smith's class. There are also 13 girls in the class. How many children are in the class altogether?
10 points
28 points
26 points
17 points
28 children 10 children 2 children 46 children
94.
John caught 32 fish. Mike caught 24 fish. How many fish did they catch in all?
96.
Sally went on a trip and drove 56 miles. Her husband drove 33 miles. How many miles did Sally and her husband drive
fish fish fish
23 miles 90 miles 17 miles
fish
89 miles


19
response format. In such instances the test results may not accurately represent the child's cognitive proficiency in the various skill areas. Instead, they may represent the inability to handle the "standard" stimulus-response testing format.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of physical test format modifications on the performance of mildly handicapped (LD, EH, EMR) and normal students in the third grade. The modifications included alterations in line length, grouping of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty, an increased ratio of examples per skill change, placement of answer bubbles, and the use of boldface type for emphasis. It was anticipated that these test modifications would result in differential performance
scores.


68
I Table 12
Frequency Count of Students Achieving Mastery
by Subtest by Category
N LD EH EMR
Subtest Subskill s M S M S M S M
Examples Dollar 8 10 8 9 9 8 1 5
Fractions 10 10 9 7 9 7 3 6
Measurement 10 10 10 9 10 10 8 5
Sequencing 8 10 8 10 7 9 1 5
ABC Order 10 9 5 7 6 8 1 2
Math Word Problems 10 9 7 9 8 10 1 5
Total 56 58 47 51 49 52 15 28
Boldface Not 9 9 7 8 8 7 1 3
End 10 8 7 8 7 9 3 2
Pronouns 9 10 5 6 6 7 2 3
Opposites 9 10 5 9 7 8 3 2
Following Direction s 8 9 8 7 7 9 1 0
Total 45 46 32 38 35 40 10 10
Answer 2-digit Addition 10 10 9 10 8 10 6 7
Bubble Math Word Problems 10 10 7 7 9 10 2 4
Reading Comprehension 9 7 2 5 6 6 2 0
Reading Comprehension 9 10 7 6 7 8 2 1
Spelling 9 10 6 6 8 7 2 1
Total 47 47 31 34 38 41 14 13
Line Reading Comprehension 8 9 7 7 5 9 3 6
Length Reading Comprehension 9 10 6 7 8 10 1 "5
$ Word Problems 8 6 2 7 6 5 1 3
# Word Problems 9 9 7 8 8 9 4 4
Reading Comp. Not 8 9 3 7 3 7 1 3
Total 42 43 25 36 30 40 10 21
Hierarchy + Vertical 8 10 10 10 9 10 4 0
+ Horizontal 9 10 9 9 9 9 0 2
Vertical 9 7 6 3 7 4 0 3
Horizontal 9 10 7 7 8 7 1 1
Total 35 37 32 29 33 30 5 6



90
Educable Mentally Retarded Educable mentally retardedone who is mildly impaired in intellectual and adaptive behavior and whose development reflects a reduced rate of learning. The measured intelligence of an educable mentally retarded student generally falls between two (2) and three (3) standard deviations below the mean, and the assessed adaptive behavior falls below age and cultural expectations. 1. Criteria for Eligibility
a. The measured level of intellectual functioning, as determined by performance on an individual test of intelligence, is between two (2) and three (3) standard deviations below the mean. The standard error of measurement may be considered in individual cases. The profile of intellectual functioning shows consistent sub-average performance in a majority of areas evaluated.
b. The assessed level of adaptive behavior is below age and cultural expectations.
c. Sub-average performance on a standardized measure of academic achievement is demonstrated.
Emotionally Handicapped Emotionally handicappedone who after receiving supportive educational assistance and counseling services available to all students, still exhibits a persistent and consistent severe emotional handicap which consequently disrupts the student's own learning process. This is the student whose inability to achieve adequate


13
Florida. Examples of such modifications include print size, audio support, grouping of test items in a progressive hierarchy, methods for recording answers, adaptations in line length, inclusion of examples, and realistic representations.
Statement of the Problem
There is much controversy regarding the educational practice of minimum competency testing. Frequently debated issues for the normal students include legal ramifications, minority rights, comparability of curricula, and implementation procedures. For handicapped learners,
9
however, there are additional problems that may take precedence over these basic issues. The performance of handicapped and non-handicapped students will likely be different; it is assumed that the difference is due to the students1 handicaps and not the circumstances of testing. However, failure to consider possible sources of performance differences (other than student abilities) may be a major source of bias in assessment. Such factors as inappropriate test construction or item selection, as well as problems in the general testing procedures, may contribute to poor performance of the exceptional child and the inaccurate assessment of his/her fundamental content knowledge.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of physical test construction modifications on the performance of third grade mildly handicapped (learning disabled, educable mentally retarded,


77
children were taken aside and asked to redo 3-5 items from this section. In each instance the child read the problem aloud. At the end of each sentence that included a directional clue, the examiners said, "Do it!" The confusion was all but eliminated and the students performed with little difficulty.
Another consistent problem for students was those test items measuring the child's ability to locate two particular items out of four and then correctly mark only one of those two. For example, "Look at these pictures. Find the apple. Find the other thing that is good to eat. Mark the one you found last." "Find the animals. Mark the large animal." Many children consistently marked two answers for each question, both things to eat and both animals.
Two final observations are noted. It appeared that for some children the best method for obtaining an accurate assessment of ability would only be in a one to one test situation. Independent test performance scores obtained within a group did not seem equivalent to those that could be obtained on a one to one, examiner to student, basis. Finally, there were those students who did not pay attention to the test item numbers. Instead of progressing vertically down each side of the page as the test was numbered, most children proceeded to answer the items presented horizontally across the top of each page and then across the bottom. One curriculum resource teacher noted, "It makes me so angry. The minimum competency tests are laid out in a different order than the Ginn reading workbooks and tests. The kids frequently get so confused." This confusion results from reading one passage (upper left quadrant) and


47
The subjects were evenly distributed (x = 0.21, 0.005, p > .05) across test types with regard to sex and race; 49 males (23 standard, 26 modified), 31 females (17 standard, 14 modified), 40 black (19 standard, 21 modified), and 40 white (21 standard, 19 modified). Consistent with past findings in special education literature, however, sex and race were not evenly distributed across, categories. Specific examples of relationships between race/sex and special education placement are three times as many white children in LD as black and almost six times as many boys in EH as girls. A breakdown of the four categories by race and sex is presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Category Membership by Race and Sex
Race Sex Category Black White Male Female
Normal 14(17.5%) 6( 7.5%) 8(10.0%) 12(15.0%)
LD 5( 6.3%) 15(18.8%) 12(15.0%) 8(10.0%)
EH 11(13.8%) 9(11.3%) 17(21.3%) 3( 3.7%)
EMR 10(12.5%) 10(12.5%) 12(15.0%) 8(10.0%)
x2 = 8.40 x2 = 8.58
< .05 < .05


87
processes, and sensory integrated processes. In cases where the standard deviation is not available, a score of 70 percent or less of the student's expectancy age in one process area of 80 percent or less in three or more process areas may be used.
(2) Evidence of a process strength at or above the student's expected level of functioning.
(3) If more than one process test instrument is used to document a deficit or strength, the results must consistently show deficits or strengths in the same process area. If more than one level of functioning' is obtained, the mean level of functioning will be used to establish a deficit or strength.
(4) Only subtests appropriate for the student's expectancy age should be used for placement purposes.
(5) A student does not qualify for eligibility if the following subtests are the only ones that indicate a process strength or deficit.
(a) Detroit Test of Learning Abilities
Free Association Social Adjustment A Social Adjustment B Number Ability
(b) Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities
Manual Expression Grammatic Closure Sound Blending
In order for these subtests to be considered, they must
be viewed in conjunction with other subtests.


51
comprised of standard and modified formats were used; the modifications included (a) the grouping of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty, (b) the arrangement of line lengths in an unjustified manner, (c) the introduction of examples and directions
?
for each new skill change, (d) the placement of answer bubbles to
the right of each foil, and (e) the use of boldface type for emphasis.
The dependent variable in this study was the raw score indicating the student's performance on the total test or group of selected test items. Equal numbers of test items were included for each test modi fication.
Hypotheses
A series of related hypotheses were addressed. These included:
1. There is no difference in total test performance of various groups of students as a function of the nature of the test (i.e., modified vs. standard form).
2. There is no difference in the performance of various groups of students on selected items as a function of an increased ratio
of examples to skill changes.
3. There is no difference in the performance of various groups of students on selected test items as a function of boldface type.
4. There is no difference in the performance of various groups of students on selected test items as a function of answer bubble placement.
5. There is no difference in the performance of various groups of students on selected test items as a function of item grouping.


76
For example, it became apparent early in the pilot study that test performance was closely related to reading ability. Those students who read well performed well, and those students who had poor reading skills had great difficulty taking the test and achieved low test scores. Another effect reading ability appeared to have on test performance was the ability of some children to understand passages read silently. Several mildly handicapped children appeared to demonstrate comprehension problems when reading to themselves and less confusion when reading aloud.
Many mildly handicapped students also appeared to be lacking in test taking skills. They did not recognize such basic direction words as "above," "below," "same," "different," "find," or "choose." Some students went directly from the reading passage to the test answer choices without reading the question of interest. Two groups of LD students, however, demonstrated outstanding test taking skills in reading. They read the question to be answered first and then continued to find the solution in the passage. For example, in response to "How did the story end?" these students immediately went to the last sentence (without reading the entire passage) and marked the corresponding answer.
Some students also demonstrated particular difficulties with the subskill of following directions. There was a tendency for a great many to follow the alphabet sequence of labeled dots rather than following the written sequence of directions. Frequently students would also read the directions completely and then declare "I don't know what I'm supposed to do." After the test was completed, several


23
There appears to be a general consensus among experts regarding the use of upper and lower case letters, italics, and boldface type. Tinker (1963a) and Craig (1971) recommended the use of boldface type as an effective means for emphasizing an important concept or word, or for drawing attention to a critical element. The use of lower case letters is preferred to upper case or italics since lower case can be read more quickly (Tinker & Patterson, 1928; Tinker, 1963a) and more easily (Craig, 1971). Craig (1971) contended that lowercase letters facilitate the process of reading due to a presence of greater visual cues. This can be seen by splitting a word horizontally. The reader receives more decoding clues from lowercase chair than uppercase CHAIR. Sawyer (1975) suggested that words not be typed in all capital (uppercase) letters and Tinker (1963a) reported that capitals and italics retarded the speed of reading.
Line Length
According to Tinker (1963b) the normal line width is 39 characters, although this may vary up to 65 depending on different sizes of type (Craig, 1971). Line length has an important effect on reading. Lines that are too short can break up phrases and logical thought units (Craig, 1971). On the other hand, there are also disadvantages to lines that are too long. Excessively long lines make it difficult to find the beginning of the next line (Tinker, 1963a) and long lines can also cause fatigue (Craig, 1971).
Lines of print are usually set by printers to give a "justified" or even appearance. Justified lines have even left and right margins


APPENDIX C
SAMPLE TESTSTANDARD
DIRECTIONS: The list of words in each box is in alphabetical order. (Remember, that means A,B,C order.) Choose the word to go in the blank that will keep each list in alphabetical order
1. bag
4. wide
light depart
96


APPENDIX A ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Specific Learning Disabilities Specific learning disabilitiesone who exhibits a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using spoken and written language. These may be manifested in disorders of listening, thinking, reading, talking, writing, spelling, or arithmetic. They do not include learning problems which are due primarily to visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, to mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or to an environmental deprivation.
1. Criteria for Eligibility
a. The student must be of school age.
b. Evidence of a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes.
(1) Based on a student's expected level of functioning a score of two standard deviations or less below the mean in one process area or a score of one and one-half standard deviations or less below the mean in three or more process areas. Process areas are defined as: visual channel processes, auditory channel processes, haptic channel processes, language
86


60
Table 7
Means and Standard Dev iations for Students1 Performance
on Subtest for Hierarchial Modification
Hierarchy
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation
Standard 18.5 2.2
Normal
Modified 19.2 1.3
Standard 16.3 2.8
LD
Modified 17.0 2.5
Standard 16.9 4.7
EH
Modified 17.6 2.1
Standard 9.6 3.8
EMR
Modified 11.1 6.0

Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Square(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F
Category 836.55 278.85 3 22.74*
Test Form 16.20 16.20 1 1.32
Category X 2.40 .80 3 .06
Test Form
Error 882.79 12.26 72
* p<.05


7
negative issues which surround MCT; he included the following in his discussion:
1. There is a fear that minimum competencies may become maximum competencies. Critics infer that such advanced courses
as Calculus, Chemistry, Literature, and World History may eventually be eliminated from the school curriculum.
2. There is a concern that a concentrated emphasis on basic academic skills may reduce interest in other disciplines, such as music, art, and physical education.
3. There also may be a negative stigma associated with those students requiring remedial classes. As a consequence, some opponents of MCT fear students may become discouraged at the prospect of failing the MCT, and choose to drop out of school.
4. Some educators fear there will be an abusive use of the test results. Improper use of scores can segregate groups of students, contribute to poor self-concepts, and act as a barrier for future employment.
Other individuals are concerned that the MCT movement has been implemented too quickly and without necessary precautions. McClung (1977), an education law consultant and staff attorney for the Center of Law and Education, Inc., has listed several legal and educational issues that may be hazardous to both students and schools. These issues include (a) potential racial discrimination, (b) remediation component (tracking of minorities), (c) technical adequacy of test (instructional and curricular validity), (d) adequate phasing-in


55
Means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance summary table for total test performance are presented in Table 3. Significant main effects are indicated for both category and test form. Similar information relative to student performance on the five modification subtests (i.e., examples, boldface type, answer bubble placement, progressive hierarchy, and unjustified line length), is presented in Tables 4 to 8.
Total performance on the modified test (x = 75.20) was approximately six points higher than on the standard test form (x = 68.95). As revealed in the follow-up analyses, performance of EH and LD students was similar as were normal and EH students. The scores of
the mentally retarded students and LD students, however, were significantly lower than normal students.
With regards to subtest scores, there were no differences in test form for four out of five modification subtests; the one exception was the example subtest. On the example subtest, students achieved higher scores on the modified version (x~ = 15.67) than on the standard version (x* = 14.02). As indicated in follow-up analyses, performance of EH and LD students was consistently similar on all subtests; this was also true of normal and EH students. Learning disabled and normal students performed similarly on only 33 percent of the tests; EMR children always performed lower than other categories of students. Results of all follow-up analyses are presented in Table 9; similar means are denoted by an underline.


5
According to Popham (1981) nearly 40 states have established minimum competency testing programs covering the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics. Seventeen of those states have also established competency testing as a requirement for high school graduation (Neill, 1979).
Reactions to Minimum Competency Testing
Positive effects. According to Popham (1981) there are several positive attributes to the MCT program. Pinkney (1979) has identified the positive characteristics specific to Floridafs program;
1. Both students and teachers have been provided with a list of exactly which skills are to be mastered by the students and a timetable for accomplishing these objectives. Ideally, the basic skills criteria are decided upon by a diverse group of individuals including teachers, administrators, professors, parents, employers, and other professionals.
2. There has been a renewed interest in learning in school. Cognitive.development has returned as the primary justification for the existence of schools. The supplementary frills have been minimized and educating/ children has become the highest priority.
3. The MCT program has created a new awareness among parents in regard to their children's education. The realization that their children will be required to demonstrate mastery of basic skills at the 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 11th grade has stimulated parents to monitor continual progress.


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Robert F. Algozzine. Professor of Special
nan ducation
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Cecil D. Mercer Professor of Special Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Catherine V. Morsink Professor of Special Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Assistant Professor of Foundations of Education


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Special Education in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1982
Rex EJ Schmia
Associate Professor of Special Education
Dean, Graduate School


49
Table 2
Internal Consistency Estimates for Standard and Modified Tests
Test Category Total Example Version
Standard Normal .92 .74
LD .94 .65
EH .96 .78
EMR .88 .63
Modified Normal .85 .55
LD .90 .61
EH .93 .68
EMR .91 .79
_Subtests
------- | |
Boldface Answer Hierarchy Line
Bubbles Length
.62 .62 .75 .93
.87 .91 .71 .79
.91 82:< .94 .83
.71 .64 .72 .84
.69 .19 .66 .80
.83 .85 .76 .30
.90 .58 .67 .86
.62 .78 .90 .61
The modified test also consisted of five groups of 20 items. These items, however, were characterized by the inclusion of examples and teacher explanation at the beginning of each new skill section (#1-20), the use of boldface type to denote emphasis (#21-40), placement of answer bubbles to the right of the answer foils (#41-60), grouping of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty (#61-80), and unjustified line length (#81-100). A sample modified test is included in Appendix D


67
criteria were substantially higher when using the modification of unjustified line lengths. Likewise, differences in favor of the boldface type and example modifications were noted for LD, EH students and EMR students respectively. Data supporting these conclusions are contained in Table 12. ]
In summary, total test performance differences were indicated for both category and test form. As a result of follow-up analyses, no significant differences between EH and LD students1 scores nor between those of normal and EH students were indicated. Learning disabled and normal students1 performance was significantly different and EMR students1 scores were consistently lower than those for any other category of students. A comparison of test forms indicated total performance on the modified test was approximately an average of six points higher than on the standard test form.
Analysis of subtest scores revealed consistent main effects for all categories. The performance of EH and LD students was
#
similar on all subtests; as was that of normal and EH students. Learning disabled and normal students performed similarly on 33 percent of the subtests and EMR children consistently performed lower than other categories of students. The only significant difference in test form was on the example subtest, with higher scores being achieved on the modified form than on the standard version of the test.
Percentage of subskill items within each subtest was compared to Florida's current mastery criteria. Mean performance scores on the modified test were 1-16 percentage points higher than those on
i
m
*


64
Table 10
Criteria Used to Determine and Report Mastery of Skills
When the number of questions to measure a skill is as follows:
The minimum number of questions required to be answered correctly
shall be as follows:
2 1 of 2
3 2 of 3
4 3 of 4
5 4 of 5
6 5 of 6
7 5 of 7
8 6 of 8
9 7 of 9
10 7 of 10
11 8 of 11
12 9 of 12
13 S io of 13
14 10 of 14
15 11 of 15
16 12 of 16
Source:
Florida Department of Education. Statistical Report: 1980 81. State and district report of results. Tallahassee, FL


57
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations for Students1 Performance
on Subtest for Example Modification
Examples
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation
Normal Standard Modified 18.1 18.8 2.4 1.5
LD Standard Modified 15.5 16.0 2.9 2.7
EH Standard Modified 15.4 16.9 3.7 2.6
EMR Standard Modified 7.1 11.0 3.2 4.4

Analysi s of Variance Summary
Source Sums of Squares(SS) Mean Square(MS) Degrees of Freedom(df) F
Category 982.00 327. 33 3 35.22*
Test Form 54.45 54. 45 1 5.86*
Category X Test Form 36.55 12.18 3 1.31
Error 669.19 9. 29 72


APPENDIX B PARENT PERMISSION SLIPS
Dear Parent,
I am currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida. I am in the process of conducting a study to find out if differences in the way test questions are worded, placed, or marked will affect how third grade students do on the test.
Children in this study will be asked to take a 100 item test, which should take about 90 minutes. The test will be much like the State Student Assessment Test which third graders in Florida take
Mf
each October. The test scores will remain confidential and will not be recorded in any of the students1 permanent records. The scores merely will be used to compare the achievement of different groups, based on individual test changes.
The study will be conducted under the supervision of Special Education staff members of the Orange County Public Schools.
I would be most willing to answer any questions you may have regarding the goals or procedures of this study. If you agree to allow your child to participate in this study, please sign and date this form. You can always withdraw your consent for your child's participation at any time without prejudice.
92


15
3. What effect do unjustified line lengths have on the test performance of mildly handicapped children and the performance of normal children?
4. What effect does the introduction of examples and directions for each new skill change have on the test performance of mildly handicapped children and the performance of normal children?
5. What effect does placement of answer bubbles to the right side of foils have on the test performance of mildly handicapped children and the performance of normal children?
6. What effect does the use of boldface type have on test performance of mildly handicapped children and the performance of normal children?
Limitations
This study included third grade mildly handicapped and regular classroom students from Alachua County and Orange County School Systems in north-central and central Florida, respectively. The handicapped students were identified as learning disabled (LD), educable mentally retarded (EMR), and emotionally handicapped (EH) according to the regulations of the Florida State Department of Education (see Appendix A). As a result of variations in identification criteria between states, the handicapped students in this study may not be representative of other handicapped students throughout the United States. Likewise, educational and cultural differences due to geographic factors may also affect the representativeness of both handicapped and regular classroom students in this study.


24
and are usually found in newspapers, magazines, and books. Paragraphs with justified line lengths approximate a box with parallel sides. The printers are able to create this even appearance by altering the spacing between individual letters and words.
Craig (1971), however, suggested that equal spacing between words creates greater legibility. The equal spacing creates uneven or "unjustified11 line lengths and lines take on a jagged effect. The jagged effect has texture, adds visual interest to the page, contributes to the ease of reading, and reduces the difficulty of locating the beginning of the next line (Craig, 1971). Results of a study by Reichard and Reid (1970) indicated that retarded children demonstrated increased reading rates and improved reading comprehension scores on reading passages that were set in unjustified lines with double spaced leading (i.e., space between lines of print).
Leading is the amount of white space between lines of print. It is another factor that can alter the effectiveness of line lengths. Too little or too much spacing can be distracting. Craig (1971) stated that too much leading can cause a. drifting effect and the type takes on a grayish cast (as opposed to true black). He recommended that leading between lines be greater than the spacing between the individual words. Appropriate leading is also responsible for increasing visibility
on a page when the paper is low in brightness or the reading light is poor (Tinker, 1963b).
Although Craig (1971) stated that proper leading is more a matter of visual judgment than specific mathematical determinations of space,


80
present between category of student and test form. As can be seen
from data presented in Appendix E, it was not possible to determine
significance of either sex or race on test scores due to the limited sample size.
Results of post hoc analysis however indicated that the modifications would be beneficial in instances where mastery was an issue. Students needing to demonstrate mastery of a skill could do so on 32 percent more sections within the modified test than on the standard test. Gains of 1-16 percentage points could be seen on 80 percent of the subskills tested with the modified test in contrast to the

standard test. Also, certain modifications appeared to facilitate acquisition of mastery by specific categories of handicapped students.
Modifications in physical formatting do not appear to improve test scores across all categories. The inclusion of examples appears to facilitate the demonstration of proficiency for EMR students only. Scores for hierarchial arrangement of items, answer bubble placement, unjustified line lengths, and boldface type did not reach levels of significance. Trends for higher test scores (10-15% gains) were noticed however in the use of examples and boldface type for emotionally disturbed students and with boldface type and unjustified line
lengths for learning disabled students. Due to the limited amount of research that has been previously done, and because the results of this study have been favorable, further research on this topic appears justified.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
mso-application progid Word.Document
w:wordDocument xmlns:w http:schemas.microsoft.comofficeword2003wordml xmlns:v urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml xmlns:wx http:schemas.microsoft.comofficeword2003auxHint xmlns:o urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office xmlns:w10 urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word xmlns:aml http:schemas.microsoft.comaml2001core xml:space preserve w:docPr w:footnotePr w:footnote w:type separator w:p w:r w:separator continuation-separator w:continuationSeparator w:body wx:sect w:pPr w:rPr w:lang w:val 0409 w:fareast w:t The U.S. military has had a host of successful experiences in counterguerrilla war, including some distinct successes with certain aspects of the Vietnam War. However, the paradox stemw:softHyphen ming from America's unsuccessful crusade in the jungles of Vietnam is thisbecause the experience was perceived as anathema to the mainstream American military, hard lessons learned there about fighting guerrillas were neither embedded nor preserved in the U.S. Army's institutional memory. The American military culture's efforts to expunge the specter of Vietnam, embodied in the mantra "No More Vietnams," also prevented the U.S. Army as an institution from really learning from those lessons. In fact, even the term counterinsurgency seemed to become a reviled and unwelcome word, one that the doctrinal cognoscenti of the 1980s conveniently transmogrified into "foreign internal defense." Even though many lessons exist in the U.S. military's historical experience writh small wars, the lessons from the Vietnam War were the most voluminous. Yet these lessons were most likely the least read, because the Army's intellectual rebirth after Vietnam focused almost exclusively on a big conventional war in Europethe scenario preferred by the U.S. military culture.3Since the U.S. Army and its coalition partners are currently prosecuting counterguerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is useful to revisit the lessons from Vietnam and other counterinsur-gencies because they are germane to the wars of today and tomorrow. Capturing all or many of these lessons is beyond the scope of this article and is most likely beyond the scope of a single-volume book. However, this article aims to distill some of the more relevant counterinsurgency lessons from the American military's experiences during Vietnam and before. A bigger goal of this article, however, is to highlight some salient studies for professional reading as the U.S. Army starts to inculcate a mindset that embraces the challenges of counterinsurgency and to develop a culture that learns from past lessons in counterinsurgency. This analysis also offers a brief explanation of U.S. military culture and the hitherto embedded cultural obstacles to learning how to fight guerrillas. To simplify and clarify at the outset, the terms counterinsurgency, counterguerrilla warfare, small war, and asymmetric conflict are used interchangeably. It is a form of warfare in which enemies of the regime or occupying force aim to undermine the regime by employing classical guerrilla tactics.4The U.S. Army and the broader American military are only now, well into the second decade after the end of the Cold War, wholeheartedly trying to transform their culture, or mindset. Senior civilian and military leaders of the defense establishment realize that military cultural change is a precondition for innovative and adaptive approaches to meet the exigencies of a more complex security landscape, one in which our adversaries will most likely adopt unorthodox strategies and tactics to undermine our technological overmatch in the Western, orthodox, way of war. Military culture can generally be defined as the embedded beliefs and attitudes within a military organization that shape that organization's preference on when and 'how the military instrument should be used. Because these institutional beliefs sometimes tend to value certain roles and marginalize others, military culture can impede innovation in ways of warfare that lie outside that organization's valued, or core, roles.5For most of the 20th century, the U.S. military culture (notwithstanding the Marines' work in small wars) generally embraced the big conventional war paradigm and fundamentally eschewed small wars and insurgencies. Thus, instead of learning from our experiences in Vietnam, the Philippines, the Marine Corps' experience in the Banana Wars, and the Indian campaigns, the U.S. Army for most of the last 100 years has viewed these experiences as ephemeral anomalies and aberrationsdistractions from preparing to win big wars against other big powers. As a result of marginalizing the counterinsurgencies and small wars that it has spent most of its existence prosecuting, the U.S. military's big-war cultural preferences have impeded it from fully benefitingstudying, distilling, and incorporating into doctrinefrom our somewhat extensive lessons in small wars and insurgencies. This article starts by briefly14w:sectPr continuous w:pgSz w:w 12240 w:h 15840 w:pgMar w:left 1440 w:top w:right w:bottom w:titlePg off


65
Table 11
Comparison of Mean Test Scores for Standard and Modified Subtests with Mastery Criteria
Mastery Criteria
Standard Test Modified Test
Example Dollar
Fractions
Measurement
Sequencing (lst-last) ABC order
Math Word Problems
Boldface
66%
66%
66%
75%
75%
66%
x percentage score
62.5
75.8
85.0
76.2
55.6
63.3
x percentage score
78.3
74.2
86.7
83.7
67.5
81.7
Not
End
Pronoun
Opposites
Following directions Answer Bubble
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
72.5
68.7
60.6
65.6
65.6
75.0
69.4
75.6
75.0
71.2
2-digit addition Math Word Problems
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
85.0
71.2
56.9
70.0
66.9
90.0
85.0
61.2
68.7
Reading Comprehension Reading Comprehension
Spelling 1
Based on data in Florida Department of Education. Statistical report 1980-81. State and district report results. Tallahassee, FL: Division of Public Schools, Series 81-05, February 1981.
65.6


59
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Performance
on Subtest for Answer Bubble Modification
Answer Bubbles
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation
Standard 18.5 1.8
Normal
Modified 18.8 1.1
Standard 13.7 5.5
LD
Modified 14.8 4.4
Standard 15.5 4.0
EH
Modified 17.4 2.1
Standard 8.3 3.4
EMR
Modified 8.3 4.1
Analysis of Variance Summary
Source Sums of Square(SS) Mean Square(MS) Degrees of Freedom(df) F
Category 1189.94 396.64 3 30.68*
Test Form 13.61 13.61 1 1.05
Category X Test Form 10.94 3.65 3 .28
Error 930.89 12.93 72
* p < .05


83
Hoi 1iday, W. G., & Partridge, L. A. Differential sequencing effects
of test items on children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1979, 16, 407-411.
Kaluzny, B. A. Competency testing and the handicapped student.
Education Unlimited, 1979, 1, 72-73.
Madaus, G. F. NIE clarification hearing: The negative team's case.
Phi Delta Kappan, 1981, 63, 92-94.
Majors, G. W., & Michael, J. J. The relationship of achievement on a
teacher-made mathematics test of computational skills to two ways of recording answers and to two workspace arrangements. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 35, 1005-1009.
Margolis, H., Brannigan, G. G., & Penner, W. J. Modification of
impulsive visual discrimination performance. Journal of Special Education, 1978, 12, 29-35.
Marsh, G. E. II, Gearheart, G. K., & Gearheart, B. R. The learning
disabled adolescent: Program alternatives in the secondary school. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1978.
Marso, R. N. Test item arrangement, testing time, and performance.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 1970, 7^, 113-118.
McCarthy, M. M. Minimum competency testing and handicapped students.
Exceptional Children, 1980, 47, 166-175.
McClung, M. S. Competency testing: Potential for discrimination.
Clearing House Review, 1977, 1J_, 439-448.
McClung, M. S. Competency testing programs: Legal and educational
issues. Fordham Law Review, 1979, 47, 651-712.
McClung, M. S., & Pullin, D. Competency testing and handicapped students.
Clearinghouse Review, 1978, 1J_, 922-927.
Morsink, C. (Ed.). DELTA: A design for word attack growth. Tulsa, OK:
Educational Development Corporation, 1977.
Muller, D., Calhoun, E., & Orling, R. Test reliability as a function
of answer sheet mode. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1972, 9, 321-324.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education and the
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of Exceptional Children. Competency testing, special education and the awarding of diplomas. Washington, DC: National Association
of State Directors of Special Education, 1979.


104


26
Ordering the items from easiest to most difficult would also appear to help the handicapped student. When items are scrambled, there is no assurance an EMR or EH child will continue past the difficult item until he reaches another item he knows. Educationally handicapped students may become frustrated with a difficult problem and abandon the rest of the items. By combining these two features, grouping and ordering, a test could be logical and reinforcing to a handicapped child. The discouragement a child may feel as he reaches the limit of his ability on one skill could be counter-balanced by successful accomplishment on the easier tasks of the next skill.
Physical Layout
Cells per page. Since educationally handicapped children often demonstrate visual perception problems, educational materials should optimally be characterized by limited and well organized stimulus. In order to create a clean and uncluttered page, test problems may be enclosed within a cell or box. Cells can be created by extending horizontal lines across the page and by placing one vertical line down the center of each page. These lines create a well balanced page that resembles Sample 1 (Figure 1). Cells in other tests are inconsistent in size due to randomly placed horizontal lines. For example, some test pages may resemble Sample 2 (Figure 1). Such an imbalanced page may be distracting and promote confusion for a handicapped child. In Greenberg's (1980) study with handicapped students, it was recommended that each page consist of a maximum of six cells; however, the results of her study did not prove that this number was critical. Research in this area is obviously limited.


students. Although the overall analysis indicated that differences between these test scores were not significant at the a = .05 level, the issue of mastery of individual subskills was of interest. The percentage of items correct for each subskill on both test versions was calculated. These scores were then compared with the current state mastery criteria. This comparison revealed that the performance scores on the modified test were higher than those on the standard test for 80 percent (20/25) of the subskills tested. The increase between mean scores ranged from 1 to 16 percentage points. These increases in performance scores for the modified test subsequently became the difference between mastery and failure for 32 percent (8/25) of the subskill sections. Students taking the modified test achieved mastery level criteria for one-third of the sub-skills that were not mastered on the standard version. This analysis also revealed that specific modifications appeared to facilitate acquisition of mastery by certain categories of handicapped students. Frequency of mastery was substantially higher for LD, EH, EMR students on the unjustified line length subtest, LD and EH students on the boldface type subtest, and EMR students on the example subtest.
Another issue of interest was the presence of any trend in performance scores between categories on total test. Some professionals may argue that physical format modifications may simply raise the test scores across all categories. Results of the post hoc analysis indicated that this was apparently not true in this study. While the differences between mean performance scores


2
reported that "there is growing evidence that shifts in policy, expectations, and behavior within schools themselves have contributed to the documented decline in writing skills and aptitude test scores" (Berry, 1979, p. 167). The low performance level in our schools has also been attributed to the amount of on task learning time. According to Berry (1979), students tend to be on task for approximately only 30 percent of the instructional day. The impact of this statistic is magnified when one realizes that only 60-70 percent of the total school day is actually devoted to learning. In addition, there appears to be a decline in the number of students enrolled in core academic subjects and an increase in the number of optional courses available (Berry, 1979; Copperman, 1978).
Public criticism and rigid surveillance of our schools would appear to be justified if students who graduate after 12 years of education are truly unable to read and write. Even with the acknowledgement that there are other variables (such as home, family, and community influences) that do contribute to an individual's achievement potential, it would appear that our schools must still assume the primary responsibility for graduating illiterates (Pinkney, 1979).
Current Interest in Minimum Competency Programs
Educators, administrators, legal consultants, parents, and employers have become increasingly concerned about the mastery of skills demonstrated by graduating high school students. This concern has been fostered not only by the previously cited statistics, but also


14
and emotionally handicapped) and normal students. The effects of five modifications were measured within the three groups of mildly handicapped students and one group of nonhandicapped learners.
The independent variables in this study were type of student and test type. Students were characterized as normal, learning disabled (LD), emotionally handicapped (EH), or educable mentally retarded (EMR); criteria used for determination of such mildly handicapping conditions as LD, EH, and EMR are listed in Appendix A. Tests comprised of standard and modified formats were used; the modifications included: (a) the grouping of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty, (b) the arrangement of line lengths in an unjustified manner, (c) the introduction of examples and directions for each new skill change, (d) the placement of answer bubbles to the right of each foil, and (e) the use of boldface type for emphasis. The dependent variable in this study was the raw score indicating the student's performance on the total test or selected items.
Related Questions
This study was designed to investigate the effects of physical test construction modifications on the performance of selected elementary school aged children. Specifically, the following questions were addressed:
1. What effect does test item modification have on the total test performance of mildly handicapped and normal children?
2. What effect does the grouping of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty have on the test performance of mildly handicapped children and the performance of normal children?


90
DIRECTIONS: Read these problems.
Figure out the right answer
45.
There were 33 boys and 22
girls at a lake swimming. How many children were swimming
together?
47.
Jennifer won 24 games. Tom won 35 games. How many games did they win in all?
64 children
55 children
11 children
10 children
11 games
51 games
14 games
59 games
46. The library had The library bought How many books are library now?
76 books.
22 more books
in the
48.
Fred many
Sally made 32 cookies, made 15 cookies. How cookies did Sally and make altogether?
98 books
17 books
54 books
58 books
61 cookies
47 cookies
23 cookies
11 cookies


63
Current practice in reporting the results of minimum competency testing in Florida is to present scores that are indicative of mastery of basic skills. The state has established minimum perfor- mance standards for each subskill; the number of items correct relative to the total number of subskill items attempted is the basis for decision making relative to "mastery." The mastery criteria currently being used in Florida are presented in Table 10. Within the five different subtests presented in this study, different sub-skills were included. A post hoc analysis of the student's test performance on specific subskills was completed. Individual scores were calculated for percentage of subskill items correct; these were compared to current state mastery criteria. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 11. On 32 percent of the subskill sections, the difference between performance on the standard and modified tests was the difference between achieving mastery criteria and failing. Overall, the performance scores on the modified test were one to 16 percentage points higher than on the standard test for 80 percent of the individual subskill sections.
Further analysis of the data was completed regarding the number of students achieving mastery by subtest by category. It appeared there were no substantial differences in mastery level for normal students on either standard or modified test versions. Certain test modifications did appear, however, to facilitate mastery levels for various mildly handicapping conditions. For example, numbers of LD, EH, and EMR students achieving mastery


108
She enrolled at the University of Florida to pursue an advanced degree in learning disabilities. Her minor areas included early assessment and administration/supervision. She hopes to gain employment as an educational diagnostician in a children's hospital or special education administrator in a large urban school system.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Blizzard of '76 in Buffalo, New York, inflicted much hardship on many of the area citizens. Fortunately, it had a more positive effect on our family. It became the fundamental impetus for our moving to a warm and sunny climate. This move to Gainesville, Florida, brought several wonderful people into our lives, for which we will always be thankful. These individuals have made our five years at the university memorable, and some will have an everlasting effect on our future. My deepest thanks go to so many, especially to my chairman, Bob Algozzine. To know him is to love him. His naivete'and optimism are refreshing, his talent awe inspiring, and his personality enviable. Thank you for personifying the professional expertise and standards toward which we all should strive. Your friendship, understanding, and kindness will always be remembered by our family. You are the best! And to Kate, thanks for sharing him with us for so long.
To my committee members, thank you for your support, encouragement, and tolerance. A special thank you is extended to Cathy Morsink She is a wonderful example of how a competent and talented woman can make an impact in the profession of special education. I am so glad you came to U of F. And, to Rex Schmid, thank you for your editorial thoroughness, your "effectiveness", and your incredible
n


62
Table 9
Results of Follow-Up Analyses Using Tukey's
Honestly Significant Differences
Category
Normal EH LD EMR
x~ score x score x score x~ score
Total Test 91.10 79.80 74.90 42.50
Subtests
Example 18.45 16.15 15.75 9.05
Boldface 18.10 15.70 14.45 7.70
Answer Bubble 18.65 16.45 14.25 8.30
Hierarchy 18.85 17.25 16.65 10.35

Line Length 17.05 14.30 13.70 7.70


10
confinement to a wheelchair, and yet realistic and fair to exempt a profoundly retarded individual.
Individualized determinations. It would appear that no uniform approach for all handicapped children would be equitable when types and severity of handicapping condition are considered (Denninger, 1979; Ewing, 1979; McClung & Pullin, 1978). For example, any attempt to establish a general policy that would be equitable to both a mildly speech impaired student and a seriously emotionally disturbed individual would appear impossible. As a consequence, it would seem most appropriate that decisions regarding student participation in MCT programs be made on an individual basis. All handicapped students, however, should have the opportunity to participate in the MCT program if they desire, and any school district that fails to provide that option may be in violation of P.L. 93-112 (McClung, 1979). The process of individualized determinations also provides educators with an opportunity to become more aware of the wide range of ability and achievement levels within the handicapped population.
Differential diplomas and standards. Another issue affecting the handicapped population is the awarding of differential diplomas and the establishment of differential standards. McClung (1979) characterizes a differential diploma as being distinguishable in color, shape, or wording from a standard diploma. Differential standards are usually less stringent than the standards required for nonhandi-capped students.
McClung and Pullin (1978) again emphasize the need for individualized determinations. School personnel, policy makers, and parents need


99
li
9 11 46
20
19


84
Nei11, S. B. A summary of issues in the minimum competency movement.
Phi Delta Kappan, 1979, 60, 452-453.
Pabian, J. M. Education malpractice and minimal competency testing:
Is there a legal remedy at last? New England Law Review, 1979, 15, 101-127.
Perez, J. Procedural adaptations and format modifications in minimum
competency testing of learning disabled students: A clinical investigation. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida, 1980.
Peter, W. v. San Francisco Unified School District, 131 Cal. Rptr. 854
(1976).
Pinkney, H. B. The minimum competency movement in education. Clearing
House, 1979, 52, 413-416.
Popham, W. J. The case for minimum competency testing. Phi Delta
Kappan, 1981, 63, 89-92.
Reichard, C. L., & Reid, W. R. An investigation of format for reading
material for the educable mentally retarded. Journal of Reading, 1970, 13, 363-366.
Safer, N. D. Implications of minimum competency standards and testing
for handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46^, 288-292.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. Assessment in special and remedial
education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978.
Sawyer, H. G. When ad budgets require compromise, impact is most
strategic choice. Industrial Marketing, 1975, 6CU 66/.
Shaw, A. Print for partial sight. London: The Library Association,
1969.
Sirotnik, K., & Wellington, R. Scrambling content in achievement testing:
Application of multiple matrix sampling in experimental design. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1974, H, 179-188.
Smith, L. D., & Jenkins, D. S. Minimum competency testing and handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 440-443.
State of Florida. Florida Statutes, Chapter 232, Section 246.
Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 1979.
State of Florida. Proposed State Board of Education Rule 6A-1.943,
revised. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 1980.


for normal students was 3.6 (in favor of the modified test) the differences between standard and modified test scores for LD, EH, and EMR students were 6.8-7.6. These differences on the modified test were consistently three to four points higher for mildly handicapped students than they were for normal students.
Although no interaction between test form and category resulted from analysis of the inferential statistics, data were then analyzed to ascertain if specific categories obtained higher performance scores on any particular subtests for either test version. Emotionally handicapped students consistently scored an average of two points (10 percent) higher on the modified subtests for examples, boldface type, and answer bubble placement. Learning disabled students achieved an average of two points higher on the boldface

type subtest and three points (15 percent) higher on the unjustified line length subtest, both modified versions. Normal and educable mentally retarded students' average scores did not appear to be affected by subtest modifications. One exception to this was EMR mean scores on the example subtest. In this one instance the differences between mean scores reached statistical significance,
a difference of 20 percent.
Observations
Several observations were made regarding certain irregularities in children's performances and any behaviors that occurred frequently.


43
They also agree that words written in capital letters or italics slow down the rate of reading. In spite of this agreement, however, there were no studies available that establish the effectiveness of these printing procedures with various handicapped populations.
There appear to be conflicting data regarding the effectiveness of enlarged print with handicapped populations. Additional research with various handicapped individuals may be warranted in order to measure the effect of enlarged print on the type of handicap and the different ages of the subjects.
Typographers recommend the use of unjustified lines for greater legibility and ease of reading. The presence of only one empirical study to date with ahndicapped children also suggests the need for continued research in the area.
There appears to be much controversy in the literature regarding the benefits of grouping similar items in a hierarchy from easy to hard for normal children. There are no known studies measuring the abilities of handicapped children with scattered items or groups of items in no order of difficulty.
The literature contains sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that elementary handicapped children do perform better when required to respond directly in their answer booklets as opposed to transferring answers to a separate answer sheet. On the other hand, research appears limited in regard to the effects of physical formatting of answer bubbles. The literature does not address the issue of increased accuracy of handicapped children's response when answer bubbles are placed before, after, above, or below the answer foil.


22
can be categorized as verified are (a) print (boldface), (b) line length, (c) item grouping, (d) physical layout, (e) administration (directions), and (f) answer format (in booklet response, answer bubble placement). The one modification that must be classified as unverified is the increased ratio of examples per skill change.

Verified Test Modifications
Print
In relationship to the process of reading, print is regarded as a crucial element (Fonda, 1968; Sykes, 1971; Tinker, 1963a). Fonda

(1968) stated that such factors as style of print, blackness of the ink, contrast of white non-glossy paper to the ink, and appropriate illumination facilitate reading. Tinker (1963b) used these same features to define visibility. He stated that visibility was affected by the combination of the brightness of the paper, the darkness of the ink, and the thickness of the strokes in the letter. He also noted that an increase in the visibility can make the type appear larger.
According to Shaw (1969) and Sykes (1971) legibility of print is controlled by such characteristics as quality, size, weight, and spacing. Erdmann and Neal (1968) stated that legibility increases with the height and resolution of the character. The presence of serifs (the horizontal and vertical strokes that are attached to the
end points of basic letters) and simplicity also contribute to this legibility of print (Tinker, 1963a).


REFERENCES
Abeson, A., & Zettel, J. The end of the quiet revolution: The
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Exceptional Children, 1977, 44, 115-128.
Beattie, S., & Algozzine, B. Assessment of minimum competency in
grades three and five: An analysis of modifications to Florida's State Student Assessment Test-I. Final Report: Contract #080-187. Gainesville, FL: Department of Education, 1981.
Beck, M. D. Achievement test reliability as a function of pupil-
response procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1974, 11, 109-113.
Berry, M. F. Student competency testing. High School Journal, 1979,
62, 166-172.
Brenner, M. H. Test difficulty, reliability, and discrimination as
functions of item difficulty order. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48, 98-100.
Cashen, V. M., & Ramseyer, G. The use of separate answer sheets by
primary age children. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1969, 6, 155-157.
Clark, C. A. The use of separate answer sheets in testing slow-learning
pupils. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1968, 5^, 61-64.
CI ift, T. The regents competency testing program: Competency testing,
remedial instruction and high school credentials. New York: The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, 1979.
Copperman, P. The literacy hoax: The decline of reading, writing,
and learning in the public schools and what we can do about it. New York: Morrow, 1978.
Craig, J. Designing with type: A basic course in typography. New
York: Watson-Guptill, 1971.
Denninger, M. L. Minimum competency testing: Benefits and dangers
for the handicapped student. NASSP Bulletin, 1979, 63, 43-48.
CI


71
express a response" (p. 25). As a result, handicapped students may possibly be unable to demonstrate their true level of content knowledge; instead, their responses may be a measure of their ability to decode the directions, read all the words in the passage, and transfer answers. Gearheart and Willenberg (1974) emphasize the need for testing examiners to be aware of any confounding factors inherent to some handicapping conditions. They stress the need to "remember the primary handicap and make certain you are testing what you intend to test, not the reflection or outcome of the disability" (p. 85). Individuals involved in the design and administration of tests must be extremely careful to recognize the possible interaction between the student's ability, his disability, and the behavior sampled by the test items.
Consideration of appropriate test modification appears warranted.
Salvia and Ysseldyke (1978) state that "common sense tells us that if a student cannot read the directions or write the responses, a test requiring these abilities is inappropriate" (p. 26). In support of this issue, Marsh, Gearheart, and Gearheart (1978) contend that students with poor reading and writing skills should not have to take tests under traditional circumstances. Tests need not be eliminated. As such, standard test forms may simply need to be modified according to individual differences. Optimally, tests could be designed for the handicapped population to adequately assess their skills and understanding of particular concepts. Variations in test design could compensate for visual-motor problems, auditory memory


73
significant main effects for test form existed only for total test scores and those for the example subtest. On the average, students taking the modified test performed approximately six points higher on the 100 item test than those students taking the standard version. On the example subtest, students achieved higher scores (approximately two points or a gain of 10 percent) on the modified version than on the standard test. These findings would suggest that students' performance varies with the type of test administered, in favor of the modified version.
Category Analyses

Significant main effects for category of student were further evaluated using Tukey's Honestly Significant Differences procedure. Consistent for all tests (total and subtests) was similar performance between EH and LD students and between normal and EH students. On two subtests (those modified by hierarchial arrangement of items and unjustified line lengths) LD and normal students performed similarly. In all other instances, EMR and LD students performed significantly lower than other categories of students. These results support differences in student performance consistent with assigned category.
Post Hoc Analyses
Additional analyses were completed to address the specific effects of the test modifications relative to individual groups of


21
"testing the handicapped," "learning disabilities (LD)," "emotionally handicapped (EH)," "educable mentally retarded (EMR)," "minimum competency testing," "reading achievement," and "print/type." Additional sources included Dissertation Abstracts International and the card catalog system in the University of Florida library (for textbooks on print and typography).
The review of the literature revealed that the area of physical test format modifications, specifically designed for elementary mildly handicapped children, has received little attention by researchers. The sample populations of studies varied in age of students (elementary, secondary, college, and adult), handicap (normal individuals, visually impaired, LD, EH, EMR), and degree of handicap (severe, moderate, and mild). Due to this paucity of research material specific to age and type of educational handicap, the selection criterion for inclusion in the literature review was very broad. A decision was made to include all accessible information regarding test construction principles and their application. This information, restricted to neither age nor handicap, was collected from data based research, survey studies, authority based good practices, and expert opinion.
Therefore, the 1 iterature for each test modification does not always address the targeted population of the current study. In fact the test modification of increased ratio of examples per skill change was not even addressed in the literature. Consequently, the studies will be reported as either "verified" (substantiated by expert opinion or data based research) or "unverified" (not specifically addressed by research but suggested by professionals). Those modificationds that


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Susan Beattie was born in Geneva, New York, on December 28, 1949. Upon completion of high school, she entered the State University College at Buffalo, New York, At the end of her junior year (1969), she went to Europe, studied at the University of Maryland (West Germany), and traveled extensively before returning in 1973. She completed her undergraduate program at State University College at Buffalo and in 1973 was awarded a B.S. degree in speech pathology and audiology. She then continued her studies at SUCB to receive an M.S.Ed, in communication disorders in 1975.
Susan worked at the Buffalo Hearing and Speech Center as a speech pathologist for four years. Her primary responsibilities were assessment and remediation of preschool handicapped populations and the hearing impaired.
She and her husband, John, moved to Gainesville, Florida, in 1977 to enable John to pursue an advanced degree in special education. For three years she was employed with the Alachua County School System as a learning disabilities teacher, speech therapist, and self-contained language clinician.
107


28
Workspace. There is also limited research available on this topic. Provision of workspace (for math and reading word problems) was investigated in a study by Majors and Michael (1975). Their research indicated that children in seventh grade scored higher on tests that provided workspace. Handicapped learners provided with workspace may systematically and logically work math and reading word problems out rather than guessing the answer. The success of the workspace modification would be closely associated with the teacher's
effectiveness in encouraging and persuading the students to utilize the workspace.
Administration
Directions and procedures. Tests often require the children to read and comprehend written directions independently. This assumes that all children have the ability to do the initial task and can then proceed to the individual test items. Unfortunately, this may be an erroneous assumption for many handicapped individuals. How can poor readers demonstrate their cognitive proficiency on other tasks when they are unable to decode the information provided in the directions? Consequently, test directions and general administration procedures become critical elements of the assessment process. It is essential that tests are an accurate measurement of a child's cognitive ability and not of his ability to respond to the test format.
ft
In New Jersey, Basic Skill Tests administrators are permitted to repeat, reword, and clarify directions and examples for handicapped children (Greenberg, 1980). This assures that the children understand


105
DIRECTIONS: Read the story and answer the question.
93
Bob and Jim were on the same football team. Bob scored 21 points. Jim scored 7 points.
Altogether, how many points did Bob and Jim score?
10 points
28 points
26 points
17 points
94.
John caught 32 fish. Mike caught 24 fish.
How many fish did they catch in all?
95
74 fish 56 fish 8 fish 11 fish
There are 15 boys in Miss Smith's class.
There are also 13 girls in the class.
How many children are in the class altogether?
28 children
10 children
2 children
46 children
96
Sally went on a trip and drove 56 miles. Her husband drove 3 3 miles.
How many miles did Sally and her husband drive altogether?
23 miles 90 miles 17 miles 89 miles


69
the standard test for 80 percent of the individual subskill sections. An analysis of these differences indicated a number of instances (i.e., 32 percent) when mastery was achieved on the modified test but not the standard. Further analysis also indicated that specific test modifications produced substantial differences in numbers of students attaining mastery criteria by category. These differences were seen for LD, EH, and EMR students using unjustified line lengths, LD and EH students using boldface type, and EMR students using examples.


41
2. All multiple choice answer options were placed in a vertical format with scoring "bubbles" placed to the right of each choice. The shape of individual answer bubbles was a horizontal oval.
3. Third grade tests were available in either standard print (12 pt = 2.0 mm) or enlarged print (18 pt = 3.3 mm). Fifth grade tests were printed in enlarged 16 pt (2.9 mm) type and standard size print.
4. Sentences for reading comprehension items were arranged in an unjustified format when possible; that is, complete sentences were left intact creating uneven right hand margins. In contrast, the traditional tests maintained the justified formatting which is characterized by equal left and right hand margins.
5. Reading comprehension passages were placed in shaded boxes immediately above the test items related to them.
6. Examples were provided for each skill grouping within the individual test sections. All examples were set apart from the test items by boxes.
7. Specific words that required additional emphasis were printed in boldface type as opposed to uppercase (capital letters), italics, or underlining.
8. Pictorial representations of coins were displayed with the head or face side up. This was in contrast to the traditional tail side up format.
9. Test items that required a logical sequencing of events were placed in a horizontal row of boxes as opposed to positions within the four quadrants of a square.


4
system. Possibly, competency based education could facilitate America's effort to reestablish the priority and high esteem of its educational system.
The curriculum objectives and instructional process within CBE are measured by competency testing scores. The competency tests are criterion-referenced and measure a student's performance relative to a specified set of behaviors. They differ from norm-referenced tests in that they do not compare student performance to an established standard. Norm referenced tests discriminate between individuals, whereas criterion referenced tests can be regarded as the best indication of what is being taught in the classroom (Denninger, 1979). The testing distinguishes those students who need additional remedial instruction. It also provides teachers and administrators with feedback on the effectiveness of the teaching methods being employed
and the appropriateness of the program.
The goal of competency testing is to improve programs, not to fail students, point an accusing finger at students or teachers, or withhold diplomas. Instead, MCT allows school personnel to document how well a student is prepared to move from grade to grade, and to ascertain those specific skills any high school graduate brings to our working society. This is in contrast to a current trend where the only requirement for graduation is time spent in school and the completion of an established number of courses.
The minimum competency testing movement has received strong support from numerous legislators and state boards of education.


3
by the gradual decline in Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores (Copperman, 1978) and recent litigation in the courts (Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District, 1978; Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District, 1976).
In an effort to reduce illiteracy statistics and eliminate the possibility of future litigation, many educators and concerned members of the community have focused their attention on minimum competency programs. Although the minimum competency testing (MCT) component has drawn the most attention recently, it is but one component of the more global concept of competency based education (CBE).
Minimum Competency Testing Within A Competency Based Education Framework
Competency based education (CBE) is comprised of five major components. They include (a) establishment of educational objectives, (b) development of instructional process, (c) competency testing, (d) provision for remedial instruction, and (e) program evaluation and reconceptualization (Watts, 1979). It is suggested that the five components are interdependent and the incorporation of just one or two components would.be punitive to any student.
Educators who advocate competency based education foresee a process that will ensure the acquisition of fundamental knowledge. They contend that the attainment of a standard set of skills and abilities can enhance a student's chances for leading a happy and productive life. They argue that if used properly, CBE can also assist in the identification and correction of weaknesses in our educational


72
deficiencies, or poor decoding skills. When a test compensates for these weaknesses, there is a greater assurance that the child's true ability has been accurately measured. Diagnosticians and educators
9
can then proceed to take full advantage of the benefits that testing has to offer.
There has been little research associated with physical test modifications. Further, investigations appear to be warranted for those modifications that are specifically designed for the mild educationally handicapped (LD, EH, EMR) student (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1978). Any information gathered, relative to the effects of test modifications, can serve as a basis for all future planning relative to designing and implementing tests of minimum abilities for handicapped students.
Discussion of Findings
Eighty third grade students (normal, LD, EH, and EMR) from Alachua and Orange Counties were administered one of two versions of a minimum competency test. One group of 40 students, comprised of 10 students from each category, received the standard test. The other group of 40 students was administered a modified version of the standard test.
Although the content of the test item remained constant, the physical formatting was altered by examples, boldface print, answer bubble placement, hierarchial arrangement, and line length.
Test Form Analyses
Results of a statistical analysis using ANOVA indicated that although students consistently performed better on the modified test,


66
Table 11-Continued
Ma s te ry Criteria
Standard Test x percentage
score
Modified Test x percentage score
Line Length Reading Comp.-end Reading Comp. $ Word Problems
75%
75%
75%
68.1
67.5
51.9
66.2
74.4
58.7
# Word Problems
75%
74.4
81.2
Reading Comp.-not Hierarchy
+ vertical
75%
80%
53.1
87.5
63.7
92.0
+ horizontal
80%
77.0
86.0
- vertical
80%
70.5
70.5
- horizontal
80%
71.5
76.0
* Indicates those subtests in which mastery criteria was achieved on the modified version but not on the standard version. i


88
c. Evidence of academic deficits.
(1) Based on the student's expected level of functioning, a score of: 85 percent expectancy age or below for third through sixth grade; 75 percent expectancy age or below for seventh through ninth grade; or 65 percent expectancy age or below for tenth through twelfth grade is required in one or more of the following academic areas: reading, writing, arithmetic, or spelling. For students in kindergarten and first grade, evidence must be presented that achievement is 95 percent expectancy age or below on preacademic tasks which require listening, thinking, or speaking skills. For students in second grade, evidence must be presented that achievement is 90 percent expectancy age or below on preacademic tasks which require listening, thinking, or speaking skills. A student may not be placed for a deficit in either writing or spelling or both.
(2) If more than one academic instrument is used to document a weakness, the results must consistently show deficits in the same academic area. If more than one level of functioning is obtained, the mean level of functioning will be used to establish weakness.
d. Evidence that learning problems are not due primarily to other handicapping conditions.
(1) A score of not less than two standard deviations below the mean on an individual test of intellectual functioning


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
THE EFFECT OF PHYSICAL TEST FORMAT MODIFICATIONS ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF THIRD GRADE MILDLY HANDICAPPED
AND NORMAL STUDENTS
By
Susan Beattie
August, 1982
Chairman: Robert F. Algozzine Major Department: Special Education
Tests are an integral part of our educational process. In view of Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, it becomes crucial that diagnostic instruments are valid, culturally fair, and unbiased. Caution must be exercised to insure that the targeted behaviors are the ones actually being assessed. Test results should reflect cognitive ability and not the individual's disability.
In an effort to make tests fair to handicapped populations, such modifications as head pointers, braille type, and alterations in administration and setting have been instituted. Little systematic study, however, has been directed towards mildly handicapped students
or physical test item format modifications. The current study investigated the effect of five physical format modifications on the performance of mildly handicapped and normal third grade students. The

v1n


102
DIRECTIONS: Read the story in each box. Choose the best answer for each question. |
The
his nose. The dish of water, in the water.
the puppy on puppy ran to the He put his nose
29. Who bit the puppy?
the man the cat the bee the dog
In the Fall, witches fly through the sky on brooms. Once a witch bumped into a cloud Her broom broke and she fell to the ground.
31. What did the witch do?
bump into a cloud
sing a song scare people
win the race
30. Where did the puppy run?
t) to his mother c=D to his dish of water cz> to the lake
oto a tree
32. When do witches fly in
the sky?
CZD in the clouds CZD in the Fall

103
DIRECTIONS: Read these problems.
Figure out the right answer
45.
There were 33 boys and 22
girls at a lake swimming. How many children were swimming together?
47.
Jennifer won 24 games. Tom won 35 games. How many games did they win in all?
64 children
55 children
11 children
10 children
11 games
51 games
14 games
59 games
46. The library had The library bought How many books are library now?
76 books.
22 more books
in the
48.
Sally made 32 cookies. Fred made 15 cookies. How many cookies did Sally and Fred make altogether?
98 books
17 books 54 books 58 books
61 cookies
47 cookies
23 cookies
11 cookies


53
randomly selected for each of the four categories; half taking the modified test items and half taking the standard version of the test. The 100 item tests were administered to small groups of students, two to seven students per group. The test was given on two consecutive days; approximately 60 minutes and 45 minutes sessions respectively each day, A standard statement was read to all students prior to beginning the test.
Two factor analyses of variance were completed for the total test performance score and performance on each set of similar items. Main effects and interactions were analyzed and susequent follow-up analyses were completed as necessary using a 5 percent level of confidence.


58
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for Students1 Performance
on Subtest for Boldface Type Modification
Boldface
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation
Standard 17.7 2.2
Normal
Modified 18.5 2.0
Standard 13.6 5.0
LD
Modified | 15.3 4.1
Standard 14.9 5.4
EH
Modified 16.5 4.7
Standard 7.1 3.8
EMR
Modified 8.3 3.5

Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Squares(SS) j Square(MS) Freedom(df) F
Category 1191.84 397.28 3 24.79*
Test Form 35.11 35.11 1 2.19
Category X 2.54 .85 3 .053
Test Form
Error 1153.49 16.02 72
* P < .05 j


11
to decide which of three general approaches would be best for each handicapped student. Some handicapped students will have no problems complying with standard procedures and obtaining a standard diploma. Other students may need differential standards in order to earn a standard diploma. This could be accomplished by using the student's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and designing a modified competency program that would meet the special needs and capabilities of the student. Other students may be so severely handicapped that differential diplomas and differential standards would be the most appropriate alternative.
These three options assure handicapped individuals the property right of obtaining the most appropriate diploma. This becomes critical in light of Smith and Jenkins' (1980) warning that issuance
of a differential diploma or certificate of attendance could become a source of stigma to a handicapped individual. According to a U.S.
Department of Labor report, a high school diploma is required for entry into virtually all jobs (Safer, 1980).
Differential assessment procedures. This final issue has far reaching implications not only for the success of the minimum competency testing movement, but for basic educational principles and legal equality. Many mildly handicapped individuals have, almost by definition, difficulty taking standardized tests (Smith & Jenkins, 1980). How can school personnel effectively measure levels of knowledge when the student's responses may be adversely affected by the instrument used? It is essential that each student's achievement be measured


44
Research is also limited in regard to physical formatting of individual test items. Although one study recommended the maximum of six cells per page be used, the results of the study did not prove that this number was critical. There appear to be no data that measure the confusion handicapped children may experience from random placement of test items.
Finally, no relevant data could be found on the recommended number of examples per skill change for either normal or handicapped populations. For the purpose of this study, the inclusion of this modification was based on logic and the current knowledge available regarding the learning characteristics of handicapped and normal children.
Based on this review, the following physical test format modifications appear to be warranted for continued research. They include the effectiveness of boldface type for emphasis, unjustified formatting of sentences, grouping of similar tasks in a progressive hierarchy, inclusion of examples to facilitate task transition, and the placement of answer bubbles in relation to foil.
The effect of these modifications on the performance of students with such mildly handicapping conditions as LD, EMR, and EH is of primary interest. The inclusion of a normal group of individuals may reveal that specific modifications are simply "good" test construction formatting principles, applicable and beneficial to the majority of average individuals.


16
Del imitations
The delimitations of this study included (a) the use of third grade students and (b) the county regulations and criteria that were used to identify and classify the randomly selected sample of normal and handicapped (LD, EH, EMR) students. Additional delimitations were that the participants were enrolled in selected elementary public schools from the cities of Gainesville and Orlando, Florida. The Gainesville schools included Duval, Stephen Foster, Lake Forest, Prairie View, M.K. Rawlings, Archer, Shell,and Metcalfe elementary schools. Participating schools from the city of Orlando were Pine Hills, Ridgewood Park, Hiawassee, Blankner, Cherokee, Fern Creek, Lake Como, Chickasaw, Eccleston, and Lake Weston.
The cities of Gainesville and Orlando are located in Alachua County and Orange County, respectively. The sample population was representative of the southeastern region of the United States, specifically north-central and central Florida. A final delimitation of this study was that the test was a paper and pencil task measuring a limited sample of behaviors. These behaviors included the knowledge of fractions, measurement, coin value, picture sequencing, alphabetical ordering, and math word problems in the example subtest; reading comprehension (not, end, pronouns), word opposites, and following directions in the boldface type subtest; two digit addition, math word problems, reading comprehension, and spelling in the answer bubble subtest; vertical and horizontal addition and


91
academic progress or satisfactory interpersonal relationships cannot be attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits. 1. Criteria for Eligibility
a. Evidence that the student has received supportive educational assistance counseling.
b. Evidence that the student exhibits a persistent and consistent severe emotional handicap as determined by documented observations and psychological evaluation.
c. Evidence that the behavior disrupts the student's ability to achieve adequate academic progress or develop satisfactory interpersonal relationships.
d. Evidence that the primary problem of the student cannot be attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits.


85
Sykes, K. C. A comparison of the effectiveness of standard print
and large print in facilitating the reading skills of visually impaired students. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 1971, 3, 97-105.
Tinker, M. Legibility of print. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press, 1963. (a
Tinker, M. Typography and design (training series). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. (b)
Tinker, M. A., & Patterson, D. G. Influence of type form on speed of
reading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1928, 12_, 359-368.
Watts, D. Is competency testing the answer? Clearing House, 1979,
52_, 243-245.
Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. Critical issues in special and
remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.


CHAPTER IV RESULTS
This study was conducted to investigate the possible effects of five physical test format modifications on the performance of mildly handicapped and normal third grade students. The modifications included an increased ratio of examples per skill change, the use of boldface type for emphasis, the placement of answer bubbles, the grouping of similar items in a hierarchy of progressive difficulty, and unjustified line lengths.

Eighty students from Alachua County and metropolitan Orlando schools participated in the study. There were 20 students in each of four categories (LD, EH, EMR, normal). The students within each category were randomly matched according to reading ability and randomly assigned to either standard or modified test forms.
Data were analyzed using two factor analyses of variance (ANOVA) for the total test performance score and the performance on each set of similar items (subtests 1-5). Significant main effects for category were further evaluated using follow-up analyses according to Tukeyfs Honestly Significant Differences (cited in Ferguson, 1971) procedure; main effects for differences in test forms were interpreted as ratios due to the presence of only two levels of that independent variable. Level of significance of all tests was set at a .05.
54


17
and subtraction of single and two digit numbers in the hierarchy subtest; and reading comprehension, money word problems, and number word problems in the altered line length subtest.
Definition of Terms
Boldface type is darkened print that draws attention to itself and can be used for items requiring additional emphasis.
The educable mentally retarded (EMR) student is one who is mildly impaired in intellectual and adaptive behavior and whose development reflects a reduced rate of learning. The measured intelligence of an educable mentally retarded student generally falls between two and three standard deviations below the mean, and the assessed adaptive behavior falls below age and cultural expectations (Florida Department of Education, 1979).
The emotionally handicapped (EH) student is one who, after receiving supportive educational assistance and counseling services available to all students, still exhibits persistent and consistent severe behavioral disabilities which consequently disrupt the student's own learning process. This is the student whose inability to achieve adequate academic progress or satisfactory interpersonal relationships cannot be attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits (Florida Department of Education, 1979).
The learning disabled (LD) student is one who exhibits a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in the understanding or in using spoken and written language. These may be manifested in disorders of listening, thinking, reading,


61
Table 8
Means and Standard Devr iations for Students ;' Performance
on Subtest for Line Length Modification
I .ine Length
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation
Standard 16.5 4.9
Normal
Modified 17.6 2.9
Standard 12.4 4.1
LD
Modified 15.0 2.2