INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UME fiUbns the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS IN TAIWAN
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Yu Huang, B. Ed, M. S. Ed.
*****
The Ohio State University 1999
Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Robert F. Rodgers, Advisor
Professor Leonard L. Baird Advisor Professor Janet L. Henderson College of Education UMI Nimber; 9931616
UMI Microform 9931616 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Copyright by Yu Huang 1999 ABSTRACT
After the end of martial law in 1987, student affairs in Taiwan was in transition.
Based on U. S. experiences, the researcher believes the goals for student affairs in
Taiwan need to move from in loco parentis to student development. However, no college student development theory is currently in use in Taiwan. The purpose of the study was to develop an instrument to measure Chickering’s psychosocial development theory that was sensitive to Taiwanese college students and their culture and then to explore differences in the development based upon ranks, gender, major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationships, peer relationships, family relationships, and living, co- curricular, and work experiences. This study also determined which independent variables explained the greatest amount of unique variance in psychosocial development for all college students, male students, female students, and different ranks o f students in
Taiwan.
A Chinese College Student Psychosocial Development Inventory (CCSPDl) was developed by the researcher to collect data. Face, content and construct validity were established by a panel of experts, a field test, a pilot study and formal study. The reliability of the instrument was determined by an internal measure of consistency from pilot and formal study.
11 Twenty institutions were selected from the total of 78 institutions based on the
proportion in the target population in terms of location, public/private, and
university/college. The CCSPDl was administered to 1420 Taiwanese college students
who were randomly selected from 20 institutions based upon the proportion of the target
population by major, gender and class rank. 945 respondents were used in the study.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and Multiple Regression statistics were
used to analyze the data.
The findings indicate the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan
follows Chickering’s theory with the development increasing from freshman to upper
class. There is no gender difference; however, female students, comparing with the male
students, disadvantage on the development of competence, emotions, autonomy, and purpose. Major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationship, peer relationship,
family relationship, living experience, co-curricula experience, and work experience all
make significant differences on psychosocial development for Taiwanese students. After
controlling for personal characteristics and class rank, college experiences can significantly explain the variance of psychosocial development in each vector ranged from 41% to 17%. Academic involvement and peer relationship are the two most important factors to explain the variance of psychosocial development in all vectors for
Taiwanese students. The results of multiple regression indicate that the developments for different ranks and different gender of students in different vectors were explained by different college experiences. Based on the findings, recommendations for practice and for further research are presented.
Ill Dedicated to my late father, Yu-Chung Huang,
husband, Mu-Piao Shih, and children, Hsin-Ya, and Hsin-Wen
IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are many people who have been so helpful and supportive to me as I have worked toward the dissertation and my doctoral degree. Sincere thanks go to my advisor.
Dr. Robert Rodgers, for his thoughtful, intellectual support and continuous encouragement which made this dissertation possible. His teaching on college student development theories guided me develop the theoretical foundation for this study. His expertise on Chickering’s theory and related researches helped me find the focus and finish this study quickly. His openness and support to me is unmatchable.
I would like to thank Dr. Janet Henderson for her kind, intellectual guidance, accessibility, and patience in correcting both my methodological and language errors. I would also thank Dr. Leonard Baird for his accessibility and encouragement. His teaching on the area of college environment helped me develop a focus on related environmental factors in the study. I want to extend a special thanks to Dr. Robert
Warmbrod for teaching me advanced statistics and guiding me in statistical explanations.
My gratitude also extends to Dr. Mary Ann Sagaria, Dr. Ada Demb, and Dr.
Susan Jones for their intellectual teaching in the field of higher education and student affairs and continuous encouragement and support for my study. Thanks to all classmates in higher education for their friendship, sharing, support, challenge, and encouragement during these three years. Special thanks give to the members of the panel and all participants in pilot and formal study. All of you have contributed to the findings of the study. I have learned a lot from you.
Special gratitude also goes to the colleagues in the Department of Civics and
Moral Education in the National Taiwan Normal University for supporting my study in the Ohio State University.
One regret thing happened during this period is that my father passed away at last
November. However, the memory of his love and expectation was an important force to push me finish the dissertation.
Finally, my husband, Mu-Piao Shih, deserves my most sincere love and gratitude for him. Without his unfaltering support, continuous encouragement and sharing, and taking whole responsibilities to family in Taiwan during these three years, it is impossible to finish the study and the dissertation. My two lovely daughter, Hsin-Ya and Hsin-Wen, thanks for understanding the separation of family and taking good care of yourself in
Taiwan.
VI VITA
September 08, 1954 ...... Bom - Taipei, R. O. C.
1972 - 1977 ...... B.Ed. Civic and Moral Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, R. O. C.
1976 - 1977 ...... Civics Teacher and Director, Division of Guidance, Taipei Ta-Li Girls Junior High School, Taipei, R. 0. C.
1978 - 1979 ...... Teaching Assistant, Department of Civic and Moral Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, R. O. C.
1980 - 1981 ...... M. S. Ed. Guidance and Counseling, University of Wisconsin-River Falls, River Falls, W1
1985 - present ...... Instructor, Department of Civic and Moral Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, R. O. C.
PUBLICATIONS
Research Publication
1. Huang, Y. (1996). The roles and functions of college student affairs. Bulletin of Civic and Moral Education. 5. 167-192.
2. Huang, Y. (1995). The reflection and perspective of college student affairs. Bulletin of Civic and Moral Education. 4. 333-357.
V ll 3. Huang, Y. (1994). The implementation and perspective of co-curriculum activities of junior high school. Bulletin of Civic and Moral Education. 3. 288-307.
4. Huang, Y. (1992). Bring into positive function for co-curriculum activities. Journal of Counseling and Guidance. 76. 2-5.
5. Huang, Y. (1986). Reaching the goal of civic education: The implement of student co-curriculum activities. Journal o f Secondarv Education.37 ( 5 ) 42-48.
6. Huang, Y. (1985). Psychological education and adolescent guidance. In R. Z. Hsieh (Ed.), Problems and guidance of todav’s adolescents (pp. 343-386). Taipei, Taiwan: Central Materials Publishing Co.
7. Huang, Y. (1983). Theory and practice of co-curriculum activities. Bulletin of Civic and Moral Education. 1. 545-572.
8. Huang, Y. (1982). The current trends of guidance and psychotherapy in the U. S. Journal of Guidance. 19111 77-79.
9. Huang, Y. (1982). A study on the peer-helpers in junior high schools in the Republic of China. Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University. 27. 155-183.
10. Huang, Y. (1982). To be a helper-friend: Developing a peer counselor program in junior high school. Studies of Guidance and Moral Education. 2iril 10-12.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Education
Specialized Area: Higher Education and Student Affairs
V lll TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract...... ii
Dedication ...... iv
Acknowledgments ...... v
Vita...... vii
Table of Contents...... ix
List of Tables...... xi
List of Figures...... xvii
Chapters:
1. Introduction...... I
1.1 Background to the problem ...... 1 1.2 Statement of the problem ...... 5 1.3 Purpose of the study ...... 6 1.4 Research questions ...... 7 1.5 Definition of terms...... 8 1.6 Limitations...... 17 1.7 Significance of the study ...... 18
2. Review of literature...... 21
2.1 Basic concepts of psychosocial development ...... 22 2.2 Chickering’s psychosocial development theory ...... 25 2.3 Historical and cultural influences on psychosocial development ...... 32 2.4 Historical and cultural context of Taiwan...... 36 2.5 Theoretical and methodological issues on measurement of psychosocial development ...... 61 2.6 Research on factors related to psychosocial development ...... 69
ix 2.7 Summary of literature review...... 85
3. Methodology ...... 89
3.1 Introduction...... 89 3.2 Research design ...... 91 3.3 Population and sample ...... 94 3.4 Instrumentation...... 100 3.5 Data collection...... 116 3.6 Data analysis...... 117
4. Findings ...... 123
4.1 Data on the sample ...... 123 4.2 Comparisons of psychosocial development for ten independent variables (research question 1-10) ...... 124 4.3 Determination of which independent variables explain the greatest amount of unique variance in psychosocial development (research question 11)...... 160
5. Summary, conclusions, and recommendations...... 224
5.1 Summary...... 224 5.2 Conclusions...... 242 5.3 Recommendations ...... 248
List of references...... 258
Appendices ...... 268
A. Panel of experts ...... 268 B. Instruments...... 270 C. Results of factor analysis...... 348 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Distribution of population...... 97
3.2 Distribution of sample institutions...... 98
3.3 Distribution of sample...... 99
3.4 Means and standard deviations for student psychosocial development tasks by rank...... 110
3.5 Intercorrelations between subscales of student psychosocial development tasks on pilot study (before delete items) ...... 112
3.6 Intercorrelations between subscales of student psychosocial development tasks on pilot study (after delete items) ...... 113
3.7 Intercorrelations between subscales of student psychosocial development tasks on formal study...... 113
3.8 Reliability coefficients for pilot study and formal study on student psychosocial development tasks ...... 115
3.9 Reliability coefficients for pilot study and formal study on college student experiences questionnaire ...... 115
4.1 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by rank ...... 126
4.2 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by rank...... 126
4.2 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by gender and rank ...... 129
4.4 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by gender and rank ...... 130
4.5 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by major and rank ...... 133
xi 4.6 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by major and rank...... 134
4.7 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by academic involvement and rank...... 137
4.8 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by academic involvement and rank ...... 138
4.9 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by faculty-student relationship and rank...... 140
4.10 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by faculty-student relationship and rank...... 141
4.11 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by peer relationship and rank...... 143
4.12 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by peer relationship and rank ...... 144
4.13 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by family relationship and rank ...... 146
4.14 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by family relationship and rank ...... 147
4.15 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by living experience and rank ...... 149
4.16 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by living experience and rank ...... 150
4.17 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by co-curricula experience and rank...... 153
4.18 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by co-curricula experience and rank...... 154
4.19 MANOVA summary for psychosocial development by work experience and rank...... 157
4.20 Means, standard deviations, and univariate F for psychosocial development by work experience and rank...... 158
X ll 4.21 Regression of developing competence on SEX, FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for total students ...... 167
4.22 Regression of developing competence on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for males ...... 168
4.23 Regression of developing competence on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for females ...... 169
4.24 Regression of developing competence on SEX, PA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for freshmen ...... 170
4.25 Regression of developing competence on SEX, PA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for sophomores ...... 171
4.26 Regression of developing competence on SEX, PA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PPL, and PR for juniors...... 172
4.27 Regression of developing competence on SEX, PA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for seniors ...... 173
4.28 Regression of managing emotions on SEX, PA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for total students ...... 177
4.29 Regression of managing emotions on PA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for males ...... 178
4.30 Regression of managing emotions on PA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for females ...... 179
4.31 Regression of managing emotions on SEX, PA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for freshmen ...... 180
4.32 Regression of managing emotions on SEX, PA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for sophomores ...... 181
4.33 Regression of managing emotions on SEX, PA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for juniors...... 182
4.34 Regression of managing emotions on SEX, PA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for seniors ...... 183
4.35 Regression of developing autonomy on SEX, PA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for total students ...... 187
X lll 4.36 Regression of developing autonomy on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for males ...... 188
4.37 Regression of developing autonomy on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for females ...... 189
4.38 Regression of developing autonomy on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for freshmen ...... 190
4.39 Regression of developing autonomy on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for sophomores ...... 191
4.40 Regression of developing autonomy on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for juniors...... 192
4.41 Regression of developing autonomy on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for seniors ...... 193
4.42 Regression of MIR on SEX, FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for total students ...... 197
4.43 Regression of MIR on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for males ...... 198
4.44 Regression of MIR on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for females ...... 199
4.45 Regression of MIR on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR and PR for freshmen ...... 200
4.46 Regression of MIR on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR and PR for sophomores ...... 201
4.47 Regression of MIR on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for juniors...... 202
4.48 Regression of MIR on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for seniors ...... 203
4.49 Regression of establishing identity on SEX, FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for total students ...... 207
4.50 Regression of establishing identity on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for males ...... 208
XIV 4.51 Regression of establishing identity on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for females ...... 209
4.52 Regression of establishing identity on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for freshmen ...... 210
4.53 Regression of establishing identity on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for sophomores ...... 211
4.54 Regression of establishing identity on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for juniors...... 212
4.55 Regression of establishing identity on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for seniors ...... 213
4.56 Regression of developing purpose on SEX, FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for total students ...... 217
4.57 Regression of developing purpose on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for males ...... 218
4.58 Regression of developing purpose on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for females ...... 219
4.59 Regression of developing purpose on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for freshmen ...... 220
4.60 Regression of developing purpose on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for sophomores ...... 221
4.61 Regression of developing purpose on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for juniors...... 222
4.62 Regression of developing purpose on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for seniors ...... 223
5.1 Summary of the results for multiple regression in developing purpose ...... 235
5.2 Summary of the results for multiple regression in managing emotions ...... 236
5.3 Summary of the results for multiple regression in developing autonomy ...... 237
5.4 Summary of the results for multiple regression in mature interpersonal relationship ...... 238
XV 5.5 Summary of the results for multiple regression in establishing identity ...... 239
5.6 Summary o f the results for multiple regression in developing purpose...... 240
XVI LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1 Conceptual model for research study ...... 93
xvu CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background to the Problem
Historically, the field of student affairs was named student discipline in Taiwan.
The goal of student discipline was to achieve civic and moral education, which is based on Confucian philosophy and Dr. Sun Yen-Sen’s doctrine-Three Principles of the People;
Nationalism, Democracy, and the People’s Livelihood (Committee on School Discipline and Moral Education, Department of Education, 1993). During the martial law period
(1949-1987), the relationship between institutions and students was in loco parentis. The system of discipline in higher education was paternalistic, strict, and authoritarian.
Surrogate parent and disciplinarian were the major roles for student discipline. Student discipline staff, faculty, and military officers shared the responsibilities for student discipline. However, not all of them were trained professionals in student discipline
(Huang, 1995, 1996; Wu, 1995).
After the end of martial law in 1987, institutions have moved toward democratization and liberalization. The University Act of 1994 changed the name of student discipline to student affairs and removed the responsibility of military officers.
The law gives students rights to participate in institutional councils relating to their study
1 and life, requests institution to form student government organizations, and develops an
appeal process for discipline (National Taiwan Normal University, 1996). Student affairs
is in transition in Taiwan. Scholars have claimed to develop new goals and roles for
student affairs to provide more service and help for students (Ho, 1989; Ho, 1990;
Huang, 1995,1996; Wu, 1995). What are the new goals and roles for student affairs in
Taiwan? The historical development of student affairs in the United States can be a
valuable reference for Taiwan.
Student affairs in the U. S. is derived from three major historical paradigms: in
loco parentis, student services, and student development (Rodgers, 1989). The original
goal of the in loco parentis model in colonial times was to teach students who were ages
13 to 16 to control their sinful nature and behave according to prescribed moral values.
Faculty and staff acted in place of parents and students were their children (Rodgers,
1989). The student services model uses the social and behavioral sciences to help troubled students with remedial services and to provide other services and programs students may want as consumers (Rodgers, 1989). The student development model focuses on using formal scientific theories of individual and group development in designing environments that help students learn and develop. Formal theories provide the general and specific criteria for designing physical environments, programs, policies, and services that are appropriate for persons at different developmental levels (Rodgers,
1989). Since the role of the student affairs professional changed from disciplinarian to educator in the 1960s, the in loco parentis model has no longer been viable in the U. S.
Student services and student development are the dominant models today. Recently, the American College Personnel Association has nominated “learning” as the primary focus
for student affairs (AGFA, 1994).
As Taiwanese society and higher education have moved toward democratization
and liberalization, the researcher believes the goal of student affairs in Taiwan needs to
move from in loco parentis to student service and student development. The goal for
student affairs needs to change to serve students first, respect their rights and needs, and
provide programs and services to promote student learning and holistic development. The role of student affairs staff will be developmental educator rather than the surrogate parent (Huang, 1996).
If student affairs professionals intend to foster student development in college, they need to inform their work using formal student development theories. These theories describe how students grow and change through their college years and provide a useful guide for student affairs professionals proactively to identify student needs, develop programs and policies, and create healthy environments to facilitate student development.
Student development theories can be grouped into four families: psychosocial, cognitive- structural, typology, and person-environment interaction (Knefelkamp, Widick, & Parker,
1978; Moore, 1990; Rodgers, 1990; Strange & King, 1990, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991,
Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Evans, Fomey, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Psychosocial theories describe the developmental issues, tasks, and events that occur throughout the life span and a given person’s pattern of resolution of the issues and tasks, and adaptation to the events. Cognitive-structural theories examine the sequence of meaning-making structures through which people perceive, organize, and reason about their experiences.
Typological theories posit that individuals are innately different from one another,
3 possessing varied sets of characteristics that influence how they process information, make decisions, and handle developmental challenges. Person-environment interaction explores various conceptualizations of the college student and the college environment and the degree of congruence that occurs when they interact (Rodgers, 1989, 1990;
Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Evans, Fomey, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998).
Among these theories, Chickering’s psychosocial development theory is the one that has been widely used and studied by both student development theorists and practitioners (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Schuh, 1994) and is considered the most useful psychosocial theory in student affairs (Rodgers, 1989; Evans, Fomey, & Guido-
DiBrito, 1998). Building on Erikson’s discussion of identity, Chickering addressed college students’ (18-24) psychosocial development and postulated seven major development tasks that he called developmental vectors - because they have both direction and magnitude. These vectors are called developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity (Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Two major instruments have been developed for assessing college student psychosocial development based on
Chickering’s theory: the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI) and the Iowa Student Development Inventories, which include Iowa Developing
Competency Inventory, Iowa Managing Emotions Inventory, Iowa Developing
Autonomy Inventory, Erwin Identity Scale, Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationship
Inventory, and Developing Purposes Inventory (Miller & Winston, 1990). Statement of the Problem
If the goal of student affairs in Taiwan is to move toward practice based upon student development, student affairs professionals need to use formal student development theories. However, no college student development theory is currently in use in Taiwan. Since fostering students’ psychosocial development is the major function for student affairs and Chickering’s psychosocial theory is the most useful and widely used and studied theory in the U. S., this theory may be a valuable model for Taiwan.
However, psychosocial development is age-graded, history-graded, and related to life events. Culture, historical experience, and personal critical events are important factors that influence students’ psychosocial development (Erikson, 1968; Rodgers, 1990; Miller
& Winston, 1990). Several studies have demonstrated the difference of psychosocial development among different ethnic group students (Branch-Simpson, 1984; Jordan-Cox,
1987; Taub & McEwen, 1991; Sheehan & Pearson, 1995; Utterback et al., 1995;
Caballero, 1997). Chickering’s theory will be culturally translated and then tested with
Taiwanese College students to determine how they develop from freshmen to seniors in the psychosocial domain in Taiwan. Previous research shows that the SDTLI is not an appropriate instrument to study the psychosocial development of Taiwanese college students (Guo, 1995). When measuring Chickering’s theor>' in Taiwan, an instrument will need to be developed which is appropriate to the life experiences and culture of
Taiwanese college students. In addition, studies show that psychosocial development differs among males and females (Straub & Rodgers, 1986; Straub, 1987; Jordan-Cox,
1987; Grelley & Tinsley, 1988; Taub & McEwen, 1991; Taub, 1995; Utterback et al.,
1995), and is related to faculty-student relationship (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Astin,
5 1993), peer relationships (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Astin, 1993), academic involvement (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Astin, 1993), college living experience
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Astin, 1993), co-curricular involvement experience
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Astin, 1993; Cooper, Healy & Simpson, 1994; Hunt &
Rentz, 1994), and work experience (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Astin, 1993). To develop a psychosocial development theory in Taiwan, these variables will also need to be studied. Furthermore, both family and Joint College Entrance Examination (JCEE) play important roles in the Chinese culture and Taiwanese school system (Ho, 1986;
Epstein & Kuo 1991). Therefore, family and JCEE variables may also be studied in relation to the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan.
Purpose of the Studv
The purpose of this research was to develop a measure to study the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan and then to explore the differences in related variables in order to develop the theoretical foundation for student affairs moving toward student development in Taiwan. For attaining this goal, a psychosocial development instrument was first developed, which was based on Chickering’s theory and appropriate to the life experiences and culture of Taiwanese college students. Using this instrument, the study then measured how college students developed from freshmen to seniors in
Taiwan. This study also tested if psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan differed relative to gender, major, academic involvement, JCEE score, faculty-student relationship, peer relationship, family relationship, and living, co-curricular, and work experiences and determined which independent variables explained the greatest amount
of unique variance in psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan.
Research Questions
The following research questions were asked:
T. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different ranks of
college students in Taiwan?
2. What are the differences in psychosocial development between male and female
college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
3. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different majors of
college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
4. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different JCEE scores
of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
5. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different academic
involvement of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
6. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different faculty-
student relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
7. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different peer
relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
8. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different family
relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
9. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different living
experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
7 10. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different co-curricular
experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
11. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different work
experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
12. Which independent variables explain the greatest amount of unique variance in the
psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan? Male students? Female
students? And different ranks of students?
Definition of Terms
Psvchosocial Development
Constitutive definition. Psychosocial development refers to “the issues, tasks, and
evens that occur throughout the life span, and to a given person’s pattern of resolution of
the issues and tasks, and adaptation to the events” (Rodgers, 1990, p.45). For the purpose of this study, based on Chickering and Reisser (1993), psychosocial development was therefore defined as seven major developmental tasks during the young adult college years (18 to 24) including developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity.
Operational definition. Psychosocial development was operationally defined as the mean score on a 120-item, 5-point Likert-type measurement instrument. Each of the
120 items contained a statement that related to the tasks of psychosocial development of college student and was grouped into six subscales: developing competence, managing emotions, developing autonomy, mature interpersonal relationship, establishing identity,
8 and developing purpose. Each item was rated from 1 (not at all true of myself) to 5 (true
of myselQ. The ratings of all 120 items were summated and a mean score in psychosocial
development was calculated. The higher mean score means the higher psychosocial
development. Mean scores in each subscale was also calculated and had six subscale
mean scores.
College Students in Taiwan
Constitutive definition. College students are persons who attend post-secondary
schools. There are many types of post-secondary school in Taiwan: junior colleges,
institutes of technology, universities and independent colleges, and normal universities and teacher colleges (Ministry of Education, 1998a). In this study, college students in
Taiwan was defined as the persons who attend universities, independent colleges, normal universities, and teacher colleges.
Operational definition. College students in Taiwan was operationally defined as the students who were age of 18-24, attended the day session in universities, independent colleges, normal universities and teachers colleges in Taiwan in terms of six major areas
(natural science & engineering, humanities & service, education, business & administration, social and behavioral science, medical science & biology), four ranks
(freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior), and both genders (male, female) during the
1998-1999 academic year.
Developing Competence
Constitutive definition. Competence is “possession of skill, knowledge, qualification, or capacity” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 1993, p. 417). In this study, based on Chickering and Reisser (1993), developing competence was defined as
9 the development of intellectual competence, physical and manual skills, and interpersonal
competence.
Operational definition. Developing competence was operationally defined as the
mean score on the 20-item, 5-point Likert-type Developing Competence subscale. Each
item was rated from 1 (not at all true of myself) to 5 (true of myself). The ratings of all 20
items were summated and a mean score in developing competence was calculated. The
higher mean score indicates the higher development of competence.
Managing Emotions
Constitutive definition. According to Random House Unabridged Dictionary
(1993), emotion is “an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, or hate
is experienced” (p. 1166) and manage is “to bring about or succeed in accomplishing,
sometimes despite difficulty” (p. 637). In this study, based on Chickering and Reisser
(1993), managing emotions was defined as the development of ability to be aware of and
accept both positive and negative emotions, as well as to appropriately control and express them.
Operational definition. Managing emotions was operationally defined as the mean score on the 20-item, 5-point Likert-type Managing Emotions subscale. Each item was rated from 1 (not at all true of myself) to 5 (true of myself). The ratings o f all 20 items were summated and a mean score in managing emotions was calculated. The higher mean score means the higher ability of managing emotions.
Developing Autonomv
Constitutive definition. Autonomy is the “freedom from continual and pressing needs for reassurance, affection, or approval from others” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993,
10 p. 117). For the purpose of this study, based on Chickering and Reisser (1993),
developing autonomy was therefore be defined as the development of the capacity for
emotional independence, instrumental independence and finally to move toward
interdependence.
Operational definition. Developing autonomy was operationally defined as the
mean score on the 20-item, 5-point Likert-type Developing Autonomy subscale. Each
item was rated from 1 (not at all true of myself) to 5 (true of myself). The ratings of all 20
items were summated and a mean score in developing autonomy was calculated. The
higher mean score indicates the higher development of autonomy.
Mature Interpersonal Relationship
Constitutive definition. According to Random House Unabridged Dictionary
(1993), ‘interpersonal’ is “existing or occurring between persons” (p. 997) and
‘relationship’ is a connection, association or involvement” (p. 1626). In this study, based on Chickering and Reisser (1993), mature interpersonal relationship was defined as the development of intercultural and interpersonal tolerance and appreciation of differences, as well as the capacity for healthy and lasting intimate relationships with a partner or close friends, authority figures and persons culturally different from oneself.
Operational definition. Mature interpersonal relationship was operationally defined as the mean score on the 20-item, 5-point Likert-type Mature Interpersonal
Relationship subscale. Each item was rated from 1 (not at all true of myself) to 5 (true of myself). The ratings of all 20 items were summated and a mean score in mature interpersonal relationship was calculated. The higher mean score indicates the higher development of mature interpersonal relationship.
11 Establishing Identity
Constitutive definition. Chickering and Reisser (1993) indicate “developing
identity is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle, remodeling a house, or seeking one’s human rhythms” (p.48). In this study, based on their theory, establishing identity was therefore defined as the development of comfort with and acceptance of body and appearance, comfort with and acceptance of gender and sexual orientation, sense of self socially and culturally and with a life-style that is how others see you also, and self -acceptance and self-esteem.
Operational definition. Establishing identity was operationally defined as the mean score on the 20-item, 5-point Likert-type Establishing Identity subscale. Each item was rated from 1 (not at all true of myself) to 5 (true of myself). The ratings of all 20 items were summated and a mean score in establishing identity was calculated. The higher mean score indicates the higher development of identity.
Developing Purpose
Constitutive definition. Purpose is the “aim, goal, or an intended result” (Random
House Unabridged Dictionary, 1993, p. 1570). In this study, based on Chickering and
Reisser (1993), developing purpose was defined as the development of ability to be intentional in exploring and assessing personal interests and options, in clarifying academic and vocational goals, in making plans and persist despite obstacles, and finally in making the initial lifestyle commitment.
Operational definition. Developing purpose was operationally defined as the mean score on the 20-item, 5-point Likert-type Developing Purpose subscale. Each item was rated from 1 (not at all true of myself) to 5 (true of myself). The ratings of all 20 items
12 were summated and a mean score in developing purpose will be calculated. The higher mean score indicates the higher development of purpose.
Major
Constitutive definition. Major is a subject or field of study chosen by a student
(Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 1993). According to Ministry o f Education
(1998), there are 18 major areas in Taiwan. In this study, major was therefore defined as the program or department in which college student studies.
Operational definition. Major was operationally defined as the department in which student studies and was categorized into the following six areas: (1) Natural
Science & Engineering, which included Natural Science, Math. & Computer Science,
Engineering, Craft & Industry, Transportation & Communication, Architecture Town- planning; (2) Humanities & Service, which included Fine & Applied Arts, Humanities,
Service Trades, Mass Communication & Documentation; (3) Education; (4) Business &
Administration; (5) Social & Behavioral Science, which included Social & Behavioral
Science and Law & Jurisprudence; and (6) Medical Science & Biology, which included
Medical Diagnostic Treatment, Agriculture, Forest & Fishery, Home economics, and
Other (Physical Education).
Joint College Entrance Examination CJCEEl Score
Constitutive definition. In Taiwan, students enter colleges by passing the Joint
College Entrance Examination every year. In this study, JCEE score was defined as the raw grand score that the student received on the Join College Entrance Examination.
13 Operational definition. JCEE score was operationally defined as the student’s self-reported raw grand score that he/she received on the Join College Entrance
Examination. The higher grand score indicates the higher JCEE score.
Academic Involvement
Constitutive definition. Astin (1984) defines involvement “refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience”
(p. 297). For the purpose of this study, Academic involvement was therefore defined as the amount of physical and psychological energy that student devoted to the library experiences, course learning, and experience in writing.
Operational definition. Academic involvement was operationally defined as the mean score on the 7-item, 4-point Likert-type College Student Experiences
Questionnaire. Each of the 7 items contained a statement that related to the involvement in the library experiences, course learning, and experience in writing and was rated from
1 (never) to 4 (very often). The rating of all 7 items were summated and a mean score in academic involvement was calculated. The higher mean score indicates the higher academic involvement.
Facultv-Student Relationship
Constitutive definition. In this study, faculty-student relationship was defined as the interaction between student and his/her teachers.
Operational definition. Faculty-student relationship was operationally defined as the mean score on the 7-item, 4-point Likert-type College Student Experiences
Questionnaire. Each of the 7 items contained a statement that related to the interaction between the faculty and the student and was rated from 1 (never) to 4 (very often). The
14 ratings of all 7 items were summated and a mean score in faculty-student relationship was calculated. The higher mean score indicates the higher interaction between student and faculty.
Peer Relationship
Constitutive definition. In this study, peer relationship was defined as the general condition of interaction between student and his/her peers.
Operational definition. Peer relationship was operationally defined as the mean score on the 7-item, 4-point Likert-type College Student Experiences Questionnaire. Each of the 7 items contained a statement that related to the interaction between student and his/her peers and was rated from 1 (never) to 4 (very often). The ratings of all 7 items were summated and a mean score in peer relationship was calculated. The higher mean score indicates the higher interaction between student and his/her peers.
Familv Relationship
Constitutive definition. For this study, family relationship was defined as the parents’ emotional support for the student.
Operational definition. Family relationship was operationally defined as the student’s self-report of his/her parents’ role in providing emotional support from the following three choices: strong, moderate, and little.
Living Experience
Constitutive definition. In this study, living experience was defined as the living condition that student had in his/her school year.
Operational definition. Living experience was operationally defined as the self- reported living condition that student had in his/her school year from the following five
15 choices: only living in residence hall, living off campus but has been living in residence hall, and living off campus and has never been living in residence hall, commuting from home and has been living in residence hall, and commuting from home and has never been living in residence hall.
Co-Curricula Experience
Constitutive definition. Co-curricula is the education related but only complementary to the official curriculum, as an activity outside classroom (Random
House Unabridged Dictionary, 1993). In this study, co-curricula experience was defined as the condition that student has participated in student organizations in the extracurricular activities during his/her college years.
Operational definition. Co-curricula experience was operationally defined as the self-reported condition that student had participated in student organizations in extracurricular activities during his/her college years from the following three choices: none, only be a member, and have been a leader.
Work Experience
Constitutive definition. For this study, work experience was defined as the condition that student had worked for a job during his/her college years.
Operational definition. Work experience was operationally defined as the self- reported condition that student had worked for a job during his/her college years from the following five choices: none, part-time and work experience relates to the major, part- time and work experience does not relate to the major, full-time and work experience relates to the major, and full-time and work experience does not relate to the major.
16 Limitations
Limitations are factors which cannot be adequately controlled in the design of a study and which cannot be accounted for when analyzing, interpreting and generalizing the data. The following were considered limitations of this study:
1. Subject selection was based on a multistage sampling. First, a stratified cluster
sampling was used to select 20 institutions from 78 population institutions. And then
a stratified, random sampling was employed to select subjects within 20 institutions.
However, the final accessible population of 20 institutions was determined by getting
the permission from the institutions. It limits generalization to other populations. In
addition, comparing with the proportion of class rank in the target population, the
final valid sample had larger junior samples and smaller senior samples. It also
influences the reliability to generalize the findings to the population.
2. Students may respond differently if the instrument had been administered at a
different time.
3. Sampling in the cross-sectional method is complicated because the same subjects are
not involved at each level and may not be comparable. Specifically, the freshmen
sampled may in fact be different than the seniors when they entered the college.
Because of the cross-sectional nature of this study, the interpretation of results to
determine the psychosocial development of college students is the difference between
students of different class ranks at one time rather than intraindividual changes that
occur with ages.
4. Because part of the objective was to develop an instrument which can be used with
large groups, efficiency of scoring and a high degree of reliability are desired. As a
17 consequence, this instrument was objective in nature; thus, the information obtained
did not have the depth of an interview schedule or an open-ended questionnaire.
Because of the nature of the quantitative paradigm of this study, the results of
psychosocial development of college students made were limited to the data drawn
from the instrument used.
Significance of the Studv
The significance of the study includes both theoretical and practical benefits in higher education and student affairs, especially for Taiwan.
Theoretically, the study tested Chickering’s theory in a cross-cultural setting.
Although several studies have tested Chickering’s theory in different ethnic groups in the
U. S. (Branch-Simpson, 1984; Hughes, 1987; Taub & McEwen, 1991; Sheehan &
Pearson, 1995; Utterback et al., 1995), few studies have been conducted in foreign countries. Results of the study provided theoretical cross-cultural understandings of college students’ psychosocial development in Taiwan. Second, the study developed the first systematic psychosocial developmental database for college students in Taiwan.
Several researches have studied the values, attitudes, subculture, self-identity, interpersonal relationships, gender roles, life adjustment, and career commitment of
Taiwanese college students (Chung, 1982; Chen, 1983; Ho, 1985; Hung, 1986; Chi,
1994; Chou, 1995; Lee & Cheng, 1995; Lin, 1997) and one study (Chang, 1986) particularly examined the relationship between psychosocial development and psychological health for college students. However, this study conducted thirteen years ago and only studied one institution. Therefore, no holistic and systematic psychosocial
18 development theory of college students exists in Taiwan. The results of the study provides understanding for student affairs professionals, educators, parents and students on how college students grow systematically and holistically in the psychosocial domain.
The study also builds a theoretical foundation for Taiwanese student affairs professionals to use scientific college students development theory in their work. Third, the study of the differences of psychosocial development of college students in gender, major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationships, peer relationships, family relationships, and living, co-curricular, and work experiences provides foundations for understanding how personal characteristics and college environment are related to the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan. Furthermore, the study provides the first valid and reliable psychosocial development instrument based on Chickering’s theory and appropriate to the life and cultural experiences of Taiwanese college students. This instrument may help researchers and practitioners in Taiwan to conduct research in college student psychosocial development and student affairs work in the future.
Practically, the results of college students’ psychosocial developmental patterns and related variables provide general and special criteria for student affairs professionals in Taiwan to develop programs, policies, services, and environments that may help to facilitate student psychosocial development. For example, what programs are appropriate to facilitate psychosocial development for fireshmen? Sophomores? Juniors? Seniors?
What services are needed for male students? Female students? What environments or programs might foster students to develop autonomy? Develop mutual interpersonal relationship? Develop purpose? In addition, by using the College Student Psychosocial
Development Inventory, which was developed in this study, student affairs professionals
19 in Taiwan could assess their students’ developmental level, and by inference their needs, evaluate the effectiveness of their programs, services, and policies, and demonstrate their accountability.
Finally, both the instrument and the national database can be used by student affairs in Taiwan to help to attain the mission of higher education in a democratic, liberal, and diverse society.
20 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Since the purpose of the study was to develop an instrument to measure
Chickering’s psychosocial development theory that was sensitive to Taiwanese college students and their culture and then to explore differences in the development for different class ranks and related factors, this chapter reviews the theoretical and research literature on theory, measurement issues, and related factors of psychosocial development with particular focusing on Chickering’s theory and Taiwanese historical and cultural context.
The review is divided into seven areas starting with the introduction of the basic concepts of psychosocial development and Chickering’s psychosocial theory. Historical and cultural influences on psychosocial development are then addressed and the historical and cultural context of Taiwan is explored. Fifth, theoretical and methodological issues on measurement of psychosocial development are presented. Finally, a review of the research on factors related to psychosocial development in both the U. S. and the Taiwan is addressed. The chapter concludes with a summary of literature review and connects the review to the research questions.
21 Basic Concepts of Psvchosocial Development
Psychosocial perspective represents human development as a product of the interaction between individual developmental (psycho) needs and abilities and societal
(social) expectations and demands. Building on the work of Erikson (1963), psychosocial theories address development across the life span, identifying and differentiating central issues from infancy through old age. Unlike other families of theory that focus on single dimensions of development, psychosocial theories combine thinking, feeling, and behavior into a rich and complex picture of the life span (Rodgers, 1980; White &
Porterfield, 1993; Newman & Newman, 1995). According to Rodgers (1990),
“Psychosocial development refers to the issues, tasks, and events that occur throughout the life span, and to a given person’s pattern of resolution of the issues and tasks, and adaptation to the events” (p. 45). Miller and Winston (1990) indicate that psychosocial development, in effect, is concerned with those personal, psychologically oriented aspects of self and the relationships that exist between the self and society. This type of development is significantly influences by the interactions that take place between individuals and their environments.
The basic concepts used in psychosocial development are stage of development, developmental crisis, developmental task or vector, developmental or optimal dissonance, and developmental coping skills (Rodgers, 1980; White & Porterfield, 1993; Newman &
Newman, 1995).
Rodgers (1980) explains that a stage is defined as an interval of time in an individual’s life during which a person faces and resolves, either adequately or inadequately, a developmental crisis and its developmental tasks. A stage starts when an
22 internal change, both biological and psychological in nature, causes an internal crisis for a person. This internal crisis collides with an external societal demand, which is similar to the internal crisis, to cause a new developmental phase. College students, for example, have passed through the physiological change of puberty and awakening of sexual impulses and feelings, are able to think complexly about his/her life, and are beginning a process of becoming their own person as an adult. These internal issues collide with external social demands to leave home and join the world, to become autonomous, to decide who you are and what you are going to do with your life. It is time to grow up.
The college student is in Erikson’s identity stage and struggling to solve his/her developmental crisis.
Erikson (1968, p. 96) states that the term crisis is used in a developmental sense to connote not a threat of catastrophe, but a turning point, a crucial period of increased vulnerability and heightened potential. He conceptualizes developmental crises as polar opposite outcomes, for example, the identity versus role confusion for college student.
Each polar crisis involves more specific developmental tasks. Successful resolution of the tasks and issues related to this stage of development increase individuals’ sense of identity, while failure adds to a sense of role confusion.
Developmental tasks are the crucial, problematic issues or preoccupations that a person needs to resolve during a stage and before the next stage and its tasks begin. For the crisis of identity versus role confusion in Erikson’s scheme, college student must resolve the three broad issues of identity-career, values, and intimacy. Developmental tasks can be resolved adequately or inadequately. According to Erikson, both polar elements are always present. An adequate resolution is a favorable balance of tendencies
23 toward identity. An inadequate resolution is a balance in favor of role confusion. When a college student comes to terms with the realities of committing himselfherself to a career, life pattern, and philosophy of life, the stage of development (identity vs. role confusion) has been adequately resolved. Adequate resolution helps one cope with the tasks of future stages. Inadequate resolutions of developmental tasks, on the other hand, lead to stress, anxiety, maladaptive behavior, and a decrease in the probability of resolving the tasks of future stages adequately.
How does developmental change take place? Psychosocial theories suggest that change involves a period of developmental dissonance. Developmental or optimal dissonance refers to a period of disequilibrium or anxiety, which psychosocial theories believe provides the catalyst for development. Central to this concept is Sanford’s (1966) theme of challenge and support. Sanford proposed that change is facilitated when individuals are challenged to explore new modes of thinking and behavior that may help resolve tasks. The amount of challenge that is developmental, or optimal, is a function of the support that is available. When challenges outweigh the support that is available in the environment, individuals tend to regress to earlier, less adaptive modes of behavior, become rigid in present modes of behavior, attempt to escape the challenging stimuli, or ignore the stimuli if the escape is not possible. When support outweighs the amount of challenge in the environment, progression through psychosocial tasks of a stage may be thwarted. The balance of challenge and support involves moving individuals outside the parameters of their comfort zone in order to promote development. Psychosocial theories believe these concepts, developmental dissonance and challenge/support, apply to the resolution of developmental tasks. For example, given the needs to resolve the issues of
24 career choice for the college student, the appropriateness and intensity both of challenge
(a career development workshop) and support (how the workshop is structured and quality of its interpersonal atmosphere) can influence the rate and quality of task resolution.
Finally, favorable or unfavorable resolution of developmental tasks can be also influenced by developmental coping skills. For example, if college student has learned decision-making skills, he/her may have a better chance of resolving the issues in career, lifestyle, and value choices.
In sum, the fundamental principles of psychosocial development include (1) psychosocial development is continuous and cumulative in nature; that is how a stage is resolved affects one’s ability to deal with future stages adequately; (2) psychosocial development involves a series of qualitatively different issues over the life span; (3) psychosocial development tends to be orderly and staged-related; (4) psychosocial development is reflected in developmental tasks; and (5) Psychosocial stages are concerned with the “what” or content of development (tasks) (Rodgers, 1980; Miller &
Winston, 1990; White & Porterfield, 1993).
Chickering’s Psvchosocial Development Theory
Among psychosocial development theories, Chickering’s theory is the one that particularly studies the college years and has been widely used and studied by both student development theorists and practitioners in the student affairs (Rodgers, 1989;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Schuh, 1994; Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). His theory was first outlined in the book Education and identity fChickering. 1969). The
25 theory is based on research he conducted between 1959 and 1965 and all the previous research he could find on this age group at the time of the writing. His research focused on traditional-aged (18-24) white students who were attending small, liberal arts college across the country. Building on Erikson's discussion of identity and intimacy, using a variety of measures, including student self-assessments, and faculty evaluations of student progress, Chickering proposed seven vectors that contribute to the formation of identity for 18 to 24 year-olds. He called the vectors or tasks Developing Competence,
Managing Emotions, Developing Autonomy, Establishing Identity, Freeing Interpersonal
Relationships, Developing Purpose, and Developing Integrity (Chickering, 1969). He used the term of vectors “because each seems to have direction and magnitude-even though the direction may be expressed more appropriately by a spiral or by steps than by a straight line” (p.8). Since then, his theory has been the one that is widely used and studied by both student development theorists and practitioners (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991) and is considered the most useful psychosocial theory in student affairs (Rodgers,
1989; Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998).
Working with Linda Reisser (1995), Chickering revised his theory to incorporate new research findings, to summarize the work of other theories as it relates to his theory, and to be more inclusive of various student populations. The new revised seven vectors are: Developing Competence, Managing Emotions, Moving Through Autonomy Toward
Interdependence, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, Establishing Identity,
Developing Purpose, and Developing Integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Chickering noted that students move through ihese vectors at different rates, that vectors can interact with each other, and that students often find themselves reexamining issues associated
26 with vectors they had previously worked through. Although not rigidly sequential, vectors do build on each other, leading to greater complexity, stability, and integration as the issues related to each vector are addressed (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998).
The following explicates each of the seven vectors as presented in Chickering’s revised theory.
Seven Vectors
Developing competence. Three kinds of competence develop in college- intellectual competence, physical and manual skills, and interpersonal competence.
Intellectual competence involves (1) the acquisition of subject matter knowledge, and of skills tied directly to academic programs; (2) the growth of intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic sophistication, expanding interests in humanities, performing arts, philosophy, and history, and increasing involvement in lifelong learning; and (3) the development of skills in areas such as critical thinking and reflective judgement (Reisser, 1995). This later point is better classified as cognitive-structural development rather than psychosocial development. Physical and manual competence develops through athletic and artistic activities and through encounters with tangible materials such as athletic equipment, wood, paint, clay, and machinery. Skills developed in art, design and activities that increase wellness, strength, and health can foster movement along this vector (Reisser, 1995). Interpersonal competence includes effective communication with individuals or groups and the skills used in teamwork, collaboration, leadership, and fellowership. As students come to trust their abilities, receive accurate feedback firom others, and integrate their skills into a stable self-assurance, an overall sense of
27 competence increases (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). It also includes developing social
skills appropriate to different social contexts and cultures.
Managing emotions. The development of managing emotions involves (1)
increasing awareness and acceptance of emotions and (2) balance, control, and
appropriate expression of emotions. Awareness and acceptance of emotions means being
in touch with a full range of feelings; understanding what causes them; differentiating
between levels of intensity, toxic and nurturing emotions, and self-assertive and self-
transcending; acceptance of feeling as valuable sources of information; and learning the
consequences of acting on impulse. Balance, control and appropriate expression of
emotions means practicing new skills, learning coping techniques, directing feeling
toward constructive action, becoming more flexible and spontaneous, and seeking out
rewarding and meaningful experiences (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). In the original
theory (1969), Chickering focused on aggression and sexual desire. His revised theory
addresses a more inclusive range of feelings including anxiety, depression, anger, shame,
as well as more positive emotions such as caring, optimism, and inspiration.
Moving through autonomv toward interdependence. This aspect of development
moves from dependence to increased emotional independence, which is defined as
“freedom from continual and pressing needs for reassurance, affection or approval from
others” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 117), and to instrumental independence, which
includes the ability to carry on activities and solve problems, in a self-directed manner,
and freedom and confidence to be mobile and self-sufficient. Finally the person comes to recognize and accept the importance of interdependence, an aware of interconnectedness between self and others. Chickering’s revised theory places a greater emphasis on the
28 importance of interdependence. As a result, he has renamed this vector that was called
Developing Autonomy in the original theory.
Developing mature interpersonal Relationships. This vector, which was called
Freeing Interpersonal Relationships in the original version and had been located in the
fifth position (following the vector of Establishing Identity) has been placed earlier in
sequence to acknowledge that experiences with relationships contribute significantly to
the development of a good foimdation of identity (Ressier, 1995). The tasks associated
with this vector include development of intercultural and interpersonal tolerance and appreciation of differences, as well as the capacity for healthy, reciprocal and lasting intimate relationships with parmers, closed friends, authority figures, and parents.
Resisser (1995) stated both tasks involve “the ability to accept individuals for who they are, to respect differences, and to appreciate commonalities” (p. 509).
Establishing identity. Chickering’s use of the terms Establishing Identity is a limited definition since all of the vectors result in an Identity. Based on growing awareness and experiences, involved in the previously described vectors, students gradually define who they are and develop the sense of self. In the revised theory, this vector has taken on added complexity to acknowledge differences in identity development based on gender, ethnic background, and sexual orientation (Reisser, 1995).
Identity includes (1) comfort with body and appearance, (2) comfort with gender and sexual orientation, (3) a sense of one’s social and cultural heritage, (4) a clear self- concept and comfort with one’s roles and lifestyle, (5) a secure sense of self in response to feedback from valued others, (6) self acceptance and self-esteem, and (7) personal stability and integration (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
29 Developing purpose. This vector involves three components: clarifying vocational plans, sharpening priorities based on personal and avocational interests, and making initial life pattern choices. It also involves a growing ability to unify one’s many different goals within the scope of a larger, more meaningful purpose, and to exercise intentionality on a regular basis (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). To be intentionality, according to Chickering (1993), is “to be skilled in consciously choosing priorities, in aligning action with purpose, in motivating oneself consistently toward goals, and in persevering despite barriers” (p. 212). Chickering (1993) indicates that finding vocation is more than just searching a job. Discovering vocation means discovering “what we love to do, what energizes and fulfills us, what uses our talents and challenges us to develop new ones, and what actualizes our potentials for excellence” (p. 212).
Developing integritv. This last vector includes three sequential but overlapping stages: humanizing values, personalizing values, and developing congruence.
Humanizing values involves shifting away from automatic, uncompromising beliefs toward principled thinking in balancing one’s own self-interest with the interests of one’s fellow human beings. Personalizing values involves consciously affirming one’s own values and beliefs, while respecting others’ viewpoints. Finally, students develop congruence by aligning their behavior with those personal values in socially responsible ways (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
Environmental Influences
Chickering also indicated that educational environments could create powerful impacts on student development. In the revised version (Chickering & Reisser, 1993), he proposed seven key ingredients for encouraging student development: (1) institutional
30 objectives, (2) institutional size, (3) student-faculty relationships, (4) curriculum, (5)
teaching, (6) friendships and student communities, and (7) student development programs
and services.
Chickering states that if institutional objectives are clear and taken seriously and
as the diverse elements of the institution and its programs are internally consistent with
these objectives, then the college was impact on its students. However, as institutional
size and redimdancy increase, development of competence, mature interpersonal
relationships, identity, and integrity decreases. He also indicates when faculty-student
interactions are frequent and when these occurs in diverse situations calling for varied
roles and relationships, then development of intellectual competence, sense of
competence, autonomy and interdependence, purpose, and integrity are foster. An
educationally powerful curriculum also facilitates the development of intellectual and
interpersonal competence, sense of competence, identity, purpose, and integrity. When
teaching involves active learning, student-faculty interaction, timely feedback, high
expectations, and respect for individual learning differences, the development of
intellectual and interpersonal competence, sense of competence, mature interpersonal
relationships, autonomy, identity, and purpose can be fostered. Meaningful friendships
and diverse student communities in which shared interests exist and significant
interactions occur can foster development along all seven vectors. Finally, when student
affairs professionals define themselves as educators working collaboratively with faculty to apply student development theory, they can increase the direct and indirect impact of programs and services on students’ development along all vectors (Chickering & Reisser,
1993).
31 Since no college student psychosocial development theory is currently in use in
Taiwan and Chickering’s theory is the most useful and widely used and studied theory in the U. S., when designing an instrument to study the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, Chickering’s theory was used as a reference for Taiwan.
Historical and Cultural Influences on Psvchosocial Development
However, psychosocial development is age-graded, history-graded, and personal critical events-graded (Rodgers, 1980; Miller & Winston, 1990). Age, historical and cultural experiences, and personal critical events will influence psychosocial development. Age-graded influences are caused by biological maturation and are similar for many individuals of the same chronological age. For example, most 18-24-year-olds struggle to determine who they are, whom they will love, and what they believe. History- graded influences are generation-specific and are the result of historical and cultural events. The civil rights era in the U. S., or the emergence of AIDS, for example, is a unique historical event that has influenced the development of a given cohort of college students. Personal critical events-graded are the unpredictable and individualized events that tend to radically redirect individuals’ responses to other developmental influences.
For example, an unexpected illness, death of a parent, or a rape experience can influence the development of a college student in negative ways.
In addition, culture or ethnicity also plays an important role in psychosocial development (Erikson, 1968; Rodgers, 1980; Miller & Winston, 1990). In many ways an individual’s culture defines what is appropriate behavior and when and under what
32 conditions it is appropriate to exhibit certain behavior. Several studies have demonstrated
the ethnic and cultural differences on psychosocial development of college students.
Branch-Simpson (1984) studied the degree to which black students’ psychosocial
developmental tasks were similar to those presented by Chickering (1969), which was
based mostly on white students, by conducting psychosocial biographical interviews with black male and female college students. She found many areas of overlap with
Chickering’s vectors; however, there were some differences. For example, for developing autonomy, both black male and female students tend to stay connected to family and supports as they developed autonomy, which is different from the Chickering’s sample who tended to separate from family as a part of process of developing autonomy.
Secondarily, religion or spiritual dimension is part of both black male and female students’ lives and is often used to resolve their value questions, while religion is seldom mentioned in humanizing or personalizing issues in Chickering’s study. In addition, for black students, identity is achieved in relationships with extended family, including deity and role models who were black humanitarian figures or family members, which are different from Chickering’s descriptions.
In a study that examined the psychosocial development of students in traditionally black institutions by using SDTI-2, Jordan-Cox (1987) found significantly higher scores on Mature Interpersonal Relationships for black women than black men, which are consistent with much of the research on sex differences using predominantly white samples. Her findings, however, of significantly higher scores on Developing Autonomy for black women than for black men are unlike the findings of virtually all of the studies of sex differences in developing using predominantly white samples.
33 Taub and McEwen (1991) examined the patterns of psychosocial development for
both white and black traditional-age undergraduate female college students in the tasks of
autonomy and mature interpersonal relationships by using AA, MIR, INT subscales from
SDTLI and AUT subscale from SDTI-2. Significant differences by race were found for
one measure of development of interpersonal relationships-intimacy. White female
students scored significantly higher than black female students. They indicated that this
finding might reflect the possibility that there were limited opportunities for black women
to develop intimate relationships on a predominantly white campus or it was possible that
the quality of intimacy was different for black women than that it was for white women.
Perhaps the content of the vector of freeing interpersonal relationships as described by
Chickering (1969) was not applicable to black students.
Based on theoretical literature on black experience and quantitative and
qualitative research on African-American students, McEwen et al. (1990) proposed nine
specific issues related to African-American students, which included developing ethnic
and racial identity, interacting with the dominant culture, developing cultural aesthetics
and awareness, developing identity, developing interdependence, fulfilling affiliation
needs, surviving intellectually, developing spiritually, and developing social
responsibility. They suggested that psychosocial theories of college student development
should incorporate these developmental issues of African-American students.
One current study (Pope, 1998) on the relationship between psychosocial development and racial identity of Black college students supported the racial identity
influences on psychosocial development for black students. According to this study, the racial identity attitude, "Internalization," was predictive of the psychosocial development
34 tasks of “Establishing and Clarifying Purpose” and “Developing Mature interpersonal
Relationships.”
Sheehan and Pearson (1995) compared the psychosocial development of Asian international first-year students with American students by using the Student
Developmental Task and Life style Inventory (SDTLI). They found that Asian international students scored significantly lower than American students on the
Establishing and Clarifying Purpose, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, and
Intimacy. No differences were found on the Academic Autonomy task. Sheehan and
Pearson hypothesized that language deficiency and cultural differences might help to explain the results; however, they also indicated that because SDTLI is a measure of development based on Western values, there might be some aspects of Asian student development that are not addressed by their study. Some of the issues, such as intimacy and clarifying purpose, may not have the same value in Asian cultures, whereas other tasks that are not tapped by the SDTLI may be critical to Asian student development.
Utterback et al. (1995) studied the gender and ethnic differences in the development of intimacy among college students by using the Intimacy (INT) and Peer
Relationship (PR) subtasks of SDTLI. They also found that Whites scored significantly higher on intimacy than Native Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans.
In order to understand the psychosocial development of Hispanic undergraduates on a predominantly White College, Caballero (1997) conducted a study to measure
Hispanic undergraduates’ levels of developmental task achievements and to compare with non-Hispanic and White undergraduates by using SDTLI. The results showed (1)
Hispanic students scored at lower levels of academic autonomy than non-Hispanic, White
35 students; (2) Hispanic students displayed higher levels of cultural participation than non-
Hispanic, White students; (3) Freshman students of both ethnic groups scored higher than juniors and seniors on life management skills; and (4) Freshman and sophomore students
of both ethnic groups scored at higher levels than juniors on tolerance issues.
To sum up, the historical events and culture play important roles in psychosocial development. Different ethnic or cultural students demonstrate different issues and developmental tasks on psychosocial development. When using Chickering's theory to develop an instrument to assess the psychosocial development of college students in
Taiwan, historical and cultural context of Taiwan have to be taken into account.
Historical and Cultural Context of Taiwan
Since the historical events and culture influence the psychosocial development, this section explores the historical and cultural context of Taiwan to help understand the historical and cultural influences on psychosocial development of college students in
Taiwan. The exploration includes three themes: Chinese culture and its change on
Taiwan, centralized nature of Taiwanese higher education and current democratization, and related studies on Taiwanese college students.
Chinese Culture and Its Change on Taiwan
It is virtually impossible to discuss Chinese culture without recognizing the pervasive role of Confucianism. Confucianism is mainly concerned with harmony within human society. How to bring every individual and every social unit into a moral society is the foremost aspiration o f Confucianism (Smith, 1991). In the Confucian tradition, certain relationships are accorded a position of paramount importance. These are so-
36 called Five Cardinal Relations (wu lun). These include relationships between the national
leader and subject, father and son, elder brother and younger brother, husband and wife,
and friend and friend. As with the order of nature itself, these relationships are
constructed in hierarchical patterns. The senior member is accorded a wide range of
prerogatives and authority with respect to the junior. Both parties to the relationship are
circumscribed by rules of correct behavior (li), which entails both rights and
responsibilities for each. Harmony will be achieved if each member of the unit is
conscientious in following the requirements of his/her role, for example, the state will
prosper if the national leader rules justly and the subjects serve loyally, otherwise the
relationship will be imperiled and the harmony of society will be disrupted (Bond &
Hwang, 1986).
Confucianism also sees private interests not as individual but as belonging to a
group-a family, lineage, or community. People are bom into a family, or a group, and can
not prosper alone; the individual depends on the harmony and strength of the group.
Selfish behavior is viewed as reflecting a failure to understand that one’s welfare is tied to a larger entity. The individual should improve or cultivate himself/herself not for himself-herself but in order to contribute to the welfare of family and community (Chang,
1993).
Building on Confucian philosophy, Chinese culture has developed values, personality, and behavior for 2000 years. Chinese culture is a very broad topic. In order to understand how Chinese culture influences the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, the following section will especially focus on two directly related factors: Chinese personality and social behavior and family life and gender roles.
37 Chinese Personality and Social Behavior. Yang (1986) systematically reviewed the major empirical studies published either in Chinese or in English from 1950-1980 and presented an excellent article that discusses the press of culture for Chinese personality and its change from motivational, evaluative-attitudinal, and temperamental characteristics. According to Yang (1986), the common features of Chinese national character are follows: social harmoniousness, group-mindedness, mutual dependency, interpersonal equilibrium, relationship-centered, authoritarian syndrome, extemal-control belief, heterocentric orientation, self-suppression, social introversion, practical realism, and holistic eclecticism. He indicated these characteristics portray the Chinese as a highly social, practical, and eclectic people with a strong collectivist orientation. He conceptualized this pattern as social oriented, which was different from the Western pattern-individual oriented.
Using cultural-ecological model as a guide, Yang (1986) identified five crucial attributes of Chinese social structure and functioning that resulted from agricultural economy heritage. These include “(1) hierarchical organization (society mainly organized in terms of, and social power allocated solely according to vertical relationships defined with respect to seniority, position, and sex); (2) collectivistic functioning (individual required to submit himself to his family, group, or other collectives in social functioning);
(3) generalized familization (family as a general model for the organization and functioning of all outside-family groups); (4) structural tighmess (social roles and their relationships highly rigid in their prescriptions and enactment); and (5) social homogeneity (social norms stressing local uniformity rather than diversity)” (p. 150).
38 Yang stated these and other social structural factors, interacting with certain
dominant moral and religious thoughts and doctrines (Confucianism, Taoism, and
Buddhism), lead to special mode of socialization through which a traditional Chinese
learned how to live effectively in the social web of this agricultural society. He listed the following as the central practices of Chinese socialization: “(1) dependency training, (2) conformity training, (3) modesty training, (4) self-suppression training, (5) self contentment training, (6) punishment preference, (7) shaming strategy, (8) parent centredness, and (9) multiple parenting (every adult member in a family acting as a parent or parent-surrogate to a child)” (pp. 150-151). He thought these to be the major factors that had acculturated the Chinese into social, practical, and eclectic human beings with strong social-oriented persons.
In the discussion of the social behavior of Chinese people. Bond and Hwang
(1986) pointed out that the essential aspects of Confucianism in constructing a Chinese social psychology were: (1) persons exists through, and is defined by, their relationships to others; (2) these relationship are structured hierarchically; (3) social order is ensured through each party’s honoring the requirements in their role relationships (p. 216).
In order to explain how Chinese interact with one another, Hwang (Bond &
Hwang, 1986) developed a conceptual firamework for Chinese power games to integrate such indigenous Chinese concepts as guanxi (relationship), renqing (favor), mianzi
(face), and bao (reciprocation). Owing to the relation-oriented character of Chinese people, when a petitioner asks a resource allocator to distribute a certain kind of social resource under his control, the resource allocator will first consider the relationship
(guanxi) between them and adopt appropriate rules of social exchange to interact with the
39 petitioner. According to Hwang’s model, interpersonal relationship in Chinese society
can be classified into three main categories: expressive ties, instrumental ties, and mixed
ties. The most important expressive ties in Chinese society are the relationships between
members in a family. The rule for social exchange in Chinese family was the need rule:
the members with working abilities have the responsibility to strive for resources to
satisfy the legitimate needs of each member. Instrumental ties are temporary and
anonymous relationships between an individual and others solely as a means to attain
his/her personal goal, for example, passenger and tax driver. The social exchange is
equity rule whereby a constant ratio is maintained between the inputs and gains of each
party. Mixed ties are people have some kind of relationships (guanxi); however, this
guanxi outside an individual’s immediate family. In mix ties, people consider the
following factors in doing social exchange: the cost of paying out the resource, the
affective component between them, the probability of reciprocation from the petitioner,
and social evaluations from other people in the same social network. In order to strive for
social resources, an individual may adopt several strategies to enhance his /her influence
over the allocator. The most popular strategy for Chinese is to increase the social
interaction between two parties deliberately, by visiting, the giving of gifts. Another
strategy frequently used by Chinese is face-work. Hwang (1983) indicated that face-work
in Chinese society is mainly a kind of “frontstage behavior” which an individual deliberately performs before others in the mixed tie. There are six ways related to face- work in Chinese culture: enhancing one’s own face, enhancing other’s face, losing one’s own face, hurting other’s face, saving one’s own face, and saving other’s face (Bond &
Hwang, 1986). They stated that concern face is a universal phenomenon; however, was
40 particular important for Chinese. “One’s face is more interconnected with that o f others,
and its protection and enhancement more disciplined by concerns about hierarchical order
in Chinese culture than in more individualistic egalitarian cultures” (p.249).
Bond and Hwang (1986) also reviewed several studies related to Chinese on
interpersonal attraction, communication patterns and self-disclosure, conformity, and
aggression and conflict. General speaking, Chinese people were preoccupied with a
concern for maintaining social order and interpersonal harmony. This order and harmony
was created through the hierarchical structuring of relationships underlying Confucian
social philosophy. Contrary to American students who liked the personal traits of
cheerful, popular, enthusiastic, sociable, and initiates games, Chinese students liked the
traits such as amiable, humble, altruistic, honest, hard-working, good at schoolwork, tidy
and clean, which emphasized the importance of maintaining harmonious interpersonal
relationships and acting in a manner appropriate to one’s position in a hierarchical social
situation. The communication pattern also connected to the hierarchical structuring of
relationship. When Chinese interacted with people of the “mixed tie,” he/she had to
consider their relationship as well as the hierarchical structure of the situation. The
content of communication between casual friends, teachers and students, business
associates would involve only topics on the surface. Chinese would be willing to disclose
what was hidden deep inside only to a few people of the “expressive tie.” Finally,
Chinese tended to be conflict avoidance. The strategies for resolving conflicts were
characterized by strategies geared to short-circuit open conflict-the use of indirect
language, middlemen, face-saving ploys, and so on. Open debate, which required direct confrontation and was popular used in Western culture, were avoided.
41 Based on his social-oriented pattern of Chinese, Yang (1986) also stated that unlike western people who gave greater weight to their own personal standards in making behavioral decision, Chinese, in deciding upon their behavior toward others, attached a great weight to the anticipated reactions of others to that behavior. He said “Basically, it represents a tendency for a person to act in accordance with external expectations or social norms, rather than with internal wishes or personal integrity, so that he would be able to protect his social self and function as an integral part of the social network”
(pl61).
However, Chinese society and its people have undergone a significant change under the impact of modernization, especially in Taiwan, where the entire society has been transformed to a modem industrial state. Based on the empirical studies from 1970-
1980, Yang (1986) concluded that the Chinese character in Taiwan has been in the transition from social-oriented character, which emphasized collectivistic orientation, other-orientation, relationship orientation, authoritarian orientation, submissive disposition, inhibited disposition, and effeminate disposition toward individual-oriented character, which emphasized individualistic orientation, self-orientation, competitive orientation, equalitarian orientation, enjoyment orientation, autonomous disposition, and expressive disposition.
In addition to the modernization, Taiwan has experienced a dramatic change in political situation in recent years. After lifting martial law in 1987, Taiwan modified its political system by institutionalizing opposition and mechanisms of popular election at the national level. Despite several major election up to 1995, the Chinese National Party
(CNF) remains as the ruling party, but its power is shared with two other parties: the
42 Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the New Party (NP) (Law, 1996). The efforts from opposite political parties have contributed the democratization and equality of politics and society in Taiwan. In 1996, Taiwanese citizens first directly elected their national president. Taiwan has moved toward the democratic and pluralistic society like the Western countries. This change definitely influences the Chinese character and social behavior in Taiwan.
Familv Life and Gender Roles. Family provides the environment that conditions psychological and sociological traits. This conditioning tries to prepare individuals to function in their particular society. Family life was very strong in traditional China, and it continues to play a central role in modem Taiwan.
Traditional Chinese family values emphasized both family harmony and respect.
Harmony includes social etiquette and face-saving communication among family members. Respect means following family hierarchy, marked by conformity and obedience to those in authority (Chou, 1995). Especially in the extended family, the hierarchical family roles are strictly defined. Filial piety demands children’s absolute obedience and complete devotion their parents. Parents had a completely free hand with their children. Studies on parental attitudes indicated that traditionally Chinese parents were more concerned with impulse control and less concerned with tolerance of aggressive behavior in their children than Western parents. Children tended to be discouraged from independent, active, or exploratory activities (Chou, 1995). However, filial piety did not operate solely through coercion. It also included an emphasis on mutual interdependence, parental affection, and the child’s moral obligation to repay parental care and affection (Chou, 1995). In order to bring up filial children, parental
43 harshness during the children’s formative years was seen as necessary (Chou, 1995). To act according to parental expectations and values and to honor the family’s reputation were very important responsibilities for children. Filial piety served as a major formal and informal social control. It not only served to maintain strong discipline and close family relationships, but emphasized mutual respect as well (Chou, 1995).
Due to the ideal of social harmony through obedience structured social roles in real life, the Chinese were taught to avoid conflict within and outside the family.
“Reconcile big conflicts into small ones, and small ones into none,” is the paramount behavior guide o f the Chinese (Ma, 1988).
Traditionally, marriages were arranged by the families involved. People would not marry a person if their parents disapproved. In accordance with the widely accepted formula of “thrice obeying,” women were expected to comply with their father or older brothers in youth, their husbands in marriage, and their sons after their husbands’ death
(Chou, 1995). Based on the force of such precepts, divorce was discouraged and uncommon, occurring infrequently in the traditional family system in China.
Consistent with traditional gender role preferences for males, sons were preferred to daughter within the family. Only sons could perpetuate the family name, inherit the household, and, most importantly, insure parents’ comfort in their old age. After people married, traditional gender roles meant males supported family and females managed the family. People took it for granted that males work outside and females work inside
(Chou, 1995). The paid employment of mothers was viewed not only as a negative reflection on the husband’s capability to support family, but also as a negative factor on the psychological well-being and development of their children.
44 Industrialization and urbanization have produced three structural changes in
families in Taiwan: (1) the nuclear family’s growing popularity, (2) fewer children bom
to urban families, and (3) young families with greater economic independence from their
family of origin (Smith, 1992). In modem Taiwan, the family has become somewhat
more like the western family. The father’s authority has diminished and the hierarchical
family roles have vanished. Yet family morale still remains important to Chinese. Most of young married couples still retain traditional attimdes toward their parents. They are more willing to give their parents a home and other financial assistance than couples in other developed coimtries. They also are likely to depend on their parents for helping with child rearing. Likewise, Chinese parents may give financial aid to their children even after they are married and finished with school. Regardless of their age, unmarried children continue to live in their parents’ home. Chinese parents still see their children’ success in school and career are their greatest pleasure (Smith, 1992). On the other hand, a recent survey (Executive Yuan, 1993) showed that family function has changed. For example, for the people of ages 25 to 49, 28.19% lived with their parents and, for those who did not live with their parents, 31.96% met their parents at least one per day up to once per month. In contrast, for parents 50 and older 77.01% expected to be living with their children or as close neighbors with frequent contact. Wong (Chou, 1995) argued that filial piety may still be considered as something desirable but it is observed and practiced only at one’s convenience. In addition, the divorce rate for persons 15 years old and over increased from 1.1% in 1981 to 3.5 % in 1997 (Executive Yuan, 1997) and senior citizens aged 65 and over living with their adult children declined from 70.97% in
1987 to 67.17% in 1993 (Executive Yuan, 1993).
45 Gender roles also are changing. In 1997 school year, females represented 53.51% of junior college students, 47.64% of college/university students, 30.42% of master program students, and 19.93% of doctor program students. The number of female teachers in college/university level increased from 28.54% in 1983 to 34.09% in 1997
(Ministry of Education, 1998). Recent studies indicated that husbands and wives who have a college education share decision-making and also share the responsibilities associated with their families (Smith, 1992). Women in Taiwan also have contributed to country’s national economic development through participation in the labor force.
According to a recent survey (Executive Yuan, 1997), women’s participation in the labor force increased from 38.8% in 1981 to 45.6% in 1997. A high rate of employed women is also a factor that has changed traditional family values. Gao (Chou, 1995) pointed out that married and employed females with higher education have a less traditional gender role attitude and a strong career attitude. In summary, economic changes, legal rights, employment opportunities, and feminist thoughts from Western society have all come together to enhance the status of women in modem Taiwan (Chou, 1995).
Centralized Nature of Taiwanese Higher Education and Current Democratization
Chickering stated that campus environments could have impact on the psychosocial development of college students (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). This section addresses the development of higher education and current trends in Taiwan to understand how historical events and college environment influences the students’ development.
Historically, the development of higher education in Taiwan can be divided into two periods: (1) the period of Japanese occupation from 1895-1945, and (2) the period
46 after Word War II: 1945 to present (Wu, Chen, & Wu, 1989; Epstein & Kuo, 1991).
After Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895, the Japanese system of education was
implement on the island, mainly to support the policies of colonization and expansion.
After Word War II, Taiwan was restored to China. In 1949, Nationalist (Kuomintang) government relocated in Taiwan and the American system of education was developed.
With respect to higher education, elements such as institutional organization, faculty rank, study period, curriculum, degree structure, graduation requirement and the evaluation of higher education are similar to those found in American colleges. However, the centralized administration of higher education and examination ladder in Taiwan is contrary to the American system of decentralization.
The aims of higher education in Taiwan, according to the Act of University, include academic study, cultivating of people, promoting of culture, serve to society, and fostering national development (National Taiwan Normal University, 1996). The central value of common courses are based both on the teachings of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s (the founder of this country) doctrine-nationalism, democracy, and the people’s livelihood and on the eight moral virtues of Confucianism—loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, love, faithfulness, righteousness, harmony, and peacefulness (Ministry of Education, 1997a).
Altbach (1991) points out that the ethos of the school in Taiwan is shaped both by a
Western pattern of organization and a highly technological orientation and by traditional
Chinese cultural values.
Based on the cultural tradition of Confucianism-meritocratic elite, Taiwan has developed an entrance examination ladder for admission and selection into higher education. The students are admitted to the tertiar>' institutions solely based on their
47 scores on JCEE (Joint College Entrance Examination). As spaces are limited, the
competition on JCEE is keen.
In addition to the examination ladder, the patriarchy of Confucianism has also
contributed the hierarchical and centralized administration of higher education in Taiwan.
Furthermore, the national political mission of unification with Mainland China and the
economic consideration (human resources) have reinforced this centralization. Higher
education in Taiwan has long acted as an agent of both political socialization and
economic modernization (Law, 1996). Unlike western countries such as the USA, the
Taiwanese higher education systems has been engaged both in transmitting to students a given set of sociopolitical values prescribed by the respective national leaders and importing knowledge, particularly science and technology, from other countries for economic modernization. Higher education has contributed to the great success of economy for Taiwan; however, the democratization of higher education is limited. The
Ministry of Education has long played control role in higher education policy and in the administration of both public and private institutions. In addition, the relationships within institutions are also hierarchical and centralized.
However, Taiwan ended martial law in 1987. This is a very important historical event in Taiwan. Since then, higher education has move toward democratization and decentralization. Following section divides into three parts in order to present this development.
Period before 1987
Access and selection. Taiwan reached a level o f mass higher education in 1980s with the 15 percent of the age cohort entering higher education. In 1986, there were 105
48 tertiary institutions (28 colleges & universities and 77 junior colleges). The total
enrollment was 345,736. The percentage of female students was 46% (Ministry of
Education, 1987). However, students were admitted to tertiary institutions solely from
entrance examinations. There were a number of joint entrance examinations given at the
tertiary level. The most competitive one was the JCEE. The admission rate was about
30% of those taking the examination. Although JCEE had provided very fair competition,
promoted conformity to national norms and diligence, and created a preparatory-service
industry, it had also distorted education in secondary level by focusing on the
examination and not on analysis, judgement, and imagination. In addition, the JCEE
created psychological anxiety on applicants and their family and invidious rankings
through the system (Wu, Chen, & Wu, 1989; Epstein & Kuo, 1991). In addition, Epstein
and Kuo (1991) also indicated that the examination did not take into account the qualities
that were relevant to career achievement. It also was not capable of diagnosing latent
capabilities of adolescents. It favored the affluent families who could afford the private
coaching services. Surprisingly, however, the system’s elitism has not produced drastic
socio-economic inequities. Lee (1982) also critiqued that JCEE system for not being
flexible enough to respond to college students’ needs and development. For example, in
order to attend JCEE, students had to decide their majors in their junior year of senior
high school; many students were not admitted to the college or department that was their
interesting; after entering college, it was difficult to change majors or transfer to another
school.
Relationships between government and institutions, and within institutions.
Despite incorporating American educational model, Taiwanese higher education system
49 before the 1987 were marked by rigid centralization as a means to limit tertiary
institutes’, teachers’, and students’ deviation from plans and procedures outlined by the
government. The Ministry of Education controlled, for example, the appointments of
university presidents and teaching faculty, access to higher education, the use of the
national language as the official medium of institution, the curriculum, the establishment
of departments and institutions, the allocation of material and human resources and the
evaluation of institutional performance. Private institutions, in spite of small subsidies
from the government, were subject to curricular, budgetary, and administrative controls
by the Ministry of Education that were similar to those imposed on the public institutions
(Epstein & Kuo, 1991; Law, 1995).
Within the institution, the relationships between institution and faculty, institution
and students, and faculty and students were also hierarchical and centralized. For
example, department chairpersons were appointed by the president of institution rather
than electing by the faculty. There was no appeal system in faculty appointment and
promotion system. Students’ rights were very limited. They couldn’t form the student
government and participate in the councils related to their life and study. Appeal system
in the student discipline did also not existed. Military officers in both private and public
campus were responsible for military training and, together with discipline committees,
for monitoring students’ behavior (Ho, 1980; Law, 1995).
Curriculum and degree. Students selected their majors (particular department)
before they attended the institutions. The requirements for graduation and degree were rigid. The transfer of major within institution was not easy and the transfer among institutions was harder. There were three types of courses in Taiwanese institutions: (1)
50 general courses for all programs, (2) required courses for individual program, and (3)
electives. The first type of courses was stipulated by the Ministry of Education and
included Chinese, English, the General History of China, the History of Contemporary
China, Physical Education, Military Training, and Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s Doctrine (Wu,
Chen, & Wu, 1989; Epstein & Kuo, 1991). The last two courses were created for the
political mission of this country. All students were required to take these courses.
Meeting the needs of industrializing economy and reflecting the direction of government
policy, the field of study of higher education in Taiwan clearly emphasized on
engineering and business. In 1986, 34% students were in engineer while only 9% in
humanities (Wu, Chen, & Wu, 1989; Epstein & Kuo, 1991).
After the lifting of martial law in 1987, there are three forces have fostered the
development of democratization of higher education in Taiwan.
Three Forces
Revised University Act in 1994. Through the eight years efforts had done by faculty, students, and liberal legislators, the revised University Act was approved in 1994.
This law sets the first step of current democratization of higher education in Taiwan. The major revisions in this law include: (1) recognizes the autonomy of institution and gives the institution of autonomy in curriculum, finance, and personnel; (2) sets the new process for the election of the president of university; (3) changes the name of division of student discipline to student affairs and gives students rights to form the student government, participate in councils that relate to their study and life, and develops a appeal system in student discipline; (4) military officers are only responsible to the teaching of military course rather than student discipline; (5) develops the appeal system
51 for teacher’s appointment and promotion; (6) adds the assistant professor level between
the instructor and the associate professor; (7) provides flexibility for students in degree,
early graduation, taking course outside institution, and double majors (National Taiwan
Normal University, 1996).
Grand justice rules. Three Grand Justice Rules has pushed the development of
democratization of higher education. Even though the University Act gave the institution
autonomy in curriculum, the Ministry of Education still tried to control the general
courses for all institutions by forming a committee, which includes all presidents of
universities to decide these courses. In May 1995, the National Grand Justice ruled that
the regulation to compel all students to take these general courses in higher education
violated the revised University Act of 1994, which gives the autonomy of curriculum to
individual institution. In June 1996, the National Grand Justice ruled that the students
could sue their schools to the court for the punishment from school discipline infringing
upon their opportunity of education. In March 1998, the National Grand Justice further
ruled that regulation to require students to take the military course infringes upon academic autonomy and is unconstitutional.
Education reform movement. As the impact of political democratization and societal diversity, education reform movement was promoted in 1994. Leading by Dr. Yuan T.
Lee, the 1986 Nobel laureate, through two- years hard studies, the committee of education reform developed a final holistic proposal for education reform from early child education to higher education. Some suggestions from this proposal have become the policies of education (Ministry of Education, 1997a, 1997b). Following is the major
52 suggestions in this proposal for higher education (Committee on Education Reform,
1996):
(1) Continue increasing the quantity of higher education with the government’s plan
for public institutions and free market force for private institutions.
(2) Develop multiple access and selective ways to higher education.
(3) Develop multiple types of institutions to fit multiple function and students’
needs. For example, research university, comprehensive university, community
college, and open university. Give the autonomy of admission policy to
institution. Student in different institutions can transfer with each other.
Institutions should develop the extension education for adult. And offer free
access and formal degree for open university.
(4) Reallocate the educational resources. Government only supports partial funding
for public institutions and offers loan to students and more funding for private
school. Revise the Private School Law to reduce the limitation for private
schools.
(5) Develop the professional organizations to replace the role of Ministry of
Education in the evaluation of institutions’ performance.
(6) Faculty share governance with administrators. Institutions should protect the
academic freedom.
(7) Build new relationship between teachers and students in campus.
(8) Correct the misconcept o f‘"degreeism” and develop a certification system that
parallels with the degree system.
This report also suggested some revisions for the University Act of 1994.
53 Period of 1987-1999
Through these three forces, the higher education current in Taiwan has move toward the decentralization and democratization.
For equality of access to higher education, the higher education institutions reaches to 139 with 78 universities and colleges (41 public and 37 private), and 61 junior colleges (10 public and 51 private). The total enrollment is 856186 and 50.04% is females (Ministry of Education, 1998). The admission rate to higher education reaches to
60.17% in 1997. The Ministry of Education (1997a) is current in tlie process of revision the Private School Law and reduces the restriction for private institutions. The most important reform is the multiple access to higher education. For example, there are 11710 students who are admitted to universities through a new program that calls recommendation-selection in 1997 while only 1105 when it was first found in 1994
(Ministry of Education, 1998). According to the Ministry of Education, the long goal is to move to the application system as in the U. S. (Ministry o f Education, 1997a). The Open
University has set the free-examination access and offered the formal degree (Ministry of
Education, 1997a).
As the results of University Act and Grand Justice rules, the role of Ministry of
Education has gradually decreased. Institution has developed the autonomy in curriculum, finance, and personnel. For example, institutions is current in the process to develop their own general education courses, public institutions is developing foundation to do fund-raising, and 12 prestige universities have authorized to make the final decision on their faculty appointment and promotion (Ministry of Education, 1997a, 1997b).
54 The relationships within institution also move to democratization. Chairperson is elected by department faculties. The process of selection and appointment of new faculty is public and democratic. Institution has built the appeal system in faculty promotion
(NTNU, 1996). Students has formed the student government and participated in councils relate to their study and life. Institution also has developed an appeal system in the process of student discipline (NTNU, 1996). Students have the voice in the campus. Even though military officers are still in the campus, the current Grand Justice Rule of 1998 in military course obviously will have important impact on moving military force out the campus.
Relating to their study, students have gained great flexibility in course selection and transfer of major, for example, students even can take one year course in foreign country (Ministry of Education, 1997a).
In sum, from the exploration of the development of higher education in Taiwan, it is clear that the centralized higher education system and Joint College Entrance
Examination have influenced the psychosocial development of college students in
Taiwan for a long time, for example, intellectual competence development, career development, autonomy development, and tolerance development. After ending the martial law, current democratization of higher education has changed the campus climate and culture. It is no doubt that democratization of higher education will definitely act as an important role to impact the college students’ development.
Related Studies on Taiwanese College Students
As discussed above, modernization has changed the Chinese personality, family life, and gender role in Taiwan. After ending the martial law, college campus
55 environment and culture in Taiwan has also been changed. How these changes influence the development of college students? Current studies related to Taiwanese college students on value, family and marriage attitude, career development, and interpersonal relationship can help trace the cturent development of college smdents.
After lifting the martial law, Lee and Cheng (1995) conducted a study on current value orientation of college students and compared it with previous literatures to find the changing path of value among college students in Taiwan. Their findings suggested that
Taiwanese college students today retained traditional Chinese values and meanwhile had adjusted to the modem society. The overall values of college students in Taiwan were:
(1) Terminal Value - tending to “social values” with the family security and the sincere friendship being the first two, and the rich life being the last; (2) Instrumental Value — tending to “ability values” with the responsibility and the happiness being the first two, and obedience and the service being the last two; (3) Life Value — tending to “family happiness and acceptance by others” with the family and marriage happiness and the good interpersonal relationship being the first two, and the high social status and the service people being the last two; (4) Occupation Value - tending to “interest first” with the interest and the growth being the first two, and the meeting parents’ expectation and the opportunity for promotion being the last two; (5) Marriage Value — tending to
“traditional orientation” with the health and the family value being the first two, and the religion and the high social status being the last two; (6) Success Value — tending to “self- control” with the ability and the effort being the first two, and the rich family being the last; and (7) Social Attitude — tending to “do good to oneself’ with the being a valuable person to society and the reciprocity being the first two, and the loyalty to national leader
56 being the last. Compared with the previous study (Ho, 1985), there were no big significant changes. However, since the political situation had been changed, the national identity had been declined. Young generation did not care about the national security and loyalty to national leader any more. In addition, service to society had also been declined.
Young generation concerned more about themselves rather than the nation and the society.
Chang (1993) conducted one study to examine and compare the attitude toward filial piety, collectivism, and authoritarianism among college students in Mainland and
Taiwan. According to Chang’s study, the most important value rating was (1) nation, (2) family, (3) self-goals, (4) freedom, (5) independence, (6) diversity, (7) restraint, (8) respect, (9) obedience, (10) exploration. In his study, nation was still the first concern for
Taiwanese college students, which is different from Lee and Chen’s finding. However, family was the second important value and obedience was the second least important value, which are consistent with Lee and Chen’s result.
Chou (1995) examined a hypothesized causal path model for Taiwanese college students’ perceptions of family values. Eight family values were examined: equality of the sexes, parental authority, marriage loyalty, values surrounding marriage and family, preferences regarding familial arrangement, marriage expectations, honoring family reputation and family obligations, and sex role attitudes toward family. Her study showed that honoring family reputation and family obligations, and values surrounding marriage and family were the highest two scores while equality of the sexes, and the sex role attitudes toward family were the lowest two factors. Chou stated that the results reflected that the Taiwanese college students still retained a high Chinese traditional family-
57 orientation with a special emphasis on the virtues of filial piety in the Chinese families.
However, it also revealed the traditional sexual stereotype doctrines in Chinese culture did not hold in young generation any more.
Lin (1994) also conducted one study to test the family and marriage attitudes for
Taiwanese college students. Her study also showed that the attitudes of Taiwanese college students today toward marriage and family tented to be neutral. They were neither traditional nor anti-traditional. Male students were more traditional than female students.
Students, who had religions or their parents’ marriage were happy, also were more traditional. There were no significant differences in majors and class ranks; however, students, who had more experiences in making friends with opposite sexes, had more open attitudes to marriage and family.
In order to understand the attitudes of making friends with opposite sexes among college students, the counseling center in National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU)
(1991) conducted one survey to test the interpersonal attraction, dating behavior, and dating beliefs for NTNU students. The study showed that one-fourth students had no any dating experiences before they entered the college. Only one-fourth students had close opposite sex friends. For the selection of dating person, females concerned personality, height, academic degree, age, and financial ability while males concerned personality, figure, and physical appearance.
For the dating behavior, when felt attracted to others, 56.4% students chose to keep feelings inside. Males more tried to form relationship actively than females. The major way to make friends with opposite sexes was from student organizations and clubs.
The major dating activities were leisure-oriented (watch movie, to go window-shopping).
58 Forty-three percent students chose to pay expense by taking turns and there was no big difference between males and females. For the expression of feelings, females tended to use indirect way while males use both indirect way and direct way. When got conflict, both males and females tried to let time resolve it or cool down and make communication.
For the dating beliefs. The highest disagreement items included: “there is no pure relationship between opposite sexes (81%),” “sex is very important in intimate relationship (80%),” “we are so close, he/she should understand my feelings and thinking (73%),” “If he/she loves me, he/she would like to improve weakness for me
(70%),” “ if the relationships are getting intimate, they should marry (65%),” “the purpose of making friend with opposite sexes is to find a person to marry (63%), “ and “ for making relationship, males should active and females should passive (61%).”
This study suggested that students in NTNU had rational and modem dating beliefs; however, their dating behaviors were more conservative and were not consistent with their beliefs. They did not know how to express their feelings to others. In addition, dating was not the popular life in NTNU students and there were not enough opportunities for students to make friends with opposite sexes.
This study can help understand the dating behavior and dating beliefs of college students. However, it must be noticed that this study conducted in 1991. It has been a lot of changes in Taiwanese higher education since then. In addition, this study only surveyed the students in NTNU. Comparing to most of colleges in Taiwan, the campus culture of NTNU was more conservative.
59 In examining the types of career decision-making and career decision beliefs
among college junior and senior students, Chi (1994) found that 38.81% were
decidedness/comfort, 27% were decidedness/discomfort, 9% were
undecidedness/comfort, and 25.1% were undecidedness/discomfort. There were no
significant differences in career decision among gender, work experience, and social
economic status. She presented although 65.9% upper-class students were decidedness;
still 34.1% were undecidedness, in addition, 52.2% were discomfort, which higher than
comfort. Her study also showed that the highest two career-decision needs among these
four type students was the exploration of self (46.41%-65.15%), and career/ education
information (31.44%-48.84%). For career decision beliefs, decidedness/comfort students
agreed more with interest is equal to ability, person-environment matching, work exploration, and personal effort beliefs. Decidedness/discomfort students agreed more with self-value, deliberate on career decision-making, extemal-orientation, perfectionism, and face-orientation beliefs. Uundecidedness/comfort students agreed with a person has many chance of choosing. And undecidedness/discomfort students agreed with career self-efficacy. There were differences in career decision beliefs among gender, work experience, and social economic status. Using career decision beliefs to discriminate different types of career decision-making, the results showed that career self-efficacy and career exploration beliefs had more influences.
Chen (1994) conducted one study to understand the career barriers among college students by using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Her study also can help understand the career problems of college students in Taiwan. According to her finding, there were major eight career barriers in college students: the weak-willed, hesitate to
60 take action, information exploration, personal characteristics, direction of the future, selection of major, academic problems, and factors influence study. The results also showed that in the traditional domain of major, the freshmen had most barriers, the sophomores the second, the juniors the third, and the seniors the least. All students had problems in “hesitate to take action” while juniors had more problems in “information exploration”, sophomores had more problems in “information exploration”, “direction of the future”, and freshmen had more problems in “information exploration”, “direction of the future”, and “selection of major.” There was no classes difference in nontraditional domain of major.
From the exploration of historical and cultural context of Taiwan, it is obvious that culture and historical factors between the U. S. and the Taiwan are different. When using Chickering’s theory, developing a measure to assess the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, These differences and influences are necessary to be taken into account.
Theoretical and Methodological Issues on
Measurement of Psvchosocial Development
Since the study is intended to design a measurement to study the psychosocial development of Taiwanese college students by using Chickering’s theory. This section addresses the theoretical and methodological issues involved in developing a measure of
Chickering’s psychosocial development of college students for Taiwanese students.
Based on their long term experiences of developing measures on Chickering’s psychosocial development theory. Miller and Winston (1990) point out four major
61 theoretical and methodological issues associated with the measurement of psychosocial development: (1) complexity of psychosocial-development processes, (2) definition of content domains, (3) significance of the environmental context, and (4) measurement formats. All of them are crucial issues involved in developing a measure of Chickering’s psychosocial development of college students for Taiwanese students.
Complexity of Psvchosocial-Development Processes
According to Miller and Winston (1990), the nature of complexity of psychosocial- development process makes assessment difficult. First, development is multidimensional and holistic. For example, in Chickering’s theory, people do not concentrate exclusively on developing more mature interpersonal relationships while putting on hold intellectual, autonomy, and career development. Persons may concentrate on a particular aspect of development at any given time, however, all of aspects of personality are involved and cannot be segregated and segmented. Psychosocial development must be viewed as a system. Secondarily, the development also is dynamic.
Study showed the relationships between psychosocial development and intellectual development were dynamic and interrelated (Polkosnik & Winston, 1989). Because of the dynamic features of development, measurement is particularly difficult. Even for the best psychological measurement, it can only give a “snapshot” of a relatively small part of an individual at a particular point in time rather than a complete whole picture. Third, measurement also needs to deal with the paradox of consistency. Miller and Winston
(1990) cites Hanson “A central issue in the assessment of student development is measuring those thoughts and behaviors that form patterns that are sufficiently stable to suggest important psychological constructs while at the same time having sufficient
62 sensitivity built into the instrument to detect significant change when it does occur”
(p. 111). In order to develop a meaningful measurement, the theories of psychosocial
development must give a clear picture of constructs and the change process of
development; however. Miller and Winston (1990) point out the current psychosocial
development theories only provide incomplete pictures of students’ developmental lives.
By using Chickering’s theory, developing a measure to assess the psychosocial
development of college students in Taiwan, the complexity of psychosocial- developmental processes as discussed above also is a key issue in Taiwan and can not be resolved. The best way to deal with this issue in Taiwan may be to conduct a longitudinal
qualitative research, combined with quantitative instruments, to trace the long term,
complex processes of development and change for college students.
Definition of the Content Domains
As mentioned in the above, psychosocial development is normative age-graded, normative history-graded, and personal critical events-graded. Age, historical experience, and personal critical events are important factors that influence psychosocial development. When developing the measure of psychosocial development, the content domains need to take into account these experiences. Miller and Winston (1990) indicate that psychosocial measurement instruments can reasonably account for age-graded, normative history-graded, and environmental influences; however, they usually cannot account for unique individual experiences. Personal interviews may be the most viable way to collect the individual critical events.
By using Chickering’s theory, developing a measure to assess the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, the individual critical experiences also cannot
63 be accounted. The age and historical influences can be accounted; however, revisions are
needed. Normative age-graded influences are demands caused by biological maturation
and usually are universal. For Taiwanese college students, the issues mentioned in
Chickering’s theory, such as developing competence, managing emotions, developing autonomy, developing mature interpersonal relationship, developing identity, and developing purpose, which determining are caused by biological maturation may also be major issues in Taiwanese college students.
However, because the historical experiences differ between Taiwanese and
American college students as discussed in the above, the content of each vector needs revision to fit Taiwanese college student’ experiences. For example, as addressed above, centralized higher education system and Joint College Entrance Examination, which are quite different from American system, are two historical factors that influence Taiwanese college students’ development. As a result, for Taiwanese college students, the content of developing purpose in Chickering’s theory, switch of major may be the more important issue than selection of major; studying abroad or going to graduate education may be the important future plan rather than finding a job; and institution ranks may be a more important concern than exploration of interests and career. In addition, being independent from teacher may be an issue in developing autonomy; developing tolerance in different political preference may be an important issue in developing mature interpersonal relationships. In contrast, because of the homogeneity of race, political identity (be a
Chinese or Taiwanese) may be more important than racial identity for Taiwanese college students.
64 Literature review and interviews and focus groups with Taiwanese college students are effective ways to trace the historical influences. Item analysis is also effective way to test if the items are appropriate.
Significance of the Environmental Context
Miller and Winston (1990) state from a measurement perspective, a behaviorally oriented approach must be placed in a specific social and cultural context and therefore be limited somewhat in its general applicability. Because Chickering’s theory is based on middle-class. White American college students, using Chickering’s theory to develop a measure to assess the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, cultural and environmental context of Taiwan must be considered.
As addressed in the above section, Chinese culture is quite different from
American culture. These differences definitely influence the content of psychosocial development of college students in developing interpersonal competence, managing emotions, developing autonomy, developing mature interpersonal relationship, developing identity and developing purpose. For example, cooperation may be more important than leadership in developing interpersonal competence; the meaning of appropriate expression of emotions may be different from Western culture; not hurting family relationship may be an important issue in developing emotional autonomy, and mobility and financial independent may not be the concerns of developing instrumental autonomy; sex relationship may not be an important concern in developing intimacy; race and gender may not be crucial issues in developing identity while political ideology and self-confidence may be more important. Parents’ expectations, gender stereotype, and
65 institution ranks may be more important than exploration of interest and career in
developing purpose.
One study (Guo, 1995) showed that the Student Development Task and Lifestyle
Inventory (SDTLI), which was designed based on Chickering’s theory and has been
popular used to asses the psychosocial development of college students in the U. S., was
not valid to Taiwanese college students. According to Guo’s study, by using item
response theory, 89 of the 140 items (64%) manifested statistically significant differential
item function (DIF). Based on the committee’ determination, thirty-eight items was primarily due to cultural differences. Nineteen items was due to translation/linguistic differences. And Thirty-two was judged to be both cultural and translation/linguistic differences.
In developing measure of psychosocial development by using Chickering’s theory,
Chinese cultural differences must be considered. Interviews and focus groups with
Taiwanese college students and Taiwanese experts in college student development are effective ways to deal with this issue. Item analysis is also effective way to define the items if they are appropriate.
In addition, gender and personality also influence the psychosocial development.
When developing psychosocial measure in Taiwan, the instrument must be flexible enough to accommodate both gender types, a wide range of “normal personality characteristics”, and the unique ways different personality types interact with their environments and express their emotions and thoughts.
66 Measurement Formats
Because the process of psychosocial development is dynamic and changing, there
are two types of questions in instruments today. One focuses on assessing the quality and
direction of the process, the other focuses on the content or subject matter through which
the process can be observed. However, as Miller and Winston indicated (1990), no
quantitative methodolog>’’ exists that can assess both the process and the content
simultaneously. Three basic measurement formats are used today. These are (1)
Production formats such as open-ended essay, semistructured interview, and sentence
completion. This format can imderstand the process; however, it require expert judges, is
more expensive, and sometimes difficult to interpret. (2) Preference and comprehensive
format, that presents stimulus material and then asks the student to respond using a
Likert-type scale or to select one response from multiple choice. This format is
inexpensive and easy to score, but does not permit access to the reasoning the student
used in making the particular selection. (3) Specific behavior description: this format, that
generally asks the students whether a statement about behavior is true or false (using a
true-false response)or how frequently they engage in a particular behavior (using Likert-
type response) in the recent past. This format has been the one most often used to assess
psychosocial development from a developmental task frame of reference. This format is also inexpensive, easy to use; however, it can not tell the process. In addition, this approach requires students to recall their behavior accurately and to make reports honestly; these skills (self-analysis and introspection) are not easy for every students; therefore, the student’ responses are questionable.
67 All of the three formats can be used in Taiwan when developing a measure of
psychosocial development of Chickering’s theory, depending on the purpose of research.
If the research is more concerned about understanding the process of development, and
has enough experts, time and costs, then open-ended essay, semistructured interviews, or
sentence completion will be preferred. Otherwise the preference format or specific
behavior format can be used. All of the three have strengthens and weaknesses.
In sum, by using Chickering’s theory, developing a measure to assess the
psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan for the study, the complexity of
psychosocial-developmental process can not be resolved since the constraints of time and
resources, the exploratory nature of this study, and the intention of describing the larger
population and related variables at one time, the longitudinal qualitative research will not
be used. For the content domains and environmental context, the individual critical
experiences also cannot be accounted. The age and historical influences can be
accounted; however, the content of each vector needs revision to fit Taiwanese college
students’ experiences. In addition, the Taiwanese cultural and environmental context
must be considered. Interviews and focus groups with Taiwanese college students and
Taiwanese experts in college student development, and item analysis can be used to deal with these issues. For the measurement formats, since the constraints of time and resources, and the intention of describing the larger population and related variables at one time as mentioned above, the specific behavior format rather than production format will be used.
68 Research on factors Related to Psvchosocial Development
One purpose of the study is to explore the differences of psychosocial
development for class rank, gender, major, JCEE score, academic involvement, faculty-
student relationships, peer relationships, family relationships, and living, co-curricular,
and work experiences and determine which independent variables explain the greatest
amount of unique variance in psychological development of college students in Taiwan.
This section reviews the research on these factors in both the U. S. and the Taiwan.
Class Rank
In their reliability and validity studies of SDTI-2, Winston et al. (1979) found
significant differences among the classes on Autonomy task and its two subtasks
(Instrumental Autonomy, and Interdependence), and Developing Purpose task and its two
subtasks (Educational Plans and Mature Career Plans), with seniors scoring higher than
freshmen. In their reliability and validity studies of SDTLI, Winston et al. (1987) also
found significant differences among the classes on Academic Autonomy, and
Establishing and Clarifying Purpose task and its five subtasks (Educational Involvement,
Career Planning, Lifestyle Planning, Life management, and Cultural participation), with
seniors scoring higher than freshmen. In addition, seniors also score higher than freshmen
on Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships and its three subtasks (Peer
Relationships, Tolerance, and Emotional Autonomy).
Jordan-Cox (1987) studied the psychosocial development of students in traditionally black institutions by using SDTI-2, the findings showed that Seniors scored
significantly higher than freshmen on Developing Autonomy task and its three subtasks.
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships and its two subtasks (Peer Relationships
69 and Tolerance), and Developing Purpose task and its two subtasks (Appropriate
Educational Plans and Mature Career Plans). However, there were no differences on the
Intimate Relationships with Opposite Sex Subtask and the Mature Lifestyle Plans
subtask.
In order to clarify the between- and within-sex differences in and predictors of
autonomy and intimacy development in college students, Greeley and Tinsley (1988)
conducted a study by using SDTI-2. Their study also supports that the college attendance
contributes the development of autonomy. According to their findings, autonomy scores
tend to increase significantly across the college years for both men and women.
By using Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationship Inventory, Hood and Mines
(1986) conducted a longitudinal study of a group students at the University of Iowa.
Their results showed that there were increases in scores on both Tolerance and Quality of
Relationships scales during the freshman year and from the freshman year to the senior
year.
Using Erwin Identity Scale, Erwin (1982) also conducted a longitudinal study for
college students. The study found scores to increase on Confidence, but to decrease on
Conceptions about Body and Appearance during the freshman year. In a four-year
longitudinal study, Erwin and Kelly (1985) reported that seniors had gained in
Confidence and had a wider range of scores than did freshmen.
In order to understand the relationship between psychosocial development and
psychological health among Taiwanese college students, Chang (1986) conducted a study to test the relationship for the students in one institution by using self-designed instrument which based on Chickering’s theory (1969) and SDTI-II. Her study showed
70 that seniors had highest psychosocial development. The major change occurred for all
vectors from the second semester of juniors to first semester of seniors. The psychosocial
development had a positive relationship with psychological health.
Gender
The results of gender difference in psychosocial development are inconsistent.
Several studies showed differences (Jordan-Cox’s, 1987) while others showed no differences (Greeley & Tinsley, 1988). However, researches did have found that women’s development differs from men’s regarding the importance of interpersonal relationships in fostering the development of autonomy.
Straub and Rodgers (1986) studied the achievement of autonomy in women. They found Developing Autonomy for women was literally more of a “task” over time than was Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships. Hence, regardless of when work was begun on the AUT task or when it was resolved, the MIR task preceded the AUT task for the women. They also found that college women with androgynous and masculine orientations tended to resolve the tasks of instrumental and emotional autonomy during college. Feminine and undifferentiated women not only did not become autonomous individuals during college, but they tended to remain dependent well into their late 30s. Straub (1987) followed up with the women who scored high in autonomy.
Her study found the significant experiences of achieving autonomy for women were: (1) having to be on their own in a residence hall and then in an apartment (33%), (2) taking risks that lead to insights about oneself and about sources of personal stress (24%), (3) learning that dependence on men or parents results in enormous personal losses in area such as career, educational pursuits, and personal identity (17%), (4) overcoming
71 obstacles in academic or job achievement (7%). Seventy three percent of the events related to instrumental and emotional autonomy, and 27% related to developing autonomy through freeing interpersonal relationships \vith significant others or parents.
Greeley and Tinsley’s (1988) study, as mentioned above, also indicated that sex did not predict the autonomy significantly while intimacy (using Developing Mature
Interpersonal Relationships scale in SDTI-2) was the best predictor of autonomy. Their finding that intimacy is predictive of autonomy for women is consistent with Gilligan’s
(1977) idea that women develop intimacy prior to, or concurrently with, their development of a sense of autonomy and supports to Straub and Rodgers’s (1986) and
Straub’s (1987) studies that intimacy development precedes autonomy development for most women, and the mastery of the relationship task has a significant impact on the development of autonomy for some women.
Hunt and Rentz (1994) examined the Greek-Ietter social group members’ involvement and psychosocial development by gender and class. Their results suggested development of mature interpersonal relationships occurs earlier for women, which is similar to the Straub and Rodger’s (1986) findings. In addition, sophomore, junior, and senior women’s scores for intimacy did not parallel the steady increase from freshman to senior year like men. Intimacy mean scores were highest among junior women and senior men. They also suggested that women seem to address earlier than their male peers in the intimacy development.
Taub’s (1995) study in relationships of selected factors to traditional-age undergraduate women’s development of autonomy also confirms this finding. For all
72 group’s women (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinas, and Whites), quality of
relationships was the significant predictor for autonomy.
A current qualitative research on developing autonomy among traditional-aged
students by Mather and Winston (1998) also indicated relationship was the significant
factor in developing autonomy for women. All women cited relationships with significant
others as important contexts for exploring and gaining autonomy; however, few men
were cited.
In addition, for developing purpose, studies also showed some differences between
women and men. Jordan-Cox’s (1987) study in traditionally black institutions, as
discussed above, the result found that women scored significantly higher than men on
Mature Lifestyle Plans subtask. However, there were no differences on both Appropriate
Educational Plans and Mature career Plans subtasks.
In order to understand the relationships among gender, sex-role identification,
type of major, and clarity of purpose, Dawson-Threat and Huba (1996) conducted a study
to examine how choice of major and clarity of purpose among college seniors as a
function of gender, type of major, and sex-role identification by using Establishing and
Clarifying Purpose task in SDTLI. Their study showed that fewer than half of college
seniors identified with traditional sex roles; nevertheless, most chose majors traditionally
dominated by their gender. Women were more likely to choose traditional majors than were men, even among androgynous individuals who psychologically identified with characteristics of both gender groups. Women exhibited a clear sense of purpose than did men. Androgynous students exhibited a clear sense of purpose than did those who were
73 masculine identified, feminine identified, or undifferentiated. This finding confirms
Straub and Rodger’s (1986) study.
Hebert (1990)’s study investigated the gender differences on the effects of
involvement on the psychosocial development. The study showed for men. Establishing
and Clarifying Purpose (PUR) was predicted by clubs and organizations, and
environmental perceptions of vocational qualities; for women, PUR was predicted by course learning, student acquaintances, experiences with faculty, clubs and organizations, and athletic and recreation facilities.
In sum, the literature seems to show that women exhibit better sense in developing purpose than did men. However, women are more dominated by traditional gender roles in choosing their majors than are men even though their sex identification are androgen.
For developing Mature Interpersonal Relationship, men and women also prefer different approaches and environments. Hebert (I990)’s study, as discussed above, showed for men, MIR was predicted by perceptions of the critical, evaluative, and analytical environment; however women, MIR was predicted by course learning, and student acquaintances activities, as well as perceptions of the emphasis on academic. The negative effect on MIR for men was activities related to athletic and recreation facilities and activities associated with student union facilities. This study confirms that women develop in relationships while men develop in competition.
Chang’s study (1986) for Taiwanese college students, as mentioned above, also showed gender difference in psychosocial development. Men’s developments in all vectors were higher than women’s developments except Mature Interpersonal
Relationship and Developing Purpose, which were equal to both men and women. In
74 addition, women’s development did parallel the steady increase from freshmen to seniors
in all vectors while men’s development decreased in sophomores and juniors on
Developing Competence, Managing Emotions, Developing Identity, Mature Interpersonal
Relationship, and Developing Purpose.
Major
One’s major field of study creates a potentially important subenvironment during college. It not only focuses one’s intellectual efforts in a particular direction, but it also has an influence on the kinds of students and faculty with whom one interacts.
After reviewing of over 2600 books, monographs, journal articles, research reports, and conference papers produced over the past two decades, Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991) concluded that the impact of academic major are markedly stronger and more consistent in cognitive areas than in noncognitive ones. Students tended to demonstrate the highest levels of learning on subject matter tests most congruent with their academic major. However, the impact of major field of study on noncognitive outcomes was less apparent or consistent. The effects of major on changes in students’ ego development remained unexamined. The major also was unrelated to changes in social self-concept. The evidences of changes in students’ attitudinal and value areas were few. However, some evidence suggested that departmental environment might be more important than the characteristics of discipline in shaping psychosocial changes among students.
Chang’s study (1986) for Taiwanese college students, as mentioned above, showed there were no difference of psychosocial development among different major.
75 Academic Involvement
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) made a strong conclusion that the greater the student’s involvement or engagement in academic work or in the academic experience of college, the greater his/her level of knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development. In addition, they also indicated that evidence suggested that academic involvement increased in autonomy and independence, intellectual orientation, and the use of principled moral reasoning.
Astin’s (1993) longitudinal study of 25000 undergraduate students from 217 four- year colleges and universities in their learning and personal development also indicated student development seems to be facilitated if the student spends a considerable amount of time studying, attending classes, and using a personal computer, as well as engaging in academically related activities that would be inclined to elicit a high degree student involvement: honors courses, interdisciplinary courses, study-abroad programs, college internship programs, racial or cultural awareness workshops, independent research projects, class presentations.
Lin (1990) studied the relationship between the involvement and the cognitive and personal development with 499 Taiwanese college students in one institution. His results support that academic involvement has significant relationships with cognitive and personal development. The higher involvement, the better personal development.
One current study (Chang, 1999) on examining the relationships between campus experiences and learning outcomes with 3000 Taiwanese college students at 20 institutions also showed that academic involvement (includes academic involvement and
76 faculty interactions) is the third significant important factor to explain the personal development.
Facultv-Student Relationship
Studies showed the influence of interaction with faculty is manifest in intellectual outcomes as well as in changes in attitudes, values, aspirations, and a number of psychosocial characteristics. The educational impact of a college’s faculty is enhanced when their contacts with students extend beyond the formal classroom to informal nonclassroom settings. Net of student background characteristics, extent of informal contact with faculty is positively linked with wide range of outcomes.
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) indicated the evidences showed that informal contact with faculty was positively linked with numerous developmental outcomes, including intellectual growth, increases in intellectual orientation, liberalization of social and political values, growth in autonomy and independence, increases in interpersonal skills, gains in general maturity and personal development, educational aspirations and attainment, orientation toward scholarly careers, and women’s interest in and choice of sex-atypical (male-dominated) careers. The impact of student-faculty informal contact was determined by its content as well as by its frequency. The most influential interactions appear to be those that focus on ideas or intellectual matters, thereby extending and reinforcing the intellectual goals of the academic program. In addition, the students most likely to engage in non-classroom interaction with faculty appear to be those most open to the influence of faculty to begin with. Individuals involved are important.
77 After controlling for entering student characteristics, environmental variables, and number of years completed, Astin (1993)’s longitudinal findings also indicated student- faculty interaction had positive correlation with all other areas of student satisfaction, every self-reported area of intellectual and personal growth, behavioral outcomes, and career outcomes.
In order to empirically validate Chickering’s theory and identify the direct and indirect effects of five environmental influences (living arrangement, peer experiences, faculty-student interactions, extracurricular involvement, and environmental influences) on affective student development, Thieke (1994) developed a causal model to examine the relationship between entry characteristics, the five environmental influences, and developmental level during the fireshman year of college by using SDTLI and College
Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). The results support the influence of faculty interaction on affective student developmental change during the freshman year.
Lin’s study (1990) as mentioned above on the relationship between the involvement and the cognitive and personal development with Taiwanese college students also showed the higher faculty-student interaction, the higher cognitive and personal development.
Peer Relationship
Kaufman and creamer (1991) used the CSEQ to measure the quality of effort that students put into peer relations, extracurricular activities and academic experiences in relation to changes in developmental outcomes. They found that beneficial, positive interactions with one’s peers directly influences gains in both personal and intellectual outcomes.
78 Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) state that student interactions with their peers also
have a strong influence on many aspects of attitudinal and psychosocial change. Their
review found that positive changes occurred in student’s political, social, and religious
values, social self-concept, interpersonal skills, moral development, general maturity and
personal development and educational aspirations. The note that shifts tend to occur when students are exposed to a wide diversity of students who presumably challenge their currently held beliefs and conceptions. Conversely, they state that exposure to
homogeneous, like-minded groups mat act to insulate against developmental changes in some areas.
Astin’s (1993) study also indicated that student-student interaction had positive correlation with leadership abilities, public speaking, interpersonal skills, academic development, critical thinking, cultural awareness, satisfaction with student life, degree aspirations, scholarship, social activism, hedonism, status striving, attending recitals or concerts, and alcohol consumption.
Thieke’s (1994) study, as mentioned above, also showed the interaction with peer groups influenced the affective student developmental change during the freshman year.
One current study (Edison, Nora, Pascarella, Terenzini, & White; 1999) on examining the relationships between peer interactions and cognitive outcomes during college at 23 colleges and universities foimd positive significant relationships between peer interactions (both course-related and non-course-related activities) and CSEQ
(College Student Experiences Questionnaire) gains in academic preparation for a career and CSEQ gains in understanding self and others.
79 Lin’s study (1990) as mentioned above on the relationship between the
involvement and the cognitive and personal development with Taiwanese college students also supports the higher peer interactions, the higher cognitive and personal development.
In addition, Chang’s study (1999) with 3000 Taiwanese college students as mentioned above also showed non-academic involvement (includes peer interactions and co-curriculum involvement) is the first significant important factor to explain the personal development.
Familv Relationship
Taub (1995) studied the independent contribution of biographical correlates (age, class year, race/ethnicity, and residence status), interpersonal relationships (Chickering,
1969), parental attachment (Kenny & Donaldson, 1991), and racial/ethnic identity
(Phinney, 1992) to traditional-age undergraduate women’s autonomy development by using Iowa Developing Autonomy Inventory (IDAI), Mines-Jensen Interpersonal
Relationships Inventory (MJIRI), Parental Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ), and
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM). Removing the effect of biographical correlates, the Quality of Relationships scale of the MJIRI, the Parental Role in Providing
Emotional Support scale of the PAQ, and the Other-Group Orientation scale of the
MEIM made significant independent contributions to the variance in autonomy scores.
However, the relationship between autonomy and Parental Role in Providing Emotional
Support was an inverse one. This finding suggests that excessive emotional support from parents inhibits woman students’ development of autonomy. Development of autonomy requires a delicate balance of challenge and support. It also indicates that women who are
80 more autonomous may less likely to look to their parents as a source of emotional support.
Living Experience
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) indicated living on campus (versus commuting to college) is perhaps the single most consistent within-college determinant impact. Since the facilitation of campus social involvement is the probable causal mechanism underlying the impact of living on campus, the majority of the effects of living on campus are in the areas of psychosocial development rather than intellectual development. For example, increased in aesthetic, cultural values and liberalization of social, political values; increased in self concept, autonomy, and independence, and gained in tolerance and the ability to relate to others. However, they also indicated that residential effects were the result of purposeful programmatic efforts to integrate the student’s intellectual and social life during college (for example, living-leaming center
(LLC) had positive and significant effects on students’ gain in autonomy and personal independence). In addition, the residential effects were indirect ones, mediated through the interpersonal experiences students had with peers and faculty members that were shaped by the residential setting. When students’ interpersonal contacts and relations with other students and faculty members were also taken into account, the effects of LLC residence tended to diminish, sometimes to disappear.
Chang’s study (1999) with 3000 Taiwanese college students as mentioned above showed living experience is the significant factor to explain the personal development; however, it could only explain 0.9% (non-academic involvement explained 19% and academic involvement explained 3.1%).
81 Co-Curricular Experience
Greek-Ietter organizations have been a significant part of campus life since 200
years ago. Many studies try to examine the relationship between psychosocial
development and Greek-letter group members. However, the findings are different.
Gatica (1982) studied the relationship o f sex, religious practice, residential background and organizational affiliation to the development of college freshmen by SDTI-2. The study showed that students who belong to a fratemily or sorority tend to exhibit a higher level of development on Developing Autonomy task and Developing Purpose task.
Donlin (1994) conducted a study to examine the relationship between membership
Greek-letter organizations and the psychosocial development for Mississippi State
University using SDTLI. However, the results showed that there were no differences on
Academic Autonomy task but were differences in PUR.
William and Winston’s (1985) study showed that students who participated in organized student activities and organizations gained higher development in
Interdependence and Educational plans. Career Plans, and Lifestyle Plans in SDTI-2.
Smith (1992) also studied the relationship between involvement in extracurricular activities and the psychosocial development using SDTLI. His study also indicated that development of academic autonomy increased significantly as level of involvement in extracurricular activities increased.
Fox, Spooner, Utterback, and barbieri (1996) examines the differences in autonomy development between second year college students who typical stayed on campus on weekends and those who often left campus on weekends during their freshman year by using the Iowa Developing Autonomy Inventory. Their findings support that students
82 who tend to stay on campus on weekends during their freshman year report statistically higher levels of autonomy.
Cooper, Healy, and Simpson (1994), by using SDTLI, conducted a three-year longitudinal study to explore the student change patterns in relation to their involvement in student organizations and leadership positions among college students. Their study demonstrated, as freshmen, the member group significantly higher than non-member group on Developing Purpose Task and Life Management subtask. However, as juniors, the member group significantly higher than non-member group on Educational
Evolvement, Career Planning, Lifestyle Planning, and Cultural Participation, in addition to the differences previously found on Developing Purpose Task and Life Management subtask. For holding leadership positions, as freshmen, the leader significantly higher than nonleaders group on Developing Purpose Task, and Educational Involvement,
Career Planning, Lifestyle Planning and Life Management subtasks. However, as juniors, the same differences between these groups existed, as well as a significant difference in
Cultural Participation, with student leaders scoring higher than nonleaders.
Thieke’s (1994) study, as mentioned above also showed participation in activities fostered the affective student developmental change during the freshman year.
However, involvement in extracurricular activities is not always a positive effect on developing mature interpersonal relationships. Smith’s (1992) study in the relationship between involvement in extracurricular activities and the psychosocial development of
Clemson University students showed for males, juniors and students in the mid-C to B overall grade range, spending greater time in extracurricular involvement retarded their development of mature interpersonal relationships.
83 In addition, Herbert (I990)’s study, as mentioned above, showed involvement in
activities related to athletic facilities have negative effects on development of mature
interpersonal relationships. Blann’s (1985) study on intercollegiate athletic competition
and students’ educational and career plan also showed freshman and sophomore male
athletes did not formulate mature educational and career plans as great an extent as did freshman and sophomore male non-athletes.
Yang (1996) conducted a study to determine the relationship between co-curricula involvement and psychosocial development for Taiwanese college students. The results showed that for male students, who participated in student organizations had higher score in autonomy than non-participants; however, for female students, who participated in student organizations had lower score in autonomy than non-participants. The participation in student organization had significant positive relationships with managing emotions and developing autonomy.
Work Experience
Williams and Winston (1985) examined how work and participation in student organizations contribute to students’ personal development by SDTT-2. Students participated in organized student activities and organizations showed significantly greater developmental task in Educational Plans, Career Plans, and Lifestyle Plans than did students who did not participate. However, their findings did not show that work contributed to the developing purpose.
Niles, Sowa, and Laden (1994) studied the life role participation and commitment as predictors of college student development by using SDTLI. Their findings indicated that participation role of both study and work significantly predicted scores on the
84 Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Scale of the SDTLI. Their finding for the role of
work in developing purpose is different from Williams and Winston’s study (1985).
Vick (1989) studied the impact of full-time, semester-long internships on college
students’ psychosocial development by pre-test and post-test in SDTLI. The findings
revealed significant change in Clarification of purpose scale.
Astin’s (1993) study indicated a full time job had negative effects on completion
of the bachelor’s degree and academic outcomes. In contrast, having a part-time job on
campus is positively associated with attainment of a bachelor’s degree. This finding is
different from Niles, Sowa, and Laden’s (1994) study by SDTLI but is similar to the
William and Winston’s (1985) study by SDTI-2.
Chi's (1994) study, as mentioned above in examining the types of career decision
making and career decision beliefs among college junior and senior students in Taiwan,
indicated there were no significant differences in career decision-making among work
experience.
Summary of Literature Review
Psychosocial development refers to the issues, tasks, and events that occur
throughout the life span, and to a given person’s pattern of resolution of the issues and
tasks, and adaptation to the events. This type of development is significantly influences
by the interactions that take place between individuals and their environments.
Psychosocial development is continue and cumulative in nature. It progresses along a continuum from simpler to more complex behavior and tends to be orderly and staged- related. Psychosocial development is reflected in developmental tasks and are concerned
85 with the “what” or content of development (tasks) rather than “how” or processes of development.
Among psychosocial development theories, Chickering's theory is the one that particularly studies the college students and has been widely used and studied by both student development theorists and practitioners in student affairs. He proposed seven vectors- Developing Competence, Managing Emotions, Moving Through Autonomy
Toward Interdependence, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, Establishing
Identity, Developing Purpose, and Developing Integrity- for college student development.
He also proposed seven key environmental ingredients for encouraging student development- institutional objectives, institutional size, student-faculty relationships, curriculum, teaching, friendships and student communities, and student development programs and services. Since no systematic and holistic college student psychosocial development theory is currently in use in Taiwan and Chickering's theory is the most useful and widely used and studied theory in the U. S., when designing an instrument to study the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, Chickering’s theory will be used as a reference to Taiwan.
However, psychosocial development is age-graded, history-graded, and personal critical events-graded. Age, historical experience, and personal critical events influence psychosocial development. In addition, culture or ethnicity also plays an important role in the psychosocial development. Several studies have demonstrated the ethnic and cultural differences on psychosocial development of college students. When using Chickering’s theory to develop an instrument to assess the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, historical and cultural context of Taiwan has to be taken into account.
86 Based on Confucianism, the common features of Chinese character are social- oriented that emphasized collectivistic orientation, other-orientation, relationship orientation, authoritarian orientation, submissive disposition, inhibited disposition, and effeminate disposition and are different from the Western pattern- individual oriented that emphasized individualistic orientation, self-orientation, competitive orientation, equalitarian orientation, enjoyment orientation, autonomous disposition, and expressive disposition. Chinese Family life and gender role are also different from the Western culture with emphasizing the filial piety and traditional gender role. However, modernization and democratization have changed Chinese personality, family life and gender role to be more Western style, studies showed that college students have adjusted to the modem society and meanwhile also kept a lot of traditional Chinese values. In addition, centralized higher education system and Joint College Entrance Examination, which are different from American system, are also two important historical factors that have influenced Taiwanese college students’ development for a long time. Current democratization of higher education also acts as an important role to impact the college students’ development. When using Chickering’s theory, developing a measure to assess the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, These cultural and historical factors and differences are necessary to be taken into account.
There are four major theoretical and methodological issues associated with the measurement of psychosocial development: (I) complexity of psychosocial-development processes, (2) definition of content domains, (3) significance of the environmental context, and (4) measurement formats. By using Chickering’s theory, developing a measure to assess the psychosocial development o f college students in Taiwan, the
87 complexity of psychosocial-developmental process can not be resolved since the
constraints of time and resources, the exploratory nature of this study, and the intention of
describing the larger population and related variables at one time, the longitudinal
qualitative research will not be used. For the content domains and environmental context, the individual critical experiences also can not be accounted. The age and historical influences can be accounted; however, the content of each vector needs revision to fit
Taiwanese college students’ experiences. In addition, the Taiwanese cultural and environmental context must be considered. Interviews and focus groups with Taiwanese college students and Taiwanese experts in college student development, and item analysis can be used to deal with these issues. For the measurement formats, since the constraints of time and resources, and the intention of describing the larger population and related variables at one time as mentioned above, the specific behavior format rather than production format will be used.
Studies showed that psychosocial development related to class rank, gender, major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationships, peer relationships, and living, co-curricular, and work experiences. When study the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, these factors needed to be explored. In addition, both family and Joint College Entrance Examination (JCEE) play important roles in the Chinese culture and Taiwanese school system. Therefore, family relationship and JCEE variables will be also studied in relation to the psychosocial development of college students in
Taiwan.
88 CHAPTERS
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to develop an instrument to measure Chickering’s psychological development theory that is sensitive to Taiwanese college students and their culture and then to explore differences in the development for ranks, gender, major,
JCEE score, academic involvement, faculty-student relationships, peer relationships, family relationships, and living, co-curricular, and work experiences. This study also determined which independent variables explained the greatest amount of unique variance in psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan.
The following research questions were asked:
1. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different ranks of
college students in Taiwan?
2. What are the differences in psychosocial development between male and female
college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
3. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different majors of
college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
89 4. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different JCEE scores
of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
5. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different academic
involvement of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
6. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different faculty-
student relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
7. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different peer
relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
8. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different family
relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
9. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different living
experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
10. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different co-curricular
experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
11. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different work
experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
12. Which independent variables explain the greatest amount of unique variance in the
psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan? Male students? Female
students? And different ranks o f students?
This chapter delineates the design and methodology o f the study. The discussion includes research design, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection and data analysis.
90 Research Design
The study used a cross-sectional and descriptive research design. Ideally, for the
study of psychosocial development, a longitudinal design with students being measured
as they begin college and again upon graduation would be preferable. Menard (1991)
states longitudinal design will be required whenever developmental (age), historical
(period), and cohort effects are possible. However, he also indicates since longitudinal
research typically costs more, cross-sectional research must also be considered as a
relatively less expensive alternative to longitudinal research for those instances in which
cross-sectional research is a demonstrably adequate substitute, and for exploratory or
preliminary research that involves dynamic models. According to Menard (1991), if the
concern is with differences between individuals of different ages at one time, and not
with inferring intraindividual changes that occur with age over the life course, cross-
sectional research is preferable. In addition, cross-sectional research remains important
for describing variables and patterns of relationships as they exist at a particular time.
Since the constraints of time and resources, the exploratory nature of this study, and the
intention of describing the larger population and related variables at one time, the cross-
sectional design was used. The cross-sectional nature of this design indicates that data were collected at one point in time from the selected sample with the intention of
describing the larger population at that time. Such a design was used “not only for the purpose of description, but also for the determination of relationships between variables at the time of study” (Babbie, 1973, p. 62).
Both description and determination of relationships were utilized in this design. It was the intention of this study systematically to describe the psychosocial development
91 of Taiwanese college students from freshmen to seniors, as well as to determine the relationships between psychosocial development and related variables. As illustrated in
Figure 3.1, the conceptual model for this study included eleven independent variables - class rank, gender, major, JCEE score, academic involvement, faculty-student relationship, peer relationship, family relationship, living experience, co-curricular experience, work experience and one general dependent variable — the level of psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan. Six dimensions were used to determine the level of psychosocial development: developing competence, managing emotions, developing autonomy, mature interpersonal relationship, establishing identity, and developing purpose.
92 Class Rank Level of Psychosocial Development o f Gender Gender x Rank College Student;
Major Major X Rank • Developing Competence JCEE Score JCEE Score x Rank • Managing Emotions Academic Academic • Developing Involvement Involvement x Rank Autonomy F aculty-Student Faculty-Student • Mature Relationship x Rank Relationship Interpersonal Relationship Peer Relationship Peer Relationship x Rank • Establishing Identity Family Family Relationship Relationship X Rank • Developing Purpose Living Experience Living Experience x Rank
Co-curricula Co-curricula Experience Experience x Rank
Work Experience Work Experience x Rank
Figure 3.1: Conceptual Model for Research Study
93 Population and Sample
The target population for this study was 346,920 undergraduate students who
attended universities, independent colleges, normal universities and teachers colleges in
Taiwan during the 1998-1999 academic year. The total number of institutions was 78
(Ministry of Education, 1998). A list of institutions and the number of students were
obtained from the Education Statistics of the Republic of China. Frame error was
controlled by getting the current (1998) publication of these statistics. Selection error
was controlled by double checking the statistics with the Introduction of Universitv and
College. 1998 to make sure the data were accurate and also by random selection.
The final accessible population for this study was 165,179 undergraduate students
who attended the 20 institutions, which gave the permission to this study, during the
1998-1999 academic year.
According to Krejcie and Morgan (1970), a random sample of 1068 was needed, assuming a 3% sampling error at the 95% confidence level. Multistage sampling was chosen to obtain the desired sample in this study. First, a stratified cluster sampling was used to select 20 institutions from the total 78 institutions. Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and
Ott (1996) define “A cluster sample is a probability sample in which each sampling unit is a collection, or cluster, of elements” (p. 289). They suggest that cluster sampling can be an effective design for obtaining a specified amount of information at minimum cost when a good frame listing population elements either is not available or is very costly to obtain, while a frame listing clusters is easily obtained. Since the frame listing of total population was not available to obtain in Taiwan, the institutions as a cluster sample must be used. In addition, since the distribution of 78 institutions in location (north,
94 middle, south, and east) was not equal and the objectives between university and college, public and private were different, three strata (location, university/college, and public/private) were used in stratified selection of these 20 institutions. According to
Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and Ott (1996), “A stratified random sample is one obtained by separating the population elements into nonoverlapping groups, called strata, and then selecting a simple random sample from each stratum” (p. 125). They indicate that
“stratification may produce a smaller bound on the error of estimation than would be produced by a simple random sample of the sample size” (p. 126). A proportional stratified random procedure based on location, university/college, and public/private were utilized to randomly select 20 sample institutions from 78 institutions. However, the final 20 sample institutions were determined based upon getting the permission from the institutions. Table 3.1 illustrates the distribution of the target population based on location, university/college, and public/private. Table 3.2 illustrates the distribution of sample institutions.
Second, a stratified random sampling from 20 sample institutions was employed to select the final sample. Based on the purpose of this study, three strata were used in stratified sampling: majors, class ranks (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior) and gender (male and female). There were 18 major areas in Taiwan (Ministry of education,
1998) which were grouped into six categories in the study: (1) Natural Science &
Engineering, which included Natural Science, Math. & Computer Science, Engineering,
Craft & Industry, Transportation & Communication, and Architecture Town-planning;
(2) Humanities & Service, which included Fine & Applied Arts, Humanities, Service
Trades, and Mass Communication & Documentation; (3) Education; (4) Business &
95 Administration; (5) Social & Behavioral Science, which included Social & Behavioral
Science and Law & Jurisprudence; and (6) Medical Science & Biology, which included
Medical Diagnostic Treatment, Agriculture, Forest & Fishery, Home economics, and
Other (Physical Education). A proportional stratified random procedure was used to
insure the sample was proportionately representative of the target population.
A random sample of 1068 was needed, assuming a 3% sampling error at the 95 %
confidence level (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). Since the result of pilot study showed that
the missing rate of the instrument was 33%, 1420 students were selected from 20
institutions and 1306 students answered the instrument. After deleting the invalid
respondents (age under 18 or over 25) and invalid instruments, the final sample was 945.
It fitted the necessary sample size to generalize to the population assuming a 3.2%
sampling error at the 95% confidence level (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). Table 3.3
illustrates the distribution of the sample. As noted in Table 3.3 the percentages of sample in majors and gender were similar to the population. However, the percentages of sample in class ranks were a little different from the population with the senior sample being too small and junior sample being too large. It should be a concern when generalize the results to the population.
96 Public Private
Location College University College TotalUniversity
North 79454 11388 111777 10485 213024 (23%) (3%) (32%) (3%)
Middle 20972 2863 46069 8289 78193 (6%) (.8%) (13%) (2%)
South 28356 7315 5015 10404 51093 (8%) (2%) (1%) (3%)
East 922 3072 0 616 4610 (394) (.9%) (0%) (.2%)
Total 129704 24638 162861 29717 346920
Note. Percentages are listed in parentheses.
Table 3.1: Distribution of Population
97 Public Private
Location University College University College Total
North 5^ l" 6' 1" 13
Middle r 0 3^ 0 4
South 2: 0 0 1' 3
East 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 1 9 2 20
Note. ® Taiwan Univ., Taiwan Normal Univ., Tsinghua Univ., Yang-Ming Univ., Taipei Univ. of Technology. ^ Taipei Teachers college. Fu Jen Catholic Univ., Soochow Univ., Chinese Culture Univ., Yuan-Ze Univ., Ming Chuan Univ., and Shih Chien Univ. Taipei Medical College. * Yunlin Univ. of Science and Technology. ^Feng Chia Univ., Providence Univ., Da-Yeh Univ. ® Cheng Kung Univ., Kaohsiung Normal Univ. Chang Jung College of management.
Table 3.2: Distribution of Sample Institutions
98 Class Rank Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Subtotal Total
Gender M FMFM F MFMF Major Natural Science & 70 13 64 7 80 12 59 14 279 46 325 Engineering (34%)
Humanities & 9 16 16 30 9 49 4 8 38 103 141 Service (15%)
Education 7 23 2 8 9 27 3 20 21 78 99 (10%)
Business & Administration 25 56 12 18 10 14 21 14 68 102 170 (18%) Social & Behavioral 11 31 6 12 12 9 1 3 30 55 85 Science (9%)
Medical science & 17 10 38 16 15 10 12 17 72 53 125 Biology (14%)
Total 278 229 262 176 508 437 945 (29%) (24%) (28%) (19%) (53%) (47%) (100%)
Note. Percentages are listed in parentheses. Percentages of gender in Population: M=52%, F = 48%. Percentages of class ranks in Population: Freshman=29%, Sophomore=23%, Junior=25%, Senior=23%. Percentages of majors in Population: Natural Science=34%, Hxunanities=15%, Education=10%, Business=18%, Social science=9%. Medical Science=14%.
Table 3.3: Distribution o f Sample
99 Instrumentation
Instrument
Based on the purposes of the research, the Chinese College Student Psychosocial
Development Inventory (CCSPDI) was developed to collect data (See Appendix B).
This instrument consisted of three parts. Part I was the Student Psychosocial
Development Tasks, Part II was the College Student Experiences Questionnaire and Part
III was the Personal Characteristics section. Part I, Student Psychosocial Development
Tasks, contained 120 items that related to the psychosocial developmental tasks of college students and was grouped into six subscales: Developing Competence,
Managing Emotions, Developing Autonomy, Mature Interpersonal Relationship,
Establishing Identity, and Developing Purpose. Although Chickering’s psychosocial theory includes seven vectors, this instrument only assessed six vectors since the seventh vector (developing integrity) is not psychosocial per se. Conceptually, vector seven is a mixture of cognitive structural development, ethical and value beliefs, and how both relate to the behavior (Rodgers, 1980; Hood, 1986; Dickson & Thayer, 1993). In addition, similar psychosocial instruments relate to Chickering’s theory in the U. S., the
SDTLI and the Iowa Student Development Inventories, do not include this vector. A 5- point Likert-type scale was used with 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True o f Myself.
Part II, College Student Experiences Questionnaire contained 21 items and divided into three dimensions: Academic Involvement, Faculty-Student Relationships,
100 and Peer Relationships. A 4-point Likert-type scale was used with 1 = Never, 2 =
Occasionally, 3 = Often, and 4 = Very Often.
Part III was related to personal characteristics. Eight dimensions were included
in these characteristics: age, gender, major, class rank, family relationship, living
experiences, co-curricular experiences, and work experiences. JCEE score was included
in the pilot study; however, it was deleted in the formal study since the high missing rate
(57%) in the pilot study. Students could answer or choose only one response for each
dimension.
Item Development
The item pool for the College Student Psychosocial Development Tasks was
developed from the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI)
(Winston, Miller, & Prince, 1987), the Iowa Student Development Inventories (Hood,
1986), which included Iowa Developing Competency Inventory, Iowa Managing
Emotions Inventory, Iowa Developing Autonomy Inventory, Erwin Identity Scale,
Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationship Inventory, and Developing Purposes Inventory,
The Georgia Autonomy Scales (Winston, Phelps, Mazzeo, & Torres, 1997), and
Developmental Advising Inventory (Dickson, & Thayer, 1993). All of instruments were based on Chickering’s psychosocial development theory and had been proved to be valid and reliable for American college students (Miller & Winston, 1990; Dickson, &
Thayer, 1993; Winston, Phelps, Mazzeo, & Torres, 1997). Considering the cultural and environmental differences between the Taiwan and the U. S., a Chinese Life Adjustment
Inventory of College Student (Chen, 1996) also was selected to be the item pool. This
Chinese instrument was developed based on Chickering’s theory and had been proved to
101 be valid and reliable for Taiwanese college students (Chen, 1996). In addition, one semi-
structured interview with one female Taiwanese graduate student at the OSU from
January to March in 1998 and three focus groups with 30 Taiwanese college students
from different ranks, majors, and gender in December, 1997, August, 1998, and
December 1998 were conducted for revision and development of items that were
appropriate to the life experience of Taiwanese college students.
The Chinese College Student Experiences Questionnaire was developed from the
related items on the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) (Pace, 1979,
1987, 1992; Pace & Swayze, 1992). CSEQ was designed to measure the quality of effort students put into using the facilities and opportunities provided for their learning and development in college. The instrument has three primary items: (I) self report of involvement in areas such as library experiences, experiences with faculty, course learning, student union, clubs and organizations, campus residence, and student acquaintances; (2) student perceptions of the environment section asks students to rate the environment along several dimensions; and (3) self report on gains made as a result of their collegiate experiences and had been proved to be valid and reliable for American college students (Pace, 1987; Pace & Swayze, 1992). The item pool for Chinese College
Student Experiences Questionnaire was drawn from the items on library experiences, experiences with faculty, course learning, experience in writing, and student acquaintances. The third focus group with Taiwanese college students as mentioned above was also conducted to adjust these items to the experiences of Taiwanese college students.
102 The eight dimensions of personal characteristics were developed based on the
literature review and were adjusted to the educational conditions in Taiwan. Age was
used in order to delete the invalid samples since Chickering’s theory is only appropriate to age 18-24.
Validitv
Validity is concerned with the extent to which an instrument measures what one thinks it is measuring (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990). The instrument of this study was assessed for face, content and construct validity. Face validity is the degree to which an instrument appears appropriate for an intended audience. Content validity is the degree to which the content of an instrument representative of the entire domain of content that the instrument is intended to measure. Construct validity focuses on theory, theoretical constructs, and the testing of hypotheses (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990).
Panel of experts. For determining validity, a panel of experts was first convened to assess the content of the instrument. The panel was selected based on their knowledge on measurement, the content, and the Taiwanese college students (target population), and consisted of two subject mater experts, one measurement expert, and four target population experts from Taiwanese colleges (See Appendix A). Since this instrument was translated into Chinese, two Taiwanese bilingual experts were also included in the panel (See Appendix A). Revisions incorporating the recommendations of the panel were then made to the Chinese instrument.
Field test, one field test was next conducted to determine the face and content validity of the instrument. Ten Taiwanese college students who were representatives of the target population but not the part of final sample participated in the field test. The
103 field test group was asked to address the following aspects for the Chinese instrument:
(1) item content and clarity, (2) wording, (3) thoroughness, (4) ease of use, and (5) format and overall instrument appearance. The recommendations from the field group added to revise the Chinese instrument for pilot study. The Chinese instrument used in pilot study is showed in Appendix B.
Pilot test. A pilot test was third conducted to determine the construct validity. Since the study would use the factor analysis to determine the construct validity and a general rule of thumb for factor analysis is to have at least five cases for each observed variable
(Tabachnick & Fidell ,1989). Two hundred Taiwanese college students who represented the target population but were not part of final sample participated in the pilot test since each subscale and College Student Experience Questionnaires in the pilot instrument contained from thirty to forty items (variables). The pilot study conducted from January
11 to January 22, 1999. The participants came from Taiwan Normal University
(northern Taiwan, public), Cheng-Kung University (southern Taiwan, public), Taiwan
Ocean University (northern Taiwan, public), and Soochow University (northern Taiwan, private), and majored in different areas. Total participants were 200 students (freshmen
54, sophomores 37, juniors 55, and seniors 54) (females 105 and males 95). In the process of administering the pilot instrument, the researcher also asked students to give recommendations to the instrument. In addition, after finishing the instrument, the researcher explained Chickering's theory to them. Their responses were used to conduct item analysis, factor analysis, and test the hypothesis that seniors would have higher psychosocial development than freshmen to determine the second construct validity.
104 The criteria used for an item to be deleted or retained based on (1) the critical ratio
(CR) between high group and low group was statistically significant (p < .05), (2) each
item contributed to the internal consistency of each subscale and College Student
Experiences Questionnaire (the change of Cronbach's Alpha if item deleted), (3) the
correlation of each item with the total score in each subscale, and the correlation in
College Student Experiences Questionnaire, (4) factor loading > .3 (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 1989) from factor analysis of each subscale and College Student Experiences
Questionnaire, (5) did not duplicate and create the greatest possible content of
Chickering's theory, and (6) the recommendations from the participants of pilot study. A
good instrument should have convergent validity and discriminant validity. For
convergent validity, the correlation within each subscale would be high; the correlation
between each subscale and the whole scale would be medium to high. For discriminant
validity, based on Chickering's theory, the six vectors are intercorrelate with each other; therefore, the correlation between each subscale would be low to medium.
The results of intercorrelations between subscales in Student Psychosocial
Development Tasks are showed in Table 3.5. As can been seen, the intercorrelations between each subscale ranged from .39 to .70. The intercorrelations between each
subscale and total scale ranged from .71 to .85. Scale 4 (Mature Interpersonal
Relationship) had the lowest correlation with the other subscales and the total scale. It is
similar to the result of SDTLI (Winston, Miller, & Prince, 1987). Most of subsclaes were median correlated with each other. This indicated that the six vectors in
Chickering's theory were not independent of each other; in other words, they were intercorrelated with each other. Although the results fitted the Chickering's theory, the
105 correlations between scale 2 (Managing Emotions) and scale 5 (Establishing identity)
(.70), scale 1 (Developing Competence) and scale 2 (Managing Emotions) (.68), scale 1
(Developing Competence) and scale 6 (Developing Purpose)(.68) were too high.
Duplicate items should be deleted.
A series of Principal Component Analyses were conducted for item reduction. The results are shown in Appendix C. Based on the theory, for scale 1 to scale 6, one component was extracted and were named Developing Competence, Managing
Emotions, Developing Purpose, Mature Interpersonal Relationship, Establishing
Identity, and Developing Purpose. Based on the design, for scale 7 (College Student
Experiences Questionnaire), three components were extracted by using the Oblimin with
Kaiser Normalization rotation method since the three components were intercorrelated with each other. Component 1 was named Faculty-Student Relationship, component 2 was named Peer Relationship, and component 3 was named Academic Involvement. All retained items had loading higher than .3 except s410 (I expect my close friend or intimate partner to meet my standards and needs) (.27). However, for including more items on intimacy in scale 4, this item was retained. In addition, s708 (Did additional readings on topics that were introduced and discussed in class) in scale 7 had both high loading with Faculty-Student Relationship (.41) and Academic Involvement (.38). Based on the original design, this item was belonged to the Academic Involvement. It is noted that the purpose of this instrument was to create the greatest possible content of
Chickering's theory within each subscale, some items were retained even though they had lower factor loading than others did. For example, si33 (I have difficulties communicating with my friends) had the highest factor loading (.57); however, it
106 duplicated with si39 (I can communicate my ideas effectively in a group), si33 was deleted and sl38 (I have not yet been able to balanced rest, exercise, nutrition, work, and reflection in my life) (.38) was added.
It was interesting to find that the results of item analysis showed that some items were valid for American students but were not valid for Taiwanese students, for example, si 10 (I maintain my weight at healthy levels), si29 (I use smoke or alcohol to help me relieve stress), si35 (I respect group decisions even when I disagree), s208 (I express compassion easily), s230 (I attended workshops and programs which helped me handle my emotions), s301 (I will go against my parents’ wishes if the issues were very important to me), s320 (Getting involved in the activities of my peer group even though
I am not interested personally is important), s325 (I feel emotionally independent of my parents), s328 (I think the best relationship is based on a mutual give and take), s502 (I make a conscious effort to wear the style of dress that most other people are wearing), s710 (Revised a paper or composition two or more times before handling it in), and s724
(Made friends with students from another country). It seems that respecting group’s decisions and keeping relationships with parents are important for Taiwanese college students. In addition, there may be few opportunities for students to attend the workshops or programs in handling emotions and make friends with foreign students in
Taiwanese campus. Furthermore, weight and alcohol seem not be serious problems for
Taiwanese students.
Based on the criteria as mentioned above, the retained items were selected. A correlation analysis between subscales in Student Psychosocial Development Tasks was employed again for the retained items. The result was showed in Table 3.6. The
107 intercorrelations between each subscale ranged from.37 to .67. The intercorrelations between each subscale and total scale ranged from .70 to .85. Scale4 (Mature
Interpersonal Relationship) still had the lowest correlation with the other subscales and the total scale. Since deleted the duplicate items, the correlations between scale! and scales, and scale 1 and scaled were lower (.66) than the original result.
To confirm the construct validity, a series of factor analyses were conducted for the
retained items by using Principal Component analysis and Oblimin with Kaiser
Normalization rotation for scale7 (College Student Experiences Questionnaire). For
scale 1 to scale 6, one factor was extracted. For scale7, three factors (Faculty-Student
Relationship, Peer Relationship, and Academic Involvement) were extracted. The
results were showed in Appendix C. As can be seen, all of loading >. 3 except the s410
(I expect my close friend or intimate partner to meet my standards and needs) (.26) and
the s409 (I am usually careful about what I say and do around my close friend or
intimate partner in order to avoid upsetting or displeasing him/her) (.26). However,
these two items were still retained for the formal instrument since they could help to
keep more Intimacy items (Tolerance 12, Intimacy 8) in the scale 4 and they
represented important concept of intimacy in Chickering’s theory, furthermore, their
CRs were statistically significant. The reason that they had lower loading in scale 4
may be Tolerance and Intimacy were two relatively different concepts and the scale 4
included more Tolerance items. SDTLI also showed that Tolerance and Intimacy were
two different concepts.
A one-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was also conducted to
compare the differences of six subscales in class rank in order to establish the second
108 construct validity, with seniors scoring higher than freshmen. The results of MANOVA indicated a statistically significant difference for rank (Wilks' Lambda = .832, F_= 2.02,
£ = .008); Subsequent univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed the significant difference for rank only in scaled (Developing Purpose), F (3, 196) = 7.5, p
= .000, with seniors scoring highest. Even though only one scale was statistically significant, seniors had the highest Mean for all six scales and were higher than freshmen on all six scales (see Table 3.4).
109 Rank M SDN
SCALEl 1 67.46 8.22 54 2 67.77 9.75 37 3 68.99 9.52 55 4 71.73 9.71 54
SCALE2 1 70.17 10.22 54 2 68.75 11.93 37 3 68.97 9.18 55 4 71.69 10.08 54
SCALES I 65.09 9.56 54 2 64.31 8.91 37 3 65.69 8.85 55 4 68.80 9.48 54
SCALE4 1 74.69 8.79 54 2 72.88 8.42 37 3 73.90 9.46 55 4 74.72 8.50 54
SCALES 1 75.35 9.23 54 2 75.30 11.29 37 3 74.34 11.13 55 4 78.17 10.81 54
SCALES 1 63.60 11.03 54 2 58.99 12.58 37 3 68.08 12.81 55 4 70.45 12.92 54 Note. 1 = freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior.
Table 3.4: Means and Standard Deviations for Student Psychosocial Development Tasks by Rank
Based on the results of the pilot study and the discussions with the committee members, the formal instrument was decided, which included 120 items for
Psychosocial Development Tasks (20 items for each subscale) and 21 items for College
Student Experiences Questionnaire (See Appendix B). For Personal Characteristics, since the results of pilot study showed that the missing rate of JCEE was 57%, after
110 Consulting the committee members, the JCEE score was deleted in the formal
instrument. Therefore, the Research Question 4 - What are the differences in
psychosocial development among different JCEE scores of college students in Taiwan?
And in different ranks? - was deleted in the formal study.
To confirm the validity of the instrument, a correlation analysis between
subscales in the Student Psychosocial Development Tasks in the formal study of 945
participants was conducted again. The results are shown in Table 3.7. The
intercorrelations between each subscale ranged from.38 to .70. The intercorrelations
between each subscale and total scale ranged from .70 to .86. Scale 4 (mature
interpersonal relationship) still had the lowest correlation with the other subscales and
the total scale. In sum, the results of pilot and formal study in correlation analysis
indicated that the correlation within each subscale was relatively high, the correlation
between each subscale and the whole scale was high, and the correlation among each
subscale was medium. This instrument fitted Chickering's theory and had both
convergent and discriminant validities.
A series of factor analyses using Principal Component analysis for the formal
instrument in the formal study of 945 participants were also conducted. The results
showed that most of loading of the items was higher than .3 or near to .3 (See Appendix
C). However, four items, s210 (I can express my anger constructively), s403 (I depend on my close friend or intimate partner to make the best decision for me), s407 (I am usually careful about what I say and do around my close friend or intimate partner in order to avoid upsetting or displeasing him/her), and s408 (I expect my close friend or intimate partner to meet my standards and needs), had very low loadings. Again, three of
111 items were related to the Intimacy in the scale4 and two of them were similar to the results of the pilot study. When revising the instrument in the future, these two items may need to be reconsidered.
SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Sa
SI 1.00 .68 .67 .46 .59 .68 .85
S2 I.OO .66 .59 .70 .57 .85
S3 I.OO .58 .63 .60 .84
S4 1.00 .58 .39 .71
S5 I.OO .56 .82
S6 1.00 .81
Sa 1.00
Note, n = 200. SI: Developing Competence, 82: Managing Emotions, S3: Developing Autonomy, S4: Mature Interpersonal Relationship, S5: Establishing Identity, S6: Developing Purpose, Sa: Student Psychosocial Development Tasks.
Table 3.5: Intercorrelations between Subscales of Student Psychosocial Development Tasks on Pilot Study (before Delete Items)
112 SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Sa
SI 1.00 .67 .65 .43 .61 .66 .83
S2 I.OO .65 .56 .66 .52 .83
S3 I.OO .58 .66 .61 .85
S4 I.OO .56 .37 .70
S5 1.00 .54 .83
S6 I.OO .79
Sa I.OO
Note, n = 200. SI: Developing Competence, 82: Managing Emotions, S3: Developing Autonomy, S4: Mature Interpersonal Relationship, S5: Establishing Identity, S6: Developing Purpose, Sa: Student Psychosocial Development Tasks.
Table 3.6: Intercorrelations between Subscales of Student Psychosocial Development Tasks on Pilot Study (after Delete Items)
Scale SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Sa
SI I.OO .68 .70 .48 .62 .68 .85
S2 I.OO .68 .56 .68 .55 .84
S3 I.OO .55 .67 .62 .86
S4 I.OO .55 .38 .70
S5 1.00 .57 .84
S6 I.OO .80
Sa 1.00
Note, n = 945. SI: Developing Competence, S2: Managing Emotions, S3: Developing Autonomy, S4: Mature Interpersonal Relationship, S5: Developing Identity, S6: Developing Purpose, Sa: Student Psychosocial Development Tasks.
Table 3.7: Intercorrelations between Subscales of Student Psychosocial Development Tasks on Formal Study
113 Reliability
Reliability is concerned with the dependability, stability, consistency, predictability, and accuracy of the instrument (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990). The pilot study and formal study also used to determine the reliability. Since the items were summed, an internal measure of consistency by using Cronbach’s Alpha was employed to the six subscales and the whole scale for Student Psychosocial Developmental Tasks, and the three subscales and whole scale for College Student Experiences Questionnaire.
The results of reliability for the pilot study and formal study are shown in Table 3.8 and
Table 3.9. As can be seen, the Cronbach's Alpha for six subscales of Student
Psychosocial Development Tasks ranged from .78 to .90 and the whole scale was .96 in the pilot study, the Cronbach's Alpha for three subscales of College Experiences
Questionnaire ranged from .80 to .88 and the whole scale 7 was .90. After deleting the items in the pilot study, the Cronbach's Alpha for six subscales of Student Psychosocial
Development Tasks ranged from .78 to .88 and the whole scale was .96. The Cronbach's
Alpha for three subscales of College Experiences Questionnaire ranged from .77 to .87 and the whole scale 7 was .89. For the formal study, the Cronbach's Alpha for six subscales of Student Psychosocial Development Tasks ranged from .79 to .88 and the whole scale was .96. The Cronbach's Alpha for the three subscales of College
Experiences Questionnaire ranged from .75 to .85 and the whole scale 7 was .87.
114 Study n 81 82 83 84 85 86 8a
Pilot (before 200 .83 .85 .79 .78 .87 .90 .96 delete items) (40) (32) (32) (32) (26) (29) (191)
Pilot (after 200 .82 .85 .80 .78 .87 .88 .96 delete items) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (120)
Formal 945 .83 .84 .81 .79 .87 .88 .95 (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (120)
Note. Item numbers are listed in parentheses. S1 : Developing Competence, S2: Managing Emotions, S3: Developing Autonomy, S4: Mature Interpersonal Relationship, S5: Developing Identity, S6: Developing Purpose, Sa: Student Psychosocial Development Tasks.
Table 3.8: Reliability Coefficients for Pilot Study and Formal Study On Student Psychosocial Development Tasks
Study n 871 872 873 87
Pilot (before 200 .83 .88 .80 .90 delete items) (8) (8) (10) (26)
Pilot (after 200 .85 .87 .77 .89 delete items) (7) (7) (7) (21)
Formal 945 .85 .83 .75 .87 (7) (7) (7) (21)
Note, item numbers are listed in parentheses, S71: Peer Relationship, S72: Faculty-Student Relationship, S73: Academic Involvement, S7: College Student Experiences Questiormaire.
Table 3.9: Reliability Coefficients for Pilot Study and Formal Study On College Student Experiences Questionnaire
115 Data Collection
Data for the study were collected by the researcher from March 4 to March 26 in
Taiwan. A letter, which described the purpose of this research and requested the
volunteers, was mailed to the instructors whose students were randomly selected to be
the sample. A personal phone call by the researcher to contact those instmctors also
followed to encourage participation. After getting permission from the instructors at
each selected institution, the researcher then arranged the time with those instructors to
administer the instrument. An OSU ballpoint pen as a gift was given to those instructors
for their cooperation. In the process of administrating the instrument, the researcher first
distributed a letter to explain the purpose and the procedures of the study to the
participants (See Appendix B). The researcher then informed participants they were free
to withdraw from participation and asked participants to turn in the instrument at one
time in order to protect the non-respondents from being identified. After finishing the
instrument, the researcher explained Chickering’s theory to them. Both of participants
and researcher thought it was a valuable learning experience. All respondents were
volunteers and their instruments were anonymous. There was no attempt to obtain
sample non-respondents since it was impossible to identify respondents and non respondents due to the anonymity of respondents. After receiving all completed
instruments, the information was recorded in SPSS 8.0 for Windows for statistical analysis.
116 Data Analysis
Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Multiple Regression statistics were used
to analyze the data. SPSS 8.0 for Windows software was employed to this end. Since the
Research Question 4 was deleted, the formal research only studied eleven research
questions. The analysis of the data were undertaken as follows:
Research Question 1 - What are the differences in psvchosocial development among different ranks of college smdents in Taiwan?
One-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to compare the differences in psychosocial development of college students among different ranks since the scores on the subscales of the instrument represented the multiple dependent variables and were intercorrelated with each other (see Table 3.7). In addition, MANOVA keeps the overall alpha level under control, and has greater sensitivity for detecting differences in certain situations (Stevens, 1996). Where appropriate, a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed for follow-up analysis for each of subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at .01.
Scheffe’s Technique for making post-hoc comparisons was employed to follow up on any significant main effects since the numbers in each cell are unequal.
Research Ouestion 2 - What are the differences in psvchosocial development between male and female college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
A 2 X 4 (gender by rank) two-way MANOVA was used to compare the differences in psychosocial development of college students between male and female in different ranks. Where appropriate, follow up ANOVAs were performed to analyze the effects of main gender, main rank, and the gender by rank interaction for each of the
117 subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at .01. Scheffe’s Technique for
making post-hoc comparison was employed to follow up on any significant main or
interaction effects.
Research Ouestion 3 - What are the differences in psvchosocial development among
different majors of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
A 6 X 4 (major by rank) two-way MANOVA was used to compare the
differences in psychosocial development of college students among different majors in
different ranks. Where appropriate, follow up ANOVAs were performed to analyze the effects of main major, main rank, and the major by rank interaction for each of the subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at .01. Scheffe’s Technique for making post-hoc comparison was employed to follow up on any significant main or interaction effects.
Research Ouestion 4 - What are the differences in psvchosocial development among different academic involvement of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
In order to compare the differences in psychosocial development among different academic involvement, the scores of academic involvement were categorized into two groups: high and low. A 2 x 4 (academic involvement by rank) two-way MANOVA was used to compare the differences in psychosocial development of college students among different academic involvement in different ranks. Where appropriate, follow up
ANOVAs were performed to analyze the effects of main academic involvement, main rank, and the academic involvement by rank interaction for each of the subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at .01. Scheffe’s Technique for making post-
118 hoc comparison was employed to follow up on any significant main or interaction
effects.
Research Ouestion 5 - What are the differences in psvchosocial development among
different facultv-student relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different
ranks?
In order to compare the differences in psychosocial development among different
faculty-student relationships, the scores of faculty-student relationship were categorized
into two groups: high and low. A 2 x 4 (faculty-student relationship by rank) two-way
MANOVA was used to compare the differences in psychosocial development of college
students among different faculty-student relationships in different ranks. Where
appropriate, follow up ANOVAs were performed to analyze the effects of main faculty-
student relationship, main rank, and the faculty-student relationship by rank interaction
for each of the subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at .01. Scheffe’s
Technique for making post-hoc comparison was employed to follow up on any
significant main or interaction effects.
Research Ouestion 6 - What are the differences in psvchosocial development among different peer relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
In order to compare the differences in psychosocial development among different peer relationships, the scores of peer relationship were categorized into two groups: high and low. A 2 x 4 (peer relationship by rank) two-way MANOVA was used to compare the differences in psychosocial development of college students among different peer relationships in different ranks. Where appropriate, follow up ANOVAs were performed to analyze the effects of main peer relationship, main rank, and the peer relationship by
119 rank interaction for each of the subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at
.01. Scheffe’s Technique for making post-hoc comparison was employed to follow up on any significant main or interaction effects.
Research Ouestion 7 - What are the differences in psvchosocial development among different family relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
A 3 X 4 (family relationship by rank) two-way MANOVA was used to compare the differences in psychosocial development of college students among different family relationships in different ranks. Where appropriate, follow up ANOVAs was performed to analyze the effects of main family relationship, main rank, and the family relationship by rank interaction for each of the subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at .01. Scheffe’s Technique for making post-hoc comparison was employed to follow up on any significant main or interaction effects.
Research Ouestion 8 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different living experiences of college smdents in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
A 5 X 4 (living experience by rank) two-way MANOVA was used to compare the differences in psychosocial development of college students among different living experiences in different ranks. Where appropriate, follow up ANOVAs were performed to analyze the effects of main living experience, main rank, and the living experience by rank interaction for each of the subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at
.01. Scheffe’s Technique for making post-hoc comparison was employed to follow up on any significant main or interaction effects.
120 Research Ouestion 9 - What are the differences in psvchosocial development among different co-curricular experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
A 3 X 4 (co-curricula experience by rank) two-way MANOVA was used to compare the differences in psychosocial development of college students among different co-curricula experiences in different ranks. Where appropriate, follow up
ANOVAs were performed to analyze the effects of main co-curricula experience, main rank, and the co-curricula experience by rank interaction for each of the subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at .01. Scheffe’s Technique for making post- hoc comparison was employed to follow up on any significant main or interaction effects.
Research Ouestion 10 - What are the differences in psvchosocial development among different work experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks?
Since the groups with fiill time work experiences were too small to compare, the work experience was recategorized into three groups: none, work experience relates to major, and work experience does not relate to major. A 3 x 4 (work experience by rank) two-way MANOVA was used to compare the differences in psychosocial development of college students among different work experiences in different ranks. Where appropriate, follow up ANOVAs were performed to analyze the effects of main work experience, main rank, and the work experience by rank interaction for each of the subscales. To control for type I error, the alpha was set at .01. Scheffe’s technique for making post-hoc comparison was employed to follow up on any significant main or interaction effects.
121 Research Ouestion II - Which independent variables explain the greatest amount of
unique variance in the psvchosocial development of college students in Taiwan? Male
students? Female students? And different ranks of students?
Multiple Regression was used to determine which independent variables explain
the greatest amount of unique variance in the psychosocial development of each
subscale for total students, male students, female students, freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors since the study was interested in explaining the variance of one
dependent variable by using a set of ten independent variables (Stevens, 1996). Six
separate multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine which independent
variables explained the greatest amount of variance in each subscales for total students.
Six separate multiple regression analyses for male students, female students, and
différent ranks of students were also conducted. Total 42 multiple regression analyses were performed. Since the study was particularly interested in the variance of psychosocial development being explained by the college experiences after partialling out the personal characteristics and class ranks, a hierarchical model was selected to enter the data into the regression equation and interpret the results (Warmbrod, 1998).
The first entered block of variables was personal characteristics, which included gender and family relationship. The second entered block of variables was class ranks. College experience was the third entered block of variables and included major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationship, peer relationship, living experience, co- curricular experience, and work experience. The R^ change was examined as the basis for identifying the unique contribution of each block of variables to change in the dependent variable.
122 CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings of the research study. Based on the 11 research questions, the findings are organized into three sections: (1) a summary of the data on the sample; (2) ten comparisons of the differences in psychosocial development among college students in Taiwan for rank, gender by rank, major by rank, academic involvement by rank, faculty-student relationship by rank, peer relationship by rank, family relationship by rank, living experience by rank, co-curricular experience by rank, and work experience by rank (Research Question 1-10); and (3) a determination of which independent variables explain the greatest amount of unique variance in six dimensions of psychosocial development for total college students, male students, female students, freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors in Taiwan (Research Question 11).
Data on the Sample
Twenty institutions were selected from the total of 78 institutions based on the proportion in the target population in terms of location, public/private, and university/college. The sample of 1420 students were randomly selected firom 20 institutions based on the proportion of the target population by major, gender and class
123 rank. Of the 1420, 1306 students clear to respond to the instrument and 114 did not. After deleting the invalid respondents (age imder 18 or over 25) and invalid instruments, the final sample was 954. It fitted the necessary sample size to generalize to the population assuming a 3.2% sampling error at the 95% confidence level (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970).
The valid data samples (Male = 53%, Female = 47%; Natural Science = 34%, Humanities
= 15%, Education = 8%, Business = 18%, Social Science = 9%, Medical Science = 14%) were similar to the proportions of target population in gender (Male = 52%, Female =
48%), and major (Natural Science = 34%, Humanities = 15%, Education = 8%, Business
= 18%, Social Science = 9%, Medical Science = 14%). However, for class rank
(Freshmen = 29%, Sophomores = 23%, Junior = 25%, Senior =23%), this sample
(Freshmen = 29%, Sophomore = 24%, Juniors = 28%, seniors = 19%) had larger Junior sample and smaller senior sample. Table 3.3 summaries the distribution of the sample.
Comparisons of Psvchosocial Development for Ten Independent Variables
(Research Question 1-101
A one-way and nine two-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) were computed to assess the differences in psychosocial development for ten independent variables (rank, gender by rank, major by rank, academic involvement by rank, faculty- student relationship by rank, peer relationship by rank, family relationship by rank, living experience by rank, co-curricular experience by rank, and work experience by rank) to answer Research Question 1-10. Stevens (1996) indicates the assumptions for MANOVA are: (1) the observations are independent, (2) the observations on the dependent variables follow a multivariate normal distribution in each group, and (3) the population covariance
124 matrices for the dependent variables are equal. He suggests the general procedure for
assessing violations in MANOVA include: (1) check to determine whether it is
reasonable to assume the subjects are responding independently; (2) check the univariate
normality for each variable, and (3) apply Box’s M test to check the assumption o f
homogeneity of the covariance matrices. For this study, there was not any experimental design in the procedure and the participants were responding independently so the study could assume the subjects were responding independently. When conducting each
MANOVA, the univariate normality for each variable by using graphical plot was examined, and the assumption of homogeneity of the covariance matrices by applying
Box’s M test was also employed. The significant probability of Box’s M test is based on an F transformation. When sample sizes in the groups are large, the significance level may be small even if the group covariance matrices are not too unequal. With large samples, researcher can interpret tests of significance conservatively when the assumptions are violated (Warmbrod, 1998). Since the sample sizes in this study were very large (N = 945), the alpha was set at .001 for Box’s M test.
Class Rank
A one-way MANOVA was computed to assess the differences of four class ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development. The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test was not significant (F = 1.33, p =
.041). As can be seen in Table 4.1, a statistically significance was found (Wilks’s
Lambda = .95, F = 2.90, p = .000).
Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences among the four ranks on two subscales: scale 1 (Developing
125 Competence), F (3, 941) = 6.82, p = .000 and scaled (Developing Purpose), F (3, 941)
4.99, p = .002. Alpha was set at .01 to control for Type I error. Post hoc multiple comparisons were made using the Scheffe test. Results indicated that juniors had significantly higher scores than freshmen on both Developing Competence and
Developing Purpose (see Table 4.2).
Between Within Effect Test Value F Groups groups d f df
Rank Wilks' Lambda .946 2.90 18 2648 .000**
* P < .05 ** p < .01
Table 4.1: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development by Rank
Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Univ. F R Variable (n = 278) (n = 229) (n = 262) (n = 176) (d f3, 941)
Developing 66.61 67.23 69.72 69.33 6.82 .000* Competence (9.14) (8.92) (9.64) (9.18)
Managing 69.26 69.49 70.00 70.77 .98 .403 Emotions (10.18) (9.27) (10.09) (9.35)
Developing 65.38 66.21 67.72 67.32 3.30 .020 Autonomy (9.28) (9.06) (9.42) (9.77)
Mature 74.78 73.87 74.13 74.22 .51 .679 Interpersonal (8.59) (9.41) (8.55) (8.43) Relationship
Establishing 75.36 76.48 76.16 78.19 2.55 .054 Identity (10.51) (10.73) (11.26) (10.09)
Developing 62.35 64.41 66.05 65.93 4.97 .002* Purpose (12.23) (12.34) (12.38) (12.55)
Note. Standard Devisions are listed in parentheses. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * p < .01
Table 4.2: Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F_for Psychosocial Development by Rank 126 The result of this study is similar to the findings in the U. S. where upper class students had higher development than beginning students on developing purpose (Jordan-
Cox, 1987; Winston et., 1979, 1987); however, it does not show that upper class students had a significant higher development than beginning students on autonomy, which is different from the findings in the U. S.(Jordan-Cox, 1987; Greeley & Tinsley, 1988). In addition, the result is also different from the Chang’s study (1986), which showed
Taiwanese seniors had highest psychosocial development and major changes occurred for all vectors from the second semester of Juniors to first semester of seniors. In this study, juniors had significantly highest development on competence and purpose and seniors did not have significantly higher development than juniors.
Examining the descriptive data (see Table 4.2), the mean scores in scale 1
(Developing Competence), scale 2 (Managing Emotions), scale 3 (Developing
Autonomy), scale 5 (Establishing Identity) and scale 6 (Developing Purpose) did show a trend of increasing scores from the freshmen to seniors years with the juniors having the highest scores in scale 1, scale 3, and scale 6 and seniors having the highest scores in scale 2 and scale 5. These trends fit Chickering’s general findings that psychosocial development increases from freshman to senior years. The only exception is that freshmen had the highest mean score in scale 4 (Mature Interpersonal Relationship).
According to Chickering, this vector should be developed on the later period during the college. Based on Chickering’s theory, this vector contains two concepts: tolerance and intimacy. The instrument used in this study contains 12 items on tolerance and eight items on intimacy. One possible explanation for freshmen having the high score in tolerance may be the impact of current democratization in Taiwanese society and college
127 campus as discussed in the literature review. Compared with the upper class, the young
generation values diversity more than conformity. The possible explanation for freshmen
having the high score in intimacy may be that they have not had actual experiences in
making friends with intimate parmer. They may have answered the instrument based on
the ideal beliefs. One study (NTNU, 1991), as mentioned in literature review, showed
that students in National Taiwan Normal University had rational and modem dating
beliefs; however, their dating behaviors were more conservative and were not consistent
with their beliefs.
When comparing the mean scores among six vectors, Taiwanese students seem to have better development on identity and mature interpersonal relationship than purpose and autonomy. As reviewed in literature, Chinese culture may provide a clear value system and identity for Taiwanese students; however, it may also hinder students’ development of autonomy. In addition, the lower score in purpose seems to be consistant with a previous study in career-decisions (Chi, 1994). This study found that 65.9% upper- class students were career decided, while 34.1% were undecided. In addition, 52.2% upper-class students were not comfortable with their career decision. Her study showed that the highest two career-decision needs among these four types of students were the exploration of self (46.41%-65.15%) and career/ education information (31.44%-
48.84%). It seems that preparation for and the importance of the entrance examination to college, as discussed in the literature review, and insufficient career/education information may hinder students from exploration of self and developing purpose in
Taiwan.
128 Gender bv Rank
A 2 X 4 two-way MANOVA was conducted to assess the differences of gender in different ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development. The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test was not significant (F_=
1.35, p= .003). As can be seen in Table 4.3, a statistically significant overall main effect was found for rank (Wilks’s Lambda = .988, F = 1.96, p = .000). No significant multivariate effects were found for gender or gender by rank.
Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences among the four ranks on two subscales: scale 1 (Developing
Competence), F (3, 937) = 6.68, p = .000 and scale 6 (Developing Purpose), F (3, 937) =
4.93, p = .002. Alpha was set at .01 to control for Type I error. Post hoc multiple comparisons were made using the Scheffe test and are showed in Table 4.4. Results indicated that juniors had significantly higher scores than freshmen on both Developing
Competence and Developing Purpose. The result of main effect in rank is similar to the result in Question 1.
Between Within Effect Test Value F Groups groups df df
Gender Wilks’ Lambda .988 1.96 6 932 .069
Rank Wilks' Lambda .947 2.84 18 2637 .000**
Gender x Wilks' Lambda .986 .736 18 2637 .777 Rank p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 4.3: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development By Gender and Rank
129 Freshman Sophomore Jimior Senior Univ. F E (n=278) (n=229) (n=262) (n=176) for rank
M F M F M F M F (d f3, 937) (n=I29X n=149)(n=I38Xn=91) (n=141Xn=12I) (n=100)( n=76)
Developing 66.58 66.63 67.07 67.47 69.06 70.49 70.05 68.38 6.68 . 000* Competence (10.16) (8.18) (9.05) (8.76) (9.50) (9.79) (10.01) (7.91)
Managing 70.02 68.60 69.57 69.34 69.25 70.88 71.07 70.37 .89 .445 Emotions (9.90) (10.40) (9.46) (9.02) (10.85) (9.10) (9.78) (8.80)
Developing 65.81 65.01 66.20 66.22 67.40 68.11 68.03 66.38 3.16 .024 Autonomy (9.56) (9.04) (8.78) (9.52) (9.27) (9.62) (10.55) (8.60)
Mature 74.57 74.97 73.3 1 74.71 73.38 75.00 73.79 74.78 .35 .787 Interpersonal (8.43) (8.75) (9.18) (9.74) (8.96) (7.99) (9.10) (7.47) Relationship
Establishing 76.22 74.62 76.33 76.70 75.79 76.59 78.78 77.41 2.25 .081 Identity (10.20) (10.75) (10.30) (11.42) (11.32) (11.23) (10.35) (9.76)
Developing 61.81 62.81 6329 66.10 65.88 66.25 66.73 64.88 4.93 .002* Purpose (12.88) (11.66) (11.87) (12.90) (12.24) (12.58) (13.03) (11.90)
Note. Standard Devisions are listed in parentheses. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * g < .01
Table 4.4: Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F for Psychosocial Development by Gender and Rank
As discussed in the literature review, the results of previous studies in gender difference for psychosocial development are inconsistent in the U. S. Several studies showed differences (Jordan-Cox’s, 1987) while others showed no differences (Greeley &
Tinsley, 1988). The result of no gender difference in this study is different from the previous study in Taiwan (Chang, 1986). Chang’s study showed gender differences in psychosocial development for Taiwanese college students. Men’s development in all vectors were significant higher than women’s development except for mature
130 interpersonal relationship and developing purpose, which were equal for both men and women. Chang’s study was conducted thirteen years ago (before the end of martial law in
Taiwan) and involved only one institution. Taiwanese society and higher education has undergone significant changes as mentioned in the literature review. These changes have had impact on the gender role. Both Chou’s study (1995) and Lin’s study (1994), as discussed in the literature review, indicated that the traditional gender stereotype doctrine did not hold in the young generation any more. The changes in gender role may have fostered the psychosocial development of women students in this study. In addition,
Chang’s study used six ANOVAs to compare the gender difference for each vector. This study used one MANOVA to compare the gender difference for six vectors simultaneously. Different statistical method for data analysis might also influence the result.
Even though no significant gender difference was found, when examining the mean scores (see table 4.4), females had higher scores in mature interpersonal relationship
(scale4), and developing purpose (scaled), while the males had higher scores in developing competence (scale 1), managing emotions (scale 2), developing autonomy
(scale 3), and developing identity (scale 5). This trend is similar to the most of findings in the U. S. that females have better developments in mature interpersonal relationship
(Hunt & Rentz, 1994) and developing purpose (Jordan-Cox’s, 1987). This trend also is consistent with the Chang’s study as mentioned above. In addition, the mean scores of females in scale 1, scale 2, scale 3, scale 5, and scale 6 did show a trend to increase from the freshmen to juniors, while decreased from juniors to seniors in scale 1, scale 3, and scale 6. The mean scores of males in scale 1, scale 3, and scale 6 did show a trend to
131 increase from the freshmen to seniors, while decreased from sophomores to juniors in scale2 and scale5. This trend is also similar to some of the findings in Chang’s study where women’s development did parallel the steady increase from freshmen to seniors in all vectors while men’s development decreased in sophomore and juniors on competence, managing emotions, gender identity', mature interpersonal relationship, and purpose.
Major bv Rank
A 6 X 4 two-way MANOVA was computed to assess the differences of six major areas (Natural Science & Engineering (N), Humanities & Service (H), Education (E),
Business & Administration (B), Social & Behavioral Science (S), and Medical Science &
Biology (M)) in four ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development. The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test was not significant (F_= 1.08, £ = .107). As can be seen in Table 4.5, a statistically significant overall main effect was found for major (Wilks’s Lambda = .929, F =2.62, £ = .000). In addition, a significant interaction effect was found for major by rank (Wilks’s Lambda =
.840, F =1.81, £ = .000). No significant main effect was found for rank.
For examining the interaction, subsequent ANOVA was conducted. Alpha was set at .01 to control for Type I error. However, the result didn’t show any significant difference in major by rank among six subscales at .01 level (see Table 4.6).
Subsequent ANOVA was then conducted for the main effect of major. The result revealed statistically significant differences among the major on scale4, F (5,921) = 3.76,
P = .002 and scaled, F (5, 921) = 5.94, p = .000. Alpha was also set at .01 (see Table 4.6).
Post hoc multiple comparisons were made using the Scheffe test. Results indicated that
Social Science (S) major had a significantly better development than Natural Science (N)
132 major in mature interpersonal relationship (scale4). And Humanities (H) major had a ignificantly better development than Natural Science major (N) in purpose (scale6).
Natural science major had the worst developments in both mature interpersonal relationship and purpose.
Between Within Effect Test Value £ Groups groups E df d f
Major Wilks’ Lambda .929 2.26 30 3666 .000**
Rank Wilks' Lambda .973 1.40 18 2592 .124
Major X Rank Wilks' Lambda .840 I.8I 90 5158 .000**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 4.5: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development By Major and Rank
133 Frcshnian Sophomore ( 11=278) (0=229)
N II 1; n S M N II E 13 8 M 11=83 n=25 n=30 n=8l 0=42 0=17 0=71 0=46 0=10 0=30 0=18 0=54
SI 65,(i8 69.72 70.10 65.67 65..57 67.47 6159 68.09 66.60 67.17 71.83 67.26 II.0(1 8.60 10.23 2M 729 8.90 9.47 7.69 10.84 9.04 1 4 6 8.92
S2 70.47 69.32 69.80 68.04 69.31 68.00 68.37 68.65 67.70 71.53 15.5b 68.80 9.05 12.01 10.75 9.59 9.41 12.48 9.18 8.65 9.07 10.04 MU 9.16
S3 65.73 67.28 65.67 63.98 66.67 63.88 64.34 68.39 67.00 65.80 69.22 65.89 9.92 10.75 8.90 8.53 6.85 12.70 Mi 8.83 9.59 10.04 795 7.99
S4 74.57 75.76 75.57 73.85 77.29 71.29 72.83 74.22 76.30 75.50 76.89 72.57 8.52 9.78 7.44 M2 9.06 8.24 10.09 8.96 158 JJL58 Mi 8.41
S5 76.49 75.08 73.53 73.96 76.83 76.53 73.61 78.74 72.60 76.03 84.28 76.69 10.82 10.89 9.23 10.53 9.94 11.90 10.30 10.96 9.80 11.57 843 10.18
S6 59.33 67.72 66.57 60.83 64.29 64.23 61.24 69.28 65.60 59.50 72.67 64,17 13.53 10.99 12.57 10.96 9.92 m i 11.35 10.82 16.16 12.82 10.73 11.96
Note. Standard Devisions are underlined. N = Natural Science, H = Humanities, E = Education, B = Business, S = Social Science, M = Medical Science. SI = Developing Competence, S2 = Managing Emotions, S3 = Developing Autonomy, S4 = Mature Interpersonal Relationship, S5 = Developing Identity, S6 = Developing Purpose, Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * p < .01
Table 4.6: Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F for Psychosocial Development by Major and Rank
(Table to be continued) Table 4,6 (continued)
Junior Senior Univ. R Univ. E ( n=262) (n=l76) Major Major x Rank
N II R 1) S M N II R 1) S M (,115,921) (dri 5,921) n-'JK 11=58 n=36 11=24 n=2l 11=25 11=73 11=12 n=23 11=35 11=4 11=29
SI 69.16 70.14 70.42 70.17 70.29 69.00 69.01 70.67 69.39 67.26 76.00 71.10 2.11 .916 8.86 m. 9.47 11.27 13.27 8.09 m. 102 7.02 9.65 9.63 10.89 (D=.062) (jj=.546)
S2 67.57 70.19 72.44 74.50 70.14 71.12 70.15 70.25 73.00 68.06 75.50 73.38 1.35 1.84 9 J5 9.84 10.15 9.66 12.70 9.80 8.60 1 05 1 4 9 9.62 1 Ü Q 11.92 (C=.242) (]>=.026)
S3 66.51 67.22 69.78 68.50 68.57 69.20 6133 67.00 67.48 66.49 70.25 67.90 1,07 .61 7.89 9.58 Mi IMQ iM2 9.82 9.69 5.20 142 11.53 8.62 11.36 (n=.379) (2=870)
S4 72.03 75.09 75.25 76.50 78.95 72.16 72.05 74.58 74.00 74.94 77.75 78,31 3.76 1.29 7.30 i n 8.70 9.44 11.25 1 09 8.76 8.55 4.91 8.41 10.18 8.36 (C=.002 )• (E=,202)
S5 75.36 73.60 78.03 78.54 79.29 77.60 77.99 75.58 79.83 77.66 85.00 78.17 2.24 1.51 J M 6 12J8 10.48 10.81 14.00 9.91 JÇU4 8.66 i n 10.65 8.21 11.77 (n=.049) (2=094)
SÛ 64.79 66.76 66.83 67.29 69.38 64.24 64.08 63.83 64,61 66.09 78.00 70.66 5.94 1.60 12.24 11.73 1172 12.81 16.45 9.55 12.75 1048 10.09 12.72 10.86 13.37 (E=.000)» (2= 066)
Note. Standard Devisions are underlined. N = Natural Science, H = Humanities, li = Education, B = Business, S = Social Science, M = Medical Science. SI = Developing Competence, S2 = Managing Emotions, S3 = Developing Autonomy, S4 = Mature Interpersonal Relationship, S5 = Developing Identity, S6 = Developing Purpose. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * g < .01 This result is different from Chang’s study, which indicated no difference in major. As mentioned above, Chang’s study only conducted in one institution and this study conducted in twenty institutions. The school variable may also influence the result of the significant difference in major. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) indicated that the impact of academic major is markedly stronger and more consistent in cognitive areas than in noncognitive ones. However, this study did obtain significantly different developments among major in mature interpersonal relationship and purpose. One’s major field of study may create a potentially important sub-environment during college.
It not only focuses one’s intellectual efforts in a particular direction, but it also has an influence on the kinds of students and faculty with whom one interacts. As observed in this study, the field of social science major may create better environments and climates than natural science major to foster students to develop the tolerance and intimacy. In addition, the field of humanities major also may create better environments and climates than natural science major for students to develop the purpose.
Academic Involvement CAli bv Rank
The score on academic involvement was categorized into two groups: high and low. A 2 X 4 two-v/ay MANOVA was computed to assess the differences of high and low academic involvement in different ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development.
The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test was not significant (F_= 1.08, g = .231). As can be seen in Table 4.7, two statistically significant overall main effects were found for academic involvement (Wilks’s Lambda =
.826, F = 32.80, p = .000) and rank (Wilks’s Lambda = .960, F = 2.12, p = .004). No significant multivariate effect was found for academic involvement by rank.
136 Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences among the academic involvement on all six subscales: scale 1, F (1,
937) = 136.16, £ = .000; scale2, F (1, 937) = 64.18, £ = .000; scaleS, F (1, 937) = 88.92, £
= .000; scale4, F (1, 937) = 35.71, £ = .000; scaleS, F (1, 937) = 31.53, £ = .000; and scaled, F (1, 937) = 150.33, £ = .002. High academic involvement group had significantly higher development on all six vectors than low group. Alpha was set at .01 to control for
Type I error. However, Subsequent ANOVAs revealed no any statistically significant difference in rank among six subscales at .01 level (see Table 4.8).
Between Within Effect Test Value F Groups groups £ df df
AI Wilks’ Lambda .826 32.80 6 932 .000**
Rank Wilks' Lambda .960 2.12 18 2637 .004**
AI X Rank Wilks' Lambda .986 .711 18 2837 .802
Note. AI = Academic Involvement. * £ < .05 **£<.01
Table 4.7: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development By Academic Involvement and Rank
137 Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Univ. £ Univ. F ( n=278) ______( n=229) ( n=262)______(n=176) for AI for Rank
L H L H L H L H (dfl, 937) (dG, 937) (n=173)( n=I0S)fn=153)(n=76) (n=122)( n=140) (n=8I)( n=95) ______
Developing 63.97 70.95 64.98 71.75 65.88 73.06 65.94 72.22 136.13 2.63 Competence (8.40) (8.66) (8.11) (8.81) (8.74) (9.15) (9.03) (8.31) n=.ooo* £=.049
Managing 67.66 71.89 68.05 72.34 66.83 72.76 68.33 72.84 64.18 .34 Emotions (9.35) (10.96) (8.94) (99.32) (9.20) (10.06) (9.35) (8.88) £=.000* £=.799
Developing 63.57 68.36 64.10 70.45 64.54 70.49 64.21 69.97 88.92 1.50 Autonomy (9.04) (8.92) (8.08) (9.47) (8.18) (9.58) (10.13) (8.64) £=.000* £=.213
Mature 73.50 76.90 72.44 76.75 71.77 76.18 73.27 75.02 35.71 1.01 Interpersonal (8.55) (8.26) (9.33) (8.96) (8.36) (8.20) (8.47) (8.35) £=.000* £=.386 Relationship
Establishing 74.23 77.23 75.10 79.25 73.73 78.27 75.85 80.18 31.53 2.13 Identity (10.24) (10.72) (10.25) (11.20) (11.19) (10.93) (9.88) (19.90) £=.000* £=.096
Developing 58.25 69.10 61.52 70.21 61.20 70.27 60.86 70.25 150.33 2.01 Purpose (10.98) (11.18) (11.73) (11.54) (11.43) (11.63) (12.69) (10.74) £=.000* £=.111
Note. Standard Devisions are listed in parentheses. AI = Academic Involvement, L = low academic involvement, H= high academic involvement. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * p < .01
Table 4.8: Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F for Psychosocial Development by Academic Involvement and Rank
The result of this study supports both Pascarella and Terenzini’s conclusions
(1991) and Astin’s study (1993) that the greater the student’s involvement or engagement
in the academic experience of college, the greater his/her personal development. It also
confirms Lin’s study (1990) and the current study by Chang (1999) of Taiwanese
students, as mentioned in the literature review, that the higher academic involvement, the
better personal development. Academic involvement can significantly facilitate
Taiwanese students’ developments in all six dimensions of psychosocial development.
138 Examining the descriptive data (see table 4.8) for freshmen and sophomores, low academic involvement groups are bigger than the high groups; however, when students become juniors and seniors, the high groups are bigger than the low groups. It seems that the higher the class rank, the higher academic involvement for Taiwanese students.
Juniors and seniors are more involved in academic experiences. On the other hand, it may also indicate that lower class students need more guidance to help them to get involved in academic experiences.
Facultv-Student Relationship fFR) bv Rank
The score on faculty-student relationship was also categorized into two groups: high and low. A 2 x 4 two-way MANOVA was computed to assess the differences of high and low faculty-student relationship in different ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development. The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test was not significant (T = 1.30, £ = .008). As can be seen in
Table 4.9, a statistically significant overall main effect was found for faculty-student relationship (Wilks’s Lambda = .846, F = 28.17, p = .000). No significant multivariate effects were found for rank or FR by rank.
Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences between the FR on all six subscales: scale 1, F (1, 937) = 110.00, p
= .000; scale2, F (1, 937) = 30.33, p = .000; scale3, F (1, 937) = 65.55, p = .000; scale4, F
(1, 937) = 12.62, p = .000; scale5, F (1, 937) = 19.00, p = .000; and scaled, F (1, 937) =
121.80, p = .002. High involvement on faculty-student relationship had significantly higher development on all six vectors. Alpha was set at .01 to control for Type I error
(see Table 4.10).
139 Between Within Effect Test Value F Groups groups E df df
FR Wilks’ Lambda .846 28.17 6 932 .000**
Rank Wilks' Lambda .972 1.50 18 2637 .081
FR X Rank Wilks' Lambda .976 1.25 18 2837 .210
Note. FR = Faculty-Student Relationship. * p < .05 ** p< .01
Table 4.9: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development By Faculty-Student Relationship and Rank
140 Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Univ. F ( n=278) ( n=229) ( n=262) ______(n=176) for FR
LH LH LH LH (dfl,937)
Developing 65.03 71.77 65.09 71.21 65.90 73.14 66.46 71.83 110.00 .000* Competence (8.28) (9.94) (8.81) (7.72) (9.20) (8.71) (8.97) (8.66)
Managing 67.92 73.63 68.10 72.04 68.72 71.15 69.33 72.02 30.33 .000* Emotions (9.56) (10.97) (8.85) (9.55) (10.68) (9.43) (9.27) (9.28)
Developing 64.08 69.65 64.70 69.03 65.06 70.12 64.40 69.86 65.55 .000* Autonomy (8.88) (9.36) (8.60) (9.26) (9.19) (9.00) (8.87) (9.84)
Mature 74.51 75.68 72.60 76.24 73.10 75.05 73.23 15.07 12.62 .000* Interpersonal (8.53) (8.78) (9.32) (9.17) (9.24) (7.80) (7.01) (9.45) Relationship
Establishing 74.54 78.06 75.34 78.60 75.20 77.01 75.90 80.18 19.00 .000* Identity (10.39) (10.54) (10.80) (10.35) (10.76) (11.67) (8.70) (10.82)
Developing 60.36 68.86 61.46 69.89 60.87 70.70 61.16 70.10 121.80 .000* Purpose (11.88) (11.13) (11.71) (11.34) (12.31) (10.47) (11.04) (12.36)
Note. Standard Devisions are listed in parentheses. FR = Faculty-Student Relationship, L = low faculty-student relationship, H= high faculty-student relationship. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * p < .01
Table 4.10: Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F for Psychosocial Development by Faculty-student Relationship and Rank
The result of this study supports Pascarella and Terenzini’s conclusions (1991),
Astin’s longitudinal study (1993), and Thieke’s study (1991) that informal faculty- student interaction can foster student’s affective development. The result also validates
Lin’s study (1990) and the current Chang’s study (1999) to Taiwanese students that the higher faculty-student interaction, the better personal development. Informal contact with
141 faculty appears to be associated with Taiwanese students’ development in all six
dimensions of psychosocial development.
Examining the descriptive data (see table 4.10), the low contact group of freshmen and sophomores was much larger in number than high contact groups.
However, for juniors and seniors, there were lower numbers in the low contact groups. It seems that the higher the class rank, the higher faculty-student interaction for Taiwanese students. Why do the beginning students not contact faculty often? They may need more help than upper class students. It is possible that faculty members do not give beginning students opportunities for contact or the rigid, traditional teacher-student relationship in
Taiwanese schools may be other factor that inhibits informal contact at least initially.
Peer Relationship ('PR') bv Rank
The score on peer relationship was also categorized into two groups: high and low. A 2 X 4 two-way MANOVA was computed to assess the differences of high and low peer relationship in different ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development. The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test was not significant (F_= 1.32, g = .006). As can be seen in Table 4.11, two statistically significant overall main effects were found for peer relationship (Wilks’s Lambda = .828,
F = 32.29, £= .000) and rank (Wilks’s Lambda = .951, F =2.65, £ = .000). No significant multivariate effect was found for peer relationship by rank.
Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically
significant differences among the peer relationship on all six subscales: scale 1, F (1,
937) = 127.91, u = 000; scale2, F (1, 937) = 94.56, u = .000; scale3, F (1, 937) =113.43,
E= .000; scale4, F (1, 937) = 134.46, e = 000; scale5, F (1,937) = 61.24, e = .000; and
142 scale6, F (1, 937) = 68.70, g = .000. High involvement in peer relationship had
significantly higher development on all six vectors. Alpha was set .01 to control for
Type I error (see Table 4.12).
Subsequent ANOVAs also revealed statistically significant differences among
the four ranks on two subscales: scale 1 (Developing Competence), F (3, 937) = 5.55, g =
.001 and scaled (Developing Purpose), F (3, 937) = 4.01, £ = .008. Alpha was also set at
.01 to control for Type I error. Post hoc multiple comparisons were made using the
Scheffe test. Results indicated again that juniors had significantly higher scores than
freshmen on both Developing Competence and Developing Purpose (see Table 4.12).
Between Within Effect Test Value F Groups groups E d f df
PR Wilks’ Lambda .828 32.29 6 932 .000**
Rank Wilks' Lambda .951 2.65 18 2637 .000**
PR X Rank Wilks' Lambda .981 I.Ol 18 2637 .447 Note. PR = Peer Relationship. * p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 4.11: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development By Peer Relationship and Rank
143 Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Univ. F Univ. F ( n=278) ( n=229) ( n=262) ______(n=176) for PR for Rank
L H L H L H L H (dH, 937) (df3,937) (n=167)( n=l 1 nfn=I28)(n=I01) (n=I37)( n=125) fn=96)( n=80) ______
Developing 63.93 70.64 64.05 71J26 67.17 72.51 6622 73.06 127.91 5.55 Competence (8.04) (9.23) (8.01) (8.40) (8.81) (9.77) (8.43) (8.07) B=.000* £=.001*
Managing 66.75 73.03 66.39 73.39 67.23 73.03 68.46 73.54 94.56 .61 Emotions (8.81) (10.95) (8.14) (9.17) (8.66) (10.70) (8.16) (9.96) B=.000* £=.610
Developing 62.32 69.98 63.67 69.43 65.04 70.66 64.59 70.59 113.43 2.09 Autonomy (8.01) (9.18) (8.29) (9.00) (8.31) (9.72) (9.11) (9.57) B,=.000* £=.101
Mature 72.36 78.43 70.54 78.09 71.20 71.34 71.72 7721 134.46 1.09 Interpersonal (8.41) (7.520 (8.57) (8.74) (7.92) (8.07) (7.75) (8.27) a=.ooo* £=.354 Relationship
Establishing 72.49 79.69 73.67 80.03 73.98 78.54 76.64 80.05 61.24 1.95 Identity (10.06) (9.68) (10.92) (9.40) (10.57) (11.55) (10.26 (9.62) £=.000* £=.121
Developing 59.86 66.09 60.82 68.95 62.98 69.42 63.42 68.95 68.70 4.01 Purpose (11.26) (12.71) (11.23) (12.23) (11.41) (12.56) (11.63) (13.02) £=.000* £=.008*
Note. Standard Devisions are listed in parentheses. PR = Peer Relationship, L = low peer relationship, H= high peer relationship. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * p < .01
Table 4.12: Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F for Psychosocial Development by Peer Relationship and Rank
The result of this study again supports the most findings in the U. S. where student interactions with their peers, especially with a wide diversity of students, can influence their psychosocial and personal development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991;
Kaufinan & Creamer, 1991; Astin, 1993; Thieke, 1994; Edison, Nora, Pascarella,
Terenzini, & White; 1999). The results also validate Lin’s study (1990) and Chang’s study (1999) of Taiwanese students, where higher student interactions were associated with higher levels of personal development. Student interactions appear to significantly
144 relate to Taiwanese students’ development on all six dimensions of psychosocial development.
Examining the descriptive data (see table 4.12) for all four ranks students,
Taiwanese students did not interact with their peers often. The number of students in the low group of each class was larger than the number in the high groups. Juniors had the most students in the high group of any class; however, this niunber was still less than the low group for juniors. It seems that on Taiwanese college campus, students tend not to make ftriends with a wide diversity of peers. Chinese culture reinforces conformity more than diversity as discussed in the literature review. Current democratization in society may have begun to change the young generation to accept diversity. As showed in the discussion of the first research question of this study, freshmen had the highest mean score in mature interpersonal relationship. However, a conservative college campus and homogenous student body may not provide opportunities or programs to facilitate students making friends with a wide diversity of peers. As indicated, for freshmen, the low group in peer relationship was larger than the high group.
Familv Relationship (TA) bv Rank
A 3 X 4 two-way MANOVA was conducted to assess the differences of low (L), moderate (M) and strong (S) parents’ support in different ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development. The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test was not significant (F = 1.13, £ = .092). As can be seen in
Table 4.13, two statistically significant overall main effects were found for family relationship (Wilks’s Lambda =.948, F = 4.16, £ = .000) and rank (Wilks’s Lambda =
145 .948, F = 2.76, £ = .000). No significant multivariate effect was found for family
relationship by rank.
Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically
significant differences among the levels of family relationship on two subscales: scale 1, F
(2, 933) = 8.80, p = .000 and scale6,_F (2, 933) = 10.93, p = .000. Alpha was set .01 to
control for Type I error. Post hoc multiple comparisons were made using the Scheffe test.
Results indicated that strong parents’ support group had significantly higher development
in competence than both moderate and little groups. In addition, both moderate and
strong groups had significantly higher development on purpose than little support group
(see Table 4.14).
ANOVAs also revealed statistically significant differences among the four ranks
on two subscales: scalel, F (3, 933) = 7.41, p = .000 and scaled, F (3, 933) =4.17, p =
.006. Alpha was also set at .01. Post hoc multiple comparisons were made using the
Scheffe test. Again, results indicated that juniors had significant higher scores than
fi-eshmen on both Developing Competence and Developing Purpose (see Table 4.14).
Between Within Effect Test Value F Groups groups df df
FA Wilks’ Lambda .948 4.16 12 1356 .000**
Rank Wilks' Lambda .948 2.76 18 2325 .000**
FA X Rank Wilks' Lambda .963 .985 36 4378 .495 Note. FA = Family Relationship. * p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 4.13: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development By Family Relationship and Rank
146 f'rcshman Sophomore Junior Senior Univ. F Univ. F (n = 278) (n = 229) (n = 262) (n= 176) for FA forR
t. M S L M S t, M S t. M S (df2,937) (dI2,937) 11=56 11= 139 n=83 n=43 n=tl3 11=73 n=48 n=l27 n=87 n=24 n=93 n=59
SI 64.71 66.29 68.42 64.56 67.80 67.92 67.38 68.90 72.21 70.63 67.49 71.69 8.80 7.41 1039 M6 9.27 838 Ml 9.88 KU2 9.35 9.37 M 4 M3 9.64 iC=.000)* (E=.000)*
S2 67.29 69.17 70.73 66.86 70.76 68.81 67.92 69.98 71.17 72.13 69.30 72.53 3.69 1.86 10.78 9.87 10.16 M2 837 9.71 10.46 9.89 10.11 Mi 9.46 8.90 iC=.025) (C=.I34)
S3 64.09 65.49 66.07 64.26 67.42 65.49 66.60 67.57 68.55 68.96 66.97 67.20 .56 .3.66 932 9.14 9.38 7.53 8.56 10.38 9.88 9.44 9.17 8.60 938 9.96 (2=372) (2=012)
S4 72.02 74.98 76.33 73.19 74.49 73.32 72.69 73.59 75.70 73.58 74,76 73.61 2.52 .30 8.99 7.89 9.08 10.11 8.65 I 0 J 2 9.06 8.43 8 29 M2 LiO 9.98 (C=.081) (D=.828)
S5 71.61 76.06 76.72 73.35 77.17 77.25 74.48 75.78 77.63 78.67 77.97 78.34 3.99 3.09 11.66 9.62 10.66 i l M 9.76 11.56 1234 10.86 10.99 739 9.64 1137 (2=019) (C=.026)
S6 58.93 62.62 64.20 61.33 64.55 66.00 60.98 65.36 69.85 64.13 65.26 67.73 10.93 4.17 1184 11.65 11.69 13.23 11.26 13.20 1332 11.78 10.77 12 50 13.28 tC=.000)* (IJ=.006)*
Note. Standard Devisions are underlined. FA = Family Relationship, R = Rank. L = little support, M = moderate support, S = strong support. SI = Developing Competence, 82 = Managing Emotions, S3 = Developing Autonomy, S4 = Mature Interpersonal Relationship, S5 = Developing Identity, S6 = Developing Purpose. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. *p < .01
Table 4.14: Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F for Psychosocial Development by Family Relationship and Rank The result of this study confirms that family still acts as an important factor for
Taiwanese college students (Chou, 1995). Parents’ strong emotional support was
positively associated with students’ development on competence and purpose.
One study of traditional undergraduate women (Taub, 1995) in the U. S. found a
negative relationship between autonomy and parental emotional support. This may
suggest that emotional support from parents could be excessive and inhibit development
of autonomy for women students. This study did not test the development of autonomy
especially for women; however, there was no significant differences obtained among
three levels of parent support groups on autonomy for total group of students. The results
of study seem to indicate that parents’ emotional support is more associated with the
career-oriented developmental issues rather than autonomy developmental issues for
Taiwanese students. Examining the descriptive data (see table 4.16), the strong group had
the highest autonomy score for freshmen and juniors and the moderate group had the
highest autonomy score for sophomores. For seniors, the group with the little support had
the highest autonomy score.
Living Experience (XEl bv Rank
A 5 X 4 two-way MANOVA was conducted to assess the differences of five
different living experiences in four ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development.
The five living experiences were categorized into (1) Only living in residence hall, (2)
Living off campus but has been living in residence hall, (3) Living off campus and has never been living in residence hall, (4) Commuting from home and has been living in residence hall, (5) Commuting from home and has never been living in residence hall.
The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test
148 was not significant (F = 1.17, g = .012). As can be seen in Table 4.15, a statistically significant overall main effect was found for living experience (Wilks’s Lambda =.953, F
= 1.87, £ = .006). No significant multivariate effects were found for both rank or living experience by rank.
Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences among the hving experience on scaled,^ (4, 924) = 4.22, ^ = .002.
Alpha was set .01 to control for Type I error. Post hoc multiple comparisons were made using the Scheffe test. Results indicated that students who commute from home but had previously lived in residence hall (4) had a significantly higher development than students who have only lived in residence hall (1) on developing purpose (see Table
4.16).
Between Within Effect Test Value F Groups groups a df df
Live Wilks’ Lambda .953 1.87 24 3207 406**
Rank Wilks' Lambda .969 1.60 18 2600 .051
Live X Rank Wilks' Lambda .929 .944 72 5006 .613
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 4.15: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development By Living Experience and Rank
149 Freshman Sophomore ( n=278) ______( n=229)
Developing 66.90 65.74 65.87 70.82 65.74 65.31 68.24 68.61 69.15 68.18 Competence (9.73) (8.37) (6.67) (9.70) (9.08) (8.16) (7.97) (8.12) (14.84) (9.41)
Managing 69.53 66.17 68.87 68.82 70.24 67.62 70.52 71.83 68.85 70.58 Emotions (10.25) (11.05) (8.70) (9.15) (10.88) (8.25) (8.96) (9.61) (13.36) (9.74)
Developing 65.40 61.22 66.63 69.00 65.48 65.36 68.02 65.56 64.15 66.10 Autonomy (9.65) (10.74) (8.08) (4.43) (8.65) (8.41) WU5) (8 2 5 ) (16.31) (8.93)
Mature 74.60 69.65 76.18 73.91 76.84 72.80 74.68 75.44 74.46 74.08 Interpersonal (8.54) (8.30) (8.47) (8.94) (8.14) (8.60) (8.69) (10.21) (14.16) (9.90) Relationship
Establishing 74.88 73.48 76.76 75.27 76.08 73.67 78.02 79.50 77.00 78.10 Identity (10.84) (12.00) (9.51) (9.67) (10.03) (10.32) (8.99) (13.88)(13.86) (10.64)
Developing 61.81 62.22 64.34 68.18 61.30 62.64 64.61 66.39 69.23 65.12 Purpose (12.94) (12.19) (9.04) (14.09) (11.58) (11.07) (12.97) (13.98) (13.61) (12.58)
Note. Standard Devisions are listed in parentheses. 1 = Only living in residence hall, 2 = Living off campus but has been living in residence hall, 3 = Living off campus and has never been living in residence hall, 4 = Commuting from home and has been living in residence hall, 5 = Commuting from home and has never been living in residence hall. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * p < .01
Table 4.16: Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F for Psychosocial Development by living Experience and Rank
(Table to be continued)
150 Table 4.16 (continued)
Junior Senior Univ.F (n=262) (n=176) Live
(df4,924)
Developing 68.50 69.95 70.93 74.81 70.39 68.08 69.16 68.50 72.00 70.58 3.02 Competence (9.33) (8.91) (12.09) (9.50) (10.73) (8.49) (9.71) (8.97) (9.16) (8.95) £=.017
Managing 69.08 70.25 72.79 70.88 70.95 69.55 69.96 69.45 76.00 72.50 1.82 Emotions (9.56) (10.45) (14.62) (7.75) (10.07) (8.15) (10.01) (10.43) (7.18) (8.55) £=.123
Developing 67.44 67.83 68.00 68.88 67.79 66.13 67.03 67.86 69.88 67.73 .697 Autonomy (8.81) (9.57) (12.64) (8.64) (10.36) (8.34) (10.36) (11.45) (8.37) (9.67) £=.594
Mature 73.13 73.83 75.79 74.75 76.92 74.58 73.03 75.86 75.76 74.62 3.14 Interpersonal (7.93) (9.19) (12.08) 96.98) (7.84) (7.03) (8.77) (9.92) (7.93) (8.43) £=.014 Relationship
Establishing 75.01 76.22 78.00 76.69 78.66 77.21 78.18 78.50 81.71 77.08 2.21 Identity (10.43) (12.17) (11.71) (13.97) (10.47) (8.57) (10.80) (11.67) (6.96) (10.57) £=.066
Developing 64.62 65.61 66.93 72.06 68.47 63.18 65.32 68.86 69.18 67.08 4 2 2 Purpose (11.21) (13.13) (17.26) (9.41) (12.77) (12.70) (12.89) (14.46) (7.49) (12.08) £=.002*
Note. Standard Devisions are listed in parentheses. 1 = Only living in residence hall, 2 = Living off campus but has been living in residence hall, 3 = Living off campus and has never been living in residence hall, 4 = Commuting from home and has been living in residence hall, 5 = Commuting from home and has never been living in residence hall. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * p < .01
This result is different from the most of findings in the U. S. which indicated that
living in residence hall (versus commuting from home) lead to higher psychosocial development, especially on autonomy and mature interpersonal relationship (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991). Since Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) indicate that residential effects also are the result of purposeful programmatic efforts to integrate the student’s
151 intellectual and social life during college (for example, living-Ieaming centers (LLC)),
the findings in this study are not surprising since there are few purposeful programs that
integrate the student’s intellectual and social life in the Taiwanese residence halls. In
addition, as shown in the result of family relationship of this study, strong parents’
emotional support could foster development in purpose. Therefore, it is reasonable to
explain why commuting firom home had the significantly higher development on purpose
than only living in a residence hall.
Examining the descriptive data (see Table 4.16), the mean scores of those who
only live in residence hall were almost the lowest on all students in all six subscales
except for freshmen. The descriptive data also indicated that most of Taiwanese students
except for seniors were currently only live in residence hall (fireshman 56%, sophomore
36%, junior 45%, and senior 22%). How to improve the educational functioning of residence Ufe may be a crucial issue for student affairs in Taiwan. In addition, the data also showed that quite a few Taiwanese students have never been lived in residence halls
(freshman 18%, sophomore 22%, junior 15%, and senior 15%). Those data may reflect the Chinese culture that parents prefer children to live with family even they are adults.
Co-Curricula Experience ('COI bv Rank
A 3 X 4 two-way MANOVA was conducted to assess the differences of three different co-curricula experiences in four ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development. The three co-curricula experiences were categorized into none (N), only be a member (M), and have been a leader (L). The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test was not significant (F = 1.14, p = .066). As can be seen in Table 4.17, a statistically significant overall main effect was found for co-
152 curricula experience (Wilks’s Lambda =.953, F = 1.87, p = .006). No significant multivariate effects were found for both rank or co-curricula experience by rank.
Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences among the co-curricula experience on five subscales except for scale4: scalel, F (2,931) = 21.64, p = .000; scale2, F (2, 931) = 5.83, p = .003; scale3,F
(2, 931) = 18.70, £= .000; scale5, F (2, 931) = 7.17, p = .001; and scale6, F (2, 931) =
13.86, p = .000. Alpha was set at .01 to control for Type I error. Post hoc multiple comparisons were made using the Scheffe test. Results indicated that students who had been a leader had significantly higher developments than both students who had not jointed any organization or only been a member in all vectors except for vector four
(Mature Interpersonal Relationship) (see Table 4.18).
Between Within Effect Test Value F Groups groups E d f df
Co Wilks’ Lambda .941 4.77 12 1852 .000*#
Rank Wilks' Lambda .937 I.4I 18 2620 .115
Cox Rank Wilks' Lambda .960 1.04 36 4.69 .398
Note. Co = Co-Curricula Experience. * p < .05 * * p < .o i
Table 4.17: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development By Co-Curricula Experience and Rank
153 Prcshman Sophomore Junior Senior Univ. P (n = 278) (n = 229) (n = 262) (n= 176) for CO
N M L N M L N M L N M L (d(2,931) n=96 n=154 n=27 11=40 n=85 n=104 n=29 n=98 n=135 n=47 n=45 n=83
SI 65.38 66.44 71.93 64.78 66.95 68.39 66.59 67.73 71.83 66.02 67.09 72.22 21.64 7.41 9.48 11.19 876 8.87 8.89 9.66 8.85 9.77 m 8.59 8.23 (E=.000)*
S2 68.96 69.29 69.74 69.23 68.44 70.42 67.14 68.60 71.33 67.74 69.38 73.16 5.83 10,30 9.77 12.15 10.52 9.52 8.52 9.44 M d 10.40 8.20 9.93 9 i3 (C=.003)*
S3 64.33 65.44 68.56 62.73 65.46 68.16 65.45 65.93 69.51 63.57 65,11 70.55 18.70 9.06 8.65 12.70 9.06 m 8.75 9.17 8.38 9.89 10.70 MO 8.92 (n=.000)*
S4 74.75 74.79 74.37 74.15 72.65 74.76 73.34 72.71 75.32 71.96 72.67 76.27 3.75 8.95 8.45 8.16 9.87 10.57 8 J3 M2 M 4 MS 8.66 8.28 7.99 (n=.024)
S5 74.95 75.12 77.89 74.98 75.79 77,62 74.17 74.45 77.82 75.60 76.04 80.36 7.17 LA 11.07 10.02 1L25 11.30 10.43 10.74 11.49 iL Q I lU S 10.79 8.81 9.95 (E=.001)« •1^ S6 59.80 62.49 70.33 59.73 64.94 65,77 66.28 64.20 67.34 62.57 64.00 68.82 13.86 11.24 11.77 i i m 11.78 11.09 12.42 11.22 I 2 J 6 i l M IML iL O I 12.92 (D=.000)*
Note. Standard Devisions are underlined. Co = Co-Curricula Experience. N = none, M = member, L = leader. SI = Developing Competence, S2 = Managing Emotions, S3 = Developing Autonomy, S4 = Mature Interpersonal Relationship, S5 = Developing Identity, S6 = Developing Purpose. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * g < .01
Table 4.18; Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F for Psychosocial Development by Co-Curricula Experience and Rank Most studies showed a positive relationship between student organization
participation and psychosocial development in the U. S. (William & Winston, 1985;
Cooper, Astin, 1993; Healy, & Simpson, 1994; Thieke, 1994). Some studies showed a
negative relationship between student organization participation and psychosocial
development, especially for athletic participation in mature interpersonal relationship
(Blann, 1985; Herbert, 1990). This study did not examine the difference among different
types of organization. Generally, the results support that the leadership experiences in
student organizations are positively associated with Taiwanese students’ development on
competence, managing emotions, autonomy, identity, and purpose. There was no
significant relationship with mature interpersonal relationship. There are no significant
differences between non-participation and only be a member. Therefore, not just
participation of organizations but leadership experiences in student organization may be a
very important factor in fostering psychosocial development of college students in
Taiwan.
Examining the descriptive data (see Table 4.18), the leadership experiences
increased from freshmen to senior years (freshman 10%, sophomore 45%, junior 52%, senior 47%), with the juniors being the highest. Nearly half of the sophomores, juniors, and seniors had leadership experiences in student organizations. Student organizations appear to provide leadership opportunities for many students and these experiences may contribute to students’ psychosocial development in Taiwan.
Work Experience by Rank
Since the groups with full time work experiences were too small to compare, the work experience was recategorized into three groups: none (N), work experience relates
155 to major (RM), and work experience does not relate to major (NM). A 3 x 4 two-way
MANOVA was conducted to assess the differences of these three different work experiences in four ranks on six dimensions of psychosocial development. The examination of the univariate normality for each variable was fine. The Box’s M test was not significant (F = 1.27, £ = .004). As can be seen in Table 4.19, a statistically significant overall main effect was found for work experience (Wilks’s Lambda =.957, F
= 3.44, £ = .000). No significant multivariate effects were found for rank or work experience by rank.
Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences among the work experience on three subscales: scale 1, F (2,931) =
6.86, p = .001; scale3, F (2, 931) = 5.88, p = .003; and scaled, F (2, 931) = 10.62, p =
.000. Alpha was set at .01 to control for Type I error. Post hoc multiple comparisons were made using the Scheffe test. Results indicated that students who had work experience related to their major during college had significantly higher development than students who did not have any work experience on competence, autonomy, and purpose. In addition, students who had work experience related to their major during college also had a significantly higher development than students who had work experience that did not relate to their major on purpose (see Table 4.20).
156 Between Within Effect Test Value F Groups groups E d f df
Work Wilks’ Lambda .957 3.44 12 1852 .000**
Rank Wilks' Lambda .975 1.32 18 2620 .163
Work X Rank Wilks' Lambda .972 .742 36 4069 .869
*£<•05 **£<.01
Table 4.19: MANOVA Summary for Psychosocial Development By Work Experience and Rank
157 Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Univ. F (n=278) (n = 229) (n = 262) (n= 176) for work
N NM RM N NM RM N NM RM N NM RM (1112,931) n=l68 n=83 11=26 n=78 n=126 n=25 n=56 n=109 n=97 n=33 n=76 n=66
SI A5.54 68.00 69.04 66.14 67,00 71.76 68.18 69.16 71.24 67.91 69.34 69.77 6.86 122 8.71 9.40 m 9.36 8.20 185 118 1 7 0 10.49 9.47 147 (J5=.001)*
S2 68.96 69.65 69.50 68.45 69.52 72.44 68.77 68.92 71.93 70.15 70.66 71.11 2.35 9.91 10.84 9.98 8.57 9.84 7.95 977 9.92 10.27 107 10.15 8.66 IE=.096)
S3 64.43 66.87 66.58 65.27 66.17 69.36 65.84 66,73 69.92 65.21 67.64 67.89 5.88 8.8! 10.38 8.12 180 9.45 10.29 9.38 9.20 9.36 11.47 10.02 8.53 (£=.003)*
S4 74.63 75.17 74.08 73,45 74,01 74.48 72.48 73.98 75.24 71.97 74.63 74.77 2.05 8.71 8.83 6.85 7.86 10.28 9.62 10.22 8.15 7.83 153 8.55 7.65 (£=.129)
S5 74.19 78.10 73.85 74.90 76.81 79.72 76.14 76.21 76.10 76.48 79.04 77.89 2.88 LA 10.12 11.20 9.41 9.95 11.13 10.18 11.25 10.88 11.80 9.93 m i 9.68 (£=.057) OO S6 61.32 62,87 67.12 63.32 63.94 70.16 63,46 64.20 69.62 63.24 65.88 67.26 10.62 11.84 12.64 12.75 11.45 12.64 12.42 13.42 11.96 11.47 11.67 I3J9 12.02 (£=.000)*
Note. Standard Devisions are underlined. N = none, NM = work experience does not relate to major, RM = work experience relates to major. SI = Developing Competence, S2 = Managing Emotions, S3 = Developing Autonomy, S4 = Mature Interpersonal Relationship, S5 = Developing Identity, 86 = Developing Purpose. Univariate Alpha is set at .01 to control for type I error. * p < .01
Table 4.20; Means, Standard Devisions, and Univariate F for Psychosocial Development by Work Experience and Rank Some studies in the U. S. showed that work experiences are positively associated with student’s development on establishing and clarifying purpose (William’s &
Winston, 1985; Niles, Sowa & Laden, 1994). Vick’s study (1989) indicated the work experiences that were full time (internship) and related to their major could facilitate the clarifying of purpose. However, Astin’s study (1993) indicated a full time work had negative effects on completion of the bachelor’s degree and academic outcomes. In contrast, having a part-time job on campus was positively associated with attainment of a bachelor’s degree. Since there were insufficient numbers of students who had full time work experiences during college in this study, no contrast with Astin’s work was possible. However, the result supports that work experience related to majors is positively related to students’ development on competence, autonomy, and purpose. Work experience that related to major may be an important factor in facilitating the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan, especially in competence, autonomy, and purpose.
Examining the descriptive table (see Table 4.20), it can be seen that work experience increases from freshman to senior years with the percentages of non-work varying from 60% for freshmen to 19% for seniors. However, most of Taiwanese students had more work experience in non-major areas rather than major areas. In the past, work experience during college was not popular for Taiwanese students since the family would support students’ educational expenses. However, since the changes of society, students today engage in work experience during college. However, most of them work in non-major areas. Based on the result of this study, for fostering student’s
159 psychosocial development, institutions in Taiwan may need to provide more major-
related work opportunities for students.
Determination of Which Independent Variables Explain
the Greatest Amount of Unique Variance in Psychosocial Development
(Research Question 11)
Forty-two multiple regression analyses were performed to determine which
independent variables explain the greatest amount of unique variance in six dimensions
of psychosocial development for total students, male students, female students, and four
different ranks of students. The independent variables in regression models were gender
(SEX_2), rank (RANK_2, RANK_3, RANK_4), major (DEPC_2, DEPC_3, DEPC_4,
DEPC_5, DEPC_6), academic involvement (AI), faculty-student relationship (FR), peer
relationship (PR), family relationship (FA), living experience (LIVE 2, LIVE_3,
LIVE 4, LIVE_5), co-curricula experience (C0_2, C0_3), and work experience
(W0RK_2, W0RK_3). All categorical independent variables were dummy coded. The meaning of dummy coding was presented in each table.
The dependent variables were the scores of six subscales (developing competence, managing emotions, developing autonomy, mature interpersonal relationship (MIR), establishing identity, and developing purpose). Each model regressed one vector. Since the study was particularly interested in explaining the variance of psychosocial development by the college experiences after partialling out the personal characteristics and class ranks, a hierarchical model was selected to enter the data into the regression equation and interpret the results (Warmbrod, 1998). The first entered block of variables
160 was personal characteristics, which included gender and family relationship. The second entered block of variables was class rank. College experience was the third entered block of variables and included major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationship, peer relationship, living experience, co-curricular experience, and work experience. The models for males and females, in personal characteristics, only entered the family relationship. The models for different ranks of students only entered two blocks of variables (personal characteristics and college experience).
was the estimation of the proportion of variance of the dependent variable explained by the linear combination of the independent variables. The change was examined as the basis for identifying the unique contribution of each block of variables to change in the dependent variable (Warmbrod, 1998). To determine if a given variable in the equation was different from zero, while controlling for the other independent variables, and thus significant in influencing the dependent variable, the partial regression coefficient (b) associated with each variable was tested for significance with p < .05. To interpret the magnitude of these variables in their influence on dependent variable, the strength of their respective standardized partial regression coefficients (Beta) were examined (Warmbrod, 1998).
Stevens (1996) indicates a good situation for multiple regression is where each of the independent variables is correlated with the dependent variable and the independent variables have low intercorrelations, for then each of the independent variables is accounting for a relatively distinct part of the variance on the dependent variable. When there are moderate to high intercorrelations among the independent variables, the problem is referred to as multicollinearity. Stevens points out multicollinearity creates
161 three problems: (1) severely limits the size of R, (2) makes determining the importance of given independent variables difScult, and (3) increases the variance of regression coefficients, making for an unstable regression equation. One way to examine the multicollinearity is to examine the variance inflation factors (VTF) for independent variables. It is generally believed that if any VIF exceeds 10, there is reason for at least some concern; then one should consider variable deletion (Stevens, 1996; Warmbrod,
1998). In the regression analyses, the multicollinearity was examined by using VTF to all
42 models. The result indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem for all of them.
In addition, there is also the assumption for residuals in linear regression model that the errors are independent and follow a normal distribution with constant variance
(Stevens, 1996; Warmbrod, 1998). Stevens suggests plotting standardized residuals against predicted values. If the assumptions of the linear regression model are tenable, the standardized residuals should scatter randomly about a horizontal line. The residuals in all regression models were checked by using the graphic plot and the results indicated that all of them did not violate the assumption.
Third, Stevens (1996) also recommends that 15 subjects per independent variable are needed for a reliable regression equation in the social sciences. In the 42 regression analyses, most of models fit or were near to this ratio except the six models for seniors with the ratio of 9 (total students n=945, males n=508, females n=437, fireshmen n=278, sophomores n=229, juniors n=262, seniors n=176). It will be a concern for the reliability of these six regression equations for seniors.
Following are the results and discussions of 42 multiple regression analyses. In order to do the comparisons, based on the dependent variables, the results and discussions
162 are grouped into six sections (six vectors). In each vector, the results of the regressions for total students, male students, female students, freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors will be presented first and then the comparisons and discussions will be followed.
Vector 1 : Developing Competence
Results of the regression analyses in developing competence for total students, male students, female students, four ranks of students are presented from Table 4.21 to
Table 4.27. As can be seen, the two or three blocks of multiple regression models significantly explained the variation of developing competence with 36% for total students, 39% for males, 34% for females, 37% for freshmen, 43% for sophomores, 34% for juniors, and 40% for seniors at the £ < .01. The model explained the most variance for sophomore and both the female and senior were explained the least. When controlling the personal characteristics and ranks, college experiences still significantly explained the variation of developing competence with 32% for total students, 37% for males, 26% for females, 35% for freshmen, 41% for sophomores, 30% for juniors, and 34% for seniors at the £ < .01. The sophomore year still had the most variance be explained by the college experiences and the female was the least one.
When examine the full models to see the significance for partial regression coefficient (b) and the standardized partial regression coefficient (Beta) with the relative importance among independent variables, for total students, the variance of developing competence was significantly explained by Al (.27), PR (.27), FR (.17), CO_3 (.10),
FA_3 (.09), L1VE 2 (.07), and SEX_2 (-.06) with the £ < .05. Among these seven significant predictors, relatively speaking (Beta), academic involvement, peer relationship and faculty interactions were the three most important variables in explaining
163 the variance of development in competence for total Taiwanese college students.
Leadership experience in student organizations (compare with the non-participation),
strong emotional support from family (compare with the little support), and commuting
from home and have been living in residence hall (compare with the commuting from
home and have never been living in residence hall) were less important to explain the
variance of developing competence. In MANOVA analyses, those five factors (except for the living experience) had significant differences on developing competence among different groups as discussed above. The result of multiple regression furthermore indicated even comparing to all independent variables, these five factors were still the important factors to significantly influence the development o f competence for
Taiwanese students. If student affairs values developing competence, the work of student affairs in Taiwan may need to develop programs that enhance students’ experiences in these six areas.
There was no gender difference in the MANOVA analysis when compared the differences with only one independent variable (gender by rank) in six dependent variables (six vectors) simultaneously. However, in multiple regression, when regressed one dependent variable (one vector) and held all other independent variables constant, the result of multiple regression indicated being female students (compare with male students) still was a significant important factor to explain the variance in developing competence for Taiwanese students at the £ < .05. But, comparing with the male students, the correlation between female students and developing competence was negative. This would suggest that being female students, comparing with the male students, still disadvantage in developing competence in Taiwan. Student affairs may need to reflect on
164 how to develop programs and experiences to empower female students in developing
competence.
When dividing the total students by gender, the variance of developing
competence for males was significantly explained by AI (.30), PR (.27), FR (.20), and
LIVE_2(.09) at the g < .05. For females, it was significantly explained by AI (.24), PR
(.28), FA_3 (.20), and FR (.11) at the p < .05. Among those significant predictors,
relatively speaking (Beta), Academic involvement and peer relationship were the two
most important variables in influencing the development on competence for both
genders; however, peer relationship was the most important variable for females, while
academic involvement was the most important for males. Interaction with faculty was an
important factor for both genders; however, was more important for males than for
females. Strong support from family (compare with the little support) was important
factor for females while commuting from home and have been living in residence hall
(compare with commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall) was
more important for males. In addition. When developing programs in those areas to foster
students’ development in competence as suggested above, student affairs may need to
consider the gender difference.
When dividing the students into four ranks, the variance of developing competence was significantly explained by AI (.27), PR (.27), and FR (.19) for freshman;
PR (.35), AI (.24), DEPCJ (.22), FA_2 (.20), FR (.19), W ORKJ (.16), and FA_3 (.15)
for sophomore; AI (.28), C0_3 (.22), PR (.20), and FR (.16) for juniors; and AI (.27), PR
(.27), FR (.19), and C0_3 (.18) for senior at the e < 05. Among those significant predictors, relatively speaking (Beta), academic involvement and peer interactions were
165 the two most important factors in explaining the variance of developing competence for
all ranks students. Faculty-student interactions were also important for all ranks of
students but the importance is moderate. In addition, for students majoring in social
science fields (compare with the natural science), strong and moderate emotional
supports from family (compare with the little support) and work experience related to
major (compare with the non-work experience) also were important to explain the
development of competence for sophomores. Furthermore, leadership experience in
student organizations (compare with the non-participation) was important factor in developing competence for both juniors and seniors. Hence, there may be a need to study social science students to see if there these differences repeat and leadership experiences are well documented (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) as influencing development of competence in the U. S. as in Taiwan.
166 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =945
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 66.37 65.00 37.17 SEX_2 -.31 -.02 -.51 .610 -.20 -.01 -33 .739 -1.17 -.06 -1.97 .049 • FA_2 1.35 .07 1.64 .10 1_24 .07 132 .129 .62 .03 .92 .360 F.A_3 3.84 .19 431 .000 3.66 .18 4.14 .000 1.72 .09 232 .021 - RANK_2 .53 .02 .64 323 -.83 -.04 -1.1 .271 R.ANK_3 2.99 .14 3.79 .000 -.00 -.00 -.03 .973 RANK_4 2-53 .11 2.86 .004 -.74 -.03 -.86 .388 LIVE_2 2-54.07 2.14 .033 - LIVE_3 -3 6 -.01 -35 .800 LIVE_4 -.34 -.02 -.42 .678 LIVE_5 -.40 -.02 -.52 .601 C 0_2 3 0 .03 .73 .463 C0_3 1.98 .10 2.61 .009 WORK_2 .43 .02 .72 .471 W 0RK_3 .80 .04 1.05 .294 DEPC_2 -.86 -.03 -.96 .335 DEPCJ .91 .03 .91 .362 DEPCJ 3 6 .01 .32 .751 D E P C J 136 .04 1.17 341 DEPCJ .25 .01 .29 .769 Al .76 .27 8.14 .000 FR .46 .17 5.11 .000 PR .63 .27 9.16 .000 R- .023** .042** .358** R" Chang .020** .316** SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2; O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANBC_3: O=not junior; l=junior, RANK._4; O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: treshman. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuring from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; I =live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3; O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. \VORX._2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W 0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peerrelationship. * a <.05 g_< .01
Table 4.21 : Regression of Developing Competence on SEX, FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, Al, FR, and PR for Total Students
167 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =508
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 67.51 66.04 34.91 FA_2 .00 .01 .08 .934 -.00 .00 -.01 .994 .00 .00 .01 .996 FA_3 2.01 .09 1 58 .114 1.93 .09 152 .128 .21 .01 .20 .840 RANK_2 .56 .03 .48 .635 -.53 -.02 -.50 .618 RANK_3 2.56 .12 2.18 .030 -.21 -.01 -.19 .848 RANK_4 3.45 .14 2.68 .008 -.47 -.02 -.39 .695 LIVE_2 3.64 .09 2.14 .033 LIVE_3 1.19 .04 .85 3 9 8
LIVE_4 .95 .05 .86 3 9 2 LIVE_5 .49 .02 .43 .665 CO_2 .98 .05 1.07 3 8 9 C0_3 1.89 .09 1.83 .068 W 0RK_2 .45 .02 5 4 5 8 7 W 0RK_3 .99 .04 .87 3 8 6 DEPC_2 -1.0 -.03 -.72 .472 DEPC_3 39 .01 .21 .832 DEPC_4 .53 .02 .46 .647 DEPC_5 .31 .01 .19 .851 DEPC_6 .57 .02 .51 .607 AI .82 .30 639 .000 FR .54 .20 4.46 .000 PR .61 3 7 65 9 .000 R- .008 .027' .3 9 3 " R* Chang .020 .3 6 6 " FA_2; O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3; O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RAN1C_2: O=not sophomore; I=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not junior; l=^unior, RANK_4: O=not senior, I=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; I=hummanities. DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •p<.05 •‘*E_<.01
Table 4.22: Regression of Developing Competence on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Males
168 Step I Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n=437
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 64.24 63.22 38.71 FA_2 3323 .19 2.72 .007 3320 .18 2.64 .009 1.65 .09 1.55 .122 FA_3 6.17 J4 4.95 .000 5.85 .32 4.71 .000 3.55 .20 3 3 2 .001 RANK_2 .35 .02 31 .761 -1.17 -.05 -1.06 3 9 2 RANK_3 3 J I .07 3.16 .002 .11 .01 .10 .924 RANK_4 1.26 .05 1.04 .299 -1.23 -.05 -1.00 .320 LIVE_2 131 .03 .71 .477 LIVE_3 -1.91 -.06 -138 .200 LIVE_4 -2.02 -.09 -1.62 .107 LIVE_5 -1.08 -.06 -1.01 .315 C 0_2 -.00 .00 -.00 .997 C 0_3 2.04 .11 1.79 .075 WORK_2 .35 .02 3 8 .704 W 0RK_3 .78 .04 .74 .461 DEPC_2 -.93 -.05 -.64 .521 DEPC_3 .85 .04 .58 363 DEPC_4 -.00 -.00 -.03 .975 DEPC_5 1.48 .06 .90 .371 DEPC_6 .29 .01 .19 .850 AI .68 3 4 4.85 .000 FR .31 .11 231 .028 PR .64 3 8 6 3 2 .000 R- .057»» .081” 3 3 6 " R* Chang .024* 3 5 5 " FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RAN!C_2: O=not sophomore; I=sophomore, RANK_3: O=notjunior; I =]unior, RANK_4:0=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, UVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE 5: O=not only live in residence hall; I=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting tram home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=w ork experience does not relate to major, W0RJC_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; I=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; I=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. .A.l=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •E <.05 •* e.<-01
Table 4J>3: Regression of Developing Competence on FA, RANK., LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI. FR, and PR for Females
169 Step I Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=278
Variables b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 64.71 34.50 SEX_2 .00 -.00 -.05 .963 -.79 -.04 -.72 .475 FA_2 I J 7 .09 1.09 .275 -.16 -.01 -.13 .899 FA_3 3.71 .19 2 J 6 .019 .77 .04 3 7 372 L1VE_2 3.85 .08 131 .133 LIVE_3 .00 .00 .02 .988 LIVE_4 -1.3 -.04 -.58 .565 LrVE_5 1336 .06 .95 .343 C0_2 -.92 -.05 -.88 .381 CO_3 1.76 .06 1.00 .320 W0RK_2 1.02 .05 .94 348 W 0RK_3 .80 .03 .46 .643 DEPC_2 2.00 .06 1.05 394 DEPC_3 3.45 .12 1.86 .063 DEPC_4 .49 .02 .34 .735 DEPC_5 .46 .02 3 5 .800 DEPC_6 -1.03 -.03 -.38 .705 AI .75 .27 4.29 .000 FR .64 .19 3.01 .003 PR .67 2 1 5.02 .000 R- .021 J71»* R'C hang 3 5 0 " SEX_2: O=not female; I=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not mtjderatc parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group; little parents’ support. L[VE_2; O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; 1 =live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall. L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3: O=not be a leader, l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WQRK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WQRK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC 2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; I=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; I=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: namral science. AI=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E<-05 •* e.<-01
Table 4.24: Regression of Developing Competence on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Freshmen
170 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=229
Variables b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 64.51 32.17 SEX_2 .15 .01 .12 .904 -1.75 -.10 -1.47 .143 FA_2 3.23 .18 2.03 .043 3.55 .20 2.70 .007 FA_3 3 J 2 .17 1.92 .057 2.90 .15 2.03 .044 LIVE_2 3 J 5 .09 1.46 .146 LIVE_3 1.82 .06 .90 268 LIVE_4 1.41 .07 .96 .337 LIVE_5 .41 .02 .27 .789 C 0_2 -.00 -.00 -.05 .959 C 0_3 -.76 -.04 -.49 .628 WORK_2 1.03 .06 .97 332 WORKJ 4.46 .16 2.47 .014 DEPCJ -1.09 -.05 -.66 .513 D E P C J 1.27 .03 .46 .649 DEPCJ .24 .01 .13 .900 DEPCJ 7.13 2.99 .003 DEPCJ 1.99 .10 129 .197 AI .71 .24 3.70 .000 FR .50 .19 2.76 .006 PR .72 .35 5.38 .000 R- .021 .429** R-Chang .408" SEX_2: O=not femaie; I=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=tiot moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: &=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_5: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •p<.05 *■*£.<-01
Table 4.25: Regression of Developing Competence on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Soohomores
171 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=262
Variables b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 67.17 38.30 SEX_2 .62 .03 .51 .611 .00 .00 .06 .956 FA_2 1.48 .08 .92 560 .77 .04 5 4 .591 FA_3 4.66 .23 2.67 .008 2.64 .03 1.67 .096 LIVE_2 3.79 .09 151 .133 LIVE_3 1.10 .03 .42 .675 LrVE_4 -.42 -.02 -.24 .809 LIVE_5 -1.44 -.07 -.84 .400 C 0_2 1.82 .09 1.01 515 CO_3 451 .22 253 .020 WORK_2 -.17 -.01 -.12 .906 WORKJ .12 .01 .07 939 D E P C J -2.29 -.10 -I.2I .226 DEPCJ -.67 -.02 -.35 .730 DEPCJ _50 .02 .23 .815 D E P C J .36 .01 .16 .871 D E P C J 151 .04 .62 .535 AI .79 .28 3.88 .000 FR .45 .16 2.48 .014 PR .48 .20 3 57 .001 R- .038* 542** R‘ Chang 504** SEX 2: O=not female; I=female. Comparison Group: male. FA J : O=not moderate parents’ support; I=moderate parents’ support. FA J : O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support L IV E J: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; I=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. L IV E J: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;I=Iive off campus and have been living in residence hall. L IV E J: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; I =Iive off campus and have been living in residence hall, L IV E J: O=not only live in residence hall; I=onIy live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO J : O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO J : O=not be a leader; I=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W O R K J: O=not work experience does not relate to major; I=work experience does not relate to major. W O R K J: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. D EPC J: O=not humanities; I=hummanities. DEPCJ: not education; I=educauon. D P C J: O=not business; I=business. D EPC J: O=not social science; I=sociaI science. D EPC J: O=not medical science; I=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement. FR=faculty-student relationship. PR=peer relationship.
Table 4.25: Regression of Developing Competence on SEX. FA, LIVE. CO. WORK. DEPC, AI, FR. and PR for Juniors
172 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n= l76
Variables b Beta t P b Bela t P (Constant) 71.28 43.42 SEX_2 -1.97 -.11 -1.43 .155 -2.30 -.13 -1.70 .091 FA_2 -2.98 -.16 -1.45 .149 -2.58 -.14 -1.43 .154 FA_3 1.41 .07 .65 .519 -.14 -.01 -.08 .939 LIVE_2 .24 .01 .09 .929 LIVE_3 -1.37 -.05 -.61 .541 LIVE_4 -1.77 -.10 -.93 J 5 7 LIVE_5 -1.21 -.06 -.55 .581 CO_2 1.37 .07 .78 .435 CO_3 3.26 .18 2.00 .047 W 0RK _2 -.84 -.05 -.49 .625 WORKJ .36 .02 .20 .841 DEPCJ .19 .01 .07 .942 DEPCJ -J1 -.01 -.13 .894 DEPCJ -.51 -.02 -.29 .773 DEPCJ 3.23 .05 .78 .438 D E P C J .49 .02 .25 .802 AI .68 25 3.41 .001 FR .38 .15 1.97 .050 PR .59 .27 3.68 .000 R- .058* .400** R" Chang .342** S E X J : O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group; male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; I =Tnoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=notcomrauting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuring From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4:0=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. VVORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; I =work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; I=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; I =medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E<.05 • * 2 .< .0 I
Table 4.27: Regression of Developing Competence on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, Al, FR, and PR for Seniors
173 Vector 2: Managing Emotions
Results of the regression analyses in managing emotions for total students, male
students, female students, four ranks of students are presented from Table 4.28 to Table
4.34. As can be seen, the two or three blocks of multiple regression models significantly
explained the variation of managing emotions with 20% for total students, 22% for
males, 23% for females, 21% for freshmen, 34% for sophomores, 23% for juniors, and
28% for seniors at the p < .01. Even though the models were still statistically significant,
they explained less of the variance of managing emotions than developing competence.
In other words, for Taiwanese students, other factors that influenced students’
development in managing emotions when compared to competence. Sophomores still had
the most variance explained by the model. When controlling the personal characteristics
and ranks, college experiences still significantly explained the variation of managing
emotions with 19% for total students, 21% for males, 18% for females, 19% for
freshmen, 32% for sophomores, 21% for juniors, and 25% for seniors at the p < .01.
Sophomores again had the most variance explained by college experiences.
When examining the full models to see the significance for partial regression coefficient (b) and the standardized partial regression coefficient (Beta) with the relative importance among independent variables, for total students, the variance of managing emotions was significantly explained by PR (.33), AI (.14), and SEX_2 (-.07) with the p
< .05. Among theses three significant predictors, relatively speaking (Beta), peer relationship was the most important variable in explaining the variance of managing emotions for the total groups Taiwanese college smdents. Academic involvement was significant but the importance was moderate. Faculty-student interaction was not
174 significant in explaining the variance of the managing emotions. Being female students
(compare with male students) again was the significant but negative one. This would suggest being female students, comparing with male students, have a disadvantage in managing emotions. The work of student affairs in Taiwan may need to focus on female students in order to facilitate them in managing emotions. In addition, the work of student affairs also may need to find more new factors beyond the models in this study that influence students’ emotional development.
When dividing the total students by gender, the variance of managing emotions was only significantly explained by PR (.33) and AI (.14) for male students at the g < .05.
The model significantly explained the variance of managing emotions by PR (.30), AI
(.17), and FA_3 (.17) for female students at the g < .05. Peer interaction and academic involvement again were the most important variables for both males and females in explaining their management of emotions. Strong support firom family (compare with little support) was also important factor for females. Similar results were found by
Josselson (1987) in the U. S., where connection to family was important in the psychosocial development of females.
When dividing the students into four ranks, the variance of managing emotions was significantly explained by PR (.34) and FR (.17) for fireshman; PR (.43), FA_2 (.25),
DEPC 5 (.22), and AI (.14) for sophomore; AI (.28), PR (.20), DEPC_4 (.17) and
DEPC 6 (.13) for juniors; and only PR (.28) for senior at the p < .05. Peer interaction was the most important factor in explaining the variance of managing emotions for all ranks of students in Taiwan except of juniors for whom academic involvement was the first. This is similar in the U. S. Academic involvement was significant for sophomore
175 and junior, while faculty interaction was significant for freshman. In addition, majors in
social science fields (compare with the natural science) and moderate emotional support
from family (compare with the little support) also were important to explain the
development of emotions for sophomore, while majors in business and medical fields
(compare with the natural science) were both important for junior.
Further study may be needed to understand the results related to majors. Are the
results a function of the sample or do these majors consistently facilitate managing
emotions in certain years of college? Different ranks of students also may need different
experiences and programs. Academic department may be important in the development
of emotions for sophomores and juniors. Furthermore, there is a need for student affairs to find other variables that influence students’ development in emotions.
176 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =945
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 68.22 67.81 46.49 SEX_2 -.47 -.02 -.73 .464 -.43 -.02 -.66 309 -1.44 -.07 -2.09 .038 FA_2 1.66 .09 1.91 .057 1.59 .08 1.83 .068 .99 .07 124 .214 FA_3 3.04 .15 323 .001 2.95 .14 3.13 .002 1.40 .07 1.61 .107 RANK_2 .11 .01 .12 .901 -.12 -.01 -.14 .890 RANK_3 .64 .03 .75 .451 -.58 -.03 -.65 .515 RANK_4 131 .05 139 .165 -.00 -.00 -.10 .920 LTVE_2 .18 .00 .13 .900 LIVE_3 -.61 -.02 -.51 .608 LfVE_4 -124 -.06 -131 .191 LrVE_5 -1.15 -.06 -1.28 200 CO_2 -.00 -.00 -.11 .911 CO_3 .49 .02 .56 .579 WORK_2 -.18 -.01 -.25 .801 W 0RK_3 .83 .04 .92 3 5 6 DEPC_2 -1.19 -.04 -1.15 252 DEPCJ 139 .04 1.18 .237 DEPCJ 33 .02 3 5 3 84 D E P C J 133 .04 1.06 2 90 D E P C J 23 .01 .23 .818 AI .41 .14 3.79 .000 FR .13 .04 121 2 27 PR .80 .33 10.00 .000 R- .011" .014" .201"" R^ Chang .002 .187"" SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, F A 3 : O=not strong parents’ suppon; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; I=sophomore, RAN1C_3: O=not junior; l=junior, RANIC_4: O=not senior, l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. L1VE 2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; I=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; 1 =live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVES: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not Joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. • £ < .05 •* p. < .01
Table 4.28: Regression of Managing Emotions on SEX, FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, Al, FR, and PR for Total Students
177 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =508
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 69.20 69.41 44.93 FA_2 .94 .05 .82 .414 .87 .04 .75 .453 .81 .04 .77 .443 FA_3 .71 .03 .54 .590 .58 .03 .44 .659 -.52 -.02 -.43 .670 RANK_2 -.46 -.02 -J7 .712 -.23 -.01 -.19 .852 RANKJ -.77 -.03 -.62 .533 -1.48 -.07 -1.17 -243 RANK_4 1.02 .04 .76 .449 -.31 -.01 -22 .825 LIVE_2 -.85 -.02 -.42 .672 LIVE_3 1.05 .03 .64 .526 LIVE_4 -.29 -.01 -2 2 .825 LIVE_5 -.24 -.01 -.18 .857 C0_2 1.65 .08 1_52 .130 C0_3 1.49 .07 1.23 .221 W O R K J -.00 -.00 -.03 .978 WORKJ .71 .03 .53 .598 DEPCJ .30 .01 .18 .855 DEPCJ -.42 -.01 -.20 .845 D E P C J 1.29 .04 .95 .344 DEPCJ -.30 -.01 -.16 .875 DEPCJ -.71 -.03 -.55 .586 AI .40 .14 2.68 .008 FR .15 .06 1.07 .284 PR .83 .35 7.61 .000 R' .001 .005 .216** R ' Chang .004 .210** FA_2; O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3; O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group; little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3; O=not junior; I=junior, RANK_4: O=not senior, l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence fiall. LIVE_3: O=not live o ff campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; 1 =live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; 1 =only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; 1 =work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship.
* 2 < .0 5 * » e .< .0 1
Table 4.29: Regression of Managing Emotions on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Males
178 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n= 437
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 66.18 65.55 46.14 FA_2 2.85 .15 2.16 .032 2.75 .14 2.07 .039 136 .07 1.11 368 FA_3 5.63 .29 4.16 .000 5.42 .28 3.98 .000 3 3 5 .17 234 .011 RANK_2 2 6 .01 .21 .833 .28 .01 .22 .827 RANKJ 1.75 .08 1.52 .128 .69 .03 .54 .592 RANKJ 1.31 .05 .99 .323 .00 .00 .04 .972 LIVEJ .88 .02 .45 .653 LIVEJ -2.97 -.09 -1.72 .086 L IV E J -2.38 -.10 -1.65 .101 LIVEJ -1.54 -.08 -1.24 3 1 5 COJ - -2.11 -.11 -1.79 .074 C O J -.81 -.04 -.61 .544 W O R K J -.48 -.02 -.45 .651 W O R K J .71 .03 58 .565 DEPCJ -2.43 -.11 -1.46 .146 DEPCJ 1.56 .06 .92 5 60 DEPCJ .20 .01 .12 .904 DEPCJ 2.36 .08 1.24 .217 D E P C J 130 .04 .67 501 AI .51 .17 3.15 .002 FR .00 .02 .32 .752 PR .74 .30 630 .000 R= .0 4 2 " .0 4 9 " .2 3 2 " R ' Chang .006 .184»» FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; I=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not junior, I junior, RANK_4: O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: fieshman. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; 1 =live ofTcampus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W 0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; 1 =work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •E<-05 •• e_<.01
Table 4.30: Regression of Managing Enxjtions on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, Al, FR, and PR for Females
179 Step I Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=278
Variables b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 68.06 44.31 SEX_2 -1.50 -.07 -1.23 .220 -.99 -.05 -.72 .472 FA_2 1.90 .09 1.18 .238 .96 .05 .63 .528 FA_3 3_52 .16 2.01 .046 1.60 .07 .95 .344 LfVE_2 -1.98 -.04 -.62 .535 LfVE_3 -1.87 -.06 -.85 394 LIVE_4 -3.98 -.11 -1.40 .162 LIVE_5 -.78 -.04 -.47 .637 C 0_2 -.78 -.04 -.60 351 C 0_3 -2.79 -.08 -1.26 308 WORK_2 -.40 -.02 -.30 .768 WORK_3 -.66 -.02 -31 .758 DEPC_2 -1.60 -.05 -.68 300 DEPC_3 -.45 -.01 -.20 .845 DEPC_4 -1.40 -.06 -.78 .435 DEPC_5 -.46 -.02 -.20 .840 DEPC_6 -.67 -.02 -3 0 .845 AI .21 .07 .97 .335 FR .64 .17 2.43 .016 PR .92 J 4 533 .000 R- .019 .212'* R* Chang .193" SEX_2; O=not female; I=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; I=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;I=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LP/E_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE S: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader, l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2; O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6; O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. .Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •E < -0 5 • • e_<-01
Table 4.31 : Regression of Managing Emotions on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Freshmen
180 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=229 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 66.98 41.49 £EX_2 -.41 -.02 -.32 .751 -2.47 -.13 -1.85 .066 FA_2 3.41 .18 2.06 .041 4 J 8 .25 3.12 .002 FA_3 3.05 .15 1.69 .093 3.43 .17 2.14 .034 LIVE_2 .30 .01 .12 .907 L1VE_3 1.78 .05 .78 .434 LIVE_4 1.21 .06 .74 .462 LIVE_5 .14 .01 .08 .937 C 0_2 -2.29 -.12 -1.40 .163 C 0_3 -2.42 -.13 -1.38 .169 WORK_2 1.05 .06 .88 .380 W 0RK_3 3.26 .11 1.61 .109 DEPC_2 -1.28 -.06 -.69 .491 DEPC_3 .71 .02 .23 .822 DEPC_4 1.78 .07 .83 .409 DEPC_5 7.62 .22 2.85 .005 DEPC_6 .17 .01 .10 .922 AI .43 .14 2.01 .046 FR .00 .02 .25 .800 PR .94 .43 6.26 .000 R- .019 J 3 6 '« R* Chang J 1 7 * ' SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; I=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2:0=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=on!y live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2; O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. \VORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=work experience does not relate to major, WORlC_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2; O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3; not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5; O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6:0=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group; natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •p<.05 •*£.<.01
Table 4.32; Regression of Managing Emotions on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, PR, and PR for Sophomores
181 Stqj I Full M odel (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=262 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 57.50 45.05 SEX_2 135 .06 .97 3 3 2 -134 -.06 -.83 .410 FA_2 1.98 .10 1.46 3 4 7 .61 .03 .37 .709 FA_3 2.90 .14 1.57 .118 .75 .04 .42 .677 LIVE_2 -.49 -.01 -.17 .865 LIVE_3 .93 .02 .31 .756 LIVE_4 -1.26 -.06 -.64 .523 LIVE_5 -2.00 -.10 -1.03 .304 C0_2 2 38 .11 1.16 .249 C0_3 3.61 .18 1.77 .079 W 0RK_2 .41 .02 3 6 .798 W0RK_3 23 7 .11 138 303 DEPC_2 -.39 -.02 -.18 .855 DEPC_3 2.46 .08 1.11 .267 DEPC_4 6.05 .17 23 2 .012 DEPC_5 .29 .01 .12 .907 DEPC_6 4.58 .13 2.07 .040 AI .76 3 6 3.27 .001 FR -.18 -.06 -.88 .383 PR .54 .22 3 35 .001 R- .016 .227** R" Chang 311** SEX_2; O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2; O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live o ff campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live o ff campus and have been living in residence hall. LIVE S: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2; O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3; O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group; not joint organization. W 0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does n o t relate to major. W 0RK_3; O=not work experience relates to major; I=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities. DEPC_3; not education; I=education, DPC_4; O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E<.05 •* e.<.01
Table 433: Regression of Managing Enxjtions on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Juniors
182 Step I Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n= l76 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 72.42 54.87 SEX_2 -.90 -.05 -.63 .529 -1.91 -.10 -1.27 .205 FA_2 -2.76 -.15 -130 .197 -2.62 -.14 -1.31 .193 FA_3 .56 .03 2 5 .806 -1.14 -.06 -35 .587 LIVE_2 .60 .02 .20 .838 LIVE_3 -2 3 6 -.09 -1.03 .305 LrV'Ejt -4.00 -31 -1.88 .062 LIVE_5 -4 3 4 -.18 -1.70 .092 CO_2 1.63 .08 .84 .405 CO_3 2.78 .15 133 .127 W 0RK _2 -1.53 -.08 -.80 .423 W 0RK _3 -.99 -.05 -.51 .614 DEPC_2 -1.66 -.05 -.58 .564 DEPC_3 2.63 .10 1.02 308 DEPC_4 -1.65 -.07 -.85 398 DEPC_5 131 .02 .26 .794 DEPC_6 1.70 .07 .78 .434 AI 3 7 .13 1.64 .102 FR .18 .07 .85 .399 PR .62 .28 3.45 .001 R- .030 .284» • R* Chang 353** SEX_2: O=not female; I=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support. FA_3: O=not strong parents’ suppon; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents' support. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member, 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; I=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2:0=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •p<.05 •*E-<-01
Table 434: Regression of Managing Emotions on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR lor Seniors
183 Vector 3: Developing Autonomy
Results of the regression analyses in developing autonomy for total students, male students, female students, four ranks of students are presented from Table 4.35 to
Table 4.41. As can be seen, the two or three blocks of multiple regression models significantly explained the variation of developing autonomy with 27% for total students,
34% for males, 23% for females, 29% for freshmen, 31% for sophomores, 30% for juniors, and 33% for seniors at the p < .01. The model was more effective in explaining the variance of development in autonomy for males and a little less successful in explaining the development of females. When controlling the personal characteristics and ranks, college experiences still significantly explained the variance of developing autonomy with 26% for total students, 33% for males, 20% for females, 29% for freshmen, 29% for sophomores, 29% for juniors, and 32% for seniors at the p < .01.
College experience once again explained more for males than females.
When examining the full models to see the significance for partial regression coefficient (b) and the standardized partial regression coefficient (Beta) with the relative importance among independent variables, for total students, the variance of developing autonomy was significantly explained by PR (.29), AI (.25), C0_3 (.13), SEX_2 (-. 08), and FR (.07) with the p < .05. Among these five significant predictors, relatively speaking, peer relationship and academic involvement were the two most important variables in explaining the variance of developing autonomy for total groups of
Taiwanese college students. Leadership experience in student organization (compare with the non-participation) and the interactions with faculty also were important in explaining the development of autonomy; however, the importance is moderate. Being female
184 students (compare with male students) again was the significant but negative variable.
This suggests that being female students, comparing with the male students, still was a
disadvantage in the development of autonomy. The work of student affairs in Taiwan
may need to focus on the experiences of female students in order to find ways to
influence the development of autonomy. In addition, since the models explain the
development of autonomy more effective for males rather than for females, the work of
student affairs may also need to find other experiences beyond the models in this study
that influence the development of autonomy for women students.
When dividing the total students by gender, the variance of developing
autonomy was significantly explained by PR (.29), AI (.28), C0_3 (.21), C0_2 (.12), FR
(.10), and FA_3 (-. 10) for male students at the £ < .05. And PR (.27) and AI (.23) for female students at the p < .05. Peer interaction and academic involvement were the most important variables for both males and females in developing autonomy. This finding fits most of studies in the U. S. The result of this study did not show that strong emotional support from parents was significantly negative to the development of autonomy for women students which is different the finding in the U. S. (Taub, 1995). College experiences explained the development of autonomy more for male students than for female students. Faculty interaction and leadership and membership experiences in organizations (compare with non-participation) were important for male students but not for females. In addition, strong support from family, comparing to little support, had a negative correlation with the development of autonomy for males. This latter point is consistent with the traditional expectation for gender role. Why did the interaction with faculty not appear in the female’s results? Female students apparently fewer made
185 contacts with faculty than males. It may be important to explore the reasons for this in a
qualitative study. For example, perhaps too few female faculty members make contact
less likely. Perhaps male faculty treat female students based on traditional gender roles
and this treatment do not encourage females to develop the autonomy. Furthermore, the
leadership opportunities in student organization may not widely open to female students
also may explain why this college experience was not significant for females in
autonomy. College environments may have gender role biases and it do not provide or
enough or both leadership opportunities for female students. When developing programs
on Taiwanese campuses to foster student’s development in autonomy, the different
treatment based upon gender needs to be understood and perhaps counter acted.
When dividing the students into four ranks, the variance of developing autonomy
was significantly explained by PR (.36) and AI (.22) for fireshman; AI (.32), PR (.26),
DEPC_5 (.19), FA_2 (.18) and SEX_2 (-. 15) for sophomore; AI (.25), PR (.25), work_3
(.17), and FR (.14) for juniors; and CO_3 (.30), AI (.27), PR (.25), and FR (.19) for senior at the p < .05. Relatively speaking, academic involvement and peer interaction were the two most important factors in explaining the variance of developing autonomy for all ranks of students in Taiwan except for seniors to whom leadership experience in student organizations was the first. Interactions with faculty were important to juniors and seniors. Work experience relates to major was also important for juniors. Major fields in social science and moderate support from family were important factors for sophomore. Being female students was significant but negative for sophomores. The results of different factors for different ranks of students may be a function of the samples and additional studies may be needed to clarify which factors are consistently significant.
186 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =945
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 65.72 64.60 38.90 SEX_2 -.52 -.03 -.85 .398 -.42 -.02 -.68 .498 -1.5 -.08 -2.36 .018 FA_2 130 .07 136 .121 133 .07 1.47 .142 .62 .03 .85 .399 FA_3 1.44 .07 139 .112 131 .06 1.45 .147 -.48 -.02 -.61 .545 RANK_2 .75 .03 .90 .371 -3 8 -.01 -.34 .731 RANK_3 2 3 8 .11 2.83 .005 -.40 -.02 -.49 .623 RANK_4 1.81 .08 2.00 .046 -.72 -.03 -.79 .431 LIVE_2 1.01 .03 .79 .430 LIVE_3 .64 .02 .59 .556 LIVE_4 -.11 -.01 -.13 .897 LIVE_5 .35.02 .42 .673 C 0_2 .83 .04 1.15 35 2 CO_3 2.61 .13 3 3 0 .001 W 0RK_2 .54 .03 .83 .404 W0RK_3 138.07 1.92 .055 DEPC_2 -.92-.04 -.96 .337 DEPC_3 .29 .01 3 7 .788 DEPC_4 .00 .00 .09 .927 DEPC_5 1.82 .06 1.58 .115 DEPC_6 -.28 -.01 -.30 .761 AI .69 .25 6.95 .000 FR 31 .07 2.13 .033 PR .66 3 9 8.99 .000 R- .004 .013 3 7 1 " R* Chang .010' 358""’ SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group; linie parents’ support. R-^NK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not junior; I=]unior, RANK_4: O=not senior; I=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=communng from Home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; 1 =live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=sociaI science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science Al=academic involvement, FR=facuIty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. ' g < .05 .01
Table 4.35: Regression of Developing Autonomy on SEX, FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Total Students
187 Step I Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =508
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 66.65 65.73 36.90 FA_2 .47 .03 .43 .665 .41 .02 3 7 .710 .32 .02 .35 .727 FA_3 -.43 -.02 -.34 .732 -.49 -.02 -.39 .697 -2.18 -.10 -2.06 .040 RANK_2 36 .02 JI .754 -.48 -.02 -.45 .655 RANK_3 1.55 .07 I J 4 .181 -.73 -.03 -.66 .510 RANK_4 221 .09 1.75 .081 -.53 -.02 -.43 .670 LIVE_2 -.70 -.02 -.40 .687 LIVE_3 .19 .01 .13 .893 LIVE_4 -.28 -.01 -.24 .806 LIVE_5 1.04 .05 .91 .364 C 0_2 2.31 .12 2.45 .015 C0_3 4.18 21 3.96 .000 WORK_2 .75 .04 .89 .374 WORK_3 1.80 .07 1.54 .123 DEPC_2 -.00 .00 -.00 .997 DEPC_3 -.88 -.01 -.47 .640 DEPC_4 1.61 .06 1.36 .173 DEPC_5 .27 .01 .16 .870 DEPC_6 -.37 -.01 -.33 .746 AI .75 2 8 5.72 .000 FR 26 .10 2.05 .041 PR .65 2 9 6.81 .000 R- .002 .010 .336'" R* Chang .008 .326" FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; I=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RA.NK._2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not junior; I=^unior, RANK_4: O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group; freshman. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2; O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Companson Group: not joint organization. WORK_2; O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=w ork experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities: l=hummanities, DEPC_3; not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6; O=not medical science; I=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. AI=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E<-05 ** e.<.01
Table 4.36: Regression of Developing Autonomy on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Males
188 Step I Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n=437
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 63.73 62.72 40.00 FA_2 2.64 .14 2.02 .044 2.54 .14 1.94 .053 1.23 .07 1.02 3 09 FA_3 3.64 .19 2.72 .007 333 .18 2.49 .013 1.04 .06 .83 .407 RANK_2 .98 .04 .80 .427 .00 .00 .07 .944 RANK_3 2.83 .14 23 0 .013 .32 .02 3 6 .799 RANK_4 1.08 .04 .83 .407 -.97 -.04 -.69 .488 LIVE_2 2.41 .06 136 310 LIVE_3 .77 .02 .46 .648 LIVE_4 .00 .00 .01 .991 LrVE_5 .00 .00 .02 .983 C0_2 -.89 -.05 -.78 .438 C0_3 .59 .03 .45 .651 W0RK_2 .22 .01 31 .834 W0RK_3 1.42 .07 1.18 .237 DEPC_2 -1.63 -.08 -1.00 .318 DEPC_3 .21 .01 .13 .898 DEPC_4 -1.22 -.06 -.78 .440 DEPC_5 23 3 .08 135 .213 DEPC_6 -.43 -.02 -.25 .804 AI .69 33 4.32 .000 FR .11 .04 .71 .481 PR .64 .27 5.46 .000 R- .017' .031* 330** R* Chang .014 .199** FA_2; O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3; O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; I=sophomore, RANK_3: O=notjunior; l=gunior, RANK_4: O=not senior; I=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=notcomrauting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commutfng from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_S: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not Joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities. DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: CNnot business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. AI=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •E<-05 •* e.<.01
Table 4.37: Regression of Developing autonomy on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Females
189 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=278 Variables Beta Bela (Constant) 64.52 37.84 SEX_2 -.84 -.05 -.75 .456 -.90 -.05 -.76 .449 FA_2 1.41 .08 .96 340 -.00 .00 -.01 .994 FA_3 2.02 .10 126 .209 -.32 -.02 -2 2 .829 LIVE_2 3.44 .07 125 .212 LIVE_3 .78 .03 .41 .680 LIVE_4 -4.42 -.13 -1.80 .073 LIVE_5 .12 .01 .08 .935 C 0_2 .43 .02 38 .704 C0_3 124 .04 .65 .515 WORK_2 125 .06 1.07 2 8 7 W 0RK_3 132 .04 .71 .480 DEPC_2 3 7 .02 28 .782 DEPC_3 -1.60 -.05 -.81 .421 DEPC_4 -1.49 -.07 -.97 .335 DEPC_5 .46 .02 2 4 .813 DEPC_6 -1.31 -.03 -.45 .656 AI .61 .22 326 .001 FR .14 .04 .61 .546 PR .89 .36 6.19 .000 R" .008 .2 9 4 " R* Chang .2 8 7 " SEX_2; O=not female; l=ferriale. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. L1VE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live o ff campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. * E < -0 5 • • e_<-OI
Table 4.38: Regression of Developing Autonomy on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR tor Freshmen
190 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=229 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 64.20 35.27 SEX_2 .18 .01 .14 .889 -2.70 -.15 -2.03 .044 FA_2 3.15 .17 1.95 .052 3.26 .18 2 3 2 .028 FA_3 1.19 .06 .68 .499 .77 .04 .48 .633 LIVE_2 .00 .00 .03 .977 LIVE_3 .69 .02 .31 .760 LIVE_4 231 .12 1.41 .161 LIVE_5 2.15 .11 135 313 C0_2 1.03 .06 .63 .528 C0_3 2 3 2 .12 137 .205 WORK_2 .83 .05 .70 .486 W0RK_3 2.08 .07 1.03 .304 DEPC_2 1.99 .09 1.07 .287 DEPC_3 2.73 .06 .87 .383 DEPC_4 2.36 .09 1.10 .274 DEPC_5 6.40 .19 2 39 .018 DEPC_6 1.63 .08 .95 345 AI .93 .32 4 3 6 .000 FR -.00 -.02 -.29 .769 PR .56 .26 3.73 .000 R- .020 .306»» R" Chang 387»» SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, F A3 : Q=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support Comparison Group: little parents’ support LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3; O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live olTcampus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE S: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1 = be a member, C 0_3: O=notbe a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W 0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; I=work experience does not relate to major, W 0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; I=education, DPC_4; O=not business; l=business, DEPC_S: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6; O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. AI=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. -05 **E .<.01
Table 4J9; Regression of Developing Autonomy on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Sophomores
191 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=262
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P (Constant) 66.46 39.27 SEX_2 .44 .02 .37 .714 -1.22 -.06 -.91 .365 FA_2 .94 .05 .59 .558 -.49 -.03 -J 4 .737 FA_3 1.82 .09 1.05 .295 -.88 -.04 -.55 .581 LIVE_2 -.24 -.01 -.09 .925 L IV E J -.16 -.00 -.06 .953 LIVE_4 -31 -.02 -.21 .835 LIVE_5 .18 .01 .11 .916 C0_2 .49 .03 .27 .789 C0_3 2.18 .12 1.20 232 W0RK_2 -.00 -.00 -.02 .988 W O R K J 3.31 .17 2.09 .038 DEPC_2 -3.46 -.15 -1.82 .071 DEPC_3 .93 .03 .47 .638 DEPC_4 2 J0 .07 1.08 J8 2 DEPC_5 1.93 .06 .87 .383 DEPC_6 3.71 .12 1.88 .062 AI .67 .25 3.26 .001 FR .37 .14 2.04 .043 PR .57 .25 3.96 .000 R- .006 .295'" R'Chang .289" SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=modcrate parents’ support, F A3 : O=not strong parents’ support; I=strong parents’ support Comparison Group: little parents’ support. L1VE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1 = be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. \V0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major, l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC 6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. .M=acadcmic involvement FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. ♦p<.05 •*E-<-01
Table 4.40: Regression of Developing Autonomy on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Juniors
192 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=176 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 69.49 38.88 SEX_2 -1.59 -.08 -1.06 .292 -1.02 -.05 -.67 .504 FA_2 -1.87 -.10 -.83 .406 -1.58 -.08 -.78 .434 FA_3 -1.48 -.07 -.62 _537 -3.34 -.16 -1.58 .116 LIVE_2 2 28 .07 .77 .442 LIVE_3 .52 .02 .21 .836 LIVE_4 -.77 -.04 -.36 .718 LIVE_5 -.55 -.03 -.22 .824 CO_2 3.17 .14 1.62 .108 C0_3 5.92 .30 324 .001 WORK_2 .40 .02 21 .836 WORKJ 127 .06 .64 .523 DEPC_2 -3.08 -.08 -1.07 288 DEPC_3 -2.05 -.07 -.79 .428 DEPC_4 29 .01 .15 .883 DEPC_5 -2.70 -.04 -.58 .562 DEPC_6 -2.43 -.09 -1.11 268 AI .77 .27 3.45 .001 FR .28 .10 1.30 .195 PR .57 2 5 3.15 .002 R- .011 2 3 4 '» R* Chang 223" SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. L1VE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. L IV E J: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVEJ: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO J : O=not be a member; 1 = be a member, CO J : O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W O RK J: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W O R K J: O=not work experience relates to major; l=w ork experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. D EPCJ: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, D EPCJ: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPCJ: O=not social science; l=sociaI science, D EPCJ: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=facuIty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. * E < .0 5 • • e .<-01
Table 4.41: Regression of Developing Autonomy on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Seniors
193 Vecector 4: Mature Interpersonal Relationship
Results of the regression analyses on mature interpersonal relationship (MIR) for total students, male students, female students, four ranks of students are presented from
Table 4.42 to Table 4.48. As can be seen, the two or three blocks of multiple regression models significantly explained the variation of MIR with 24% for total students, 27% for males, 24% for females, 27% for freshmen, 35% for sophomores, 30% for juniors, and
21% for seniors at the £ < .01. The model was more effective to explain the variance of
MIR for sophomores but less effective with seniors. When controlling the personal characteristics and ranks, college experiences still significantly explained the variance of
MER with 23% for total students, 26% for males, 23% for females, 24% for freshmen,
34% for sophomores, 28% for juniors, and 20% for seniors at the £ < .01. Sophomores had the highest percentage and seniors lowest.
When examining the full models to see the significance for partial regression coefficient (b) and the standardized partial regression coefficient (Beta) with the relative importance among independent variables, for total students, the variance of MIR was significantly explained by PR (.42), AI (.11), and DEPC_5 (.09) with the £ < .05. Peer relationship was the extremely important variable in explaining the variance of MIR for total Taiwanese college students. Academic involvement and majors in social science fields (compare with the natural science) also were important in explaining the variance of MIR but the importance was moderate. The environment in social science fields apparently fostered peer relationships for Taiwanese students more than other majors. It is interesting to find that faculty interaction was not a significant but negatively related to
MIR. The more faculty interaction, the less development on MIR for Taiwanese students.
194 When dividing the total students by gender, the variance of MIR was
significantly explained by PR (.41), AI (.14), and DEPC 4 (.12) for male students at the p
< .05. And PR (.43) and FR (-. 11) for female students at the p < .05. Peer interaction was the extremely important variable for both males and females in explaining the variance of
MIR. Academic involvement was significant factor for males but not for females. Being a
business major (compare with the natural science) also was associated with male
development of MIR. However, the more faculty interaction, the less development in
MIR for female students. Two major constructs of MIR are tolerance and intimacy in relationship with pees, significant others, persons culturally different from one’s self, and authority figures. Experience with peers and significant others appear to be associated with MIR. In Taiwan, there are not many culturally difierent students within Taiwanese college environments and apparently faculty as authorities may inhibit such development.
Qualitative inquiry may be needed to understand this negative association. For example,
Faculty in Taiwan may treat female students in traditional gender role ways and hinder their development in MIR. In the other hand, it may be the cause that Taiwanese students do not openly relate to faculty either.
When dividing the students into four ranks, the variance of MIR was significantly explained by PR (.41), LIVE 4 (-. 18), and FA_3 (.14) for freshman; PR
(.54) and AI (.17) for sophomore; PR (.39), DEPC 5 (.17), and DEPC 4 (.14) for juniors; and PR (.27) and DEPC 6 (.19) for senior at the p < .05. Relatively speaking, peer interaction was the most important factor in explaining the variance of MIR for all ranks of students in Taiwan. The environment of major field in social science and business also were important for juniors and major in medical science was important for seniors in
195 MIR. AI was only important for sophomores. Living off campus and have been living in residence hall (compare with commuting from home and have previously lived in a residence hall) and strong support from parents (compare with little support) were important for freshman in MIR; however, living off campus experience was negatively related to MIR. When developing programs in Taiwan to facilitate the development of
MIR, it may be important to be aware of the different experiences that may influence different ranks of students.
196 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n= 945
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 72.33 72.82 53.27 SEX_2 1.01 .06 1.76 .078 .94 .05 1.63 .104 -.32 -.02 -3 2 .602 FA_2 1.69 .10 2.17 .030 I.7I .10 2.19 .029 124 .07 1.79 .074 FA_3 1.99 .11 2J6 .018 2.03 .11 2.41 .016 .80 .04 1.06 .292 RANK_2 -.81 -.04 -1.04 .299 -.51 -.03 -.66 .507 RANK_3 -.63 -.03 -.84 .403 -.71 -.04 -.92 358 RANK_4 -.59 -.03 -.70 .483 -.51 -.02 -.59 .559 LIVE_2 -3 4 -.01 -.28 .782 LIVE_3 2 S .01 .28 .783 LIVE_4 -.139 -.08 -1.92 .055 LIVE_5 -1.02 -.06 -1.30 .193 C 0_2 -.69 -.04 -1.00 .319 CO_3 -.42 -.02 -.54 392 W 0RK _2 J 6 .02 -.59 .554 W 0RK_3 -.00 -.00 -.08 .937 DEPC_2 .47 .02 .52 .602 DEPC_3 1.27 .04 1.24 .215 DEPC_4 .92 .04 1.09 .276 DEPC_5 2.63 .09 239 .017 DEPC_6 -.41 -.02 -.47 .642 AI .29 .O il 3.04 .002 FR -.00 -.04 -1.03 303 PR .91 .42 13.11 .000 R- .011» .012 .240»* R-Chang .001 .228»» SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, F A3 : O=not strong parents’ support; I=strong parents’ support Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; I =sophomore, RANK._3: O=not junior; I=junior, RANK_4:0=notseniort l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; I=live off campus and have been living in residence hall. LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; I=Iive off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WQRK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; I=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. * p < .05 •• < .01
Table 4.42: Regression of MIR on SEX, FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Total Students
197 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =508
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 72.93 73.79 51.50 FA_2 1.17 .07 1.14 .254 1.17 .07 1.14 .256 1.09 .06 1.19 2 33 FA_3 .72 .04 .61 .540 .67 .03 J 7 J 7 0 -.10 -.01 -.10 .921 RANK_2 -.1.27 -.06 -1.16 245 -.16 -.01 -.15 .882 RANK_3 -1.20 -.06 -1.10 271 -.41 -.02 -28 .704 RANK_4 -.84 -.04 -.70 .483 -.31 -.01 -.26 .796 LIVE_2 -2.37 -.06 -1.38 .169 LIVE_3 -.36 -.01 -.25 .802 L1VE_4 -2.08 -.11 -1.86 .063 LIVE_5 .00 .00 .07 .944 CO_2 -.54 -.03 -.58 2 6 0 CO_3 -.00 -.01 -.09 .929 WORK_2 .66 .04 .80 .426 WORK_3 -.71 -.03 -.62 .537 DEPC_2 2 2 3 .07 1.65 .099 DEPC_3 1.43 .03 .77 .441 DEPC_4 3.01 .12 2.59 .010 DEPC_5 1 27 .03 .77 .440 DEPC_6 -1.06 -.04 -.95 .343 AI 2 6 .14 2.77 .006 FR -.00 -.01 -.11 .911 PR .88 .41 9.36 .000 R- .003 .006 .268'* R* Chang .003 262** FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support Comparison Group: little parents’ support RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not junior; 1 junior. RANK_4: O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commutfng from Home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; 1 =work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; I=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=educadon, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6:0=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. ■Al=academic involvement FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *£<.05 »*£.<.01
Table 4.43: Regression of MIR on FA. RANK, LIVE. CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Males
198 Step I Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n=437
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 72.38 72.60 55.08 FA_2 2.53 .05 2.11 .036 2.57 .15 2.12 .035 1.51 .09 128 .169 FA_3 3.46 .20 2.82 .005 3.52 .20 2.84 .005 I JO .08 I.I4 253 RANK_2 -.50 -.02 -.44 .658 -.63 -.03 -.55 .582 RANK_3 -.25 -.01 -24 .810 -.38 -.02 -.33 .743 RANK_4 -.50 -.02 -.41 .681 -.36 -.02 -.29 .775 LIVE_2 I J 5 .04 .77 .439 LIVE_3 .67 .02 .44 .661 LIVE_4 -1.02 -.05 -.79 .428 LIVE_5 -1.68 -1.00 -1.52 .129 CO_2 -.65 -.04 -.62 .534 CO_3 -.87 -.05 -.74 .461 W 0RK_2 .00 .00 .02 .986 W 0RK_3 -55 .03 .50 .618 DEPC_2 -.11 -.01 -.07 .942 DEPC_3 .59 .03 .39 .695 DEPC_4 -.57 -.03 -.40 .693 DEPC_5 3 2 7 .13 1.93 .055 DEPC_6 2 2 .01 2 0 .839 AI 2 5 .09 1.72 .086 FR -2 9 -.11 -2.01 .045 PR .96 .43 8.99 .000 R- .018' .019 .244" R 'C hang .001 .2 2 5 " FA_2; O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; I=sophomore, RANK_3: O=notjunior; l=junior, RANK._4: O=noisenior; l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. L1VE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=communng from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; I=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVES: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member, 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=educanon, DEPC_4: O=not business; I=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •E<.05 *'* e.<.OI
Table 4.44: Regression o f MIR on FA, RANK, LIVE. CO, WORK. DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Females
199 Step I Full1 Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=278
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P (Constant) 71.86 54.20 SEX_2 .30 .02 .29 .769 .00 .01 .08 .933 FA_2 2.96 .17 2.20 .029 1.81 .11 1.47 .143 FA_3 4.29 .23 2.92 .004 2.70 .14 1.97 .051 LIVE_2 -2.27 -.05 -.88 281 LIVEJ -1.43 -.06 -.80 .423 LIVEJ -5.73 -.18 -2.48 .014 L IV E J -2.31 -.13 -1.72 .086 CO_2 -.32 -.02 -.30 .763 COJ -2.29 -.08 -1.27 204 WORKJ -.21 -.01 -.19 .850 W O R K J -1.06 -.04 -.61 .546 DEPCJ .00 .00 .01 .991 DEPCJ -.00 -.00 -.03 .975 DEPCJ -.82 -.04 -.56 .574 DEPCJ 127 .05 .69 .491 DEPCJ .18 .01 .07 .949 AI 30 .11 1.67 .095 FR -.12 -.04 -.57 .570 PR .95 .41 7.02 .000 R- .031» 270*» R 'C hang 239»» SEX 2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live o ff campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall. L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member, 1= be a member, C 0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W 0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. AI=academic involvement, FR=facuIty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *£<.05 •*£.<•01
Table 4.45: Regression of MIR on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI. FR, and PR for Freshmen
200 Step I Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=229
Variables b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 72.70 45.30 SEX_2 I.6I .08 1.24 2 \ 1 -.80 -.04 -.60 .551 FA_2 1.25 .07 .74 .461 2.65 .14 1.79 .075 FA_3 -2 1 -.01 -.15 .885 .39 .02 .24 .811 LIVE_2 1.50 .04 .58 -564 LIVE_3 2.11 .06 .92 J 5 7 LIVE_4 .00 .01 .06 .955 LIVE_5 .51 .03 .30 .768 CO_2 -2.83 -.15 -1.72 .087 CO_3 -2.76 -.15 -1.57 .119 W 0RK _2 .47 .03 -39 .697 W 0RK_3 -1.60 -.05 -.79 .433 DEPC_2 -J 9 -.02 -.21 .837 DEPC_3 5_54 .12 1.76 .080 DEPC_4 .91 .03 .42 .676 DEPC_5 2.34 .07 .87 J 8 5 DEPC_6 -1.69 -.08 -.97 .333 AI .53 .17 2.47 .014 FR -.21 -.07 -1.01 .313 PR 1.20 .54 7.92 .000 R^ .Oil J47«* R* Chang J36*’» SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support Comparison Group: little parents’ support LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence halt; l=commuring From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; I=educarion, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *» e_<.01
Table 4.46: Regression of MIR on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Sophomores
201 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characterisücs) (College Experience) n=262 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 72.30 53.65 SEX_2 1.15 .07 1.06 .288 -1.22 -.07 -1.01 .315 FA_2 .82 .05 .57 .568 -_54 -.03 -.41 .680 FA_3 2.68 .15 1.72 .087 .87 .05 .60 .550 L1VE_2 -2.33 -.07 -1.01 .313 L1VE_3 -2.55 -.07 -1.06 291 LIVE_4 -2.20 -.12 -1.38 .168 L1VE_5 -2.37 -.14 -1.51 .132 C 0_2 -.67 -.04 -.41 .686 C 0_3 .64 .04 2 9 .700 W 0RK_2 1.74 .10 125 .178 W 0RK_3 .87 .05 .60 .545 DEPC_2 1.98 .10 1.15 .253 DEPC_3 2.48 .10 129 .165 DEPC_4 4.05 .14 2.10 .038 DEPC_5 5.44 .17 2.72 .007 DEPC_6 -.38 -.01 -21 .834 AI 2 5 .10 123 .185 FR .00 .01 .07 .946 PR .82 .39 6.31 .000 R- .023 .298** R-Chang .275»» SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; I=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1 = be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. VV0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •£<.05 •*£.<.01
Table 4.47: Regression of MIR on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Juniors
202 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=l76
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P (Constant) 73.23 59.13 SEX_2 1.06 .06 .82 .416 .15 .01 -10 .917 FA_2 1.10 .07 .57 _571 .45 .03 .24 .814 FA_3 -.16 -.01 -.08 .939 -1.46 -.08 -.74 .464 LIVE_2 -.50 -.02 -.18 .858 LIVE_3 1.81 .07 .77 .443 LIVE_4 -2.00 -.12 -.99 .322 LIVE_5 -1 J6 -.07 -.59 .559 CO_2 1.07 .06 3 8 .564 CO_3 2.77 .17 1.62 .108 WORK_2 .61 .04 .34 .735 W 0RK_3 .38 .02 3 0 .840 DEPC_2 .14 .00 .05 .960 DEPC_3 J 8 .02 .16 .875 DEPC_4 2 3 5 .11 137 .206 DEPC_5 .50 .01 .11 .909 DEPC_6 4.31 .19 2.10 .037 AI .28 .11 1.32 .190 FR -.17 -.07 -.83 .410 PR .54 3 7 3.17 .002 R- .009 309*» R* Chang 300" SEX_2: O=not female; l=femalc. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; 1 =live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=notonly live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W 0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E<-05 ** e.<.01
Table 4.48: Regression of MIR on SEX, FA. LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Seniors
203 Vector 5: Establishing Identity
Results of the regression analyses in establishing identity for total students, male
students, female students, four ranks of students are presented from Table 4.49 to Table
4.55. As can be seen, the two or three blocks of multiple regression models significantly
explained the variation of establishing identity with 17% for total students, 20% for
males, 16% for females, 23% for freshmen, 26% for sophomores, 18% for juniors, and
17% for seniors at the p < .01. The models explained fewer variations of establishing
identity than other vectors, especially for female students. For Taiwanese students, other factors apparently influence their development in identity. When controlling the personal characteristics and ranks, college experiences still significantly explained the variance of establishing identity with 14% for total students, 19% for males, 11% for females, 19% for freshmen, 24% for sophomores, 17% for juniors at the p< .01, and 17% for seniors at thep< .05.
When examining the full models to see the significance for partial regression coefficient (b) and the standardized partial regression coefficient (Beta) with the relative importance among independent variables, for total group of students, the variance of establishing identity was significantly explained by PR (.28), AI (.11), FA_2 (.11) and
FA_3 (.11) with the p < .05. Among these significant predictors, relatively speaking, peer relationship was the most important variable in explaining the variance of establishing identity for total Taiwanese college students. Academic involvement was important and the importance was moderate. Strong and moderate emotional support from family were also important factors in explaining the variance of establishing identity for Taiwanese
204 students. This finding fits the Chinese culture and had been discussed in the literature review.
When dividing the total students by gender, the variance of establishing identity was significantly explained by PR (.31), AI (.11), and W0RK_2 (.11) for male students at the £ < .05. And PR (.23), F A 3 (.22), and FA_2 (.18), and AJ (.13) for female students at the p < .05. In addition to peer interaction and academic involvement, males’ identity was explained by work experience that does not relate to their majors (compare with the non-work experience), while females’ identity was explained by strong and moderate support from family (compare with the little support). Work experiences in broad areas apparently help to development of identity for Taiwanese male students, while support from family help this development for Taiwanese female students.
When dividing the students into four ranks, the variance of establishing identity was significantly explained by PR (.36), FA_2 (.17), FA_3 (.17) and work_2 (.12) for freshman; PR (.31), DEPC_5 (.27), FA_2 (.24), FA_3 (.19) and work_3 (.15) for sophomore; PR (.27) and DEPC 2 (-. 18) for juniors; and only A1 (.19) for senior at the p
< .05. Peer interaction was the most important factor in explaining the variance of establishing identity for freshmen, sophomores, and juniors but was not significant factor for seniors any more. Academic involvement was the only significant factor in explaining the variance of establishing identity for seniors. Taiwanese Senior’s identity was influenced by a lot of other factors which were not in this model. Work experience relates to major was important for sophomore, while work experience does not relate to major was important for freshman. Both strong and moderate support from parents were also important for freshmen and sophomores in identity. The environment of major field in
205 humanities (compare with the natural science) negatively related to junior’s development in identity. Comparing with the natural science major, it suggests that juniors in humanities major in Taiwan may have fewer confidence and certainty on their identity.
For Taiwanese students, early in college interactions with peers, family and work associated with engaging identity issues; later, perhaps identity issues are resolved, academic involvement is primarily associated with identity.
206 Step 1 Step 2 Full Mcxiel (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =945
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 74.16 73.33 53.91 SEX_2 -.83 -.04 -.1.18 -240 -.70 -.03 -.99 .325 -1.28 -.06 -1.65 .099 FA_2 2.82 .13 2.96 .003 2.69 .13 2.82 .005 2.46 .11 2.74 .006 FA_3 3.73 016 3.63 .000 3.58 .16 3.48 .001 2.50 .11 2.56 .011 RANK_2 .96 .04 1.01 315 .13 .01 .14 .892 RANKJ .66 .03 .72 .471 -.62 -.03 -.62 .536 RANK_4 2-54 .09 2.47 .014 1.06 .04 .95 .342 LIVE_2 .36 .01 .23 .817 LIVE_3 .42 .01 .32 .749 LIVE_4 -.83 -.03 -.78 .437 LIVE_5 -1.58 -.07 -1.57 .117 CO_2 .00 .00 .07 .943 CO_3 1.19 .05 1.19 .234 W 0RK_2 135 .06 1.71 .087 W 0RK_3 .15 .01 .15 .883 DEPC_2 -1.17 -.04 -.96 3 3 9 DEPC_3 .40 .01 .30 .762 DEPC_4 -.16 -.01 -.15 .882 DEPC_5 2 34 .07 1.80 .072 DEPC_6 -.14 -.00 -.12 .904 AI .35 .11 2.90 .004 FR .00 .02 .50 .620 PR .74 .28 833 .000 R- .015** .021** .165»* R^ Chang .007 .143** SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ suppcn; Immoderate parents’ suppon, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; I=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore. RAN1C_3: O=notjunior; l=junior, RANiC_4: O=not senior; I=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group; commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=w ork experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5; O=not social science; I =social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. • p < .05 •* p_< .01
Table 4.49: Regression of Establishing Identity on SEX, F.A, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Total Students
207 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n=508
Variables b Beta t P b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 75.57 7529 52.35 FA_2 1.41 .07 1.16 .248 1.28 .06 1.05 .295 1.67 .08 1.47 .142 FA_3 1.18 .05 .85 J 9 4 .99 .04 .72 .475 .55 .02 .42 .674 RANK_2 .11 .01 .08 .934 -.59 -.03 -.45 .654 RANK_3 -.42 -.01 -.33 .745 -1.97 -.08 -1.46 .145 RANK_4 2 J 0 .09 1.77 .077 .62 .02 .41 .681 L1VE_2 .60 .01 3 8 .779 L1VE_3 1.62 .05 .92 3 5 9 L1VE_4 -.56 -.02 -.40 .687 LIVE_5 -.93 -.04 -.66 3 08 CO_2 1.43 .07 133 .219 CO_3 1.84 .08 1.42 .158 W 0RK _2 2 3 2 .11 2 3 5 .025 W 0RK_3 .61 .02 .43 .669 DEPC_2 -.70 -.02 -.40 .690 DEPC_3 136 .03 .59 .558 DEPC_4 .69 .02 .47 .636 DEPC_5 2.03 .05 1.00 .320 DEPC_6 .16 .01 .12 .907 AI .32 .11 1.97 .050 FR .16 .05 1.05 3 9 6 PR .77 .31 6.60 .000 R- .003 .013 .1 9 8 " R-Chang .010 .1 8 5 " FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents' support, F A3 : O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not junior; I=junior, RANK_4: O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=Iive off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=Iive off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: 0=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=educarion, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *B<.05 • » e.<.01
Table 4.50: Regression of Establishing Identity on FA, R.ANK., LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Males
208 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =437
Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 71.09 70.16 55.55 FA_2 5.05 .23 3 J 4 .001 4.90 .22 3.22 .001 3.93 .18 2.67 .008 FA_3 6.85 31 4.43 .000 6 3 7 JO 4 3 2 .000 4.83 3 2 3.16 .002 RANK_2 1.62 .06 1.14 .257 132 .05 .80 .427 RANK_3 1.44 .06 1.10 .274 .99 .04 .64 322 RANK_4 231 .08 1.47 .143 133 .05 .90 .370 LIVE_2 .00 .00 .03 .980 LIVE_3 -1.44 -.04 -.70 .486 LIVE_4 -.75 -.03 -.43 .665 LIVE_5 -1.56 -.07 -1.05 .296 CO_2 -1.64 -.07 -1.16 .246 CO_3 -.00 -.00 -.02 .986 W 0RK_2 -.14 -.01 -.11 .915 W 0RK_3 -.40 -.02 -.27 .788 DEPC_2 -3.40 -.13 -1.70 .089 DEPC_3 -1.67 -.06 -.82 .413 DEPC_4 -1.89 -.07 -.98 .327 DEPC_5 2.05 .06 .90 .370 DEPC_6 -1.47 -.04 -.69 .493 AI .45 .13 2 J3 .020 FR -.00 -.02 -.41 .684 PR .65 .23 430 .000 R- .0 4 3 " .0 4 9 " .1 5 9 " R-Chang .0 0 6 " .1 1 0 " FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ supporu l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ supporL Compan'son Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3:0=not junior; l=^unior, RANK_4: O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; I=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=onIy live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3: D=not be a leader; I=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. \VQR1C_2; O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major, l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; 1 =hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; I=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; I=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; I=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. AI=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •p<.05 **E. Table 4.51: Regression of Establishing Identity on FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Females 209 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=278 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 72.48 51.78 SEX_2 -1.69 -.08 -1.35 .177 -1.06 -.05 -.75 .451 FAJ. 4.47 .21 2.73 .007 3.65 .17 2 3 6 .019 FA_3 5.20 23 2.90 .004 3.96 .17 2 2 9 .023 LIVE_2 -1.31 -.02 -.40 .687 LIVE_3 -.36 -.01 -.16 .872 LIVE_4 -3.59 -.09 -1.24 _217 LIVE_5 -1.40 -.07 -.83 .406 CO_2 .28 .01 .21 .834 CO_3 -.53 -.02 -.24 .814 WORK_2 2.67 .12 1.94 .054 WORK_3 -.63 -.02 -.29 .773 DEPC_2 -1.81 -.05 -.75 .456 DEPC_3 -2.91 -.09 -1.24 2 1 6 DEPC_4 -1.93 -.08 -1.06 .291 DEPC_5 -.56 -.02 -.24 .809 DEPC_6 1.05 .02 .30 .763 AI .00 .02 .35 .731 FR .18 .05 .68 .496 PR 1.03 .36 6.04 .000 R- .039' .230" R‘ Chang .1 9 1 " SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=work experience does not relate to major, \V0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Companson Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E < .0 5 • * e.<.01 Table 4.52: Regression of Establishing identity on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Freshmen 210 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=229 Variables Beta b Beta t P (Constant) 7333 51.51 SEX_2 .00 .00 .05 .957 -2.93 -.13 -1.79 .074 FA_2 3.82 .18 1.99 .048 5.12 .24 2.84 .005 FA_3 3.88 .17 1.86 .065 4.46 .19 1 2 1 .024 L1VE_2 1.03 .02 J 3 .744 L1VE_3 1.85 .05 .67 .506 L1VE_4 134 .06 .67 .507 LIVE_5 -1.24 -.06 -3 9 .559 CO_2 -.99 -.04 -.49 .625 CO_3 -2.09 -.10 -.97 332 W 0RK_2 135 .07 1.06 389 W 0RK_3 4.98 .15 2.01 .046 DEPC_2 4.17 .16 1.83 .069 DEPC_3 -1.04 -.02 -.27 .786 DEPC_4 .33 .01 .13 .901 DEPC_5 10.89 2 1 3 3 2 .001 DEPC_6 2.47 .10 1.17 .244 AI .39 .11 1.50 .136 FR -.13 -.04 -3 2 .603 PR .78 .31 4.21 .000 R- .020 356** R- Chang 336** SEX_2; O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live o ff campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C 0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W 0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; 1 =hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; I=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; I=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. AI=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *£<.05 •*£.<■01 Table 4.53: Regression of Establishing Identity on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Sophomores 211 Step I Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=262 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 74.38 55.38 SEX_2 30 .01 .21 .835 J 8 .02 .22 .828 FA_2 128 .06 .67 .504 .00 .00 .03 .981 FA_3 3.07 .13 1.48 .139 1.20 .05 28 .560 LIVE_2 -1.43 -.03 -.44 .664 LIVE_3 -.73 -.02 -.21 .831 LIVE_4 -2.68 -.11 -1.18 .238 LIVE_5 -2.42 -.11 -1.08 .279 C 0_2 .00 .00 .01 .996 C 0_3 1.90 .08 .81 .421 WORK_2 -23 -.01 -.12 .901 W 0RK_3 -.28 -.01 -.14 .891 DEPC_2 -4.94 -.18 -2.01 .046 DEPC_3 -.00 .00 -.00 .999 DEPC_4 128 .04 20 .618 DEPC_5 1.44 .04 .51 .613 DEPC_6 1.75 .05 .69 .493 AI .51 .16 1.91 .057 FR -.10 -.03 -.43 .669 PR .75 .27 4.07 .000 R- .Oil .180^^ R* Chang .169*» SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group; male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. L1VE 2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; I=commuung From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;I=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, I=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2; O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E<.05 ••£.<■01 Table 4.54: Regression of Establishing Identity on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Juniors 212 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=176 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 79.13 56.5S SEX_2 -1.39 -.07 -.90 .372 -1.49 -.07 -.85 .395 FA_2 -.59 -.03 -.26 .799 -.23 -.01 -.10 .921 FA_3 -.00 -.00 -.03 .973 -1.36 -.06 -.56 .578 LIVE_2 5.52 .16 1.61 .108 LIVE_3 1.88 .06 .65 .516 LIVE_4 1.65 .08 .67 .505 LIVE_5 I J 5 .06 .48 .635 CO_2 1.96 .09 .87 J 8 8 CO_3 3.49 .17 1.66 .100 WORK_2 1.56 .08 .71 .481 WORK_3 -21 .01 .09 .926 DEPC_2 -2.55 -.06 -.76 .446 DEPCJ 1.42 .05 .48 .635 DEPC_4 1.40 .06 .62 .536 DEPC_5 5.71 .09 1.07 -289 DEPC_6 -1.60 -.06 -.64 .525 AI .57 .19 2.19 .030 FR .28 .10 1.15 .254 PR J25 .11 1.20 .230 R- .005 .171* R* Chang .165* SEX_2; O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIV E3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live o ff campus and have been living in residence hall; l=Iive off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. VV0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; I=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; I=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; I=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. * E < .0 5 • • e.<-01 Table 4.55: Regression of Establishing Identity on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Seniors 213 Vector 6: Developing Purpose Results of the regression analyses in developing purpose for total students, male students, female students, four ranks of students are presented from Table 4.56 to Table 4.62. As can be seen, the two or three blocks of multiple regression models significantly explained the variation of developing purpose with 37% for total students, 36% for males, 39% for females, 41% for freshmen, 41% for sophomores, 38% for juniors, and 40% for seniors at the p < .01. The models can effectively explain much variance of developing purpose for Taiwanese students. When controlling the personal characteristics and ranks, college experiences still significantly explained the variance of developing purpose with 32% for total students, 33% for males, 33% for females, 38% for freshmen, 39% for sophomores, 31% for juniors, and 38% for seniors at the p < .01. When examining the full models to see the significance for partial regression coefficient (b) and the standardized partial regression coefficient (Beta) with the relative importance among independent variables, for total group of students, the variance of developing purpose was significantly explained by AI (.38), FR (.17), DEPC 5 (.14), PR (.12), FA_3 (.12), FA_2 (.09), LIVE_2 (.08), DEPC_ 6 (.08), C0_3 (.08), and SEX_2 (-. 07) with the p < .05. Among these ten significant predictors, relatively speaking, academic involvement was the most important factor associated with developing purpose. Faculty interactions, social science major (compare with the natural science major), and peer interactions were also important factors associated with developing purpose for total Taiwanese college students and the associations were moderate. Strong and moderate emotional support from family (compare with the little support), comminuting from home and have been living in residence hall (compare with the living experience in 214 comminuting from home and have never been living in residence), major fields in medical science (compare with the natural science), and the leadership experience in student organizations (compare with the non-participation) were also significant in explaining the development of purpose for Taiwanese students and the importance were slight. Being female students was significant and negative factor in explaining the development in purpose. Comparing with the male students, female students in Taiwan have a disadvantage in the development of purpose. This gender difference needs to be understood and perhaps counter acted. When dividing the total students by gender, the variance of developing purpose was significantly explained by AI (.39), FR (.16), PR (.11), DEPC_5 (.11), and DEPC 6 (.09) for male students at the £ < .05, and was significantly explained by AI (.38), FA_3 (.20), FR (.19), FA_2 (.15), PR (.13), and DEPC_5 (.13) for female students at the £ < .05. Academic involvement was the most important variable for both males and females in explaining the variance of developing purpose. Faculty interaction accounted for more variance than peer interaction for both males and females. Strong and moderate support from family (compare with the little support) were factors for females, while the field of major in medical science (compare with the natural science) was a factor for males. The environment of major in social science (compare with the natural science) was associated with both males and females. When dividing the students into four ranks, the variance of developing purpose was significantly explained by AI (.45), C0_3 (.13), FR (.11), and PR (.10) for freshman; AI (.33), DEPC_5 (.28), PR (.19), FR (.14), DEPC_6 (.14), W0RK_3 (.14), and L1VE_2 (.14) for sophomore; AI (.28), FR (.24), FA_3 (.21), PR (.14), SEX_2 (-.13), and 215 DEPC_5 (.12) for juniors; and AI (.41), DEPC_6 (.18), and FR (.16) for senior at the £ < .05. Academic involvement was again the most important factor in explaining the variance of developing purpose for all ranks of students. Peer interaction and faculty interaction were also important; however, peer interaction was not significant for seniors. Major field in social science and medical science (compare with the natural science), work experience relates to major (compare with the non-work experience), and comminuting from home and have been living in residence hall (compare with the living experience in comminuting from home and have never been living in residence hall) were associated with the development of purpose for sophomores. Strong emotional support from family (compare with the little support), and major field in social science were associated with juniors, while leadership experience in organizations (compare with the non-participation) was associated with freshman. Being female students (compare with the male students) was negatively associated with the development of purpose for juniors. When developing programs in Taiwan to facilitate the development of purpose, A wide variety of factors may be important to a student’s experience. 216 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =945 Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 60.86 58.81 22.80 SEX_2 -.00 -.00 -.06 .953 .18 .00 2 2 .828 -1.83 -.07 -224 .020 FA_2 3.51 .14 3 2 0 .001 328 .14 3.09 .002 224 .09 229 .010 FA_3 6.13 23 5.17 .000 5.90 22 5.00 .000 3.19 .12 3 2 4 .001 RANK_2 1.98 .07 1.81 .070 .48 .02 .48 .634 RANK_3 3 2 7 .13 329 .001 -.34 -.01 -2 4 .734 RANK_4 3.29 .10 2.79 .005 -.75 -.02 -.66 .509 LIVE_2 3.98 .08 2.53 .012 LIVE_3 .92 .02 .69 .491 LIVE_4 -.56 -.02 -.52 .603 LIVE_5 -.16 -.01 -.15 .879 CO_2 123 .05 127 .171 C 0_3 2.12 .08 2.11 .035 WORK_2 -.00 -.00 -.05 .958 W 0RK_3 1.91 .06 1.88 .060 DEPC_2 .75 .02 .64 .524 DEPC_3 1.59 .04 120 232 DEPC_4 1.20 .04 1.10 271 DEPC_5 624 .14 4 2 9 .000 DEPC_5 3.06 .08 2.69 .007 AI 1.39 .38 11.29 .000 FR .63 .17 527 .000 PR .38 .12 4 2 0 .000 R- .028" .042" 266" R* Chang .0 1 4 " 2 2 4 " SEX_2: O=not female; I=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not Junior; l=Junior, RANtC_4: O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=nol commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities. DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4:0=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science .•\l=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peerrelationship. * e < .05 • • p_< .01 Table 4.56: Regression of Developing Purpose on SEX, FA, RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Total Students 217 Step I Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n =508 Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 62.12 59.66 23.44 FA_2 2.07 .08 1.44 .151 1.95 .08 1J7 .172 1.43 .06 120 .231 FA_3 4.19 .15 2.55 .Oil 4.13 .14 2.54 .011 1.67 .06 121 .227 RANK_2 1.58 .06 1.04 .300 .35 .01 2 5 .803 RANK_3 4.20 .15 2.77 .006 .99 .04 .69 .488 RANK_4 4.80 .15 2.90 .004 .46 .01 .29 .774 LIVE_2 3.14 .06 129 .165 LIVE_3 1.18 .03 .63 228 LIVE_4 -.33 -.01 -22 .824 LIVE_5 .93 .04 .62 .534 C0_2 I.7I .07 1.40 .163 C0_3 2.51 .10 1.83 .068 W0RK_2 .84 .03 .77 .443 W O R K J 2.76 .08 1.83 .069 DEPC_2 1.89 .04 1.02 209 DEPC_3 1.37 .02 .56 .576 DEPC_4 2 2 6 .06 1.47 .142 DEPC_5 5.93 .11 2.75 .006 DEPC_6 3.19 .09 2.17 .030 AI 1.38 .39 8.13 .000 FR .57 .16 321 .000 PR .33 .11 2.64 .009 R- .013' .036" .3 6 4 " R* Chang .023" .3 2 8 " FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=notjunior; l^unior, RANK_4: O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=notbe a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group; not joint organization. W 0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. • e < 05 01 Table 4.57: Regression o f Developing Purpose on FA. RANK, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Males 218 Step 1 Step 2 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (Rank) (College Experience) n=437 Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 58.79 57.43 19.81 FA_2 5.75 .23 3.39 .001 5.64 .23 3.32 .001 3.64 .15 2 3 8 .010 FA_3 8.66 3 5 4.99 .000 8.28 .33 4.76 .000 5.02 3 0 3.42 .001 RANK_2 2.67 .09 1.67 .095 .88 .03 .60 .549 RANK_3 2.74 .10 1.86 .063 -2.06 -.08 -1.39 .167 RANK_4 136 .04 .80 .423 -2.27 -.07 -1.39 .166 L1VE_2 4.10 .08 1.82 .069 LIVE_3 .91 .02 .46 .646 LFVE_4 -1.65 -.05 -.99 321 LIVE_5 -.90 -.04 -.63 .528 C 0_2 .40 .02 .30 .768 C 0_3 1.72 .07 1.13 .260 W 0RK_2 -1.47 -.06 -1.22 .225 W0RK_3 1.10 .04 .78 .434 DEPC_2 -.77 -.03 -.40 .687 DEPC_3 .86 .03 .44 .660 DEPC_4 -.55 -.02 -.29 .769 DEPC_5 4.80 .13 2.19 .029 DEPC_5 2.32 .06 1.13 .258 AI 1.48 .38 7.94 .000 FR .74 .19 3.98 .000 PR .42 .13 3.06 .002 R- .0 5 5 " .0 6 4 " 3 9 1 " R'Chang .010 .3 2 7 " FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RAN1C_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=notjunior; l=^unior, RANK_4: O=not senior; I=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. L1VE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5:0=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to majon l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *a<.05 "E_<.01 Table 4.58: Regression of Developing Purpose on FA, RANK., LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Females 219 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=278 Variables Beta Beta (Constant) 58.47 21.33 SEX_2 .89 .04 .61 .544 -.62 -.03 -.43 .668 FA_2 3.68 .15 1.92 .056 1.46 .06 .92 .357 FA_3 5.23 .20 2.49 .013 1.02 .04 2 8 .564 LIVE_2 5.26 .08 1.58 .115 LIVE_3 1.67 .05 .73 .467 L1VE_4 -2.13 -.05 -.72 .473 LIVE_5 .19 .01 .11 .914 C 0_2 .60 .02 .44 .663 CO_3 5 J 5 .13 2.32 .021 W 0RK_2 -1.03 -.04 -.73 .468 W 0RK_3 1.99 .05 .88 .378 DEPC_2 3.80 .09 1.53 .126 DEPC_3 3.21 .08 I J 3 .183 DEPC_4 2 7 .01 .14 .885 DEPC_5 3.93 .02 1.66 .098 DEPC_6 -.96 -.02 -.27 .787 AI 1.68 .45 7.43 .000 FR .49 .11 1.78 .076 PR .34 .10 1.97 .050 R^ .024 .4 0 5 " R^ Chang .3 8 1 " SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. L1VE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader, l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major, l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: Ornot humanities; l=hummanities. DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=facuIty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E<.05 •* e_<.01 Table 4.59: Regression of Developing Purpose on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Freshmen 220 Step 1 Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=229 Variables b Beta t P b Beta t P (Constant) 60.60 19J2 SEX_2 2.39 .10 1.41 .161 -.98 -.04 -.59 .558 FA_2 3.14 .13 1.43 .154 3.22 .13 1.75 .082 FA_3 4.09 .16 1.71 .089 3.16 .12 137 .118 L1VE_2 7 J3 .14 2.72 .024 L1VE_3 2.62 .06 .92 .357 L1VE_4 1.22 .05 .59 .556 L1VE_5 1.60 .06 .74 .459 CO_2 i J l .06 .74 .462 CO_3 -.79 -.03 -.36 .720 WORK_2 1.02 .04 .68 .497 WORK_3 5 J 6 .14 2.17 .036 DEPC_2 3 2 5 .11 139 .166 DEPC_3 3.48 .06 .89 .375 DEPC_4 -3.21 -.09 -1.19 2 3 6 DEPC_5 12.76 28 3.80 .000 DEPC_6 4.18 .14 1.94 .054 AI 132 .33 4.93 .000 FR 3 3 .14 2.06 .040 PR .56 .19 2.98 .003 R^ .026 .411»» R- Chang .3 8 5 " SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. L1VE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=communng From home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; I=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W 0RK _3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; I=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science. DEPC_6; O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E < -05 • • e_<.01 Table 4.60: Regression of Developing Purpose on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Sophomores 221 Step I Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=252 Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P (Constant) 61 J3 28.06 SEX_2 -1.06 -.04 -.69 .492 -3.2 -.13 -1.95 .052 FA_2 4.46 .18 2.18 .030 2.61 .11 1.47 .144 FA_3 9.18 .35 4.16 .000 5-56 21 2.82 .005 LIVE_2 2.30 .05 .73 .464 LIVE_3 -1.46 -.03 -.45 .657 LIVE jl -1.35 -.05 -.62 .533 LIVE_5 -1.14 -.05 -.54 .593 C 0_2 -1.57 -.06 -70 .488 C 0_3 .41 .02 .18 .854 WORK_2 -.21 -.01 -.12 .905 W 0RK_3 3.33 .13 1.70 .090 DEPC_2 -2.27 -.08 -.97 33 5 DEPC_3 .64 .02 2 6 .793 DEPC_4 3.88 .09 1.47 .142 DEPC_5 533 .12 1.96 .052 DEPC_6 3.04 .07 1.25 .213 AI 1.02 .28 4.01 .000 FR .87 .24 3.85 .000 PR .41 .14 2.32 .021 R- .0 6 6 " .3 8 0 " R* Chang 3 14"" SEX 2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=noc moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=noi live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not Joint organization. WQRJC_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, I=w ork experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=sociaI science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Companson Group: natural science. AI=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. •E<.05 •*£.<.01 Table 4.61: Regression of Developing Purpose on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO, WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Juniors 222 Step I Full Model (Personal Characteristics) (College Experience) n=176 Variables b Beta t p b Beta t P (Constant) 64.86 23.50 SEX_2 -2.20 -.09 -1.15 .254 -1.99 -.08 -1.07 2 8 5 FA_2 IJO .05 .45 .652 .95 .04 2 8 .703 FA_3 3.99 .15 I J l .193 1.81 .07 .70 .485 LIVE_2 .94 .02 2 6 .795 LIVE_3 1.69 .05 .55 2 83 LfVE_4 -.48 -.02 -.18 .855 LIVE_5 -1.54 -.05 -.51 .609 CO_2 2.75 .10 1.14 .255 CO_3 3.26 .13 1.46 .147 W 0RK_2 1.42 .06 .61 .544 WORK_3 3.14 .12 129 .198 DEPC_2 -1.59 -.03 -.45 .655 DEPC_3 -.30 -.01 -.10 .925 DEPC_4 321 .10 124 .183 DEPC_5 10.64 .13 1.87 .064 DEPC_6 6.16 .18 221 .022 AI 1.50 .41 5.43 .000 FR .57 .16 2.16 .032 PR .21 .07 .95 .344 R- .019 .395"" R’ Chang .376"" SEX_2; O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; I=commuting From home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall;l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C0_2: 0=not be a member; 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not Joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=w ork experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=educanon, DPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. Al=academic involvement, FR=faculty-student relationship, PR=peer relationship. *E < -05 • * e.<.01 Table 4.62: Regression of Developing Purpose on SEX, FA, LIVE, CO. WORK, DEPC, AI, FR, and PR for Seniors 223 CHAPTERS SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The final chapter presents the summary, conclusions, and recommendations of the study. It is organized into three sections. A summary of the purpose, research questions, methodology, and findings of the study are presented in section one. Conclusions based on the findings of the study are covered in section two. Finally, reconunendations for practice and for further research are addressed. Summary After the end of martial law in 1987, student affairs in Taiwan was in transition. Scholars claimed to develop new goals and roles for student affairs in order to provide more service and help for students. Based on the U. S. experience, the researcher believes the goals for student affairs in Taiwan need to move from in loco parentis to student service and to student development. If the goal of student affairs is to move toward student development, student affairs professionals need to use formal student development theories to inform their practice. However, no college student development theory is currently in use in Taiwan. Since Chickering’s psychosocial theory is the most useful and widely used and studied theory in the U. S., this theory may be a valuable 224 model for Taiwan. However, psychosocial development is age-graded and history- graded. Cultural and historical experience are important factors that influence students’ psychosocial development. Chickering’s theory was culturally translated and then tested with Taiwanese College students to determine how they develop from freshmen to seniors in the psychosocial domain in Taiwan. Purpose The purpose of the research was to develop an instrument to measure Chickering’s psychosocial development theory that was sensitive to Taiwanese college students and their culture and then to explore differences in development based upon ranks, gender, major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationships, peer relationships, family relationships, and living, co-curricular, and work experiences. This study also determined which independent variables explained the greatest amount of unique variance in psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan. Research Question The following research questions were addressed in the study: 1. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different ranks of college students in Taiwan? 2. What are the differences in psychosocial development between male and female college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 3. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different majors of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 4. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different academic involvement of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 225 5. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different faculty- student relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 6. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different peer relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 7. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different family relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 8. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different living experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 9. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different co-curricular experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 10. What are the differences in psychosocial development among different work experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 11. Which independent variables explain the greatest amount of unique variance in the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan? Male students? Female students? And different ranks of students? Methodology Twenty institutions were selected from the total of 78 institutions based on the proportion in the target population in terms of location, public/private, and university/college. The sample of 1420 students was randomly selected from 20 institutions based on the proportion of the target population by major, gender, and class rank. The final valid 945 respondents were used in the study. Based on the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory, Iowa Student Development Inventories, The Georgia Autonomy Scales, Developmental Advising 226 Inventory, Chinese Life Adjustment Inventory of College Student, and College Student Experiences Questionnaire, a Chinese College Student Psychosocial Development Inventory (CCSPDI) was developed by the researcher to collect data. This instrument consisted of three parts: Student Psychosocial Development Tasks, College Student Experiences Questionnaire, and Personal Characteristics. Part I, Student Psychosocial Development Tasks, contained 120 items that related to the psychosocial developmental tasks of college students and was grouped into six subscales: Developing Competence, Managing Emotions, Developing Autonomy, Mature Interpersonal Relationship, Establishing Identity, and Developing Purpose. Part II, College Student Experiences Questionnaire, contained 21 items and was divided into three dimensions: Academic Involvement, Faculty-Student Relationships, and Peer Relationships. Part III was related to personal characteristics. Eight dimensions were included in these characteristics: age, gender, major, class rank, family relationship, living experiences, co-curricular experiences, and work experiences. Face, content, and construct validity were established by a panel of experts, a field test, a pilot study with standard item analysis, intercorrelation analysis, and factor analysis, and formal study with intercorrelation analysis and factor analysis. The reliability of the instrument was determined by an internal measure of consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) &om a pilot study and formal study. Data for the study were collected by the researcher from March 4 to March 26, 1999 in Taiwan. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to compare the differences of psychosocial development for ten independent variables (research questions 1-10), where one independent variable at one time was considered and compared the differences among the six vectors simultaneously. Multiple Regression 227 statistics were used to determine which independent variables that explained the greatest amoimt of unique variance in the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan (research question 11), which regressed one dependent variable (vector) to all independent variables at one time. Research Findings Question 1 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different ranks of college students in Taiwan? A statistically significance was found for rank in MANOVA. Subsequent univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences among the four ranks on two subscales: scale 1 (Developing Competence) and scaled (Developing Purpose). Post hoc multiple comparisons indicated that juniors had significantly higher scores than freshmen on both Developing Competence and Developing Purpose. Question 2 - What are the differences in psychosocial development between male and female of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? A statistically significant overall main effect was found for rank in MANOVA. No significant multivariate effects were found for gender and gender by rank. Subsequent ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences among the four ranks on two subscales: scale 1 (Developing Competence) and scaled (Developing Purpose). Post hoc multiple comparisons indicated that juniors had significantly higher scores than freshmen on both Developing Competence and Developing Purpose. Question 3 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different majors of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 228 A statistically significant overall main effect was found for major and an interaction effect was found for major by rank in MANOVA. No significant main effect was found for rank. Subsequent ANOVA revealed no statistically significant difference for interaction of major by rank among six subscales. Statistically significant differences for major were found on two subscales: scale4 (Mature Interpersonal Relationship) and scaled (Developing Purpose). Post hoc multiple comparisons indicated that Social Science majors had significantly higher scores than Natural Science majors on Mature Interpersonal Relationship and Humanities majors had significantly higher scores than Natural Science majors on Purpose. Question 4 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different academic involvement of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? Two statistically significant overall main effects were found for both academic involvement and rank in MANOVA. No significant multivariate effect was found for academic involvement by rank. Subsequent ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between high and low academic involvement on all six subscales. However, Subsequent ANOVAs revealed no statistically significant difference in rank among the six subscales. Question 5 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different faculty-student relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? A statistically significant overall main effect was found for faculty-student relationship (FR) in MANOVA. No significant multivariate effects were found for rank 229 and FR by rank. Subsequent ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between high and low FR on all six subscales. Question 6 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different peer relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? Two statistically significant overall main effects were found for both peer relationship (PR) and rank in MANOVA. No significant multivariate effect was found for peer relationship by rank. Subsequent ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between high and low PR on all six subscales. Subsequent ANOVA also revealed statistically significant differences among the four ranks on two subscales; scale 1 (Developing Competence) and scaleô (Developing Purpose). Post hoc multiple comparisons indicated that juniors had significantly higher scores than freshmen on both Developing Competence and Developing Purpose. Question 7 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different family relationships of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? Two statistically significant overall main effects were found for both family relationship (FA) and rank in MANOVA. No significant multivariate effect was found for family relationship by rank. Subsequent ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences among strong, moderate, and little family support groups on two subscales: scale 1 (Developing Competence) and scaled (Developing Purpose). Post hoc multiple comparisons indicated that strong support had significantly higher scores than both moderate and little support on Developing Competence and both strong and moderate support had higher scores than little support on Developing Purpose. Subsequent ANOVA also revealed statistically significant differences among the four ranks on two 230 subscales: scale 1 (Developing Competence) and scaled (Developing Purpose). Post hoc multiple comparisons indicated that juniors had significant higher scores than freshmen on both Developing Competence and Developing Purpose. Question 8 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different living experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? A statistically significant overall main effect was found for living experience in MANOVA. No significant multivariate effects were found for rank or living experience by rank. Subsequent ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences among the living experience on scaled. Post hoc multiple comparisons indicated that students who commuting from home and had been living in a residence hall had a significantly higher development than students who only lived in a residence hall in developing purpose. Question 9 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different co-curricular experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? A statistically significant overall main effect was found for co-curricula experience in MANOVA. No significant multivariate effects were found for rank or co curricula experience by rank. Subsequent ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences among the co-curricula experience on the six subscales except for the scale4 (Mature Interpersonal relationship). Post hoc multiple comparisons indicated that students who had been a leader had significantly higher development than both students who had not jointed any organization or had only been a member in all vectors, except for vector four. Question 10 - What are the differences in psychosocial development among different work experiences of college students in Taiwan? And in different ranks? 231 A statistically significant overall main effect was found for work experience in MANOVA. No significant multivariate effects were found for rank or work experience by rank. Subsequent ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences among the work experience on three subscales: scale 1, scaleS, and scaleô. Post hoc multiple comparisons indicated that students who had work experience related to their major during college had significantly higher developments than students who did not have any work experience in competence, autonomy, and purpose In addition, students who had work experience related to their major during college also had a significantly higher development than students who had work experience not related to their major in purpose. Question 11- which independent variables explain the greatest amount of unique variance in the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan? Male students? Female students? And different ranks of students? The results of 42 multiple regression for total students, male students, female students, and different ranks of students in each vector were summarized from Table 5.1 to Table 5.6. The two or three blocks of regression models explained the variances of developing competence ranged from 34% to 43%. After controlling for personal characteristics and rank, college experiences explained the variance of developing competence ranged from 30% to 37%. In full models, the variance of developing competence was significantly explained by AI, PR, FR, C0_3, FA_3, LIVE_2, and SEX_2 (negative) for total students, AJ, PR, FR, and LIVE 2 for males, PR, AI, FA_3, and FR for females, AI, PR, and FR for freshmen, PR, AI, DEPC 5, FA_2, FR, 232 W0RK_3, and FA_3 for sophomores, AI, C0_3, PR, and FR for juniors, and AI, PR, FR, and CO_3 for seniors at £ < .05. The two or three blocks of regression models explained the variances of managing emotions ranged from 20% to 34%. After controlling the personal characteristics and rank, college experiences explained the variance of managing emotions ranged from 18% to 32%. In full models, the variance of managing emotions was significantly explained by PR, AI, and SEX_2 (negative) for total students, PR and AI for males, PR, AI, and FA_3 for females, PR, and FR for freshmen, PR, FA_2, DEPC_5, and AI for sophomores, AI, PR, DEPC 4, and DEPC 6 for juniors, and PR for seniors at p < .05. The two or three blocks of regression models explained the variances of developing autonomy ranged from 23% to 34%. After controlling the personal characteristics and rank, college experiences explained the variance of developing autonomy ranged from 20% to 33%. In full models, the variance of developing autonomy was significantly explained by PR, AI, C0_3, SEX_2 (negative), and FR for total students, PR, AI, C0_3, C0_2, FR, and FA_3 for males, PR and AI for females, PR and AI for freshmen, AI, PR, DEPC 5, FA_2, and SEX_2 (negative) for sophomores, AI, PR, W0RK_3 and FR for juniors, and C0_3 , AI, PR, and FR for seniors at p < .05. The two or three blocks of regression models explained the variances of mature interpersonal relationship (MIR) ranged from 21% to 35%. After controlling the personal characteristics and rank, college experiences explained the variance of MIR ranged from 20% to 34%. In full models, the variance of MIR was significantly explained by PR, AI, and DEPC 5 for total students, PR, AI, and DEPC 4 for males, PR and FR (negative) for 233 females, PR, LIVE 4 (negative), and FA_3 for freshmen, PR and AI for sophomores, PR, DEPC 5, and DEPC 4 for juniors, and PR, and DEPC 6 for seniors at £ < .05. The two or three blocks of regression models explained the variances of establishing identity ranged from 16% to 26%. After controlling the personal characteristics and rank, college experiences explained the variance of establishing identity ranged from 11% to 24%. In full models, the variance of establishing identity was significantly explained by PR, AI, FA_2, and FA_3 for total students, PR, AI, and W0RK_2 for males, PR, FA_3, FA_2, and AI for females, PR, F A3 , FA_2, and W0RK_2 for freshmen, PR, DEPC5, FA_2, F A3 , and W0RK_3 for sophomores, PR and DEPC 2 (negative) for juniors, and AI for seniors at p < .05. The two or three blocks of regression models explained the variances of developing purpose ranged from 36% to 41%. After controlling the personal characteristics and rank, college experiences explained the variance of developing purpose ranged from 31% to 39%. In full models, the variance of developing purpose was significantly explained by AI, FR, DEPC5, PR, F A3, FA_2, C0_3, LIVE_2, DEPC6, and SEX_2 (negative) for total students, AI, FR, PR, DEPC_5,and DEPC 6 for males, AI, FA_3, FR, FA_2, PR, and DEPC_5 for females, AI, PR, C0_3, and FR for freshmen, AI, DEPC 5, FR, PR, DEPC 6, WORK_3, and LIVE_2 for sophomores, AI, FR, FA_3, PR, SEX_2 (negative) and DEPC_5 for juniors, and AI, DEPC 6, and FR for seniors at p <.05. 234 Rechange Groups Significant Predictor Variables (£ < .05) R- For college experience Total Students AI { 21 ), PR { 21 ), FR (.17), CO 3 (.10), FA 3 (.09), .36** .32** n=945 LIVE_2 (.07), SEX_2 (-.06) Males AI (.30), PR (.27), FR (.20), LIVE_2 (.09) .39** .37** n= 508 Females PR (.28), AI (.24), FA_3 (2 0 ), FR (.11) .34** .26** n=437 Freshmen AI (.27), PR (.27), FR(.I9) .37** .35** n=278 Sophomores PR (.35), AI (.24), DEPC 5 (.22), FA 2 (20), .43** .41** n=229 FR(.19), W0RK_3 (.16), FA_3 (.15) Juniors AI (.28), C0_3 (22), PR (20), FR (.16) .34** .30** n=262 Seniors AI (27), PR (.27), FR (.19), C0_3 (.19) .40** .34** n=I76 Note. Standardized partial regression coefilcients are listed in the parentheses. AI= academic involvement, PR= peer relationship, FR= faculty -student relationship SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, F A3 : O=not strong parents’ support; I=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group; little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK._3:0=not junior, I=junior, RANK_4: O=not senior, I=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=notcommuting from home and have been living in residence hall; l=commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live o ff campus and have been living in residence hall, L IV E S: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, W 0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. *E<.05 •*E.<.01 Table 5.1: Summary of the Results for Multiple Regression in Developing Competence 235 R-change Groups Significant Predictor Variables (p. < .05) R- For college experience Total Students PR (.33), AI (.14), SEX_2 (-.07) .20** .19** n=945 Males PR (.33), AI (.14) .22** 21** n= 508 Females PR(.30),AI(.17), FA_3(.17) .23** .18** n=437 Freshmen PR (.34), FR(.17) .21** .19** n=278 Sophomores PR (.43), FA_2 (25), DEPC_5 (22), AI (.14) .34** .32** n=229 Juniors AI (.28), PR (20), DEPC_4 (.17), DEPC_6 (.13) .23** .21** n=262 Seniors PR (.28) 28**25** n=I76 Note. Standardized partial regression coefficients are listed in the parentheses. AI= academic involvement, PR= peer relationship, FR= faculty -student relationship SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not junior, I^ ‘unior, RANK_4: O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; 1= commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live o ff campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live o ff campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member, 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK 2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major, l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; I =cducation, DEPC_4: O=not business; I=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: namral science. •• e_<.OI Table 5.2: Summary of the Results for Multiple Regression in Managing Emotions 236 R^ change Groups Significant Predictor Variables < ,05) R^ For college experience Total Students PR (.29), AI (.25), CO_3(.13), SEX_2 (-.08), FR (.07) .21 ** .26** n = 945 Males PR (.29), AI (.28), CO 3 (21), CO 2 (.12), FR (.10), .34** .33** n=508 FA_3 (-.10) Females PR (.27), AI (.23) 2 3 * * .20** n=437 Freshmen PR (.36), AI (.22) 2 9 * * .29** n=278 Sophomores AI (.32), PR (.26), DEPC 5 (.19), FA 2 (.18), .31** 29** n=229 SEX_2(-.I5) Juniors AI (.25), PR (.25), WORKJ (.17), PR (.14) .30** ,29** n=262 Seniors CO_3 (30), AI (.27), PR (25), FR(.I9) .33** .32** n=176 Note. Standardized partial regression coefficients are listed in the parentheses. AI= academic involvement, PR= peer relationship, FR= faculty -student relationship SEX_2; O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: tnale. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; I=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group; little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK._3: O=not junior, l=j'unior, RANK_4: O=not senior, l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; 1= commuting from Home and have t>ee living in residence hall. LIV E3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have fjeen living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=notonly live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group; coitunuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a memtier, 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=t)e a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=work experience does not relate to major, W0RK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanitics, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; I=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. * E < .0 5 Table 5.3: Summary of the Results for Multiple Regression in Developing Autonomy 237 R‘ change Groups Significant Predictor Variables (p. < .05) R- For college experience Total Students PR (.42), AI (.11), DEPC_5 (.09) .24** 23** n=945 Males PR (.41), AI (.14), DEPC_4 (.12) .27** 2 6 ** n= 508 Females PR (.43), F R (-.ll) 24 ** .23** n=437 Freshmen PR (.41), L1VE_4 (-.18), FA_3 (.14) .27** .24** n=278 Sophomores PR (.54), AI (.17) .35** .34** n=229 Juniors PR (.39), DEPC_5 (.17), DEPC_4 (.14) .30** 28** n=262 Seniors PR (.27), DEPC_6(.19) .21** .20** n=176 Note. Standardized partial regression coefficients are listed in the parentheses. Al= academic involvement, PR= peer relationship, FR= faculty -student relationship SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support Comparison Group: little parents’ support RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=notJunior; l=junior, RANK_4: O=not senior, l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not corrunuting from home and have been living in residence hall; 1= commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live ofrcampus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live o ff campus and have been Irving in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence halt. CO_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. W 0RK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major; l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=educarion, DEPC_4- O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. *£<.05 •*£.<.01 Table 5.4: Summary of the Results for Multiple Regression in Mature Interpersonal Relationship 238 R‘ change Groups Significant Predictor Variables (g, < .05) R* For college experience Total Students PR (.28), AJ (.11), FA_2 (.11), FA_3 (.11) .17** .14** n=945 Males PR (.31), AI (.11), W0RK_2 (.11) .20** .19** n=508 Females PR(J23), FA_3 (.22), FA_2 (.18), AI (.13) .16** .11** n=437 Freshmen PR (.36), FA_3 (.17), FA_ 2 (.17), W0RK_2 (.12) .23** .19** n=278 Sophomores PR (.31), DEPC 5 (27), FA 2 (24), FA 3 (.19), .26** .24** n=229 WORKJ (.15) Juniors PR (27), DEPC_2(-.18) .18** .17** n=262 Seniors AI (.19) .17** .17* n=I76 Note. Standardized partial regression coefHcients are listed in the parentheses. AI= academic involvement, PR= peer relationship, faculty -student relationship SEX_2: O=not female; l=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; l=moderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support; l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not junior; l=junior, RANKjt: O=not senior, l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; 1= commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. LIVE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; I=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; 1=1 ive off campus and have been living in residence hall, L1VE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. C 0_2: O=not be a member; 1= be a member, C0_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major; l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4; O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. *£<.05 ••£.<■01 Table 5.5: Summary of the Results for Multiple Regression in Establishing Identity 239 Rechange Groups Significant Predictor Variables (p. < .05) R- For college experience Total Students AI(.38), FR(.17),DEPC 5 (.14), PR (.12), FA 3(.12), .37** .32** n=945 FA 2 (.09), CO 3 (.08), LIVE 2 (.08), DEPC 6 (.08), SEX_2 (-.07) Males AI (.39), FR (.16), PR (.11), DEPC 5 (.11), .36 ** .33** n= 508 DEPC_6 (.09) Females AI (.38), FA 3 (.20), FR (.19), FA_2 (.15), PR (.13), .39** .33** n=437 DEPC_5 (.13) Freshmen AI (.45), PR (.27), C0_3 (.13), FR(.ll), .41** .38** n=278 Sophomores AI (.33), DEPC 5 (.28), FR (.19), PR (.14), .41** .39** n=229 DEPC_6 (.14), W ORKJ (.14), LIVE_2 (.14) Juniors AI (.28), FR (.24), FA_3 (.21), PR (.14), SEX 2 (-.13), .38** .51** n=262 DEPC_5(.12) Seniors AI (.41), DEPC_6 (.18), FR (.16) .40** .38** n=176 Note. Standardized partial regression coefficients are listed in the parentheses. AI= academic involvement, PR= peer relationship, FR= faculty -student relationship SEX_2: O=not female; I=female. Comparison Group: male. FA_2: O=not moderate parents’ support; Immoderate parents’ support, FA_3: O=not strong parents’ support: l=strong parents’ support. Comparison Group: little parents’ support. RANK_2: O=not sophomore; l=sophomore, RANK_3: O=not junior, l=junior, RANK_4: O=not senior; l=senior. Comparison Group: freshman. LIVE_2: O=not commuting from home and have been living in residence hall; 1= commuting from Home and have bee living in residence hall. L1VE_3: O=not live off campus and have never been living in residence hall; l=live off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_4: O=not live off campus and have been living in residence hall; 1=1 ive off campus and have been living in residence hall, LIVE_5: O=not only live in residence hall; l=only live in residence hall. Comparison Group: commuting from home and have never been living in residence hall. CO_2: O=not be a member, 1= be a member, CO_3: O=not be a leader; l=be a leader. Comparison Group: not joint organization. WORK_2: O=not work experience does not relate to major, l=work experience does not relate to major, WORK_3: O=not work experience relates to major, l=work experience relates to major. Comparison Group: not has work experience. DEPC_2: O=not humanities; l=hummanities, DEPC_3: not education; l=education, DEPC_4: O=not business; l=business, DEPC_5: O=not social science; l=social science, DEPC_6: O=not medical science; l=medical science. Comparison Group: natural science. •£<.05 •*£.<.01 Table 5.6: Summary of the Results for Multiple Regression in Developing Purpose 240 In sum, the results of the study indicate psychosocial development of Taiwanese college students increases from freshman to upper class; however, statistical significance only showed in developing competence and purpose rather than in autonomy which is different from the most findings in the U. S. Compared with the other independent variables, class rank is not a significantly important factor in explaining the psychosocial development for Taiwanese students. There is no gender difference on psychosocial development for Taiwanese students while some studies in the U. S. showed males have higher development in autonomy than females and females have higher development in purpose than males. However, comparing with males, female students in Taiwan have a disadvantage in developing competence, emotions, autonomy, and purpose. Family support is a significant important factor for Taiv/anese students, especially for female students in the development of competence, identity, emotions, and purpose while is a negative one for American women students in autonomy. Living in residence halls, compared with commuting from home, disadvantages the development of purpose for Taiwanese students which is different from the most findings in the U. S. In addition, faculty interactions have a negative relationship for Taiwanese female students in MIR. Academic major is a significant factor associated with the development of MIR and purpose for Taiwanese students. This is also different from the findings in the U. S. where academic major is more related to cognitive areas. Although the opportunities in making friends with diverse backgrounds of peers are fewer in Taiwanese campus than in American campus, peer relationship is the most important factor in psychosocial development for both Taiwanese and American students. Furthermore, academic 241 involvement, leadership experience in organizations, and work experience related to major are also significantly important factors for both Taiwanese and American smdents. Conclusions Conclusions and recommendations resulting firom the study may be generalized to the population of the students who were ages of 18-24 years, attended 20 selected universities, independent colleges, normal universities and teachers colleges in Taiwan during the 1998-1999 academic year. Based on the findings of the study, nine conclusions were developed: Conclusion 1 Generally speaking, psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan follows Chickering’s theory with development increasing firom freshman to upper class with the exception of mature interpersonal relationship. Juniors have significantly higher development in developing competence and purpose than freshmen. However, compared with the other independent variables, class rank is not an important factor in explaining the psychosocial development in each vector for Taiwanese college students. The result of MANOVA indicated that juniors had significantly higher development than freshman in developing competence and purpose. The trend from the descriptive data of MANOVA also showed that mean scores increased from freshmen to seniors with juniors having the highest scores in developing competence, developing autonomy, and developing purpose and seniors having the highest scores in managing emotions and establishing identity. The only exception is the mature interpersonal relationship scale on which freshmen had the highest mean score. 242 The results of multiple regression showed that the changes for rank were significant in competence, autonomy, and purpose for total college students at p < .05; however, in the full models, the standardized partial regression coefficients (Beta) indicated that class rank was not an importance factor for all six vectors when compared with other independent variables. Conclusions 2 There is no gender difference in psychosocial development for Taiwanese college students when only considering the gender difference among six vectors simultaneously. However, when considering all independent variables together, female students, compared with males, disadvantage in the development of competence, emotions, autonomy, and purpose. When only comparing the gender difference among six vectors simultaneously, the results of MANOVA indicated that there was no gender difference in psychosocial development for Taiwanese college students. When regressing each vector while holding other independent variables constant at one time, the results of the multiple regression showed that being a female student, comparing with the male student, was a significant negative factor in explaining the variance of the development in competence, emotions, autonomy, and purpose at p < .05. Conclusion 3 After controlling for personal characteristics and class rank, college experiences, which include living experience, co-curricular experience, work experience, major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationship, and peer relationship significantly explained the greatest amount of variance in psychosocial development in each vector 243 ranging from 41% to 17% for Taiwanese college students. Relatively speaking, college experiences explain the greatest amount of variance in developing competence and purpose and explain the least amount of variance in managing emotions and establishing identity. College experiences also explain the greatest amount of variance in all vectors for sophomores and explain the least amount of variance in managing emotions and establishing identity for freshmen, and in mature interpersonal relationship and establishing identity for seniors. Third, college experiences explain the greatest amount of variance for males and explain the least amount of variance for females in all vectors except for the developing competence. Conclusion 4 High involvement compared to low involvement in academic experience, peer interaction and faculty interaction significantly appears to affect development in a positive way on all vectors for Taiwanese college students. Among all independent variables, academic involvement and peer relationship are two statistically significant and the most important factors for all of sample students in explaining the greatest amount of variance on all vectors except developing purpose, where peer relationship is fourth. Peer relationship is the most important factor in explaining the variance of the development in competence, emotions, autonomy, mature interpersonal relationship and establishing identity while academic involvement is the most important factor in explaining the variance of the development in purpose and competence for this sample. 244 Faculty- student relationship is also a significant factor in explaining the variance of development in competence, autonomy, and purpose. Among all significant predictors, its importance is moderate. Peer relationship is the most important factor in explaining the variance of psychosocial development in all vectors except the developing purpose for beginning students, while academic involvement is the most important factor in explaining the variance of psychosocial development in competence, autonomy, identity, and purpose for upper class students. Faculty-student interaction is more important in explaining the variance of psychosocial development for upper class students than for beginning students, and more for male students than for female students. Faculty interaction has a negative correlation with the development in mature interpersonal relationship for female students. Conclusion 5 Academic major is associated with the psychosocial development for Taiwanese college students. Social science majors have significantly higher development in MIR than natural science majors. Humanities majors have significantly higher development in developing purpose than natural science majors. Being a social science major, compared with natural science, is a significant factor in explaining the variance of MIR and purpose for the total sample students. Among all significant predictors, the importance of major is moderate. Comparing with being a natural science major, being a social science or medical science major is a significant factor in explaining the variance in developing purpose for males and sophomores. Being a social science majors is also a significant factor in explaining the 245 variance in managing emotions, developing autonomy, and establishing identity for sophomores and MIR for juniors. In addition, being a medical science major is a significant factor in explaining the variance in developing purpose and MIR for seniors. Being a humanities major, compared with being a natural science major, however, significantly negatively relate to the establishing identity for juniors. Conclusion 6 For living experience, students who commute from home and have been living in a residence hall have the significantly higher development in purpose than students who only live in residence halls in Taiwan. Commuting from home and living in a residence hall, comparing with commuting from home and have never been living in a residence hall, is a significant factor to explain the variance of development in competence and purpose for total students. Among all significant predictors, the importance, however, it is slight. Commuting from home and living in a residence hall, comparing with commuting from home and have never been living in a residence hall, is a significant factor for males in competence and for sophomores in purpose. Living off campus and living in a residence hall in the past, compared with commuting from home and have never lived in a residence hall, is a significant but negative factor in MIR for freshmen. Conclusion 7 Co-curricular experience is also associated with the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan. Students who have had leadership experiences in student organizations have significantly higher development in all vectors except MIR than students who were non-participation and who were only members. 246 Leadership experience in organizations, compared with the non-participation, is a significant factor in explaining the variance of development in competence, autonomy, and purpose for total sample of students. Among all significant predictors, the importance is moderate. Leadership experience, comparing with the non-participation, significantly explains developing autonomy for males and developing competence and developing autonomy for seniors. Leadership experience also significantly explains developing purpose for freshmen. In addition, member experience in organizations, comparing with non-participation, also significantly explains developing purpose for males. Conclusion 8 Students who have work experience that relates to their majors have significantly higher development in competence, autonomy, and purpose than students who have non work experience and who have work experience that do not relate to their majors for Taiwanese college student. Work experience, however, is not a significant factor in explaining the variance of psychosocial development for the total sample of students. When examining different gender and different ranks of group, work experience is more related to establishing identity. Work experience that does not relate to the major, compared with non-work experience, significantly explains the establishing identity for males and freshmen. Work experience that relates to the major, comparing with non-work experience, also significantly explains establishing identity for sophomores. In addition, work experience in major-related areas significantly explains the development of competence and purpose for sophomores and autonomy for juniors. 247 Conclusion 9 Beyond college experiences, family relationships are also associated with psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan. Students who have strong support from parents have significantly higher development in competence and purpose than students who have moderate and little support form parents. Students who have moderate support from parents also have significantly higher development in purpose than those with little support. Both strong and moderate family support are significant factors in explaining the variance of developments in identity and purpose for total students. Among all significant predictors, the importance is moderate. Strong family support also is a significant factor in explaining the variance of development in competence for total sample of students. Both strong and moderate family supports are especially important factors for females in developing competence, identity, emotions, and purpose but not in autonomy and MIR. Furthermore, both strong and moderate family support are also particularly important for sophomores in developing competence, emotions, autonomy, and identity. Recommendations Based on the findings of this study and the review of the literature, the following recommendations for practice and further study are made. Implications for Practice 1. Since Astin’s (1984) work in the 1980s, there has been growing concern for student involvement in higher education in the U. S. Higher education scholars and student affairs apologists have advocated that institutions need to facilitate student 248 involvement through out-of-class experiences (e.g., see Kuh, Schuh, Whitt & Associates, 1991). The results of this study support that involvement in college experiences, especially academic experiences and peer relationships is significantly associated with the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan. However, the descriptive data of this study also indicate that most of the beginning Taiwanese students are not actively involved in academic experiences and students in Taiwan do not have many opportunities to make friends with a wide diversity of students. There are not many culturally different Taiwanese students or international students in college and universities in Taiwan. If student affairs in Taiwan are concerned with the psychosocial development of college students, they may need to focus on programs and design environments that facilitate academic involvement and peer interactions. Broadly, these foci are similar to the general results in the U. S. for undergraduate students. For academic involvement, student affairs personnel could consider providing such activities as student government, collective decision making on educational issues, peer instruction, community service, and academic advising in residence halls. Developing living- learning centers in residence halls would integrate students’ academic learning and out of class life in important ways. In this area building collaborative relationships between student affairs and faculty and academic affairs division is essential. Establishing collaboration relationships with faculty is particularly appropriate for Taiwan since institutions in Taiwan have established a faculty-tutorial system in which each faculty member acts as a class tutor and guides students in academic, personal, and career problems. However, most of the faculty 249 members are not interested in this role because of the lack of training in college student development and the lack of a reward system that encourages it. Student affairs professionals may need to introduce theories of college student development to faculty and try to influence their institutions to develop a reward system to encourage faculty to join this service. For example, include tutorial service as a factor in the process of promotion. For peer interactions, student affairs personnel can consider a variety of approaches that have been influential on development in the U. S. In areas of peer relationships on social competence, managing emotions, life patterns, and respect for diversity, programs and experiences with peers in the U. S. are provided at two different levels: (1) the level of creating awareness and (2) the level of in-depth experience. Awareness could mean becoming aware of alternative life patterns for women. In depth experience could mean creating a living-leaming experience in residence halls for Taiwanese students and international students. Such programming for peer relationships may well push the boundaries of traditional sex role relationships in Taiwan; hence, tension could be expected and such programming may need to be carefully developed and perhaps be informed by models of cultural change. 2. The results of this study shows that informal faculty-student interaction is also associated with students’ psychosocial development. However, the data of this study indicate that both beginning and female students do not contact faculty often and faculty interaction, in contrast to male students, is negative related to the development of MIR for female students. Qualitative inquiry may be needed in order to find the 250 reasons for these differences from the students’ point of view and then to provide programs for faculty to understand the development and special needs of beginning and women students. 3. The results indicate that students who only live in residence halls have lower development in purpose than students who commute from home and lived in residence halls in the past for Taiwanese students. The descriptive data also indicate that students who only live in residence halls have the lowest development in all vectors for all students except freshmen. However, the data show that most Taiwanese students, except seniors, are currently only living in residence halls. Improving the educational frmction of residence life to facilitate the psychosocial development of college students may be a crucial issue for student affairs in Taiwan. As suggested for academic involvement, student affairs staff could develop living- leaming programs in a residence hall purposefully to integrate the students’ intellectual and social lives. Resident assistant (RA) and hall director training programs, which are widely used m the U. S., would be valuable programs for Taiwan. Developing programs in residence halls based on student psychosocial development theory may be especially helpful. For upper class students, considering their different needs, an apartment type design for residence halls could be created to help them transfer to an adult life. Furthermore, in order to create opportunities for students to contact peers of diverse backgroimds, the homogeneous assignment of roommates based on majors, which is currently most popular in Taiwan may need to be reconsidered. Residence life in Taiwan needs to provide more living choices for students in order to fit their different academic and personal interests. For example, 251 honors housing, first -year experience housing, international housing, and cooperative scholarship housing (residents accept duties in exchange for a portion of the cost of living) could be initiated. 4. The study indicated that leadership experiences in student organizations are positively associated with the development in competence, autonomy, and purpose for Taiwanese students. To provide more leadership experiences to students, leadership training for academic credit might be a valuable program to develop in Taiwan. To create more learning and leadership experiences and connect out-of-class experiences with academic learning, service learning may also be a beneficial program for Taiwan. Service learning could provide opportunities for students to contact people of diverse backgrounds and foster the development in MIR. In addition, the study also indicates that work experiences related to one’s major during the college was positively associate with the development in competence, autonomy and purpose for Taiwanese students. However, the descriptive data show that most Taiwanese students have work experience in non-major areas. Student affairs professionals in Taiwan may need to collaborate with academic departments to create more major-related work opportunities for students. 5. Family plays an important role in Chinese culture. The results of the study indicate that both strong and moderate support from parents are significantly positively associated with development in competence, identity, and purpose for Taiwanese students. Parents are an important resource for Taiwanese college students. How to involve parents in student affairs to help student’s psychosocial development more effectively may be an important issue for student affairs in Taiwan. Inviting parents to 252 visit the institution, developing a parents’ program in orientation, introducing college students’ developmental theories to parents, and contacting parents regularly are all used in the U. S. and could be effective ways to involve parents in helpful ways. 6. The results of this study indicate that different college experiences foster different development for different ranks of students. Male experiences appear to be different from females. Peer interactions are more important in all vectors except of developing purpose for beginning students, while academic involvement is more important in developing competence, autonomy, identity, and purpose for upper class students. Strong and moderate supports from family are more important in developing competence, emotions, identity, and purpose for females and in developing competence, emotions, autonomy, and identity for sophomores, while leadership experience in student organizations is more important in developing autonomy for males and in developing competence and autonomy for seniors. Living experience also appear to be more important in the development of competence for males. In addition, college experiences are more associate with all dimensions of psychosocial development for sophomores, while other experiences beyond the college may be more associate with the development of freshmen on emotions and identity, and seniors on mature interpersonal relationship and identity. Furthermore, college experiences are more related to students’ development in competence and purpose, while other experiences beyond the college experiences are related to the development in emotions and identity. The results of this study provide a database for student affairs to begin to understand which experiences relate to which rank of students and which experiences explain the development in which vectors for males 253 and females. Student affairs staff in Taiwan needs to be aware that different ranks and gender of students may need different experiences in order to foster their development in different vectors and develop different programs based on the findings of this study. Replication is needed to see if these associations are repeated or of they may be characteristics of a given sample. Qualitative studies may be needed to understand how students experience their universities or colleges. A reliable and valid instrument to assess the psychosocial development of Taiwanese college students was developed in this study. The study also develops a database to understand psychosocial development and related college experiences for college students in Taiwan. In order to provide effective services and foster student development in the future, student affairs work in Taiwan may first need to change their goals from in loco parentis to student development. If this is accomplished, then an instrument such as the CCSPDI can be used to systematically assess students’ development, evaluate their progress, and to evaluate the impact of programs. Student affairs professionals in Taiwan may also need to continue to develop the database on college students’ development by using scientific research methods to improve their services and demonstrate their accountability. In order to help student affairs professionals in Taiwan to apply psychosocial development theory to their work and continue to conduct related scientific studies of their work, graduate professional education in college student affairs may need to be developed in Taiwan. In addition, the only professional organization for college student affairs in Taiwan, the Chinese Student Discipline Association (CSDA), may 254 also need to focus on developmental theory and offer professional development through the publications, conferences, and workshops for their members. Needs for Further Research Student affairs work is in transition in Taiwan. This study provides an initial database for understanding the psychosocial development and related variables for college students in Taiwan. In order to continue establishing the college student developmental theories and to apply the theories to student affairs in Taiwan, further research is needed. 1 The Joint College Entrance Examination (JCEE) is an important factor in higher education in Taiwan. The study originally planned to include this factor as an independent variable. However, since the high rate of missing data on the JCEE in pilot study, this study had to delete this factor. Research is needed on this factor and ways need to be found to obtain the information other than asking the student to provide this information. In addition, student’s social economic status and high school experiences influence their psychosocial development. Further research that controls those variables in multiple regression analysis would help to determine more precisely how college experiences influence psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan. 2 The method of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is powerful when the dependent variables are multiple dimensions and intercorrelated with each other. MANOVA keeps the overall alpha level under control, and has greater sensitivity for detecting differences in certain situation (Stevens, 1996). However, the follow up univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) is not sensitive to separating the multiple 255 dimensions and comparing the differences. Steven (1996) suggests one way to deal with this problem is to use discriminant analysis in studies that follow MANOVA studies. 3 The study found significant differences in MIR and developing purpose among majors. However, since this study did not specially test institutional differences, it was difficult to determine if the difference came from institutions or majors. Further studies which can specifically design to control the variance among institutions may help to determine this difference. 4 Compared with the proportion of college students’ population in Taiwan, the senior sample in this study was too small. This limited the generalization to the target population and also influences the reliability of six multiple regression models. It would be beneficial if the further study obtains the sample which is similar to the proportion of each class rank in population. 5 Ideally, for the study of psychosocial development, a longitudinal design with students being measured as they begin college and again upon graduation would be preferable. Since there were constraints of time and resources, the exploratory nature of this study, and the intention of describing the larger population and related variables at one time, a cross-sectional design was used in this study. The cross- sectional nature of this design indicates that the interpretation of results to determine the psychosocial development of college students is the difference among students of different class ranks at one time rather than intraindividual changes that occur with time. Further research could be conducted by using a longitudinal design is needed. 256 6 Qualitative research methods are also needed in order to understand “how” and “why” rather than “what” college experiences influence psychosocial development college students in Taiwan. 7 In addition to Chickering’s theory, there are many psychosocial development theories in the U. S., for example, Josselson’s theory of identity development in women. Further study by using Josselson’s theory to test Taiwanese women college students could help our understanding of the identity development for women students. In addition, many theories in cognitive-structural development and typology in the U. S. also are valuable resource in understanding college students. Further studies using these theories to Taiwanese college students would also be valuable and beneficial. 257 LIST OF REFERENCES Altbach, P. G. (1991). The uses of a comparative perspective. In D. C. Smith (Ed.), The Confucian continuum (pp. xx-xxii). New York; Praeger. American College Persormel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative: implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in education (4*** ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel. 25. 297-308. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: four critical vears revisited. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Babbie, E. R. (1973). Survev research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Blann, F. W. (1985). Intercollegiate athletic competition and students’ educational and career plans. Journal of College Student Personnel. 26. 115-118. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213-266). New York: Oxford University Press. Branch-simpson, G. (1984). A studv of the patterns in the development of black students at The Ohio State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus. Caballero, A. R. (1997). A comparison of achieved developmental tasks and subtasks between Hispanic and non-Hispanic. White undergraduates at a private urban university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Miami. 258 Chang, H. M. (1999). The impact of college on students: The empirical studv on the campus experiences of Taiwanese college students and the outcomes of learning. Taipei, Republic of China: Teacher Chang. Chang, S. N. (1993). A comparison of attitude toward filial piety, collectivism, and authoritarianism of university students in Mainland China and Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. Chang, Y. W. (1986). A studv of relationship between psvchosocial development and psvchological health. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taiwan University, Taipei, Republic of China. Chen, L. C. (1996). Report on Life Adjustment Inventory of College Student. Taipei. Republic of China: Committee on School Discipline and Moral Education, Department of Education. Chen, L. R. (1994). The studv of career barriers in college students. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Republic of China. Chi, H. Y. (1994). A studv of the tvpes of career decision-making and career decision beliefs among college students. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Republic of China. Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2"“^ ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chou, L. T. (1995). The correlation of family social relations with voung Chinese adults’ perceptions of family values in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University'. Committee on Education Reform. (1996). Report of education reform. Taipei, Republic of China: Committee on Education Reform, Executive Yuan. Committee on School Discipline and Moral Education, Ministry of Education. (1993). Selections of the law and regulation in discipline and guidance. Taipei, Repubhc of China: Author. Copper, D. L., Healy, M. A., & Simpson, J. (1994). Student development through involvement: Specific changes over time. Journal of College Student Development, 35. 98-102. Cunningham, G. K. (1986). Educational and psychological measurement. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. 259 Dawson-Threat, J., & Huba, M. E. (1996). Choice of major and clarity of purpose among college seniors as a function of gender, type of major, and sex-role identification. Journal of College Student Development. 3701 297-308. Dickson, G. L., & Thayer, J. D. (1993). Advisor’s guide to the developmental advising inventorv (college ed.). Paradise, CA: Developmental Advising Inventories, Inc. Donlin, C. L., Jr. (1994). The relationship between membership in Greek-letter organizations and the psvchosocial development of Mississippi state university studentsffratemitv. sororitvl. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. MS: Mississippi State University University. Edison, M., Nora, A., Fascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Whitt, E. J. (1999). Interactions with peers and objective and self-reported cognitive outcomes across 3 years of college. Joumd of College Student Development 40111 61-78. Epstein, E. H., & Kuo, W. F. (1991). Higher education. In D. C. Smith (Ed.), The Confucian continuum: Educational modernization in Taiwan (pp. 167-219). New York: Praeger. Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society (2"^^ ed.). New York: Norton. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Erwin, T. D. (1982). Academic status as related to development of identity. Journal of Psvchologv. 110. 163-169. Erwin, T. D., & Kelly, K. (1985). Changes in students’ self-confidence in college. Journal of College Student Personnel. 26. 395-400. Evan, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theorv. research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Executive Yuan. (1993). Social indicators in Taiwan area of the Republic of China. Taipei, Republic of China: Executive Yuan. Executive Yuan. (1997). Social indicators in the Republic of China. Taipei, Republic of China: Executive Yuan. Fox, N. S., Spooner, S. E., Utterback, J. W., & Barbieri (1996). Relationships between autonomy, gender, and weekend commuting among college students. NASPA Journal. 34111 19-28. 260 Gatica, S. R. (1982). The relationship of sex, religious practice, residential background and organizational affiliation to the development of college freshmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auburn University. Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conception of self and morality. Harvard educational Review. 47. 481-517. Greeley A. T., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1988). Autonomy and intimacy development in college students: Sex dififerences and predictors. Journal of College Student Development. 29. 512-520. Guo, G. J. (1995). Cultural and translation differences between English and Chinese versions of the student development task and lifestyle inventorv. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University. Hebert, D. A. (1990). Involvement in the collegiate experience as a predictor of psychosocial development of students enrolled in small colleges and universities in the southwest. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. Ho, C. T. (1989). Study on the system of college student discipline in Taiwan. Studies of Guidance and Moral Education. 28ri~). 12-16. Ho, D. F. (Ed.). (1980). Revival of university: Academic freedom and campus democratization. Taipei, Republic of China: China Times Press. Ho, P. T. (1990). Studv on Design of System on College Student Discipline and Guidance. Taipei. Republic of China: Committee on School Discipline and Moral Education, Ministry of Education. Ho, Y. C. (1985). Undergraduate students’ subculture and related factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Republic o f China. Ho, Y. F. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: a critical review. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psvchologv of the Chinese people (pp. 1-37). New York: Oxford University Press. Hood, A. B. (Ed.). (1986). The Iowa student development inventories. Iowa city, I A: Hitech Press. Hood, A. B., & Mines, R. A. (1986). Mines-Jensen interpersonal relationships inventory. In A. B. Hood (Ed.), The Iowa student development inventories fpp. 1-5). Iowa City, lA: Hitech Press. 261 Huang, Y. (1995). The reflection and perspective of college student affairs. Studies of Guidance and Moral Education. 34fT). 11-26. Huang, Y. (1996). The roles and functions of college student affairs. Bulletin of Civic and Moral Education. 5. 167-192. Hunt, S., & Rentz, A. L. (1994). Greek-letter social group members’ involvement and psychosocial development. Journal of College Student Development. 35(41 289-296. Jordan-Cox, C. A. (1987). Psychosocial development of students in traditionally black institutions. Journal of College Student Personnel. 28. 504-511. Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Kaufinan, M., & Creamer, D. (1991). Influences of student goals for college on freshmen year quality of effort and growth. Journal of College Student Development. 32(3), 197-206. Kenny, M. E., & Donaldson, G. A. (1991). Contributions of parental attachment and family structure to the social and psychological functioning of first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psvchologv. 38. 479-486. Knefelkamp, L., Widick, C., & Parker, C. A. (Eds.) (1978). Applving new development findings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Ps\xhologicaI Measurement. 30. 607-610. Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., and Associates (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Law, W. W. (1995). The role of the state in higher education reform: Mainland China and Taiwan. Comparative Education Review. 39G1. 322-355. Law, W. W. (1996). Fortress state, cultural continuities and economic change: Higher education in Mainland China and Taiwan. Comparative Education. 32131 377- 393. Lee, J. A. (1982). A comparative studv of the Chinese and American fCalifomial higher education svstems. Educational Resources Information Center. 262 Lee, Y. D., & Cheng, C. Y. (1995, December). Studv on life values, marriage values, and social attitudes of college students. Paper presented at Chinese School Discipline and Moral Education Association national convention, Taipei, Republic of China. Lin, I. N. (1990). The relationships between academic involvement, learning styles and learning outcomes. Bulletin of Guidance. 13. 79-128. Lin, S. C. (1994). Studv on attitudes toward marriage and familv life and related factors among college students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Republic of China. Lin, W. F. (1997). The studv of undergraduate students’ career commitment and the effect of group intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Republic of China. Ma, H. K. (1988). The Chinese perspectives on moral judgement development. International Journal o f Ps\'^choIogv. 23. 201-227. Mather, P. C., & Winston, R. B. Jr. (1998). Autonomy development of traditional- aged students: Themes and processes. Journal of College Student Development. 39CU. 33-50. McEwen, M. K., Roper, L., Bryant, D., & Langa, M. (1990). Incorporating the development of African-American students into psychosocial theories of student development. Journal of College Student development 31. 429-436. Menard, S. (1991). Longitudinal research ISage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07-076). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Miller, T. K., & Winston, R. B. (1990). Assessing development from a psychosocial perspective. In D. G. Creamer (Eds.), College student development: Theorv and practice for the 1990s (pp.99-126). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Ministry of Education. (1987). Education statistics of the Republic of China. Taipei, Republic of China: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1997a). Education reform series: Open access to education. Taipei, Republic of China: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1997b). Education in the Republic of China. Taipei, Republic of China: Ministry of Education. 263 Ministry of Education. (1998). Education statistics of the Renuhlic of China. Taipei, Republic of China: Ministry of Education. Moore, L. V. (Ed.). (1990). Evolving theoretical perspectives on students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Taiwan Normal University. (1991). Studv on attitudes of making friends with opposite sexes among National Taiwan Normal Universitv students. Taipei, Republic of China: National Taiwan Normal University. National Taiwan Normal University. (1996). Student handbook. Taipei, Republic of China: National Taiwan Normal University. Newman, B. M., & Newman, P. R. (1995). Development through life: A psvchosocial approach (6'*' ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Niles, S. G., Sowa, C. J., & Laden, J. (1994). Life role participation and commitment as predictors of college student development. Journal of college Student Development. 35.159-163. Pace, C. R. (1979). Measuring outcomes of college: Fifty vears of findings and recommendations for the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pace, C. R. (1987). CSEO: Test manual and norms. Los Angles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. Pace, C. R. (1992). CSEO: norms for the third edition. Los Angles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. Pace, C. R., & Swayze, S. (1992). Psvchometric supplement to the CSEO (3^"^ ed.). Los Angles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty vears of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with adolescents and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research. 7, 156-176. Polkosnik, M. C., & Winston, R. B., Jr. (1989). Relationships between students’ intellectual and psychosocial development: An exploratory investigation. Journal of College Student Development 30. 10-19. 264 Pope, R. L. (1998). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial identity of Black college students. Journal of College Student Development. 39G1.273- 282. Random House. (1993). Random House unabridged dictionary (2"*^ ed.). New York: Random House. Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student Development. 36(6). 505-511. Rodgers, R. F. (1980). Theories underlying student development. In D. G. creamer (Ed.), Student development in higher education: Theories, practices, and future direction (pp. 10-97). Cincinnati, OH: AGFA. Rodgers, R. F. (1989). Student development. In U. Delworth & G. R. Hanson (Eds.), student service: A handbook for the profession (2"“* ed., pp. 117-164). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rodgers, R. F. (1990). Recent theories and research underlying student development. In D. G. Creamer (Eds.), College student development: Theorv and practice for the 1990s (pp.27-79). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society: Social change and individual development. New York: Atherton Press. Scheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall III, W., & Ott, R. L. (1996). Elementary survev sampling (5^ ed.). San Francisco: Duxbury Press. Schuh, J. H. (1994). Review of education and identity (2"“* ed.). Journal of college student Development. 35. 310-312. Sheehan, O. T. O., & Pearson, F. (1995). Asian international and American students’ psychosocial development. Journal of College Student development. 36(6). 522-530. Smith, D. C. (1991). Foundations of modem Chinese education and the Taiwan experience. In D. C. Smith (Ed.), The Confucian continuum (pp. 1-63). New York: Praeger. Smith, D. C. (1992). The Chinese familv in transition: Implications for education and society in modem Taiwan. Paper presented at the Comparative Education Association/World Bank Seminar. Annapolis, MD, Spring. 265 Smith, J. S. (1992). The relationship between involvement in extracurricular activities and the psvchosocial development of Clemson university students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Carolina. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3'^'* ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc. Strange, C., & King, P. (1990). The professional practice of student development. In D. G. Creamer (Eds.), College student development: Theorv and practice for the 1990s (pp.9-24). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Straub, C. (1987). Women’s development of autonomy and Chickering’s theory. Journal of College Student Personnel. 28. 198-204. Straub, C., & Rodgers, R. (1986). An exploration of Chickering’s theory and women’s development. Journal of College Student Personnel. 27. 216-224. Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2"‘* ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Taub, D. J., & McEwen, M. K. (1991). Patterns of development of autonomy and mature interpersonal reSlationships in black and white undergraduate women. Journal of College Student development. 32. 502-508. Taub, D. J. (1995). Relationship of selected factors to traditional-age undergraduate women’s development of autonomy. Journal of College Student Development. 36(2). 141-151. Thieke, W. S. (1994). A model of developmental change in freshman students: confirming Chickering’s theorv of student development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University. Utterback, J. W., Spooner, S. E., Barbieri, J. A., & Fox, S. N. (1995). Gender and ethnic issues in the development of intimacy among college students. NASPA Journal. 32, 82-89. Vick, D. S. (1989). The impact of fulltime, semester-long internships on college students’ psvchosocial development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Vanderbilt University. Warmbrod, J. R. (1998, Autumn). Applied multivariate analysis: Multiple regression, logistic regression, discriminant analysis, and canonical correlation. Unpublished course handout. 266 White, D. B., & Porterfield, W. D. (1993). Psychosocial development in college. In R. B. Winston, Jr., S. Anchors and Associates, Student housing and residential life (pp.65-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Williams, M. E., & Winston, R. B., Jr. (1985). Participation in organized student activities and work: differences in developmental task achievement of traditional-aged college students. NASPA Journal. I K S'), 52-59. Winston, R. B., Jr., Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1979). Student Developmental Task Inventorv frevised. 2"“* ed.). Athens, GA: Student Development Associates. Winston, R. B., Jr., Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1987). Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventorv. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates. Winston, R. B., Phelps, R. E., Mazzeo, S. & Torres, V. (1997). A short measure of students’ autonomy development: The Georgia Autonomy Scales. College Student Affairs Journal. 17014-17. Wu, P. L. (1995, December). Qualifications of student affairs personnel. Paper presented at Chinese School Discipline and Moral Education Association national convention, Taipei, Republic of China. Wu, W. H., Chen, S. P., & Wu, C. T. (1989). The development of higher education in Taiwan. In G. Altbach & V. selvaramam (Eds.), From dependence to autonomv (pp. 257-276). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Yang, K. S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psvchologv of the Chinese people (pp. 106-170). New York: Oxford University Press. Yang, S. E. (1996). A studv on relationship between co-curricular involvement and psvchosocial development among college students. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chang- Hwa Normal University, Chung-Hwa, Taiwan, Republic of China. 267 APPENDIX A PANEL OF EXPERTS 268 Panel Member Position Robert F. Rodgers Associate Professor Educational Policy and Leadership The Ohio State University Leonard L. Baird Professor Educational Policy and Leadership The Ohio State University Janet L. Henderson Associate Professor Human and Community Resource Development The Ohio State University Ying-Chi Ho Professor Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling National Taiwan Normal University Li-Chou Chen Professor Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling Director Counseling Center National Taiwan Normal University Gwo-Jen Guo Assistant Professor Institute of Education National Cheng-Kumg University Hsueh-Mei Chang Associate Professor General Studies National Taiwan Ocean University Chi-Jui Chen Associate Professor Department of English National Taiwan Normal University Ho-Ping Feng Instructor Department of English National Taiwan Normal University 269 APPENDIX B INSTRUMENTS 270 Original Design Developing Competence ILC = Intellectual Competence — includes three areas: (1) understanding the subject matter knowledge, and of skills tied to academic programs and the degree to which these fit my abilities and interests; (2) the growth of intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic sophistication, expanding interests in humanities, performing arts, and philosophy, and increasing involvement in lifelong learning; (3) changes in ways of knowing and reasoning, the development of critical thinking and reflective judgement, and ability to locate new information, to analyze data and to solve problems. (20 items) IPC = Interpersonal Competence — includes effective communication with individuals and groups and the skills used in teamwork, collaboration, leadership, and followership in various contexts. (11 items) PMC = Physical and Manual Competence — includes three domains: development of physical competence in athletics and art and wellness habits. (9 items) + = positive direction - = negative direction ILC(1 + 1. I read and remember textbook material effectively. ILC(1 + 2. I take good notes in class and these notes help me review my course learning and prepare for test. ILC(1 3. I have trouble verbally expressing my ideas clearly. ILC(1 + 4. I perform well on examinations. ILC(1 5. I have diffîculties finishing course assignments. ILC(1 6. I do not know how to make an effective study plan. ILC(1 7. I have difficulties understanding the content of courses. ILC(1 4- 8. I know where to look or who to ask when I have questions about my studies. ILC(2 9. I do not spend time attending art, musical, or cultural events. ILC(2 + 10. I read books on philosophy or religion in order to find meaning for my life. 271 ELC(2) + 11. I visit museums, art exhibitions, and historical places when not required for a class. ILC(2) + 12. I am regularly involved in learning things other than that required by my classes. ILC(2) + 13. I take courses outside my major in order to expand my learning about the world. ILC(3) - 14. I expect professors to teach me all the facts and information I am supposed to learn. ILC(3) 4 - 15. I prefer the teacher to demonstrate a way to think about the subject matter and then help me explore the issues and come to my own conclusions. ILC(3) + 16. On a given topic I like opportunities to pull together connections among various points of view and then construct consensus among them. ILC(3) - 17. I like the learning environment that includes specific, detailed instruction for all activities and assignments. ILC(3) + 18. I prefer to do independent research allowing me to produce my own ideas and arguments. ILC(3) - 19. For me, grades are the more important thing in my education. ILC(3) - 20. In a discussion seminar, I have difficulties in integrating different ideas and have difficult time critiquing my own viewpoints. IPC - 21. I do not know how to make friends with the opposite sex. IPC + 22. I am comfortable at formal social occasions and enjoy them. IPC 4 - 23. I am comfortable at informal social activities and enjoy them. IPC 4 - 24. I have positive relationships with most of my friends. IPC 4 - 25. I am a good listener and observer. IPC - 26. I do not have the confidence to be a leader in a group. IPC _ 27. I have difficulties communicating with my friends. 272 IPC 4 - 28. In a group, I encourage and celebrate the success of others. IPC - 29. I have difficulty working on projects which require group cooperation. IPC + 30. I respect group decisions even when I disagree. PMC + 31. I can communicate my ideas effectively in a group. PMC ■h 32. I regularly participate in recreation, fitness programs, intramural and /or sports clubs. PMC + 33. I maintain my weight at healthy levels. PMC - 34. I do not exercise regularly. PMC - 35. I get sick often. PMC + 36. I have at lease two sports or artistic endeavors in which I do well. PMC + 37. I have good flexibility, strength, and endurance. PMC + 38. I usually eat well-balanced meals. PMC - 39. I have not yet been able to balanced rest, exercise, nutrition, work, and reflection in my life. PMC - 40. I use alcohol or drugs to help me relieve stress. Managing Emotions AAE = Awareness and Acceptance of Emotions — involves being in touch with a full range of feelings, understanding what causes them, differentiating between levels of intensity, toxic and nurturing emotions, and self-assertive and self-transcending, acceptance of feeling as valuable sources of information, and learning the consequences of acting on impulse. (16 items) CEE = Balance, Control, and Appropriate Expression of Emotions — involves practicing new skills, learning coping techniques, directing feelings toward constructive action, becoming more flexible and spontaneous, and seeking out rewarding and meaningful experiences. (16 items) + = positive direction - = negative direction 273 AAE - 1. I have trouble figuring out what would make me angry. AAE - 2. I do not know what to do with my sexual feelings toward others. AAE - 3. I rarely look beyond my feelings of anger for causes. AAE + 4. I am conscious of what makes me happy. AAE + 5. I explore my feelings of frustration in order to understand the causes. AAE - 6. I find the best way to handle my negative feelings is to repress and deny them. AAE -t- 7. I recognize my anger as a first step toward handling it. AAE - 8. I try to ignore the fact that I am attracted to someone. AAE - 9. I feel embarrassed crying in front of the people. AAE + 10. I have sexual fantasies without feeling guilty. AAE + 11. I can tell when a sad mood is effecting me. AAE - 12. Differentiating the level of intensity of feelings is hard to me. AAE + 13. When I feel attracted to someone, I usually try to examine why. AAE + 14. I accept both my positive and negative feelings honestly. AAE + 15. When I fight with someone, I try to understand the cause rather than blame others. AAE - 16. When I feel strong feelings, it is hard to stop and analyze the possible consequences of my actions. CEE + 17. I accept my mistakes without intense frustration or depression. CEE + 18. I bounce back quickly from loneliness and depressed moods. CEE - 19. If I feel attracted to someone, I tend to keep my feelings inside rather than try to form a relationship with him/her. CEE + 20. I express compassion easily. 274 CEE 4 - 21. I adapt effectively to imexpected change and disappointment. CEE + 22. I can express my anger constructively. CEE - 23. Handling my strong emotions is difficult. CEE - 24. I have trouble concentrating on my studies when I am in the low mood. CEE + 25. Anger can motivate me to stand up for someone who is being treated unfairly. CEE 4 - 26. I use my feelings of frustration to motive myself to work hard. CEE 4 - 27. I am optimistic even when things look bad. CEE 4 - 28. I find many ways and resources that can help me cope with negative emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety, fear, depression, guilty) effectively. CEE 4 - 29. I attended workshops and programs which helped me handle my emotions. CEE - 30. When I am sad and depressed, it is hard to overcome it. CEE 4- 31. I can express my feelings to anyone honestly. CEE - 32. Expressing affection appropriately and often is difficult for me. Developing Autonomv EMA = Emotional Autonomy — is freedom from continual and pressing needs for reassurance, affection, or approval from parents, peers, and teachers. (14 items) INA = Instrumental Autonomy — is the ability to carry on activities and solve problems, in a self-directed manner (of particular importance are money, time, schoolwork management), and freedom and confidence to be mobile and self-sufficient. (11 items) IND = Interdependence - interdependencies between self and others, self and college community, and self and large society. (7 items) + = positive direction - = negative direction 275 EMA + 1. I will go against my parents’ wishes if the issues were very important to me, for example, career and marriage decisions. EMA 2. I feel guilty when I do not obey my parents’ wishes. EMA 3. I look to my parents for solutions to personal problems. EMA 4. Before making decisions, I ask my parents what I should do. EMA + 5. I feel emotionally independent of my parents. EMA 6. I seldom express my opinion in a group if I think my views will be controversial or different from what others believe. EMA + 7. I am comfortable if some friends do not like me or do not accept my opinions. EMA 8. I feel uncomfortable when I go to a new place without any friends at this place. EMA 9. Getting involved in the activities of my peer group even though I am not interested personally is important. EMA 10 Meeting the standards of behavior set by my friends is important. EMA 11 I look to teachers for right answer to academic problems. EMA + 12. I can express my opinions in class freely even if they are different from my teacher’s. EMA 13. I enter class discussions only when promoted by the teacher. EMA + 14. I actively study some topics of interested to me even if these topics are not required in my courses. INA 15. I put things off until the last minute and regret it. INA + 16. I organize what I need to do well enough to assure that everything important gets done. INA 17. I run out of money because of poor or frivolous spending decisions. INA + 18. I can deal with many different responsibilities and still maintain my grades. 276 INA + 19. I can make a happy life for myself. INA + 20. I know where to look or who to ask about things I need on campus. INA - 21. I decide not to undertake something new if I believe I might fail. INA - 22. I do not adjust to new surroundings quickly, so I do not seek jobs requiring mobility. INA + 23. I have taken trips alone. INA - 24. I need to feel secure about the outcome before attempting something new or different. INA + 25. I am not afraid to take risks. IND - 26. I feel embarrassed if I have to ask others for help even though I really need help. IND + 27. I offer help to my classmates. IND + 28. I feel an obligation to support my class/department/university’s activities. IND + 29. I have made specific services or contributions to my society. IND - 30. I feel uneasy to say “no” to requests from others. END + 31. I think the best relationship is based on a mutual give and take. IND - 32. When I am a member of a group, I do not like to be assigned responsibilities. Mature Interpersonal Relationship TOL = Tolerance — the ability to accept individuals for who they are, to respect differences, and to appreciate commonalties. It includes intercultural and interpersonal aspects of tolerance. (17 items) INM = Intimacy — a shift in the quality of relationships with intimate partner or close friend from too much dependence or dominance toward interdependence between equals. (15 items) 277 + = positive direction - = negative direction TOL 1. I would prefer not to room with someone who is from a different region, social economic background, or ethnic group. TOL - 2. I find it annoying when I hear people speaking in a language I don’t understand. TOL - 3. I avoid joining groups who are different from me. TOL + 4. In group, I can get along with people who are different from me. TOL - 5. I believe that women tend to be emotional, while men are more rational. TOL + 6. I can openly communicate with the people who have different political preferences from me. TOL + 7. 1 understand and respect the values and benefits of different political parties. TOL - 8. 1 deal with people who are different from me by staying away from them as much as possible. TOL - 9. After having strong disagreements with a person, 1 usually try to avoid her/him as much as possible. TOL + 10. 1 don’t define people based on their backgrounds or ethnic groups. TOL + 11. 1 listen to songs and attend culture events, and festivals of different ethnic groups (e. g., Taiwanese, Chinese, Hakka, and Aboriginal People). TOL + 12. 1 understand and respect the customs of different ethnic groups. TOL + 13. 1 accept my friends as they are. TOL + 14. 1 can accept people who have different values from me and relate to them on a daily basis. TOL - 15. 1 try to persuade fnends to accept my values. TOL - 16. My roommate has some habits that bother and annoy me very much. 278 TOL - 17. I only date people who are of the same background (e. g., custom, culture, religion, and value) as me. INM - 18. I depend on my close friend or intimate partner to make the best decision for me. INM - 19. I am afraid of losing my close friend or intimate partner. INM - 20. I am usually careful about what I say and do around my close friend or intimate partner in order to avoid upsetting or displeasing him/her. INM - 21. Maintaining a satisfying close relationship for a long period time with my close friend or intimate partner is hard for me. INM - 22. I expect my close friend or intimate partner to meet my standards and needs. INM + 23. Sharing my innermost thoughts with my close friend or intimate partner is a thing I value in our relationship. INM + 24. I have helped my close friend or intimate partner achieve a personal goal even though I disagree with him/her about the goal. INM + 25. Both my close friend (or intimate partner) and I give each other space and freedom to be different. INM - 26. I seek to change the flaws of my close friend or intimate partner. INM + 27. I can freely and openly express my strengths and weaknesses to my close friend or intimate parmer. INM + 28. I frequently feel as if my close friend or intimate partner’s successes are also my successes. INM - 29. I try to keep my close friend or intimate partner knowing about my shortcomings and failures.. INM + 30. I apologize to my close friend or intimate partner when I am wrong. INM + 31. I have successfully resolved a major conflict or disagreement with my close friend or intimate partner. 279 INM + 32. My close friend (or intimate partner) and I frequently talk about what each of us is seeking from our relationship. Establishing Identity BI = Body Identity — comfort with and acceptance of body and appearance. (7items) GI= Gender Identity — comfort with and acceptance of gender and sexual orientation. (8 items) VI = Value Identity — Sense of self socially and culturally and with a life-style that is how others see you also. (7 items) SE = Self-Confidence and Self-Esteem. (4 items) + = positive direction - = negative direction BI + 1. It does not bother me that I am not as physically attractive as some others are. BI - 2. When compare myself to people whom I think are good looking, I feel inferior. BI - 3. I make a conscious effort to wear the style of dress that most other people are wearing. BI + 4. I like my body and appearance. BI - 5. I often have uneasy thoughts about the way that I appear to other people. BI - 6. My height or weight makes me feel imcomfortable when I am in a crowd. BI -7.1 usually do not make firiends with opposite sex because I have no confidence with my body and appearance. GI - 8. I am not pleased with my gender. GI + 9 . 1 am comfortable discussing gender issues with others. 280 GI + 10. I respond assertively when stereotyped by others because of my gender. GI - 11. There are certain sexual feelings I have that I do not understand. GI + 12. I realize my sexual feelings and desires are natural and normal. GI + 13. I am pleased with my sexual preference. GI - 14. I am uncomfortable discussing sexual issues with others. GI - 15.1 frequently have doubts that I can have a successful and happy close love relationship. VI - 16. I am not sure about the life-style I want as an adult. VT + 17.1 know the kinds of things I like to do and with whom I like to do them. VI 4- 18. I understand myself better when I get feedback from others about how I come across to them. VI + 19. I identify myself with my cultural and ethnic group. VT + 20. I desired life in terms of marriage , children, and career is clear to me. VI - 21. I am not comfortable discussing my personal values with others. VI - 22. Taking time to understand myself as a member of my culture is not important to me. SE - 23. I usually have doubts that what I am doing is the best thing. SE - 24. When I see so many capable people with abilities as good or better than mine, my confidence is shaken. SE - 25. I do not have difficulty making decisions for myself. SE + 26. I have confidence in and respect the decisions I made for my self. 281 Developing purpose INT = Personal Interest — explore and assess personal interest and options. (8 items) VOC = Vocational or Graduate School Plan and Aspiration - increase intentionality in clarifying academic and vocational goals and persistence toward goals, despite barriers. (16 items) LIF = Initial Lifestyle Commitment (5 items) + = positive direction - = negative direction INT - 1. 1 am not sure about my interests or abilities. INT - 2. 1 am not sure if 1 have the right major. INT + 3. 1 make time in my regular schedule for my hobbies. INT - 4. When 1 filled the application form to college, my most concern was the prestige of institution. INT + 5. 1 have joined different clubs or activities as a way of exploring academic and career interests. INT - 6. 1 select my major based upon the certainty in getting a job. INT - 7. I did not explore many academic fields before I selected my major. INT - 8. I selected major based on my parents’ expectation or traditional gender role. VOC - 9. I am not sure about the requirements for graduating in my academic major. VOC + 10. 1 go to teachers or upper-class peers for help and advice about what 1 should study in my major field. VOC + 11. 1 occasionally read articles and non-required books that relate to my major and career field even when 1 am busy. VOC + 12. 1 have explored several different career options related to my major. VOC - 13. Outside of classes, 1 do not spend time attending lectures or 282 workshop in my major field. VOC - 14. I do not understand the labor market in my major field. VOC + 15. I am a member o f at least one club or organization that is related to my major field. VOC - 16. I am not sure about the skills and abilities needed for success in my future occupation or graduate school. VOC + 17. I try to find ways to gain practical work experience in my major field. VOC - 18.1 am not aware of the work activities and situations that give me satisfaction. VOC + 19. I go to someone experienced in my fields for help and advice about how I might plan my career or graduate education. VOC + 20. I use campus resources to help my career or graduate education plan. VOC + 21. I set goals for my future and persist until I achieve them. VOC -r 22. I have followed through on nearly all my plans made for the future. VOC - 23. Because of difficulties, I frequently give up the plan I made for myself. VOC - 24. I do not have a clear plan of what I am going to do after I finish college. LIF - 25. I don’t have a plan for the next five years of my life. LIF + 26. I am very sure of the kind of life I want in the future. LIF - 27. It is hard to imaging what my marriage and family life will be in the future. LIF + 28. I have confidence that the career for which I am preparing will allow me to balance my work life, family life and personal interests in the friture. LIF + 29. I know how my personal life will relate to my career in the future. 283 Pilot Instrument TEnglish') Code Number: College Student Psychosocial Development Inventory Dear students: The purpose of the College Student Psychosocial Development Inventory is to collect information concerning college students’ activities, feelings, attitudes, aspirations, and relationships in order to help colleges assist students more effectively. This Inventory consists of three parts. Part I contains statements about your psychosocial developmental tasks and is divided into six sections: Developing Competence, Managing Emotions, Developing Autonomy, Mature Interpersonal Relationship, Establishing Identity, and Developing Purpose. Part II contains statements about your college experiences in academic involvement, faculty-student relationships and peer relationships. Part m is related to your personal characteristics. To respect your privacy, this inventory does not ask you to write your name; but it does need to know a few things about you, so that we can learn how psychosocial development might be related to class rank, gender, major. Joint College Entrance Examination Score, and living, co-curricula, and working experiences. The usefulness of this Inventory depends entirely on the honesty, candor, and care with which you answer questions. There is no right or wrong answer, please answer the question based on your current situation. I greatly appreciate your help and would like to offer my sincere thanks to you. If you have any concern or suggestion about this inventory, please feel free to contact me. Yu Huang Instructor, Department of Civics and Moral Education National Taiwan Normal University (02) 2363-6640 Please go to the next page and begin answering the questions. 284 Part I. Student Psychosocial Development Tasks Please read each statement and circle the number that mostly describes your position. Consider each statement carefully, but not spend a great deal of time deliberating on a single statement. 1 = Not At Ail True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. A. Developing Competence 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. Not True True 1. I read and remember textbook material effectively 1 2 2. I do not spend time attending art, musical, or cultural events...... 1 2 3. I expect professors to teach me all the facts and information I am supposed to leam 1 2 4. I am comfortable at formal social occasions and enjoy them ...... 1 2 5. I regularly participate in recreation, fimess programs, intramural and /or sport clubs.... 1 2 6. I take good notes in class and these notes help me review my course learning and prepare for test 1 2 7. I have trouble verbally expressing my ideas clearly 1 2 285 8. I prefer the teacher to demonstrate a way to think about the subject matter and then help me explore the issues and come to my own conclusions...... 9. I do not know how to make friends with the opposite sex ...... 2 3 4 5 10.1 maintain my weight at healthy levels. 2 3 4 5 11.1 perform well on examinations ...... 2 3 4 5 12.1 visit museums, art exhibitions, and historical places when not required for a class ...... 13. For me, grades are the more important thing in my education...... 14.1 have positive relationships with most of my friends ...... 2 3 4 5 15.1 do not exercise regularly ...... 2 3 4 5 16.1 have difficulties finishing course assignments. 1 3 4 5 17.1 like the learning environment that includes specific, detailed instruction for all activities and assignments ...... 18.1 am comfortable at informal social activities and enjoy them ...... 2 3 4 5 1 9 .1 get sick often ...... 2 3 4 5 20.1 do not know how to make an effective study plan ...... 21.1 read books on philosophy or religion in order to find meaning for my life ...... 22. On a given topic, I like opportunities to pull together connections among various points of view and then constmct consensus among them. 1 286 2 3 .1 am a good listener and observer. 2 4 .1 have at lease two sports or artistic endeavors in which I do well ...... 25.1 have difficulties understanding the content of courses...... 2 6 .1 take courses outside my major in order to expand my learning about the world ...... 27.1 prefer to do independent research allowing me to produce my own ideas and arguments ...... 2 8 .1 do not have the confidence to be a leader in a group ...... 2 4 5 29.1 use smoke or alcohol to help me relieve stress. 2 4 5 3 0 .1 know where to look or who to ask when I have questions about my studies...... 31.1 am regularly involved in learning things other than that required by my classes ...... 32. In a discussion seminar, I have difficulties in integrating different ideas and have difficult time critiquing my own viewpoints ...... 33. have difficulties communicating with my friends ...... 34. In a group, I encourage and celebrate the success of others...... 2 4 5 35.1 respect group decisions even when I disagree. 2 4 5 36.1 have good flexibility, strength, and endurance. 2 4 5 37.1 have difficulty working on projects which require group cooperation ...... 287 38.1 have not yet been able to balanced rest, exercise, nutrition, work, and reflection in my life...... 1 2 3 4 5 39.1 can communicate my ideas effectively in a group ...... 1 2 3 4 5 40.1 usually eat well-balanced meals...... 1 2 3 4 5 B. Managing Emotions 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = SUghtly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. Not True True 1. I bave trouble figuring out wbat would make me angry ...... 2 3 4 5 2. I accept my mistakes without intense frustration or depression ...... 2 3 4 5 3. I do not know wbat to do with my sexual feelings toward others ...... 2 3 4 5 4. I bounce back quickly from loneliness and depressed moods ...... 4 5 5. I rarely look beyond my feelings of anger for causes...... 4 5 6. I am conscious of wbat makes me happy...... 4 5 7. If I feel attracted to someone, I tend to keep my feelings inside rather than try to form a relationship with him/her ...... 4 5 8. I express compassion easily ...... 4 5 9. I explore my feelings of frustration in order to understand the causes ...... 4 5 288 10.1 find the best way to handle my negative feelings is to repress and deny them ...... 2 3 4 5 11. Handling my strong emotions is difficult. 2 3 4 5 12.1 recognize my anger as a first step toward handling it ...... 13.1 adapt effectively to unexpected change and disappointment ...... 2 4 5 14.1 can express my anger constructively. 2 4 5 15 .1 try to ignore the fact that I am attracted to someone...... 2 4 5 16.1 feel embarrassed crying in front of the people. 2 4 5 17.1 have trouble concentrating on my studies when I am in the low mood ...... 18. When I am sad and depressed, it is hard to overcome it...... 2 4 5 19.1 have sexual fantasies without feeling guilty.... 2 4 5 2 0 .1 can tell when a sad mood is effecting me ...... 2 4 21. Anger can motivate me to stand up for someone who is being treated unfairly ...... 2 4 5 22.1 am optimistic even when things look bad ...... 2 4 5 23. Differentiating the level of intensity of feelings is hard to me ...... 2 4 .1 accept both my positive and negative feelings honestly ...... 2 5 .1 use my feelings of frustration to motive myself to work hard ...... 26. Expressing affection appropriately and often is difficult for me...... 289 26. When I feel attracted to someone, I usually try to examine why ...... 1 27.1 find many ways and resources that can help me cope with negative emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety, fear, and depression, and guilty) effectively...... 1 28. When I fight with someone, I try to understand the cause rather than blame others ...... 1 29.1 attended workshops and programs which helped me handle my emotions ...... 1 30. When I feel strong feelings, it is hard to stop and analyze the possible consequences of my actions...... 1 31.1 can express my feelings to anyone honestly.... 1 C. Developing Autonomy 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. Not Tme Tme 1. I will go against my parents’ wishes if the issues were very important to me, for example, career and marriage decisions ...... 1 2. I seldom express my opinion in a group if I think my views will be controversial or different from what others believe ...... 1 3. I put things off until the last minute and regret it...... 1 290 4. I feel guilty when I do not obey my parents’ wishes ...... 5. I look to teachers for right answer to academic problems ...... — 6. I organize what I need to do well enough to assure that everything important gets done ...... 7. I feel embarrassed if I have to ask others for help even though I really need help ...... 8. I look to my parents for solutions to personal problems ...... 9. I am comfortable if some friends do not like me or do not accept my opinions ...... 10.1 run out of money because of poor or frivolous spending decisions ...... 11.1 can deal with many different responsibilities and still maintain my grades ...... 2 4 5 12.1 can make a happy life for myself. 2 4 5 13.1 offer help to my classmates ...... 2 4 5 14. I feel uncomfortable when I go to a new place without any friends at this place ...... 15.1 can express my opinions in class freely even if they are different from my teacher’s ...... 16.1 know where to look or who to ask about things I need on campus ...... 2 4 5 17.1 have taken trips alone. 9 4 5 18.1 feel an obligation to support my class/department/ university’s activities. 291 19. Before making decisions, I ask my parents what I should do ...... 20. Getting involved in the activities of my peer group even though I am not interested personally is important ...... 21.1 decide not to undertake something new if I believe I might fail ...... 22 .1 do not adjust to new surroundings quickly, so I do not seek jobs requiring mobility...... 2 3 .1 have made specific services or contributions to my society...... 2 4 .1 feel uneasy to say “no” to requests firom others ...... 2 4 5 2 5 .1 feel emotionally independent of my parents.... 2 4 5 26. Meeting the standards of behavior set by my firiends is important ...... 2 4 5 2 7 .1 am not afraid to take risks. 2 4 5 2 8 .1 think the best relationship is based on a mutual give and take...... 2 9 .1 enter class discussions only when promoted by the teacher ...... 30 .1 need to feel secure about the outcome before attempting something new or different ...... 31. When I am a member of a group, I do not like to be assigned responsibilities ...... 32 .1 actively study some topics of interested to me even if these topics are not required in my courses...... 292 D. Mature Interpersonal relationships 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. No True True 1. I would prefer not to room with someone who is from a different region, social economic background, or ethnic group ...... 2. I find it annoying when I hear people speaking in a language I don’t understand ...... 3. I depend on my close friend or intimate partner to make the best decision for me ...... 4. I can freely and openly express my strengths and weaknesses to my close friend or intimate partner ...... 5. In group, I can get along with people who are different from me...... 6. I can openly communicate with the people who have different political preferences from m e... 7. I believe that women tend to be emotional, while men are more rational ...... 8. I am afraid of losing my close friend or intimate partner ...... 9. 1 am usually careful about what I say and do around my close friend or intimate partner in order to avoid upsetting or displeasing him/her. 10.1 expect my close friend or intimate partner to meet my standards and needs ...... 293 11.1 avoid joining groups who are different from me...... 12.1 understand and respect the values and benefits o f different political parties...... 4 5 13.1 listen to songs and attend culture events, and festivals of different ethnic groups (e. g., Taiwanese, Chinese, Hakka, and Aboriginal People) ...... 14.1 have helped my close friend or intimate parmer achieve a personal goal even though I disagree with him/her about the goal ...... 15. Maintaining a satisfying close relationship for a long period time with my close friend or intimate partner is hard for me ...... 16.1 seek to change the flaws of my close friend or intimate partner ...... 17. Sharing my innermost thoughts with my close friend or intimate partner is a thing I value in our relationship ...... 18.1 don’t define people based on their backgrounds or ethnic groups ...... 19. After having strong disagreements with a person, I usually try to avoid her/him as much as possible ...... 20.1 understand and respect the customs of different ethnic groups ...... 2 4 5 2 1 .1 accept my friends as they are. 2 4 5 2 2 .1 apologize to my close friend or intimate partner when I am wrong ...... 23.1 try to keep my close friend or intimate parmer knowing about my shortcomings and failures... 294 2 4 .1 frequently feel as if my close friend or intimate partner’s successes are also my successes...... 1 25.1 try to persuade friends to accept my values.... 1 26. My roommate has some habits that bother and annoy me very much...... 1 27. Both my close friend (or intimate partner) and I give each other space and freedom to be different ...... 1 28.1 have successfully resolved a major conflict or disagreement with my close friend or intimate partner ...... 1 29.1 can accept people who have different values from me and relate to them on a daily basis.... 1 30. My close friend (or intimate partner) and I frequently talk about what each of us is seeking from our relationship ...... 1 31.1 only date people who are of the same background (e. g., custom, culture, religion, and value) as me...... 1 3 2.1 deal with people who are different from me by staying away from them as much as possible.... 1 E. Developing Identity 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. 295 Not True True 1. It does not bother me that I am not as physically attractive as some others are ...... 2. I make a conscious effort to wear the style of dress that most other people are wearing ...... 3. I am not pleased with my gender ...... 2 3 4 5 4. I am not sure about the life-style I want as an adult...... 2 3 4 5 5. I often have uneasy thoughts about the way that I appear to other people ...... 6. When compare myself to people whom I think are good looking, I feel inferior ...... 7. I am comfortable discussing gender issues with others ...... 8. I respond assertively when stereotyped by others because of my gender ...... 9. I know the kinds of things I like to do and with whom I like to do them ...... 10.1 understand myself better when I get feedback from others about how I come across to them... 11.1 usually have doubts that what I am doing is the best thing ...... 12. My height or weight makes me feel uncomfortable when I am in a crowd ...... 13.1 usually do not make friends with opposite sex because I have no confidence with my body and appearance ...... 296 14.1 realize my sexual feelings and desires are natural and normal...... 15.1 am pleased with my sexual preference ...... 16.1 identify myself with my cultural and ethnic group ...... 17.1 am not comfortable discussing my personal values with others ...... 18.1 do not have difficulty making decisions for m yself...... 2 3 4 5 19.1 like my body and appearance ...... 2 3 4 5 20.1 am uncomfortable discussing sexual issues with others ...... 21.1 frequently have doubts that I can have a successful and happy close love relationship.... 22. There are certain sexual feelings I have that I do not understand ...... 2 3 .1 desired life in terms of marriage, children, and career is clear to me...... 24. Taking time to understand myself as a member of my culture is not important to me...... 25. When I see so many capable people with abilities as good or better than mine, my confidence is shaken ...... 26 .1 have confidence in and respect the decisions I made for my self...... F. Developing Purpose 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. 297 Not True True 1. I am not sure about my interests or abilities...... 2. I am not sure about the requirements for graduating in my academic major ...... 3. I go to teachers or upper-class peers for help and advice about what I should study in my major field ...... 4. I have joined different clubs or activities as a way of exploring academic and career interests. 5. I do not have a clear plan of what I am going to do after I finish college ...... 6. When I filled the application form to college, my most concern was the prestige of institution. 7. I occasionally read articles and non-required books that relate to my major and career field even when I am busy...... 8. I do not understand the labor market in my major field ...... 9. I did not explore many academic fields before I selected my major ...... 10.1 select my major based upon the certainty in getting a job ...... II. I am a member of at least one club or organization that is related to my major field. 12.1 try to find ways to gain practical work experience in my major field ...... 13.1 have explored several different career options related to my major ...... 298 14.1 am not sure if I have the right major ...... 1 2 15.1 make time in my regular schedule for my hobbies ...... 16.1 selected major based on my parents’ expectation or traditional gender role ...... 17. Outside of classes, I do not spend time attending lectures or workshop in my major field ...... 18.1 am not aware of the work activities and situations that give me satisfaction ...... 19.1 am not sure about the skills and abilities needed for success in my future occupation or graduate school ...... 20.1 use campus resources to help my career or graduate education plan ...... 2 1.1 set goals for my fiiture and persist until I achieve them ...... 22.1 go to someone experienced in my fields for help and advice about how I might plan my career or graduate education ...... 23 .1 have followed through on nearly all my plans made for the future...... 2 4 .1 don’t have a plan for the next five years of my life...... 25. It is hard to imaging what my marriage and family life will be in the future...... 26. Because of difficulties, I frequently give up the plan I made for myself...... 2 7 .1 am very sure of the kind of life 1 want in the future...... 299 2 8 .1 have confidence that the career for which I am preparing will allow me to balance my work life, family life and personal interests in the future...... 2 9 .1 know how my personal life will relate to my career in the future...... Please continue on the next page 300 PART n . College Experiences Questionnaire Please read each statement and circle the number that mostly describes your experience during the current school year. 1 = Never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Often, 4 = Very Often Never Very Often 1. Used the library as a quiet place to read or study materials that you brought with you ...... 1 2. Asked the librarian or used the card catalogue or computer to find materials on some topic. 1 3. Developed a bibliography or set of references for use in a term paper or other report ...... 1 2 4 4. Checked out books to read (not textbooks) 1 2 4 5. Participated in class discussions ...... 1 1 4 6. Thought about practical applications of the course learning...... 1 7. Tried to explain what I have learned in a course to another student or firiend ...... 1 8. Did additional readings on topics that were introduced and discussed in class ...... 1 9. Worked on a paper or project where you had to integrate ideas from various sources...... 1 10. Revised a paper or composition two or more times before handing it in ...... 1 11. Asked your instructor for information about grades, assignments, or unclear information for a course you were taking...... 1 301 Never Very Often 12. Visited informally and briefly with an instructor after class...... 13. Made an appointment to meet with a faculty member in his/her office ...... 14. Discussed ideas for a term paper or other class project with a faculty member ...... 15. Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member...... 16. Asked your instructor for comments and criticisms about your work...... 17. Worked with a faculty member on a research project ...... 18. Discussed personal problems or concerns with a faculty member...... 19. Made friends with students whose academic major field was very different from yours ...... 20. Made fiiends with students whose race or region was different from yours ...... 21. Made friends with students whose interests were very different from yours...... 22. Made friends with opposite-sex students ...... 2 4 23. Made friends with students whose family background was very different from yours...... 9 4 24. Made friends with students from another country...... 302 Never Very Often 25. Had serious discussions with students whose philosophy of life or personal values were very different from yours...... 26. Had serious discussions with students whose political opinions were very different from yours...... Please continue on the next page 303 PART m . Personal Characteristics Please answer every question by only answering or circling one answer. Q-1. What is your gender? ______ Q-2. What is your age? _____ Q-3. What is your institution?______M ajor?______ Q-4. What is your class rank?______ Q-5. What is your raw score of Joint College Entrance Examination? ______(If you didn’t attend the Joint College Entrance Examination or you don’t remember the score, please leave the space blank) Q-6. In general, how do you describe your parents’ role in providing emotional support to you? 1. Little 2. Moderate 3. Strong Q-7. What is your living condition? 1. Only living in residence hall 2. Living off campus but has been living in residence hall 3. Living off campus and has never been living in residence hall 4. Commuting from home and has been living in residence hall 5. Commuting from home and has never been living in residence hall 6. O ther ______ Q-8. Have you joined any extracurricular student organization? 1. None 2. Yes, only be a member 3. Yes, have been a leader Q-9. Have you had any work experience during the college? 1. None 2. Yes, part-time and work experience does not relate to my major 3. Yes, part-time and work experience relates to my major 4. Yes, full-time and work experience does not relate to my major 5. Yes, full-time and work experience relates to my major 304 Thank You for Your Participation If you have any suggestion and question about this inventory. Please write down it in the following: 305 ' # # '± ^ m m R A m 7t/i\gR^ : ^Msg* ' ' mzz^BABRgam ' m îL m ^ A ' m^KmRmmKm^^mjB = mHgpem@ Am:$:g# - mmm ' :ÿm#:Fg#A:g > m ' #g'j ' ± # ' 5H # i e j b T f r ^ f jK%— &162% @ ê^la Rt'l t ^ ^ (02)2363-6640 sm 306 i t ^ l - M g ’ {B 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : :^sP^fî'ê‘ 5 : 7C2E-f^H TU t? i...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 s.nmm^mmm&Lmnm^mwm^&ij^m ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 7...... 2 3 4 5 m > ...... 2 3 4 5 9...... 2 3 4 5 zo.m%mm##ïË@m*#...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 - #<% )#*###% #&## ...... 2 3 4 5 iirn^ifûm > ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 307 7 C 7 C gp f? ...... 2 3 4 5 i8.m^iE^^^^mW]^ ' ...... 2 3 4 5 29.#'^ ± #...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 22#9F%%-±## ' B ^ - à m...... 2 3 4 5 23.:& m ^^ ' ...... 2 3 4 5 2m^'j^'m.M-mmm^mxm^ ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 26.nm^-m^±mwmmmm > m » g % e ...... 2 3 4 5 m m m ^ ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 29Mmmmmiàm^m.m.mtj...... 2 3 4 5 30.nnmw±mmmm - i i * i t ^ ...... 2 3 4 5 32. m # % @ #...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 33.$%mm&#m#B m...... 2 3 4 5 3 é & a # 4 : ' ...... 2 3 4 5 35.gp{£^gi^ • ...... 2 3 4 5 36##m8=%gg# ' n i j m m t i ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 308 7C ± a; f f f r f? C3 - - ' ^ m m m 1...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 5...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 7. m$og5#m%A ' a ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ' n ^ ^ r m m m ...... 2 3 4 5 æ 'B ...... 2 3 4 5 n .^ m m m m g ...... 2 3 4 5 iznmmmf^mmÈ^m-m • ...... 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 mgÊ*#:Ë3!jA@m;ëÆmmm%$...... 2 3 4 5 i z M m m è m m • ...... 2 3 4 5 ( m a m m m # # ) 309 TO /Jv ^ A 55 SB m ^ t î •ra- I Î C3 a O C3 ...... 2 3 4 5 19. 2 ÉiiiÊijmm ê ^ ...... 2 3 4 5 20.m^nm'ùmiEBmn^ > ...... 2 3 4 5 2Li».^#^^2|ëM AfIîÈ^¥...... 2 3 4 5 2 2 .m m m u w m . • ...... 2 3 4 5 2inmm^smmù m#3!)A...... 2 3 4 5 % m #ùQ — ...... 2 3 4 5 ’ ^ # g 2 e # % 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 H ' SMSÏZl'fÉ ( $ o # m ' - ...... i mm ' i 2 3 4 5 ...... i 2 3 4 5 ...... i 2 3 4 5 ...... i 2 3 4 5 ( i f 310 TC gP e ■f^ ca i S'JA- 2 3 4 5 S...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 lO M M ^ m ^ m ' ...... 2 3 4 5 ii.n-^\i).miiïïf^^mmm • ...... 2 3 4 5 Ê ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 i4.^m^i-mm^^mmm • ...... 2 3 4 5 6 # # m ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ï ï . n ^ m ê m n ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 2o.mmmmmm^^f§&mn&$mmm^ * n m m m "Ëi& w m m ...... 2 3 4 5 2L$om%#^^%, ...... 2 3 4 5 22.n^tmikmmmmmm • Ô ^x i^ ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 24.#?emmmmg!jA ...... 2 3 4 5 2 i & # 0 ± > ...... 2 3 4 5 2m-^m:k^ïL^ffm^m > m m m # ■ ( ) 311 Z\£ I ...... ' m M ) M m M ± m 0 m i s £ Z ...... s £ Z ...... s f £ Z ...... s f £ Z ...... u m s f £ Z ...... -g s f £ Z ...... • mmM’^Y ^ êm ’B'z s f £ Z -9 s £ Z ^mw^YmM ±’^nm^!°'^ • s £ Z ...... 5 1 ^ ' S f £ Z ...... s S f £ Z ...... Y % S f £ Z ...... s$—3 : ^ Y #BaMgY%3g%rm ' B3 £ z I ‘ ^ ^ m m w ± m m 7 £ s t £ z T ...... s f £ z I ...... s f £ z T ...... ‘ A.mmm^^M^'t£-6z s f £ z T ...... s f £ z I ...... "VC3 C=3 g a a u s ± f li ÜB or Y ^ ^ I I E I Î ^ ^ ^ a c% a ca- / y P3 z4gp{^;FRim ' g50M #m ^e^% g^-#m si # ( % ) # A B #...... 1 2 3 4 5 12345 ...... 12345 'ù'Sga%m& • ...... 1 2 3 4 5 is.^ëttfÊA6u#îè^#^fÈ ( % ) 1 2 3 4 5 c % ) # # 1 2 3 4 5 2o.^Tm^kmmTmmm^m.mwm ...... 12345 ...... 12345 2 zm m i'fm m ' 12345 12345 12345 ...... 12345 ...... 1 2345 A -1 2345 m : f e ...... 1 2 3 4 5 —m ...... 1 2 34 5 mm...... 1 2 3 4 5 ( m m m ' m n ' m m m ) % A ^ # -...... 1 2 3 4 5 ...... 12345 c m m m m f F # ) 313 7C ± i . m ^ ^ m ^ m A ' ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ^.m^Fggm^g 2^A m m sgm ±m m ...... 2 3 4 5 5.Æ SH A ® hü • m% *#:FÊlË ...... 2 3 4 5 6 .^ g g m @ = # É ^ f g jt ' ...... 2 3 4 5 7. Ê &%#AM##gü wm%R@...... 2 3 4 5 s.ms^jAi^ÀM^itmsm^mwnm * ...... 2 3 4 5 9. g ...... 2 3 4 5 > ^^nwturmnÊ^ ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 a a m ^ m w - ...... 2 3 4 5 z4#T^Êa% ##^&#BmÆ îE#ûm ' m m m ($oi#iÊ# ' # # # ' m #e# 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 i7.aTig g &%^AMm#%{mmm ...... 2 3 4 5 is - M g s f ^ ^ Æ ' m f m m m ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 2ams'jA#miÊR@ > ^m s^g^E ...... 2 3 4 5 zL m ^F ^m g ...... 2 3 4 5 &mfg5Éü-&i&Ë* > ##m T #...... 2 3 4 5 ( ) 314 55 ± 55 ± : gP HP e i? f? f? wîw . 6 . ca a C3 C3 C3 (mmm ' ' # m # )...... 2 3 4 5 24.n^mmmÆmrB^^Tmûummù^^i t ...... 2 3 4 5 25.^Mm3mm^mn-m^^mitnB^mA • m a g g f# 'D e m m ...... 2 3 4 5 2Ê^i=f É B W fÊ'ù##:# g ...... 2 3 4 5 y V i. è 2 É 9 m @ m g : ù...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 mm ...... 2 3 4 5 5. ê ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ##&####...... 2 3 4 5 s...... 2 3 4 5 9 .m m ± m m ^ m • nmm^UTmïï^^mm ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 f p m #...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 i 4 .^ ^ m ^ g ...... 2 3 4 5 is.n^mm^mrBYiièmmwB...... 2 3 4 5 ( ) 315 ^ ^ Î l'lî 17.mm'j''^m^7Bm^i0inm^^mwmmm^ 9 F #...... 2 3 4 5 18.^^^mm^mfmmô^xfFm m ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 2 a m ê f ü m m ^ ^ M ^ & s ù â a f p m m ( ) mm ...... 2 3 4 5 2 i.n M ê a # # g # g w ...... 2 3 4 5 ^m^mmwf^mmm ...... 2 3 4 5 2âaM W êa7^^â^fhM süîi ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 25inmmmmm^ô^mmRmm^f§^Mi-tmm^-' 2 3 4 5 26.n'MmmmïïïïSkmêBïïjà^fi-m ...... 2 3 4 5 2z.ms’^m^êBm3fsmwù^±f§:&^...... 2 3 4 5 2&mwÊ{w ’ • m ¥m x f ; ' m m m m A m m ...... 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 116 m —ê m : 1 : 2 : WB# 3 : 4 : w m B# 3g i. â B#^É9# ...... 1 2 3 4 ...... 1 2 3 4 5. - - m ï z : # # #ë ...... 1 2 3 4 4 .m m ^ m m m ...... 1 2 3 4 •...... 1 2 3 4 ...... 1 2 3 4 7. â a m m m g m # ...... 1 2 3 4 8 .m m ’ ...... 1 2 3 4 ...... 1 2 3 4 lo .^ m ^ rn ' ...... 1 2 3 4 zz.#-P9m# • 1 2 3 4 ...... 1 2 3 4 im^miE^'^mmM.m ...... 1 2 3 4 ' % # # ) 2 3 4 15.m^mMmêBm^m^w i ...... 2 3 4 16.m^mwm^Bù^r?mRm m ...... 2 3 4 ...... 2 3 4 i8M^mmmûB^xr<^m ...... 2 3 4 ...... 2 3 4 2 0 M ^ m ^ m ( m # ) ...... 2 3 4 ...... 2 3 4 u m w m m ' ? ^ ) 317 8T£ f 2 Z I ...... f 2 z I ...... m^à m m m m ‘ ^ G z 1 ..... f 2 Z i ...... ^ 2 z \ ..... mg ^ ^ m- w# s* ^ % p° CT) »{\ Co t>0 1^ m © 0 çt @ 0 © 0 0 0 sg 0 0 0 1 X- fr $ # (# III z# z# K RF RF RF aS -e g $ ^ ^ sg m " * # # 5# Ng # *1 0 ^ )D g* m 3 null çt DM •* m ëë S'g ii - - # RF - Wi- # # # Ffï gg # # IB Im Dfi> # # $ I m a hr hr m$ i| g- 3 m n # # # *RF # >h S3 # $ - - RF ëë •nD X)# I# «I # Im 1m li # a Sg 5Î m$ $ SIS RS ($ )n * RF # 5m n :®i w FfF ëë # Dft> m DM VO ëë # Dft> I # # Æ1 3 IS m •«o S iif % rail DB> èm » Sjï Dft> XF %: ÏÏIÏ DM •■a ^ m E§ 3 Hâ aa [O'  (D % ^ ® m ’ 320 Formal Instrument (Enslishl Code Number: College Student Psychosocial Development Inventory Dear students: The purpose of this study using the College Student Psychosocial Development Inventory is to coUect information concerning college students’ activities, feelings, attitudes, aspirations, and relationships in order to build a data base about college students in Taiwan. Ultimately such a data base can help colleges assist students more effectively. This Inventory consists of three parts. Part I contains statements about your psychosocial development and is divided into six sections: Developing Competence, Managing Emotions, Developing Autonomy, Mature Interpersonal Relationship, Establishing Identity, and Developing Purpose. Part H contains statements about your college experiences in academic involvement, faculty-student relationships and peer relationships. Part III is related to your personal characteristics. This inventory does not ask you to write your name; but it does need to know a few things about you, so that we can leam how psychosocial development might be related to class rank, gender, major, and living, co-curricula, and working experiences. The usefulness of this Inventory depends entirely on the honesty, candor, and care with which you answer questions. We greatly appreciate your help and would like to offer our sincere thanks to you. If you have any concern about the study, please feel free to contact Yu Huang. Yu Huang Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education and Student Affairs The Ohio State University Instructor, Department of Civics and Moral Education, National Taiwan Normal University (02) 2363-6640 Robert F. Rodgers Associate Professor Education and Psychology The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. 43210 321 Part I. Student Psychosocial Development Tas'ks Please read each statement and circle the number that mostly describes your position. Consider each statement carefully, but not spend a great deal of time deliberating on a single statement. 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. B. Developing Competence 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. Not True True 8. I read and remember textbook material effectively...... 9. I am comfortable at formal social occasions and enjoy them ...... 10.1 regularly participate in recreation, fimess programs, intramural and /or sport clubs.... 4 5 11.1 do not know how to make friends with the opposite sex ...... 4 5 12.1 perform well on examinations ...... 4 5 13.1 have positive relationships with most of my friends ...... 4 5 14.1 have difficulties finishing course assignments ...... 4 5 322 15.1 do not know how to make an effective study plan ...... 4 5 16.1 am a good listener and observer ...... 4 5 17.1 have at lease two sports or artistic endeavors in which I do well ...... 4 5 18.1 have difficulties understanding the content of courses...... 19.1 take courses outside my major in order to expand my learning about the world ...... 20.1 do not have the confidence to be a leader in a group ...... 21.1 know where to look or who to ask when I have questions about my studies...... 22 .1 am regularly involved in learning things other than that required by my classes ...... 23. In a discussion seminar, I have difficulties in integrating different ideas and have difficult time critiquing my own viewpoints ...... 2 4 5 24.1 have good flexibility, strength, and endurance. ? 4 5 25.1 have difficulty working on projects which require group cooperation ...... 26.1 have not yet been able to balanced rest, exercise, nutrition, work, and reflection in my life...... 2 3 4 5 27.1 can communicate my ideas effectively in a group ...... B. Managing Emotions 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. Not True True 32.1 have trouble figuring out what would make me angry ...... 2 3 3 3.1 accept my mistakes without intense frustration or depression ...... 2 3 34.1 bounce back quickly from loneliness and depressed moods ...... 2 3 35.1 am conscious of what makes me happy ...... 2 3 36. If I feel attracted to someone, I tend to keep my feelings inside rather than try to form a relationship with him/her ...... 37.1 explore my feelings of frustration in order to understand the causes ...... 38 .1 find the best way to handle my negative feelings is to repress and deny them ...... 2 3 39. Handling my strong emotions is difficult ...... 2 3 4 0 .1 adapt effectively to unexpected change and disappointment ...... 2 3 4 1 .1 can express my anger constructively ...... 42. When I am sad and depressed, it is hard to overcome it...... 2 3 43. I am optimistic even when things look bad ...... 2 3 4 4 .1 accept both my positive and negative feelings honestly ...... 2 3 324 4 5 .1 use my feelings of frustration to motive myself to work hard ...... 1 46. Expressing affection appropriately and often is difficult for me...... 1 47. When I feel attracted to someone, I usually try to examine why ...... 1 3 4 5 4 8 .1 find many ways and resources that can help me cope with negative emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety, fear, and depression, and guilty) effectively...... 1 3 4 5 49. When I fight with someone, I try to understand the cause rather than blame others ...... 1 3 4 5 50. When I feel strong feelings, it is hard to stop and analyze the possible consequences of my actions...... 1 51.1 can express my feelings to anyone honestly.... 1 C. Developing Autonomy 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = SUghtly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. Not True True 33.1 seldom express my opinion in a group if I think my views will be controversial or different from what others believe ...... 34.1 put things off until the last minute and regret it 325 35.1 look to teachers for right answer to academic problems ...... 3 6 .1 organize what I need to do well enough to assure that everything important gets done ...... 3 7 .1 look to my parents for solutions to personal problems ...... 3 8 .1 am comfortable if some friends do not like me or do not accept my opinions ...... 3 9 .1 can deal with many different responsibilities and still maintain my grades ...... 2 4 5 4 0 .1 can make a happy life for m yself...... 2 4 5 4 1 .1 offer help to my classmates ...... 2 4 5 4 2 .1 feel imcomfortable when I go to a new place without any friends at this place ...... 4 3 .1 can express my opinions in class freely even if they are different from my teacher’s ...... 4 4 .1 know where to look or who to ask about things I need on campus ...... 45. Before making decisions, I ask my parents what I should do ...... 4 6 .1 decide not to undertake something new if I believe I might fail ...... 4 7 .1 do not adjust to new surroundings quickly, so I do not seek jobs requiring mobility...... 4 8 .1 feel uneasy to say “no” to requests from others ...... 4 9 .1 enter class discussions only when promoted by the teacher ...... 526 50.1 need to feel secure about the outcome before attempting something new or different ...... 1 51. When I am a member of a group, I do not like to be assigned responsibilities ...... 1 5 2.1 actively study some topics of interested to me even if these topics are not required in my courses...... 1 D. Mature Interpersonal relationships 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. Not True True 10. I would prefer not to room with someone who is from a different region, social economic background, or ethnic group ...... 1 11.1 find it annoying when I hear people speaking in a language I don’t understand ...... 1 12.1 depend on my close friend or intimate partner to make the best decision for me ...... 1 13.1 can freely and openly express my strengths and weaknesses to my close friend or intimate partner ...... 1 14. In group, I can get along with people who are different from me ...... 1 327 6 .1 can openly communicate with the people who have different political preferences from me. . . 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am usually careful about what 1 say and do around my close friend or intimate partner in order to avoid upsetting or displeasing him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I expect my close friend or intimate parmer to meet my standards and needs 1 2 3 4 5 9. I understand and respect the values and benefits of different political parties ...... 1 2 3 4 5 10.1 listen to songs and attend culture events, and festivals of different ethnic groups (e. g., Taiwanese, Chinese, Hakka, and Aboriginal People) 1 2 3 4 5 11. Maintaining a satisfying close relationship for a long period time with my close friend or intimate partner is hard for me 1 2 3 4 5 12.1 don’t define people based on their backgrounds or ethnic groups 1 2 3 4 5 23.1 understand and respect the customs of different ethnic groups 1 2 3 4 5 24.1 accept my friends as they are 1 2 3 4 5 2 5 .1 apologize to my close friend or intimate parmer when I am wrong 1 2 3 4 5 26. Both my close friend (or intimate partner) and I give each other space and freedom to be different 1 2 3 4 5 2 7 .1 have successfully resolved a major conflict or disagreement with my close friend or intimate partner 1 2 3 4 5 28.1 can accept people who have different values from me and relate to them on a daily basis.... 1 2 3 4 5 328 2 9 .1 only date people who are of the same background (e. g., custom, culture, religion, and value) as me...... 1 30.1 deal with people who are different from me by staying away from them as much as possible.... 1 E. Developing Identity 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. Not True True 27.1 am not pleased with my gender. 28.1 often have uneasy thoughts about the way that 1 appear to other people ...... 29. When compare myself to people whom I think are good looking, I feel inferior...... 30.1 am comfortable discussing gender issues with others...... 31.1 know the kinds of things I like to do and with whom I like to do them ...... 32.1 understand myself better when 1 get feedback from others about how I come across to them... 33.1 usually have doubts that what 1 am doing is the best thing ...... 34. My height or weight makes me feel uncomfortable when I am in a crowd ...... 329 35.1 usually do not make friends with opposite sex because I have no confidence with my body and appearance ...... 36.1 realize my sexual feelings and desires are natural and normal...... 3 7 .1 identify myself with my cultural and ethnic group ...... 2 3 4 5 38.1 am not comfortable discussing my personal values with others ...... 4 5 39 .1 do not have difficulty making decisions for m yself...... 2 3 4 5 4 0 .1 like my body and appearance ...... 9 3 4 5 41.1 am uncomfortable discussing sexual issues with others ...... 42.1 frequently have doubts that 1 can have a successful and happy close love relationship. ... 43. There are certain sexual feelings 1 have that 1 do not understand ...... 44.1 desired life in terms of marriage, children, and career is clear to me...... 45. When 1 see so many capable people with abilities as good or better than mine, my confidence is shaken ...... 46.1 have confidence in and respect the decisions 1 made for my self...... F. Developing Purpose 1 = Not At All True of Myself, 2 = Slightly True of Myself, 3 = About Halfway True of Myself, 4 = Mostly True of Myself, and 5 = True of Myself. 330 Not True True 30.1 am not sure about my interests or abilities. 31.1 am not sure about the requirements for graduating in my academic major ...... 32.1 go to teachers or upper-class peers for help and advice about what I should study in my major field ...... 33.1 do not have a clear plan of what I am going to do after I finish college ...... 34.1 occasionally read articles and non-required books that relate to my major and career field even when I am busy...... 35.1 do not understand the labor market in my major field ...... 36.1 did not explore many academic fields before I selected my major ...... 37.1 am a member of at least one club or organization that is related to my major field. 38.1 try to find ways to gain practical work experience in my major field ...... 3 4 5 39.1 am not sure if I have the right major. 3 4 5 40. I make time in my regular schedule for my hobbies ...... 41. Outside of classes, I do not spend time attending lectures or workshop in my major field ...... 4 2 .1 am not aware of the work activities and situations that give me satisfaction ...... 331 4 3 .1 am not sure about the skills and abilities needed for success in my future occupation or graduate school ...... 4 4 .1 set goals for my future and persist until I achieve them ...... 4 5 .1 go to someone experienced in my fields for help and advice about how I might plan my career or graduate education ...... 4 6 .1 have followed through on nearly all my plans made for the future...... 47. It is hard to imaging what my marriage and family life will be in the future...... 4 5 48. Because of difficulties, I frequently give up the plan I made for myself...... 4 5 4 9 .1 have confidence that the career for which I am preparing will allow me to balance my work life, family life and personal interests in the future...... 4 5 332 PART n . College Experiences Questionnaire Please read each statement and circle the number that mostly describes your experience during the current school year. 1 = Never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Often, 4 = Very Often Never Very Often 11. Used the library as a quiet place to read or study materials that you brought with you ...... 12. Developed a bibliography or set of references for use in a term paper or other report ...... 2 4 13. Checked out books to read (not textbooks)...... 9 4 14. Participated in class discussions ...... 4 15. Thought about practical applications of the course learning...... 16. Did additional readings on topics that were introduced and discussed in class ...... 17. Worked on a paper or project where you had to integrate ideas from various sources...... 18. Asked your instructor for information about grades, assignments, or unclear information for a course you were taking...... 19. Visited informally and briefly with an instructor after class...... 20. Made an appointment to meet with a faculty member in his/her office ...... 21. Discussed ideas for a term paper or other class project with a faculty member ...... 333 Never Very Often 24. Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member...... 25. Worked with a faculty member on a research project ...... 26. Discussed personal problems or concerns with a faculty member...... 27. Made friends with students whose academic major field was very different from yours ...... 28. Made friends with students whose race or region was different from yours ...... 29. Made fiiends with students whose interests were very different from yours...... 2 3 4 30. Made friends with opposite-sex students. 9 3 4 31. Made friends with students whose family background was very different from yours. ... 32. Had serious discussions with students whose philosophies of life or personal values were very different from yours...... 33. Had serious discussions with students whose political opinions were very different from yours...... 334 PART i n . Personal Characteristics Please answer every question by only answering or circling one answer. Q-1. Institution______M ajor______ Q-2. Age? 1. Under 18 2. 18-25 3. Above 25 Q-3. Gender? 1. Male 2. Female Q-4. Class rank? 1. Freshman 2. Sophomore 3. Junior 4. Senior Q-5. In general, how do you describe your parents’ role in providing emotional support to you? 1. Little 2. Moderate 3. Strong Q-6. What is your living condition? 1. Only living in residence hall 2. Living off campus but has been living in residence hall 3. Living off campus and has never been living in residence hall 4. Commuting from home and has been living in residence hall 5. Commuting from home and has never been living in residence hall 6. O ther ______ Q-7. Have you joined any extracurricular student organization during the college? 1. None 2. Yes, only be a member 3. Yes, have been a leader 335 Q-8. Have you had any work experience during the college? 1. None 2. Yes, part-time and work experience does not relate to my major 3. Yes, part-time and work experience relates to my major 4. Yes, full-time and work experience does not relate to my major 5. Yes, full-time and work experience relates to my major 6. Other Please wait, the instructor will ask you turn in the inventory at one time ~ Thank You for Your Participation ~ If you have any suggestion and question about this inventory, Please write down it in the following: 536 : ______ ' # # •± r § m ^ S iA m m m ’ - e m s f j m m ë w w 7t/j\gR^ ' m m ^ io m = ^ stg tr ' w m m m ' #m@ 3ï# ' ma:a% A mggm ' » #z:§pem±^$:mR^#*2im >m ' e^Asm&Ri^smag## » m =g;em # ' # g ü ' • in m m m m m-Ai@ A*2K$# o tf;5£° 9»9g" # i $.% — a i6 2 3 t (02)2363-6640 Robert F. Rodgers Associate Professor, Education and Psychology The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. 43210 (mmmmiMm^rF^) 337 a {'K 4 4 1 ^ ^ a 4 a gtg CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO - ' ...... 2 3 4 5 3.^iëmi^m'{^m^i&m^iË!mm3 ^ ...... 2 3 4 5 4.m^mfi-m^mnm m ...... 2 3 4 5 5.iS$nas^^A ' m m m ( % ) ...... 2 3 4 5 6.#gs#*m ÿf# ’ ...... 2 3 4 5 7. > mmmmims ...... 2 3 4 5 5...... 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 i z ë m m ÿ i w m > ...... 2 3 4 5 & a î E @ & m m # #...... 2 3 4 5 imÿfmû^mmM tn^ti ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ' n m m ^ m ^ r m m s ...... 2 3 4 5 ( i m M m m f f ^ ) 339 ^ ^ ± n ^ aP tfr aP ^ e % e z f f ^ ^ ^ ^ . 4 ^ X±». .4±W C3 ca C3 n C3 ( m @ m - m ) a # # # ^...... 1 2 3 4 5 f i^ S 'J A ...... 1 2 3 4 5 m m ...... 1 2 3 4 5 2o.#0Ti;(m^%#fg!jA*mga89#m i 2345 = ' SSSïzitÊ [ n ^ ' ...... 234 5 « # m m m...... 234 5 3. mm^m^mnmmmm^iEm^^ ...... 234 5 4.n^rF'j^^wù^mm » 234 5 5. A % R @ ...... 234 5 Z##R...... 234 5 7...... 234 5 8. n ^ u m ê 2#m-m%mÉi7±m...... 234 5 9.m m nsijm m ...... 234 5 10.nm'1-mm^mmmm • ...... 234 5 #%#&...... 234 5 m a # ^ R @ ...... 234 5 ...... 234 5 ...... 234 5 340 è aP gÇ nP e z e _ f? R: R: C3 -^ C3» C3 C3 a.<±^ ( m @ m - m ) ...... 2 3 4 5 zE#:Femmmms!{A...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 c m # ) A ficÆ —Æ3...... 2 3 4 5 2.^Mmmmxmnm^mÈ^mrn ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 HéU® ' m m ...... 2 3 4 5 5 . & g # 4 : ' ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 7. • m m m m w # f r...... 2 3 4 5 s...... 2 3 4 5 9. 2 3 4 5 io M 0 tu ^ m m m ( m m ' ^ # ' ' m e m ) % m x m m ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ( ) 341 r_ln 7U A 55 §g gp e e f? f? C3 ca "ê* C3 ( - H ) c % ) f s m ...... 1 2 3 4 5 ...... 1 2 3 4 5 ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 m ^ -à - -B ...... a m # # 'mm. ' m m m ) » x m ^ ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 £ ' Îtïziêsis^ i.m:F#R&89#3U...... 2 3 4 5 2.&S!lA@BU * ...... 2 3 4 5 3.^#g^e#Ê9AfBjt ' ...... 2 3 4 5 4.^-^iüê^^uxM mmmmm'^ m ...... 2 3 4 5 5. n ^ m Ê ...... 2 3 4 5 G.güAmmÊ^is)* ’ mÿjnmuTm^êE...... 2 3 4 5 7...... 2 3 4 5 &&A#4: ' ' emmm%#m^ÊîË...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ( ) 342 ^ /h # ± % ^ nP |to bP ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Z r? ^ ÎÎ dS -m ) i m m M ê ^ è ^ x i t m m m ...... 2 3 4 5 72m;F@gâîË%#A#mm%{smm...... 2 3 4 5 jim Êsfp^m ' ^ a . a m m m...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 i5.^sijA ftM ter=is ' ^m m ^FâîË ...... 2 3 4 5 le M ^ m m ê ...... 2 3 4 5 ' ' n m m r m ...... 2 3 4 5 /j\m ' m m m ) ...... 3 4 5 * * # % gf# 'D 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 /V 1. ê B ...... 2 3 4 5 2 .n^^m^u±mnm^mmm ^...... 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 # # & # # # # ...... 2 3 4 5 6. n^Tm±mmmmwimmm ...... 2 3 4 5 7 .m m ± m m m m • ...... 2 3 4 5 8. 2 3 4 5 9. 1 (mm 343 55 /j^ 4^ A 5c ± SP EÎÎ SP f? f? a F3 "a” n a ( - m ) a ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 9FW ...... 2 3 4 5 im^^m^^w^i+mmmxr^mm ...... 2 3 4 5 ...... 2 3 4 5 ê Br^wtm ( mm^pn ) mm...... 2 3 4 5 i&mm Ê ...... 2 3 4 5 > $d m * ^ s i j é 3 ^m^mmm^mmm...... 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 a#%asmm%mÊ3nÊi7#m...... 2 3 4 5 2o .^ m ù rn ' > t i ^ ^ x fp ' 1 ( f t 344 1 : 2 : mm 3 : 4 : tîÉ m ^ B# % S? {mmi I — # ) ...... 2 3 4 ê ...... 2 3 4 s . i m ^ m ^ m - - ...... 2 3 4- 2 3 4 5. m # $ o m ^ m m ...... 2 3 4 6 . # ^ ...... 2 3 4 7...... 2 3 4 8.m-rmm ■ m^mmm.w^ ' i^mRnm^mmm- 2 3 4 9 . m m m ^ ^ m ^ m ...... 2 3 4 ...... 2 3 4 3 4 g ...... 2 3 4 a m # @ p - a m f T 9 F % # + m...... 2 3 4 i4.m^mMmû^^Amm ...... 2 3 4 is.m^mn^mmmfpm^...... 2 3 4 1 6 .m ^ m m m ( m m ) 2 3 4 17.mmm^m^mè^mmf^m: k ...... 2 3 4 18.m^^mmi'pm: k ...... 2 3 4 ...... 2 3 4 f^m ...... 2 3 4 2 3 4 ( ) 345 i t 0 H#K ? 1 is m m T 2 is m - 2 5 # 3 2 5 # j ^ ± 8 # g i j ? 2 ^ 1 2 3 4 g g ^ m 1 2 4 : # 3 1 2 6 % # (mmm ) ______ 346 1 2 # ' R m & m 3 # • 1 2 w ' mmRi:ffmmm±mmmmm 3 ^ 4 w > 6 %#()______ m m m » ? m M em ét ;{±yJLT3Ei ë m 347 APPENDIX C RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS 348 Pilot Study Variable Label (“D” is the items were deleted in the formal study) College Student Psychosocial Development Inventory Student Psychosocial Development Tasks I. Developing Competence slO l "I read and remember textbook material effectively"/ D sl02 "I do not spend time attending art, musical, or cultural events"/ D sl03 "I expect professors to teach me all the facts and information I am supposed to learn"/ s i04 "I am comfortable at formal social occasions and enjoy them"/ s i05 "I regularly participate in recreation, fitness programs, intramural and /or sport clubs"/ D sl06 "I take good notes in class and these notes help me review my course learning and prepare for test"/ D sl07 "I have trouble verbally expressing my ideas clearly"/ D sl08 "I prefer the teacher to demonstrate a way to think about the subject matter and then help me explore the issues and come to my own conclusions"/ s i09 "I do not know how to make friends with the opposite sex"/ D si 10 "I maintain my weight at healthy levels"/ sill "I perform well on examinations"/ D si 12 "I visit museums, art exhibitions, and historical places when not required for a class"/ D si 13 "For me, grades are the more important thing in my education"/ si 14 "I have positive relationships with most of my friends"/ D sIlS "I do not exercise regularly"/ sll6 "I have difficulties finishing course assignments"/ D si 17 "I like the learning environment that includes specific, detailed instruction for all activities and assignments"/ D si 18 "I am comfortable at informal social activities and enjoy them"/ D si 19 "1 get sick often"/ s i20 "I do not know how to make an effective study plan"/ D sl21 "I read books on philosophy or religion in order to find meaning for my life"/ D sl22 " On a given topic, I like opportunities to pull together connections among various points of view and then construct consensus among them"/ s i 23 "I am a good listener and observer"/ si24 "I have at lease two sports or artistic endeavors in which I do well"/ sl25 "I have difficulties understanding the content of courses"/ si26 "I take courses outside my major in order to expand my learning about the world"/ D sl27 "I prefer to do independent research allowing me to produce my own ideas and arguments"/ s i28 "I do not have the confidence to be a leader in a group"/ D sl29 "I use alcohol or drugs to help me relieve stress"/ si30 "I know where to look or who to ask when I have questions about my studies"/ 349 s 131 "I am regularly involved in learning things other than that required by my classes"/ s i32 "In a discussion seminar, I have difficulties in integrating different ideas and have difficult time critiquing my own viewpoints"/ D sl33 "I have difficulties communicating with my friends"/ D sl34 "In a group, I encourage and celebrate the success of others"/ D s i 35 "I respect group decisions even when I disagree"/ s i36 "I have good flexibility, strength, and endurance"/ s i37 "I have difficulty working on projects which require group cooperation"/ sl38 "I have not yet been able to balanced rest, exercise, nutrition, work, and reflection in my life"/ s i 39 "I can communicate my ideas effectively in a group"/ D sl40 "I usually eat well-balanced meals"/ 2. Managing Emotions s201 "I have trouble figuring out what would make me angry"/ s202 "I accept my mistakes without intense frustration or depression"/ D s203 "I do not know what to do with my sexual feelings toward others"/ s204 "I bounce back quickly from loneliness and depressed moods"/ D s205 "I rarely look beyond my feelings of anger for causes"/ s206 "I am conscious of what makes me happy"/ s207 "If I feel attracted to someone, I tend to keep my feelings inside rather than try to form a relationship with him/her"/ D s208 "I express compassion easily"/ s209 "I explore my feelings of frustration in order to understand the causes"/ s210 "I find the best way to handle my negative feelings is to repress and deny them"/ s211 "Handling my strong emotions is difficult"/ D s212 "I recognize my anger as a first step toward handling it"/ s213 "I adapt effectively to unexpected change and disappointment"/ s214 "I can express my anger constructively"/ D s215 "I try to ignore the fact that I am attracted to someone"/ D s216 "I feel embarrassed crying in front of the people"/ D s217 "I have trouble concentrating on my studies when I am in the low mood"/ s218 "When I am sad and depressed, it is hard to overcome it"/ D s219 "I have sexual fantasies without feeling guilty"/ D s220 "I can tell when a sad mood is effecting me"/ D s221 "Anger can motivate me to stand up for someone who is being treated unfairly"/ s222 "I am optimistic even when things look bad"/ D s223 "Differentiating the level of intensity of feelings is hard to me"/ s224 "I accept both my positive and negative feelings honestly"/ s225 "I use my feelings of frustration to motive myself to work hard"/ s226 "Expressing affection appropriately and often is difficult for me"/ s227 "When I feel attracted to someone, I usually try to examine why"/ s228 "I find many ways and resources that can help me cope with negative emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety, fear, and depression, and guilty) effectively"/ 350 s229 "When I fight with someone, I try to understand the cause rather than blame others"/ D s230 "I attended workshops and programs which helped me handle my emotions"/ s231 "When I feel strong feelings, it is hard to stop and analyze the possible consequences of my actions"/ s232 "I can express my feelings to anyone honestly"/ 3. Developing Autonomy D s301 "I will go against my parents' wishes if the issues were very important to me, for example, career and marriage decisions"/ s302 "I seldom express my opinion in a group if I think my views will be controversial or different from what others believe"/ s303 "I put things off until the last minute and regret it"/ D s304 "I feel guilty when I do not obey my parents' wishes"/ s305 "I look to teachers for right answer to academic problems"/ s306 "I organize what I need to do well enough to assure that everything important gets done"/ D s307 "I feel embarrassed if I have to ask others for help even though I really need help"/ s308 "I look to my parents for solutions to personal problems"/ s309 "I am comfortable if some friends do not like me or do not accept my opinions"/ D s310 "I run out of money because of poor or frivolous spending decisions"/ s311 "I can deal with many different responsibilities and still maintain my grades"/ s312 "11 can make a happy life for myself'/ s313 "1 offer help to my classmates"/ s314 "1 feel uncomfortable when 1 go to a new place without any friends at this place"/ s315 "1 can express my opinions in class freely even if they are different from my teacher's"/ s316 "I know where to look or who to ask about things I need on campus"/ D s317 "I have taken trips alone"/ D s318 "I feel an obligation to support my class/department/ university's activities"/ s319 "Before making decisions, I ask my parents what 1 should do"/ D s320 "Getting involved in the activities of my peer group even though I am not interested personally is important"/ s321 "1 decide not to undertake something new if 1 believe I might fail"/ s322 "1 do not adjust to new surroundings quickly, so 1 do not seek jobs requiring mobility"/ D s323 "1 have made specific services or contributions to my society"/ s324 "I feel uneasy to say "no" to requests from others"/ D s325 "I feel emotionally independent of my parents"/ D s326 "Meeting the standards of behavior set by my friends is important"/ D s327 "I am not afraid to take risks"/ D s328 "1 think the best relationship is based on a mutual give and take"/ s329 "I enter class discussions only when promoted by the teacher"/ 351 s330 "I need to feel secure about the outcome before attempting something new or different"/ s331 "When I am a member of a group, I do not like to be assigned responsibilities"/ s332 "I actively study some topics of interested to me even if these topics are not required in my courses"/ 4. Mature Interpersonal Relationship s401 "I would prefer not to room with someone who is from a different region, social economic background, or ethnic group"/ s402 "I find it annoying when I hear people speaking in a language I don't understand"/ s403 "I depend on my close friend or intimate partner to make the best decision for me"/ s404 "I can freely and openly express my strengths and weaknesses to my close friend or intimate partner"/ s405 "In group, I can get along with people who are different from me"/ s406 "I can openly communicate with the people who have different political preferences from me"/ D s407 "I believe that women tend to be emotional, while men are more rational"/ D s408 "I am afraid of losing my close friend or intimate partner"/ s409 "I am usually careful about what 1 say and do around my close friend or intimate partner in order to avoid upsetting or displeasing him/her"/ s410 "1 expect my close friend or intimate parmer to meet my standards and needs"/ D s411 "1 avoid joining groups who are different from me"/ s412 "1 understand and respect the values and benefits of different political parties"/ s413 "1 listen to songs and attend culture events, and festivals of different ethnic groups (e. g., Taiwanese, Chinese, Hakka, and Aboriginal People)"/ D s414 "1 have helped my close friend or intimate partner achieve a personal goal even though 1 disagree with him/her about the goal"/ s415 "Maintaining a satisfying close relationship for a long period time with my close friend or intimate partner is hard for me"/ D s416 "1 seek to change the flaws of my close friend or intimate partner"/ D s417 "Sharing my innermost thoughts with my close friend or intimate partner is a thing 1 value in our relationship"/ s418 "1 don't defme people based on their backgrounds or ethnic groups"/ D s419 "After having strong disagreements with a person, 1 usually try to avoid her/him as much as possible"/ s420 "1 understand and respect the customs of different ethnic groups"/ s421 "1 accept my friends as they are"/ s422 "1 apologize to my close friend or intimate partner when 1 am wrong"/ D s423 "1 try to keep my close friend or intimate partner knowing about my shortcomings and failures"/ D s424 "1 frequently feel as if my close friend or intimate partner's successes are also my successes"/ D s425 "1 try to persuade friends to accept my values"/ D s426 "My roommate has some habits friat bother and annoy me very much"/ 352 s427 "Both my close friend (or intimate partner) and I give each other space and freedom to be different"/ s428 "I have successfully resolved a major conflict or disagreement with my close friend or intimate partner"/ s429 "I can accept people who have different values from me and relate to them on a daily basis"/ D s430 "My close friend (or intimate partner) and I frequently talk about what each of us is seeking from our relationship"/ s431 "I only date people who are of the same backgroimd (e. g., custom, culture, religion, and value) as m e"/. s432 "I deal with people who are different from me by staying away from them as much as possible"/ 5. Establishing Identity D s501 "It does not bother me that I am not as physically attractive as some others are"/ D s502 "I make a conscious effort to wear the style of dress that most other people are wearing"/ s503 "I am not pleased with my gender"/ D s504 "I am not sure about the life-style I want as an adult"/ s505 "I often have uneasy thoughts about the way that I appear to other people"/ s506 "When compare myself to people whom I think are good looking, I feel inferior"/ s507 "I am comfortable discussing gender issues with others"/ D s508 "I respond assertively when stereotyped by others because of my gender"/ s509 "I know the kinds of things I like to do and with whom I like to do them"/ s510 "I understand myself better when I get feedback from others about how I come across to them"/ s51I "I usually have doubts that what I am doing is the best thing"/ s512 "My height or weight makes me feel uncomfortable when I am in a crowd"/ s5I3 "I usually do not make ftriends with opposite sex because I have no confidence with my body and appearance"/ s514 "I realize my sexual feelings and desires are natural and normal"/ D s515 "I am pleased with my sexual preference"/ s516 "I identify myself with my cultural and ethnic group"/ s517 "I am not comfortable discussing my personal values with others"/ s518 "I do not have difficulty making decisions for myself'/ s519 "I like my body and appearance"/ s520 "I am uncomfortable discussing sexual issues with others"/ s521 "I frequently have doubts that I can have a successful and happy close love relationship"/ s522 "There are certain sexual feelings I have that I do not understand"/ s523 "I desired life in terms of marriage, children, and career is clear to me"/ D s524 "Taking time to understand myself as a member of my culture is not important to me"/ s525 "When I see so many capable people with abilities as good or better than mine, my confidence is shaken"/ 353 s526 "I have confidence in and respect the decisions I made for my self 7 6. Developing Purpose s601 "I am not sure about my interests or abilities"/ s602 "I am not sure about the requirements for graduating in my academic major"/ s603 "I go to teachers or upper-class peers for help and advice about what I should study in my major field"/ D s604 "I have joined different clubs or activities as a way of exploring academic and career interests"/ s605 "I do not have a clear plan of what I am going to do after I finish college"/ D s606 "When I filled the application form to college, my most concern was the prestige of institution"/ s607 "I occasionally read articles and non-required books that relate to my major and career field even when I am busy"/ s608 "I do not understand the labor market in my major field"/ s609 "I did not explore many academic fields before I selected my major"/ D s610 "I select my major based upon the certainty in getting a job"/ s611 "I am a member of at least one club or organization that is related to my major field"/ s612 "I try to find ways to gain practical work experience in my major field"/ D s613 "I have explored several different career options related to my major"/ s614 "I am not sure if I have the right major"/ s615 "I make time in my regular schedule for my hobbies"/ D s616 "I selected major based on my parents' expectation or traditional gender role"/ s617 "Outside of classes, I do not spend time attending lectures or workshop in my major field."/ s618 "I am not aware of the work activities and situations that give me satisfaction"/ s619 "I am not sure about the skills and abilities needed for success in my future occupation or graduate school"/ s620 "I use campus resources to help my career or graduate education plan"/ s621 "I set goals for my future and persist until I achieve them"/ s622 "1 go to someone experienced in my fields for help and advice about how I might plan my career or graduate education"/ D s623 "I have followed through on nearly all my plans made for the future"/ D s624 "I don't have a plan for the next five years of my life"/ s625 "It is hard to imaging what my marriage and family life will be in the future"/ s626 "Because o f difficulties, I firequently give up the plan I made for m yself'/ D s627 "1 am very sure of the kind of life I want in the future"/ s628 "1 have confidence that the career for which I am preparing will allow me to balance my work life, family life and personal interests in the future"/ D s629 "I know how my personal life will relate to my career in the future"/ College Student Experiences Questionnaire s701 "Used the library as a quiet place to read or study materials that you brought with you"/ 354 s702 "Asked the librarian or used the card catalogue or computer to find materials on some topic"/ D s703 "Developed a bibliography or set of references for use in a term paper or other report"/ s704 "Checked out books to read (not textbooks)"/ s705 "Participated in class discussions"/ s706 "Thought about practical applications of the course learning"/ D s707 "Tried to explain what I have learned in a course to another student or friend"/ s708 "Did additional readings on topics that were introduced and discussed in class"/ s709 "Worked on a paper or project where you had to integrate ideas fi"om various sources"/ D s710 "Revised a paper or composition two or more times before handing it in"/ s711 "Asked your instructor for information about grades, assignments, or unclear information for a course you were taking"/ s712 "Visited informally and briefly with an instructor after class"/ s713 "Made an appointment to meet with a faculty member in his/her office"/ s714 "Discussed ideas for a term paper or other class project with a faculty member"/ s715 "Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member"/ D s716 "Asked your instructor for comments and criticisms about your work"/ s717 "Worked with a faculty member on a research project"/ s7I8 "Discussed personal problems or concerns with a faculty member"/ s719 "Made fiiends with students whose academic major field was very different firom yours"/ s720 "Made fiiends with students whose race or region was different firom yours"/ s721 "Made friends with students whose interests were very different firom yours"/ s722 "Made fiiends with opposite-sex students"/ s723 "Made fiiends with students whose family background was very different firom yours"/ D s724 "Made fiiends with students firom another country"/ s725 "Had serious discussions with students whose philosophy of life or personal values were very different firom yours"/ s726 "Had serious discussions with students whose political opinions were very different firom yours"/ 355 Factor Loadings of Pilot Study (T?efore Delete Items') Factor 1 (Developing Competence) Factor 2 (Managing Emotions) Component Component 1 S133 365 1 3228 SI39 364 .712 3222 .618 3114 352 3211 .585 S131 349 S213 .584 S120 .540 3218 367 SI09 .534 3224 364 S104 320 3204 360 3130 316 3206 335 3126 315 3210 330 S ill 307 .. 3209 303 3137 303 3201 .501 3132 .490 3214 301 3101 .486 3226 .495 3118 .482 3232 .491 3136 .473 3227 .482 3116 .447 3229 .466 3105 .442 3231 .442 3107 - .419 3202 .409 3124 .414 3225 373 3112 .410 3207 366 3123 .410 3215 356 3125 .405 3220 303 3138 383 3217 388 3122 379 3203 381 3128 366 3212 374 3127 364 3205 359 3102 349 3221 358 3106 345 3223 358 3140 • 336 3219 355 3134 308 3216 349 3119 373 3230 343 3115 355 3208 .125 3135 .194 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 3129 .160 a. I components extracted. 3113 .153 3103 7.907E-02 3108 6370E-02 3110 -4343E-02 3121 3387E-02 3117 -9 731E-03 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. *- I componena extracted. 356 Factor 3 (Developing Autonomy) Factor 4 (Mature Interpersonal Relationship) Component UomponenT" 1 1 S321 .601 3432 J8 6 S322 .566 3429 J66 S330 .550 3405 .565 S332 .546 3406 .534 S31S .526 3421 .531 S314 .518 3431 .492 3327 .488 3415 .461 3315 .469 3418 .453 3331 .460 3311 .448 3420 .440 3303 .448 3422 .436 3312 .443 3404 .424 3313 .433 3402 .414 3302 .422 3412 .402 3305 .403 3403 -597 3308 .397 3428 J9 2 3329 .365 3411 388 3324 .333 3409 3319 .332 .366 3306 .323 3401 358 3309 .317 3413 353 3326 .288 3427 308 3318 .264 3423 397 3323 .254 3417 390 .249 3307 3410 371 3304 .234 3430 367 3301 .137 3408 337 3317 .187 3320 .165 3414 329 3325 .159 3426 324 3310 .148 3424 .190 3328 2.076E-02 3407 .171 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 3425 .169 a. 1 axnponana MraoacL 3419 .162 3416 .108 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, a. I components extracted. 557 Factor 5 (Establishing Identity) Factor 6 (Developing Purpose) Component Component 1 1 S5I9 .701 3623 .730 S505 .668 3621 .704 S526 .661 3605 .680 S513 .627 3628 .678 3509 .618 3627 .649 3523 .600 3601 .624 3521 .577 3625 .622 3504 .567 3602 .618 3522 J63 3629 .616 3506 J42 3614 .614 3510 J30 3624 .614 3512 J29 3626 .594 3525 .523 3618 .588 3516 .513 3608 .547 3517 .486 3620 .528 3520 .474 3617 .525 3511 .474 3612 .519 3503 .464 3622 .510 3501 .456 3619 .504 3507 .419 3611 .504 3518 .414 3613 .495 3514 .412 3607 .439 3515 299 3603 .419 3508 298 3609 289 3524 282 3615 276 3502 8.695E-03 3604 221 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 3606 .315 a. I components extracted. 3616 272 3610 .101 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, a. I components extracted. 358 Factor 7 (College Student Experiences Questionnaire) Component 1 2 3 S7I8 .833 -5.753E-02 -.129 S715 .805 -1.137E-02 -2J77E-02 S713 .792 -7.185E-02 -4220E-02 S712 .751 ^.076E-03 4.696E-02 S717 .715 3.410E-02 -.113 S714 .694 6.997E-02 6.346E-02 3716 .672 .120 9.401E-02 3711 J4 7 -9.182E-02 .149 3706 .471 .142 219 3708 .411 8.060E-02 211 3705 -<383 .162 300 3707 _337 3.729E-02 252 3724 219 .232 -.179 3723 -.169 .888 -2257E-03 3722 -6.249E-02 .794 -3J68E-02 3719 -1.438E-02 .781 6.167E-02 3720 -5.922E-02 .772 8.794E-02 3721 4.2I5E-02 .711 .107 ■ 3726 251 .489 -.129 3725 251 .419 7.651E-02 3702 -.150 8.607E-02 .818 3703 -8.870E-02 7.557E-02 .757 3701 2.506E-02 -.132 .541 3709 .201 .134 324 3704 8.726E-02 244 324 3710 .245 -7281E-02 364 Extractioa Method; Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblhnin with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation coavaged in 7 iterations. 359 Formal Study Variable Label College Student Psychosocial Development Inventory Student Psychosocial Development Tasks 1. Developing Competence slOI "I read and remember textbook material effectively"/ s i02 "I am comfortable at formal social occasions and enjoy them"/ si03 "I regularly participate in recreation, fîmess programs, intramural and /or sport clubs"/ si04 "I do not know how to make friends with the opposite sex"/ s i 05 "I perform well on examinations"/ si 06 "I have positive relationships with most of my friends"/ si07 "I have difSculties fin ishing course assignments"/ si08 "I do not know how to make an effective study plan"/ s i09 "I am a good listener and observer"/ si 10 "I have at lease two sports or artistic endeavors in which I do well"/ sill "I have difficulties understanding the content of courses"/ si 12 "I take courses outside my major in order to expand my learning about the world"/ si 13 "I do not have the confidence to be a leader in a group"/ si 14 "I know where to look or who to ask when I have questions about my studies"/ si 15 "I am regularly involved in learning things other than that required by my classes"/ si 16 "In a discussion seminar, I have difficulties in integrating different ideas and have difficult time critiquing my own viewpoints"/ si 17 "I have good flexibility, strength, and endurance"/ si 18 "I have difficulty working on projects which require group cooperation"/ si 19 "I have not yet been able to balanced rest, exercise, nutrition, work, and reflection in my life"/ si20 "I can communicate my ideas effectively in a group"/ 2. Managing Emotions s201 "I have trouble figuring out what would make me angry"/ s202 "I accept my mistakes without intense frustration or depression"/ s203 "I bounce back quickly from loneliness and depressed moods"/ s204 "I am conscious of what makes me happy"/ s205 "If I feel attracted to someone, I tend to keep my feelings inside rather than try to form a relationship with him/her"/ s206 "I explore my feelings of frustration in order to understand the causes"/ s207 "I find the best way to handle my negative feelings is to repress and deny them"/ s208 "Handling my strong emotions is difficult"/ s209 "I adapt effectively to unexpected change and disappointment"/ s210 "I can express my anger constructively"/ s211 "When I am sad and depressed, it is hard to overcome it"/ s212 "I am optimistic even when things look bad"/ 360 s213 "I accept both my positive and negative feelings honestly"/ s214 "I use my feelings of frustration to motive myself to work hard"/ s2I5 "Expressing affection appropriately and often is difficult for me"/ s216 "When I feel attracted to someone, I usually try to examine why"/ s2I7 "I find many ways and resources that can help me cope with negative emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety, fear, and depression, and guilty) effectively"/ s218 "When I fight with someone, I try to understand the cause rather than blame others"/ s219 "When I feel strong feelings, it is hard to stop and analyze the possible consequences of my actions"/ s220 "I can express my feelings to anyone honestly"/ 3. Developing Autonomy s301 "I seldom express my opinion in a group if I think my views will be controversial or different from.what others believe"/ s302 "I put things off until the last minute and regret it"/ s303 "I look to teachers for right answer to academic problems"/ s304 "I organize what I need to do well enough to assure that everything important gets done"/ s305 "I look to my parents for solutions to personal problems"/ s306 "I am comfortable if some friends do not like me or do not accept my opinions"/ s307 "I can deal with many different responsibilities and still maintain my grades"/ s308 "I can make a happy life for myself'/ s309 "I offer help to my classmates"/ s310 "I feel uncomfortable when I go to a new place without any friends at this place"/ s3 II "I can express my opinions in class freely even if they are different from my teacher's"/ s312 "I know where to look or who to ask about things I need on campus"/ s313 "Before making decisions, I ask my parents what I should do"/ s314 "I decide not to undertake something new if I believe I might fail"/ s315 "I do not adjust to new surroundings quickly, so I do not seek jobs requiring mobility"/ s316 "I feel uneasy to say 'no' to requests from others"/ s317 "I enter class discussions only when promoted by the teacher"/ s318 "I need to feel secure about the outcome before attempting something new or different"/ s319 "When I am a member of a group, I do not like to be assigned responsibilities"/ s320 "I actively study some topics of interested to me even if these topics are not required in my courses"/ 4. Mature Interpersonal Relationship s401 "I would prefer not to room with someone who is from a different region, social economic background, or ethnic group"/ 361 s402 "I find it annoying when I hear people speaking in a language I don't understand"/ s403 "I depend on my close fiiend or intimate partner to make the best decision for me"/ s404 "I can fi-eely and openly express my strengths and weaknesses to my close fiiend or intimate partner"/ s405 "In group, I can get along with people who are different fi-om me"/ s406 "I can openly communicate with the people who have different political preferences firom me"/ s407 "I am usually careful about what I say and do around my close friend or intimate partner in order to avoid upsetting or displeasing him/her"/ s408 "I expect my close fiiend or intimate partner to meet my standards and needs"/ s409 "I understand and respect the values and benefits of different political parties"/ s410 "I listen to songs and attend culture events, and festivals of different ethnic groups (e. g., Taiwanese, Chinese, Hakka, and Aboriginal People)"/ s411 "Maintaining a satisfying close relationship for a long period time with my close fiiend or intimate partner is hard for me"/ s412 "I don't define people based on their backgrounds or ethnic groups"/ s413 "I understand and respect the customs of different ethnic groups"/ s414 "I accept my fiiends as they are"/ s415 "I apologize to my close fiiend or intimate partner when I am wrong"/ s416 "Both my close fiiend (or intimate partner) and I give each other space and fireedom to be different"/ s417 "I have successfully resolved a major conflict or disagreement with my close fiiend or intimate partner"/ s418 "I can accept people who have different values firom me and relate to them on a daily basis"/ s419 "I only date people who are of the same background (e. g., custom, culture, religion, and value) as me"/ s420 "I deal with people who are different firom me by staying away firom them as much as possible"/ 5. Establishing Identity s501 "I am not pleased with my gender"/ s502 "I often have uneasy thoughts about the way that I appear to other people"/ s503 "When compare m yself to people whom I think are good looking, I feel inferior"/ s504 "I am comfortable discussing gender issues with others"/ s505 "I know the kinds o f things I like to do and with whom I like to do them"/ s506 "I understand myself better when I get feedback firom others about how I come across to them"/ s507 "I usually have doubts that what I am doing is the best thing"/ s508 "My height or weight makes me feel uncomfortable when I am in a crowd"/ s509 "I usually do not make firiends with opposite sex because I have no confidence with my body and appearance"/ 362 s510 "I realize my sexual feelings and desires are natural and normal"/ s511 "I identify myself with my cultural and ethnic group"/ s512 "I am not comfortable discussing my personal values with others"/ s513 "I do not have difBculty making decisions for myself'/ s514 "I like my body and appearance"/ s515 "I am uncomfortable discussing sexual issues with others"/ s516 "I frequently have doubts that I can have a successful and happy close love relationship"/ s517 "There are certain sexual feelings I have that I do not understand"/ s5I8 "I desired life in terms of marriage, children, and career is clear to me"/ s519 "When I see so many capable people with abilities as good or better than mine, my confidence is shaken"/ s520 "I have confidence in and respect the decisions I made for my self'/ 6. Developing Purpose s601 "I am not sure about my interests or abilities"/ s602 "I am not sure about the requirements for graduating in my academic major"/ s603 "I go to teachers or upper-class peers for help and advice about what I should study in my major field"/ s604 "I do not have a clear plan of what I am going to do after I finish college"/ s605 "I occasionally read articles and non-required books that relate to my major and career field even when I am busy"/ s606 "I do not understand the labor market in my major field"/ s607 "I did not explore many academic fields before I selected my major"/ s608 "I am a member of at least one club or organization that is related to my major field"/ s609 "I try to find ways to gain practical work experience in my major field"/ s610 "I am not sure if I have the right major"/ s6Il "I make time in my regular schedule for my hobbies"/ s612 "Outside of classes, I do not spend time attending lectures or workshop in my major field."/ s613 "I am not aware of the work activities and situations that give me satisfaction"/ s614 "I am not sure about the skills and abilities needed for success in my future occupation or graduate school"/ s615 "I use campus resources to help my career or graduate education plan"/ s616 "I set goals for my future and persist until I achieve them"/ s617 "I go to someone experienced in my fields for help and advice about how I might plan my career or graduate education"/ s618 "It is hard to imaging what my marriage and family life will be in the future"/ s619 "Because of difficulties, I frequently give up the plan I made for myself'/ s620 "I have confidence that the career for which I am preparing will allow me to balance my work life, family life and personal interests in the future"/ 363 College Student Experiences Questionnaire s701 "Used the library as a quiet place to read or study materials that you brought with you"/ s702 "Asked the librarian or used the card catalogue or computer to find materials on some topic"/ s703 "Checked out books to read (not textbooks)"/ s704 "Participated in class discussions"/ s705 "Thought about practical applications of the course learning"/ s706 "Did additional readings on topics that were introduced and discussed in class"/ s707 "Worked on a paper or project where you had to integrate ideas from various sources"/ s708 "Asked your instructor for information about grades, assignments, or unclear information for a course you were taking"/ s709 "Visited informally and briefly with an instructor after class"/ s710 "Made an appointment to meet with a faculty member in his/her office"/ s711 "Discussed ideas for a term paper or other class project with a faculty member"/ s712 "Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member"/ s713 "Worked with a faculty member on a research project"/ s714 "Discussed personal problems or concerns with a faculty member"/ s715 "Made friends with students whose academic major field was very different from yours"/ s716 "Made friends with students whose race or region was different from yours"/ s717 "Made friends with students whose interests were very different from yours"/ s718 "Made friends with opposite-sex students"/ s719 "Made friends with students whose family background was very different from yours"/ s720 "Had serious discussions with students whose philosophy of life or personal values were very different from yours"/ s721 "Had serious discussions with students whose political opinions were very different from yours"/ 364 Factor Loadings o f Pilot Study (after Delete Itemsl Factor 1 (Developing Competence) Factor 2 (Managing Emotions) Component Component 1 SI39 .596 3228 .698 Sill .546 3222 .646 S120 J23 3213 .608 SIOl .517 3211 .600 SI36 .512 3204 .592 S1I4 .509 3224 J80 S109 JO I 3218 .575 SI31 JOO-' 3210 J32 S105 .497 3214 JOO S130 .490 3206 .499 sue .488 3201 .499 S137 .482 3232 .493 5126 .475 3226 .479 SI32 .474 3231 .473 3104 .471 3209 .465 3138 .455 3202 .459 3124 .442 3229 .458 3123 J86 3227 .453 3125 .377 3225 388 3128 J68 3207 351 Extraction Method; Prmcipal Compotient Analysts, Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 1 components extracted. *- 1 components extracted 365 Factor 3 (Developing Autonomy) Factor 4 (Mature Interpersonal Relationship) Component Component I 1 S321 .593 5432 .604 S322 J85 5429 .598 S330 .557 5406 .583 S332 J36 5405 373 S316 .518 5421 .552 S314 J15 5418 311 S31I .476 5431 3 1 0 S303 .475 S420 .480 S315 .461 5412 .465 S331 .460 5422 .445 5312 .450 5402 .441 5302 .432 5415 .406 5305 .421 5413 3 9 7 5313 .420 5401 3 9 4 5308 J83 5428 3 8 7 5329 J80 5404 369 5306 363 5403 363 5319 350 5427 334 5309 321 5410 261 5324 317 5409 257 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analyst Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, a. 1 components extracted. a. 1 components extracted. 366 Factor 5 (Establishing Identity) Factor 6 (Developing Purpose) Component Component S519 .711 S621 .688 S526 .676 S602 .674 SS05 .671 S605 .666 3513 .645 S601 .640 S509 .611 S628 .630 S521 .586 S625 .627 S523 5 6 8 S626 .623 S522 .567 S6I4 .607 S506 .565 S618 .601 S525 53 1 S608 5 7 8 S512 5 3 0 S617 572 S510 5 2 8 S612 .543 S516 5 0 6 S619 543 S517 .491 S620 537 S520 .487 S611 .523 S511 .481 S622 521 S503 .462 S607 .437 S507 .417 S603 .405 S514 .417 S609 5 8 2 S518 .411 S615 .361 Extraction Method: Prmcipal Component Analysis, Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, a. I components cxtiactedL a. I components extracted. 367 Factor 7 (College Student Experiences Questionnaire) Component 1 2 3 S718 .853 -2.024E-02 -.142 S715 .800 8.730E-03 5.966E-03 S7I3 .798 -5.942E-02 -1J04E-02 S712 .751 1.975E-02 4.150E-02 S717 .719 4.841E-02 -6J69E-02 3714 .677 9.324E-02 6J66E-02 5711 .568 -6.555E-02 8.143E42 S706 .415 .119 .368 S723 -.142 .904 -7J79E-02 S722 -3TÔ19E-02 .805 -S.628E-02 S719 ^.490E4)3 .778 4.334E432 5720 -8.470E-02 .768 9.877E-02 5721 5.026E-02 .715 7297E-02 5726 .224 .495 -5.935E-02 5725 212 .416 .135 5702 -.178 3.183E-02 .795 5704 1.481E-02 .189 .627 5701 -1.007E-02 -.174 .600 5709 .118 .112 jsn 5708 J18 5.184E-02 .485 5705 J3 5 .129 J89 ExtractioD Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. m. Rotttioa converged in 6 iterations. 368 Factor Loadings of Formal Study Factor 1 (Developing Competence) Factor 2 (Managing Emotions) Component Component I 1 3113 .614 3209 .664 S120 .609 3217 .662 3108 -571 3212 .649 3114 .567 3203 .615 3102 .564 3208 .603 3116 .531 3213 .599 SlOl .520 3211 565 3107 -511 3218 533 3115 .507 3214 .532 3105 .490 3206 531 Sill .475 3204 503 3119 .469 3202 .487 3110 .453 3201 .480 3106 .452 3219 .430 3118 .449 3207 .426 3103 .447 3220 .420 3117 .440 3205 .408 3104 .432 3215 576 3112 -335 3216 .326 3109 .335 3210 .125 Extraction Method: Principal Component Anaiyris. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. L 1 components extracted. a. 1 components extracted. 369 Factor 3 (Developing Autonomy) Factor 4 (Mature Interpersonal Relationship) Component Component I I S312 .618 S413 .662 S310 .579 S414 .657 S318 .576 S418 618 S317 j7 4 S406 .615 S314 j4 1 S405 .568 S307 .495 $420 .537 S31I .492 S412 .529 S308 .492 S409 .509 S302 .473 S415 .502 S315 .462 S416 .490 S320 .448 S419 .484 S309 .448 S402 .476 S305 .435 S417 .467 S306 .431 S40I .416 S303 .419 S411 293 S301 .405 S404 283 S319 .396 S410 241 S304 J69 S403 213 S316 J59 S407 7219E-02 S313 298 S408 5.448E-02 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, a . 1 components extracted. a- 1 compoaems extracted. 370 Factor 5 (Establishing Identity) Factor 6 (Developing Purpose) Component Component I S509 .687 S601 .687 S514 .680 S602 .677 S520 .676 S614 .667 S503 .667 S616 .664 S516 .623 S604 .634 S502 .616 S620 .620 S519 .604 S606 .616 S517 .562 S610 J93 S513 J55 S613 J9 2 S508 j 4 0 ^ S617 J56 S512 .512 S619 J44 S518 .475 S615 .534 S505 .471 S609 .515 S507 .463 S607 .513 3510 .453 S603 .480 S515 .452 S618 .471 S501 .431 S605 .454 S504 .428 S612 .436 S506 J83 S608 .400 S511 .295 S611 .349 Extnction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, m. 1 components extracted. a. 1 components extracted. 371 Factor 7 (College Student Experiences Questionnaire) Component 1 2 3 S712 .786 I.096E-02 3.722E-02 S710 .754 -2.854E-02 2.516E-02 S714 .711 1.144E-02 -.142 S709 .703 -4.082E-02 .165 3713 .672 2.213E-02 -3.878E-03 S711 .600 3.706E-02 .197 3708 J72 8.975E-02 328 3719 -7.197E-02 .856 -3.456E-02 3716 -9.191E-02 .799 5.796E-02 3717 -3.-295E-02 .797 -3322E-02 3718 -5.056E-02 .724 2.087E-02 3715 -7.333E-02 .718 6.428E-02 3720 .151 .622 2.359E-02 3721 .240 .556 -6.150E-02 3702 -9.771E-02 -3.577E-02 .777 S703 -.180 4.290E-02 .683 3706 .167 -♦.978E-02 .673 3707 4.684E-02 -2.224E-Û2 .640 3705 .199 3.569E-02 .515 3704 7.628E-02 .132 311 3701 6.486E-02 1.830E-02 .438 Exaactioa Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser NormalizatiQti. a. Rotanon converged in 7 iterations. 372 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (Q A -3 ) / / V r % 1.0 HIM Ui ilâ 2.2 Ü K6 2.0 1.1 1.8 1.25 1.4 150mm V 6>/, y ^ P P U E D A ilW lG E . Inc 1653 East Main Street Rochester, NY 14609 USA % Phone; 716/482-0300 • Fax: 716/288-5989 O 1993. Applied Image. Inc.. All Rights Reserved o /