Some Evaluation of Administrative Communications of Institutions Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Copyright by Robert Eugene Dunham 1959 SOME EVALUATION OF ADMENISTRATIVE COMMUNICATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Pliilosophy By ROBERT EUGENE DUNHAM, B.S. in Ed., M.A. The Ohio State University 1959 Approved by Adviser Department of Speech TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION, DEFINITION OF TERMS/AND HYPOTHESES . 1 Introduction ..»•••••« ............ ...... 1 Definition of Terms ....0 ...0 . ......... 8 Ulstrith ....o. ......... ........ 6 Strith ........... o .................... 6 Communication . * . • ......... ...... ...... 6 Hypotheses ........ .•••a. • ••••••.. 7 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . ..................... 3 Pertinent Studies „••«••*.•••••••« *.o. 3 Gordon D. Wimpress, Jr. ..........o..... 8 James R. Curtin 9 Fay Swogger Rankin ............ ...... 11 Katz and Allport ..«••.««. «o..oo.«*» 12 Attitude Scales .... <>••••. •• ... 12 Allport and Hartman • 13 Thurstone 1^- Lilcert •••••..............• .•«••••..•• 19 R e m m e r s ......... 0 . ............ 19 Guttman 0..a....... ...... ....... l6 Osgood . ........ •«••«•.»••....» 17 ii H i CHAFFER PACE Others O......0 ....oo..«. *•••»• 19 Communication 20 III. PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF D A T A.... 23 Attitude Questionnaire ........... •••*...• . 23 Pretest •••• 23 Final Test ............. ...... ...... 27 Administration of Final Attitude Test »••••••• 29 Treatment of Final Attitude Test Results ....... 31 Communications Questionnaire ......... ..•••*.. 32 Administration of Communications Questionnaire • • • • 33 Treatment of Communications Questionnaire Results . 3^ IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . 0 . ............. 35 Attitude Questionnaire ..... ........... ..... 35 Reliability .......... 35 Validity • •..•s.......«.....o... 33 Results of Attitude Scale in Relationship to Four Groups ......0..V0 ....... ....... b2 Results of Attitude Scores According to Strith Groupings ..................... ^9 Communications Questionnaire.. ............. 5^ Reliability .*••.•••....* ....... ... 5^ Validity......... 56 Results of Communication Scales 6l Results of Communications Questions ...o..*.. 75 iv CHAPTER PAGE Written Comments in the Communications Questionnaire * . 88 Agriculture College ....... .......... 90 Arts College 98 Commerce College ............ ......... • 95 Education College ..»•»«••........... • « • 9^ Engineering College • <.•••••••••..... 98 Wayne State Students • ••••.••. ............. 100 V. SUMMARY AHD CONCLUSIONS ....... ............. 105 Summary ...••■•«. ...o...o.o.o...o 105 Conclusions ..................................... 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY . ................. 112 APPENDIX . ......... ..................... ........ 116 AUTOBIOGRAPHY .......... ............... ....... 165 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. An Osgood's Semantic Differential Scale .......... • • . IS 2. Appraisal Item Terms With Their Scale Values and Standard Deviations • <>....••........... • • • • 28 3. Item-Test Coefficients for Each Item in the Twenty-Item General Attitude Scale According to Students and Parents at Each School «. ••<>•.. 37 Reliability Coefficients for the Attitude Test According to Students and Their Parents at Each School........ 39 Means and Significance of the Differences of Means of the Twenty-Item Scores According to Scores of the Appraisal Item for Students and Their Parents at Ohio State and Otterbein . » ..................... ............... 70 6c Mean and Standard Deviation for Students and Their Parents at Ohio State and Students and Their Parents at Otterbein for the Twenty-Item. General Attitude Scale and the Appraisal Item ............................ 1|-1 7. Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation for Students and Their Parents at Ohio State and Students and Their Parents at Otterbein for the Twenty-Item General Attitude Scale . 73 v vi TABLE PAGE 0. Correlation Between Students and Their Parents at Ohio State and the Students and Their Parents at Otterbein on the Twenty-Item Attitude Scale •.••••••••■••••» Lfk 9. Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Item of the Twenty-Item General Attitude Scale for Students and Their Parents at Ohio State and for Students and Their Parents at Otterbein ........................ 9° 10, Correlation Coefficients for Each Item in the Twenty-Item Communications Attitude Scale With the Sum of the Remaining; Items According to College Analysis for Ohio State Students and Wayne State as a Whole 57 11, Reliability Coefficients for the Twenty-Item Communications Test According to Ohio State by Colleges and Wayne State as a Whole ........... , o • • ................ ...... 58 12„ Correlation Coefficients for Each Item in the Six-Item Communications Rating Scale With the Sum of the Remaining Items According to College Analysis for Ohio State and Wayne State as a ITliole • 59 13, Reliability Coefficients for the Six-Item Communications Scale According to the College Analysis for Ohio State and Wayne State as a Whole 60 lh. Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation for the Twenty-Item Communications Attitude Scale According to Colleges for Ohio State and Wayne State as a Whole .o,,« <>»*•» 82 table page 15. Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation for the Six-Item Communications Rating Scale According to Colleges for Ohio State and Wayne State as a Whole 63 1 6 . Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Item of the Tventy-Item Communications Attitude Scale for Each of the Five Colleges at Ohio State and for Wayne State as a Whcle . • • • •••«•••• 71 17. Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Item of the Six-Item Communications Rating Scale for Each of the Five Colleges at Ohio State and Wayne State as a Whole 7 6 18. Percentage of Students Checking Official Sources of Infor mation as Important From Ohio State and Wayne State . , 78 19. Percentage of Students at Ohio State and Wayne State Selecting the Five Most Frequently Used Sources of Communications................................. ....... 30 20. Percentage of Students at Ohio State and Wayne State Selecting the Five Least Frequently Used Sources of Communications ...... 83 21. Percentage of Students at Ohio State and Wayne State Indicating Humber of Times They Had Difficulty Using Facilities Because of a Lack of Information . 0 . , 8b 22. Percentage of Students at Ohio State and Wayne State Select ing the Items for Which They Had Experienced Difficulty In Getting Official Communications From the University. 87 viii TABLE PAGE 23« Percentage of Students at Ohio State and Wayne State Indicating the Number of Times They Had an Opportunity of Talicing With Responsible Administrators „ . « 0 * . 89 2lf. Percentage of Students at Ohio State and Wayne State Indicating the Number of Times They Would Like to Communicate With Responsible Administrators 89 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION/ DEFINITION OF TERMS/ AND HYPOTHESES I. Introduction In an age when schools and educational methods are "being re-examined, many criticisms are being leveled at the institutions of higher learning. These criticisms are aimed at various aspects of the universities ranging from administrative red-tape and type of courses offered, to the firing of a football coach. Some of these criticisms are perhaps valid, but many are the result of hasty generalizations or ignorance. Some of the criticisms are the result of attitudes formed by poor communications, its poor assimilation, or a lack of communication when needed. Paul C. Reinert, President of St. Louis University, suggests a two-way flow of information between the public and educational institutions when he states, "As never before, there is a crying ne°d to create a much more professionalized, a much more Intensified flow of information from the universities of higher learning to the public and from the public to the universities."1 Most of the institutions of higher learning have designated a public relations division which devotes the majority of Its time to ujuoted from a speech delivered by the Very Rev. Paul C. Reinert, S.J., president of St. Louis University, at the annual convention of the American College Public Relations Association held in San Francisco on July 28, 1958. 1 2 publicizing the merits of the institution and also to changing or modifying the attitudes of those opposed to the institution or any part of it. The public relations division, in essence, serves as a communicator of the institution. Although there are several different concepts of communication, most have specified three important segments: the communicator, the communication, and the communicatee. Most concepts stress a feedback process which is vitally important because it enables the communicator to adjust to the audience and its many variables. The audience (or communicatee) in an institutional setup could be an individual (such as a student) or a mass group (like a faculty group or the citizens of a state). The feedback from an individual can usually lie more readily achieved than can the feedback from a large group. According to p Westley and MacLean, feedback can be either purposive or non- purposive. For example, if a school has increased enrollments, this could be a result of good communications about the school which influenced the students to attend* Their attendance at this school may have been without any intent to directly inform the school of their reaction to the communications. This feedback would be non-purposive. If, however, the student body carries out a demonstration as the result of an ultimatum handed out by a school official, this becomes more direct