THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALUE SYSTEMS, MOTIVATION

FACTORS, AND DISSATISFACTION FACTORS OF

SENIOR ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS

by

Joseph A. Patterson, B.S,, M.S.

A DISSERTATION

IN

EDUCATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Approved

Accepted

December, 19 31

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I express my appreciation to the members of my

doctoral committee, Drs. Joe D. Cornett, committee chair­

man, Charles L. Burford, Berlie J. Fallon, Michael Mezack,

and Welbom K. Willingham for their direction and advice.

I am also indebted to Dr. Kenneth H. Freeman who was

my advisory committee chairman during the proposal phase of

the study and Dr. Walter J. Stenning of Texas A and M

University for his assistance and criticism during the

writing phase of the study.

I am also grateful to Dr. Larry B. Masten, Head of

the Engineering Technology program at Texas Tech University,

for his permission to use the senior level engineering

technology students as the subjects for this study and his

assistance in scheduling and encouraging them to participate

1.x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS , . , ii

LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES vi

I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1

Backgroxond 1

The Research Problem . 7

Purpose of the Study 7

Scope of the Study 8

Hypotheses 9

Definition of Terms 10

II. RESEARCH OF LITERATURE 12

Industrial Motivation Theory Development . . . 12

Herzberg Two-Factor Theory 17

Graves's Value Systems Theory 21

Summary 30

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 32

Scope and Limitations of the Study 32

Research Design . . . . . 33

Data Collection and Procedures 34

Subjects and Instruments . . . . . 34

Treatment of Data 41

H

IIX

^•:2(iSsWaStfffifl(>>aiS'ttt:T,n'.r,K*!6'S

IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 42

Demographic Data 42

Motivation and Dissatisfaction Factors . . 43

Relationship Between Value Orientation

and Other Variables 49

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 60

Summary 60

Summary of Major Findings 61

Conclusions 6 3

Affirmation or Rejection of Hypotheses . . . . 64

Recommendations 66

REFERENCES 69

APPENDIX

A. Values for Learning Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 77

B. Values Profile of El Centre College

Students and Teachers 79

C. Patterned Interview 80

D. Letter of Approval 75

IV

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Demographic Information 4 3

2. Comparison of Percentage of Motivators Appearing in the Current Study with Herzberg Type Studies 4 7

3. Means and Standard Deviations of the Categories of Value Orientation 49

4. Average Value Orientation Scores of the Current Study Compared to Scores of Flowers (19 77) Study 50

5. Correlation Coefficients Between Value Categories and Motivation Factors 52

6. Correlation Coefficients Between Value Categories and Dissatisfaction Factors 54

7. Correlation Coefficients Between Value Categories and Personality Types , Grade Point Averages, and Major Technologies 55

8. Correlation Coefficients Between Grade Point Averages and Graduating High School Sizes and Failure Dissatis­faction Factor 5 8

V

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Percentage of motivation factors selected by Texas Tech University engineering technology students 46

2. Percentage of dissatisfaction factors selected by Texas Tech University engineering technology students 4 8

VI

CHAPTER I

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This chapter presents the background information for

the study, the research problem, purpose of the study, scope

of the study, hypotheses, and definition of terms.

Background

Much has been written about motivation and its effect

on human behavior. Almost every textbook in the area of

Psychology has at least one chapter on the topic of motiva­

tion (for example, see Kagan & Havemann, 19 72; Sartain,

North, Strange, & Chapman, 1962; Bigge, 1971; and Biehler,

19 74). Higher education is interested in motivation and

its effect on human behavior because there is a need to

know more about why students strive and achieve.

The definition of motivation gives some valuable

clues to the impact it can have. Two decades ago Melton

(19 55) described the concept of motivation as the condition

that energizes the organism, directs activity of the organ­

ism, and defines the consequences of responses of the

organism. These consequences of motivation determine the

later responses of the organism. According to Melton motiva­

tion is an essential condition for learning. A modern view­

point is that motivation produces the experience of arousal.

commitment, and purpose. Motivated behavior "should result

in more effective behavior, greater success in goal attain­

ment, and hence greater satisfaction" (deCharms, 1976, p. 6).

The literature reveals a niomber of problem areas in higher

education where motivated behavior should help.

One of the problems is the fact that students entering

higher education today are coming from a wide area of soci­

ety. As noted by Cross (1973) the clientele for colleges !

and loniversities has changed within the last decade. Four

overlapping groups have emerged; (1) low academic achievers

through open admissions; (2) adult and part-time students

through nontraditional alternatives; (3) women; and

(4) ethnic minorities. The minority engineering student

is a particular problem. Landis (19 76) wrote that there

have been significant increases in minority students enter­

ing engineering schools. Most schools have not been success­

ful in retaining them. He suggested that a strong motiva­

tion program be developed in a positive, success oriented

environment where the student will know that sacrifice

and hard work can pay off later with a successful career.

Motivation is enhanced by the institution's sincere inter­

est in student success and by providing personal recognition

for student accomplishment. The Carnegie Commission on

Higher Education (1973) also pointed out that access to

education is increasing for people from economically dis­

advantaged families, whose early education was inadequate.

who are beyond the traditional school ag©; and wh© fi§@d

recurring learning experiences throughout their li£©tilB«,

The new purpose of education for the new cliental© "is t©

maximize the potential of each person to live a £ul£ill#d

and constructive life" (Cross, 1973, p. 34), She also mm"

phasized that education should be organized so that all

students are required to utilize their talents to the high­

est standards of performance. Institutions of learning

need to make learning opportunities available to all who

can take advantage of them if learning throughout a person's

lifetime is to become a reality (Carnegie Commission on

Higher Education, 1973).

Attrition is another serious problem in education-

Students are dropping out at an unacceptable rate. Boyer

(1973) in a national study found that approximately 40% of

entering freshmen never achieve a baccalaureate degree.

The drop-out rate in four year institutions is about 45%.

Many are "caused by a failure of individual expectations or

a disappointment with the contact with higher education"

(Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973, p. 2). Simi­

lar statistics were confirmed by Astin (19 72) in a national

survey that he conducted. Later he found that students

usually leave college for negative reasons such as bor©d©i&.

poor grades, and finances (Austin, 1977) .

The largest number of withdrawals happens dvariaf t.fe

first two years and the greatest proportion of th©ffi ^¥% th©

academically less talented (Cope & Hannah, 19 75). The low

achiever lacks motivation and preparation which causes low

grades and high attrition (Blai, 19 72). The "less able"

students require specific guidance in their learning activi­

ties with strong reinforcement and encouragement. They

require individual attention and are not easily motivated.

Above all they cannot afford to waste time with incompe­

tence, disinterest, or irrelevance in the classroom

(Williams, 19 72). According to Farber (19 79) low ability

students drop from college before their cognitive skills can

be improved enough to show results. He suggested that keep­

ing them in college is a function of attitude or motivation.

Another source of the attrition problem is the

academically able but poorly motivated student who withdraws

because schoolwork is boring, purposeless, and unchalleng-

ing (Harvey, 1970). Underachievers are those students who

show good ability on test scores, but have poor motivation

and inadequate study habits which cause poor grades (Cross,

19 77). The research of Cope and Hannah (19 75) found that

the majority of students who were dropping out, at almost

every institution studied, were making satisfactory grades.

Many students who left were dissatisfied with the academic

process and the social environment. They did not want to

get caught up in the meaningless rat race. Powell (1974)

argued that too many good students were being lost from

college participation. He concluded a higher motivation

for college is required to solve the problem.

Many educators insist that the primary use for motiva­

tion is to foster achievement. Ball (1977) stated that

motivation is necessary for educational performance.

"Learning to achieve and capitalize on one's best talents

may have a great deal to do with self fulfillment and per­

haps with success" (Cross, 19 77, p. 15). "Motivation is

the single greatest factor behind achievement in any endeav­

or including academic studies. . . . The key to capacity

performance is motivation" (Flammer, 1972, p. 520). This

position was supported by Hankins (1974) who agreed that

learner motivation is a major force in academic achievement.

Fuchs (1974) defined motivation as the desire to learn and

rated it a potent influence in the learning process.

Alschuler, Tabor, and Mclntyre (1974) recommended achieve­

ment motivation training as a step toward the ultimate aim

of education.

The argioments for higher student motivation within

education are strong and consistent. Kiester (1978) wrote

about an interview he had with Ralph Tyler and told the

following story. Tyler was reviewing the logs that John

Dewey had kept in the laboratory school at Chicago. He

noted at one point that Dewey had written: "It is clear to

me that the main limitations in learning in schools are not

the limitations in the intelligence of the children but the

6

limitations in our inventiveness in devising learning ex­

periences that stimulate and challenge." Tyler added that

he agreed with Dewey's statement. Miller (1978) talked

about what the future would bring for education. He be­

lieved there would be more emphasis on teaching students

how to learn and how to develop a zest for learning.

"Student motivation is probably one of the most influential

factors in student success. . . . Students who want to

succeed enough to seek help make better grades than those

who are in academic difficulties but less motivated to do

something about it" (Cross, 1977, p. 32). College is the

first real challenge to many students' academic motivation.

The potential is there for changing values, attitudes, and

aspirations (Astin, 1977).

Some educators are beginning to recommend using the

results and methods of research developed by indvistrial

psychologists within education to enhance effective teaching

and learning. Flammer and Mecham (1974) confirmed that

industry had spent millions of dollars to learn how to

motivate employees and increase their productivity. They

believed many of the principles identified could be applied

in education to motivate students to learn more in a given

situation, work harder, have a positive attitude toward

education, and enjoy education. Another argument pointed

to the significant advances made by industrial psychologists

in what motivates workers and suggested that these same

factors could apply to teaching and learning management

(Ablin & Flammer, 1974).

The literature is replete with research on motiva­

tion studies conducted in industrial environments. These

studies have produced valuable information about the forces

affecting human behavior and how these forces operate,

(for example see Cummings & El Salmi, 1968, and Personnel

Bibliographic Series Number 35, 1970).

The Research Problem

As shown in the background development there are

problems in higher education that require attention. Also

shown was evidence that increasing the motivation of the

student body could be a positive way to attack these

problems. Much research has been done in industry on

how to enhance worker motivation, to improve productivity,

and job satisfaction. Educators are beginning to recommend

that the results of motivation research developed in the

industrial life space be applied in the educational life

space. Logically, then, it appears that in order to have

an effective student motivation program in higher education,

some knowledge of what motivates students to strive and

achieve is a necessity.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the research project was to study 88

senior level engineering technology students at Texas Tech

University to determine if a method of motivating them in

the classroom could be developed. The variables selected

were the subjects' value systems, motivation factors, dis­

satisfaction factors, personality types, the size high

schools from which they graduated, the technologies in which

they majored, and their grade point averages.

Scope of the Study

The siobjects selected for the study were 8 8 senior

level engineering technology students at Texas Tech

University. If motivation and dissatisfaction factors

can be identified for this group of engineering technology

students, the Texas Tech University engineering technology

department will have guidelines on how to motivate their

students to enhance their productivity and help them to be

better satisfied during their educational experience.

Significant relationships between the value systems

of the students and their motivation factors, dissatisfaction

factors, personality types, grade point averages, the

technologies in which they majored, and the size of high

schools from which they graduated can provide information

that can be used by the Texas Tech University engineering

technology faculty and sta|f to strengthen the teaching and

learning activities within their department.

The following questions were investigated:

1. What are the motivation factors of the population?

2. What are the dissatisfaction factors of the popu­

lation?

3. What are the value systems of the population?

4. Do significant relationships exist between the

value systems and motivation factors?

5. Do significant relationships exist between the

value systems and dissatisfaction factors?

6. Do significant relationships exist between the

value systems and personality types?

7. Do significant relationships exist between the

value systems and grade point averages?

8. Do significant relationships exist between the

value systems and the technologies in which they majored?

9. Do significant relationships exist between the

value systems and the size high schools from which they

graduated?

Hypotheses

1. There will be no significant relationship

between the value systems of the population and their

motivation factors.

2. There will be no significant relationship between

the value systems of the population and their dissatisfac­

tion factors.

3. There will be no significant relationship between

the value systems of the population and their personality

types.

10

4. There will be no significant relationship between

the value systems of the population and their grade point

averages.

5. There will be no significant relationship between

the value systems of the population and the technologies in

which they majored.

6. There will be no significant relationship between

the value systems of the population and the size of high

schools from which they graduated.

Definition of Terms

1. Motivator - Motivators are factors associated

with the self-actualization of the individual on the job

such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth,

and advancement. Job satisfaction and high productivity are

associated with motivators (Myers, 1964).

2. Dissatisfier - Dissatisfiers are made up of fac­

tors somewhat peripheral to the task—for example, policy

and administration, working conditions, behavior of super­

vision, and supplemental benefits. Disappointments and

ineffectiveness are usually associated with dissatisfiers

(Myers, 1964).

3. Values - "Values are normative views held by

individual hximan beings (consciously or siobconsciously) of

what is good and desirable. They provide standards by which

people are influenced in their choice of actions" (Kast &

Rosenzwieg, 1974, pp. 154-155).

II

4. Semistructured Interview - A technique where the

interviewer raises previously specified questions but is

free to pursue lines of inquiry suggested during the course

of the interview. The respondent has fair freedom to

select the kinds of events he wants to report on. The

questions are designed so that for each story told there is

assurance of getting the additional information needed

(Herzberg et al., 1959).

5. Content Analysis - Content analysis is a research

technique for the objective, systematic, and quantitative

description of the manifest content of communication

(Berelson, 1954).

6. Introvert - Introverts "prefer to spend their

energy and time reflecting at length before acting. They

care more for the inner world of ideas and they like quiet

for concentration. . . . Since introverts are inclined to

keep their mental activity private, they are usually rather

complex and difficult to understand" (Roberts, Fox & Branch

1974, pp. 219-220).

CHAPTER II

RESEARCH OF LITERATURE

The literature associated with this study, in addition

to that already reported in Chapter 1, concerns three major

areas. They are a brief history of industrial motivational

theory development, the Herzberg two-factor theory, and the

Graves value systems theory. These are followed by a sma-

maiy.

Industrial Motivation Theory Development

Research interest in why people act the way they do

in industry began with the Western Electric Hawthorne Plant

studies in the late 1920's (Fleishman, 1967). The first

objective of these studies was to determine the effect that

different levels of lighting or illumination had on worker

output or productivity. The result was that there was no

direct relationship between how production varied and the

amount of illxomination used. Often production would go up

when there was no change in light intensity. Sometimes pro­

ductivity would be the same when the lights were dimmed to

low levels. Other variables such as working conditions,

fatigue, length of work day, and niomber and length of rest

periods were introduced. As an example, when work conditions

were changed, the production continued to increase even when

12

13

the work hours were reduced. Also work output increased

to higher levels when the people were returned to the

original poorly lighted work benches, for a longer work

day, and without the usual rest periods. The researchers

realized the employees were motivated to work harder be­

cause (a) the social contact made the work enjoyable,

(b) of a special feeling in being selected for the experi­

ment, (c) they had freedom in pacing their own work, and

(d) they developed good relationships among themselves

and with their supervisors as the work was parceled out.

This phase demonstrated the importance of employee atti­

tudes. A new hypothesis was developed which stated that

productivity and the motivation to work had a relation to

the nature of the social conditions on the job. A continua­

tion of the research at the Hawthorne Plant fovind that

cliques were formed and each clique was characterized by

their own habits, norms, and special games. One norm

established was for a fair day's production. The members who

varied too far from the norm, both high and low, were siib-

jected to social pressures to get back in line. These

studies pointed out the importance of social, motivational,

and attitudinal factors in the work environment. The idea

that the motivation to work and worker productivity are

related to the nature of the social relations on the job,

which is known as the "Hawthorne Effect," has had a profound

14

influence on human relations psychology (for example, see

Roethlisberger & Dickson, 19 39, and Mayo, 1933).

Barnard (19 38) wrote that the employee is always the

key factor in an organization. The employee must be in­

duced to participate by the use of incentives. He discussed

material incentives and personal incentives. He proposed

that material incentives are not effective beyond the sub­

sistence level, except where income was an indication of

social status and personal development. The personal in­

centives of distinction, prestige, personal power, and the

attainment of dominating position were suggested to be the

most effective.

Henry (1948) did a study of executive personality

and job success by administering the Thematic Apperception

Test to managers. He found they showed a strong desire for

achievement.

Morse (1953) studied supervisors and found them to

be more satisfied than rank and file employees in the areas

of security, fringe benefits, fairness of treatment, and

working conditions.

Some psychologists believe that thought processes

guide people toward self-actualization which is defined as

the full realization of their own potentialities (Kagan &

Havemann, 19 72) . The theory of self-actualization was

developed by Maslow (1970). The theory is based on need

gratification which he described as an important principle

underlying all personal development. He d&v&lop&d a hie r-

archy of needs beginning with physiological needs cm tti

bottom and building up through safety needs, belongiiii ttes

and love needs, esteem needs, and the need for self-

actualization which includes tiie desire to know and urufeir—

stand. As the lower level needs are sufficiently gratifx'gd;

a person is freed for higher levels of gratification and a

new and higher order need tends to emerge- Tliase peapis in.

whom a need has been satisfied are best equipped, to deal

with a deprivation of that need in the future. MasLaw

described self-actualization as actualizing one''s potjartial

to the fullest to become everything one is capable of

becoming. He emphasized that the healthy person is one

whose basic needs have been met so that he can be moti.vatst£

by his higher level needs to actualize his greatest pcrbsn-

tialities.

A colleague of Maslow used the hierarchy of ixesds fiic:

a new approach for managing people in industry, I»c<5c crr:

(1960) contrasted the traditional management view which-. h@

called theory X to a proposed management system: which h^

called theory Y. Theory X is based on direction. an<i coor-

trol by management, while theory Y is based on self-cQi fe o ];

and self-direction. Theory X fails to motivate huina» t c?i5fe

toward organizational goals because direction and oQ t Q-l

cannot motivate people whose social, egoistic,, and 9^1^

fulfillment needs are predominant. According to yiQQ^^qo-i^,^

16

behind theory X are the beliefs that the average person

(a) is indolent and works as little as possible, (b) lacks

ambition, dislikes responsibility, and prefers to be led,

(c) is inherently self-centered and indifferent to organi­

zational goals, (d) is resistant to change by nature, and

(e) is gullible and not very bright. On the other hand,

the beliefs behind theory Y are that people (a) have the

innate capacity for exercising initiative, accepting

responsibility, and making worthwhile contributions,

(b) feel work can be a meaningful and satisfying experience,

and (c) will actively work for the goals of the organiza­

tion when they are compatible with their own goals. He

reconraiended using intrinsic motivation, where the person

derives satisfaction from doing the work itself. The higher

motives of responsibility, recognition, achievement, and

innovation should be activated. Workers should be given

the opportianity to accept responsibility and exercise self-

control .

This style of management called supportive manage­

ment, and management by integration and self-control, is

based on the beliefs that people are potentially creative,

trustworthy, and cooperative. Also that people have poten­

tial for growth, achievement, and constructive action with

others. These ideas are corroborated by Likert (1967),

Argyris (1964), and Blake and Mouton (1964) .

17

Two theories of management motivation based on the

humanistic self-actualization theme are Herzberg's two-

factor theory and Graves's value system theory. These are

the two theories that were used in this dissertation.

Herzberg Two-Factor Theory

Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Catwell (1957)

published data from a comprehensive review and analysis of

previous research regarding the factors relating to job

attittides and how job attitudes influence work performance.

They foxind that much of the disagreement and confusion in

the field was apparently caused by instability of the sub­

jective data upon which the studies were typically based.

Using these previous findings as a guide Herzberg,

Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) decided that a study of job

attitudes could be important to industry, the community,

and the individual. The study developed around the theme

"that man has two sets of needs: his need as an animal to

avoid pain and his need as a human being to grow psychologi­

cally" (Herzberg, 1966, p. 71). The research model was

designed to provide new insights into the nature and method

of the operation of job attitudes. To specify attitudes,

the individuals were asked to identify periods of time in

their past when their feelings about their jobs were excep­

tionally good or exceptionally bad. As noted by the authors,

a simple assumption was made "that people could place their

18

feelings about their job on a continuum, identify the

extremes of this continuum, and choose those extreme situa­

tions to report to us" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 14).

The semistructured interview was used so the subjects could

have freedom to select the kind of events to respond on,

but using followup questions to obtain the other informa­

tion needed. The authors identified factors in job atti­

tudes by analyzing the forces that affected morale as re­

ported by the respondents during the interviews. In other

words, from the stories told, situations leading to nega­

tive and positive attitudes were identified.

They used content analysis to translate qualita­

tive material into quantitative terms. Individual ideas or

thought units of the qualitative material were assigned to

the categories developed using concrete criteria. The

authors claimed that objectivity and a high degree of

reliability were obtained. Also that precise tests of hy­

potheses were made by using the frequency of occurrences of

individual categories as a quantitative measure.

This approach was used by the investigators to study

engineers and accountants in the Pittsburg area and it found

that their levels of job satisfaction, motivation, and

productivity were closely related to two sets of factors.

One set which they labeled dissatisfiers was made up of such

matters as pay, supplemental benefits, company policy and

19

administration, behavior of supervision, working condi­

tions, and other factors somewhat peripheral to the task.

Traditionally perceived as motivators of people, these fac­

tors were found to be more potent as dissatisfiers. High

motivation did not result from their improvement, but dis­

satisfaction did result from their deterioration. Herzberg

et al. (1959) called these dissatisfiers hygiene factors

because they primarily described the environment and pre­

vented job satisfaction and had little effect on positive

job attitudes. The other set of factors was labeled motiva­

tors and were the factors of achievement, recognition,

responsibility, growth, advancement, and other matters

associated with the self-actualization of the individual

on the job. The authors found job satisfaction and high

production were associated with motivation factors while

disappointments and ineffectiveness were usually associated

with dissatisfiers.

Herzberg's two-factor theory caused a great deal of

controversy. Vroom and Maier (1961, p. 433) pointed out that

"there is a risk in inferring the actual causes of satis­

faction and dissatisfaction from descriptions of events by

individuals as it seems possible that the obtained differ­

ences between events may reflect defensive processes at

work within the individual." Kahn (1961, p. 10) felt that

the findings "were in part the result of relying entirely

on the respondent for a description of his job attitudes.

20

the factors which occasioned them, and their behavioral

consequences." Ewen (1964) criticized the Herzberg theory

by pointing out (a) the narrow range of jobs studied,

(b) the use of only one measure of job attitudes, (c) the

absence of an overall satisfaction measure, and (d) the

absence of any validity and reliability data. Dunnette

(1965) concluded that the two-factor theory was an over­

simplification of the world of work.

Herzberg (1965) repeated his study with a lower level

group of supervisors representing a wide range of industries

in Finland. He found again that achievement, recognition,

responsibility, advancement, and work itself were signifi­

cantly lonidirectional. At the same time supeirvision,

company policy and administration, working conditions, and

interpersonal relationships with peers appeared significantly

more often in the low sequences than in the high sequences.

He concluded that the Finnish study was "thus confirmatory

of the basic thesis presented" (Herzberg, 1966, p. 102).

Later Herzberg (1966) cited that nine repetitions of

his initial work had been reported. They were all direct

reproductions of the original research pattern, under the

direction of different investigators, and using a wider

range of occupations. When the results of these studies

were summarized, Herzberg found that company policy, adminis­

tration, and supervision were the most consistent causes of

job dissatisfaction and that achievement, recognition, and

21

responsibility consistently produced job satisfaction

(for example see Gruenfeld 1962, Saleh 1964, and Myers

1964) . Herzberg stated these findings confirmed his basic

theory.

Graves's Value Systems Theory

The levels of existence or human value systems

theory developed out of the research of Clare Graves, a

professor of psychology at Union College in Schenectady,

New York. As noted by Flowers and Hughes (19 78), Graves

used a three-part system for his research. In part one,

he asked his students to write their descriptions of a

healthy personality- These descriptions were given to

colleagues who agreed to serve as judges. The colleagues

were asked to arrange the descriptions into identifiable

categories.

In part two, the students were exposed to a variety

of literature about the personality. After this exposure,

they were assigned to write another description of the

healthy personality. The students were to change the ori­

ginal description only if they felt that a change was

needed. Once more, the judges were asked to categorize

the papers.

Phase three was to have each student present and

defend his description to his classmates. After the de­

fense , if the student's view had changed because of his

22

discussion or disagreement with his peers, he was to

rewrite his description. The judges were instructed to

classify the material for the last time.

Flowers and Hughes (1978) noted that over a period

of years and after hundreds of descriptions, and a variety

of judges, a consistent set of categories was identified.

One group of students understood that a healthy personality

was to deny personal pleasure and gratification. The other

group understood that a healthy personality caused people

to want to fulfill their own needs and desires. These two

categories were expanded to (a) deny self for later reward,

(b) deny self for acceptance now, (c) express self in a

planned way at the expense of others, and (d) express self

but not at the expense of others. Graves then broadened

his research to include other subjects outside the univer­

sity and identified two additional categories. One was to

deny self to authority and the other was to express self

impulsively at any cost. He included one other classifi­

cation for people who simply react to the environment and

their own physical needs such as an infant or senile individ­

ual.

Graves (1974) outlined his theory and made some sug­

gestions about the future of human beings. His research

indicated that people are learning that the values and ways

of living which were good for them at one period in their

23

development are no longer good because of the changed

condition of their existence. It is wrong to assume that

the nature of humans is static and that humans live by a

single set of values. He also proposed that the psychology

of mature people is a dynamic process where older, lower

order behavior systems are replaced by newer, higher order

behavior systems as their state of existence changes. As

noted by Graves (1974, p. 72) "these systems alternate be­

tween focus upon the external world, and attempts to change

it." When a person is operating in a state of existence,

that person's psychology is specifically suited for that

state. In other words, a person's feelings, motivation,

ethics, values, belief systems and learning systems are

compatible with that state. If a person existed in a

different level or state, that person would act, think,

judge, and be motivated differently.

In another article Graves (1970) pointed out that

people must be genetically or constitutionally equipped to

move in a normal direction when the conditions of their

existence change. He emphasized that a person can move

through a series of behavior systems to an end or may stop

and live in one or a combination of levels in the hierarchy.

The behavior a person exhibits can be either positive or

negative and under certain conditions a person's behavior

pattern can regress to match a system lower in the hier­

archy. Although an adult lives in an open system of needs.

24

values, and aspirations, that adult can select an approxi­

mately closed system with the behavioral degrees of freedom

associated with that level.

As explained by Graves (1970) his theory covers

seven levels of human existence. These seven levels are

described as follows:

1. Reactive or Automatic - In this stage, human

awareness is limited to physiological tension and the

relief of that tension. This level applies to infants,

people with serious brain deterioration, and some psyco-

pathic conditions. This level is not appropriate for this

study and is disregarded.

2. Tribalistic - Here existence is based on myth,

tradition, spirits, magic and superstition. The tribalistic

way is inherent in the nature of things and its people are

strongly influenced by the rigid traditions of the tribe.

There is a strong need for stability and safety. This type

is rarely found in business or industrial institutions today,

3. Egocentric - At this level people have become

aware that they are separate and distinct from other people.

The egocentric has a strong desire to survive and will be

raw and self-assertive to be successful. These types are

restless, aggressive, tough, ruthless, and have little

regard for the consequences of their behavior. The power

ethic prevails and they will do anything to dominate and

win.

25

4. Conformist - The way of life for this person is

based on the conviction that there must be a reason why

things are like they are. A saintly concept based on

religion or philosophy emerges. The idea is to sacrifice

desires now to gain salvation later. Denial, deference,

modesty, self-sacrifice, and self-discipline are typical

behavior. Personal wants are not important and one is

disciplined by authority which defines both sin and virtue,

5. Manipulative - At this level people try to con­

quer the world by learning its secrets. This person needs

to master the physical universe and express independence

from predetermined fate. This individual values accom­

plishing and getting, having and possessing, and thrives

on achievement, competition, efficiency, scheming, and

manipulation. The end value is materialism and the means

to that end is rational, objective effort.

6. Sociocentric - The individual at this level is

concerned with relationships with other people. One wants

to belong and be accepted, and interact with others so

that harmony prevails. Goodwill is valued over free enter­

prise, social approval over individual fame, and coopera­

tion over competition. Also getting along with others is

valued over getting ahead. One's subjectivity is dominant

and one values communication, persuasion, softness, sensi­

tivity, and respectability-

26

7. Existential - When a person reaches this stage

that person has progressed from animalism to hiomanism or

in other words from a subsistence level system to a being

level system. That person possesses values that do not

come from selfish interests but from recognition of the

magnificence of existence. Artificial things are shunned

and human wants and needs are valued. Doing something is

more important than the fame that comes from doing it.

Myers and Myers (1974) used Graves's theory to

develop aind standardize a questionnaire to measure levels

of psychological existence in business organizations.

Using the questionnaire they were able to collect data

that showed actual value profiles of individuals in vari­

ous levels and functions in industry.

Flowers and Hughes (1978), colleagues of Myers and

Myers, established The Center for Values Research to con­

duct value system analysis. The majority of their work

has been done with industry but they have performed some

research in the field of education. A values for learning

questionnaire was developed in conjunction with their edu­

cational research. The values for learning questionnaire

was used to test the value orientation of 1,634 college

students and 91 college teachers at El Centre College in

Dallas, Texas in March 1977. The values for learning

questionnaire is shown in the Appendix, Section A. The

27

value system analysis of the El Centre College students

and teachers is shown in the Appendix Section B.

The value system analysis method used by Flowers

and Hughes (19 78) is based on the assumption that people

are different. Each person has a value system that is

right for them but it can be significantly different from

the value system of others. The key point is for everyone

to \inderstand and accept themselves as they are and to

understand other people as they are. According to the

authors, this knowledge can be used to deal with problems

that occur within an organization and to help that organi­

zation operate effectively. As noted by Flowers and

Hughes (19 78) , six levels of values exist in most organi­

zations. A brief description of each value system is

shown below.

1. Tribalistic - Tribalistic personality types need

a leader who tells them what to do and gives recognition

when the work is done properly. They prefer routine work

and get satisfaction from repetitive tasks. Motivation

comes from recognition from the boss for doing a good job.

Good quality supervision can cause these types to have job

satisfaction, loyalty to boss, and high productivity.

2. Egocentric - This person is a rugged individual

who is tough and aggressive. They are suspicious and very

sensitive to what they perceive as discrimination. An

egocentric needs a job with tight control, continuous

28

supervision, and a leader capable of exercising authority

and power. Motivation comes from the supervisor who uses

direction and authority to get productivity.

3. Conformist - These types are loyal and oriented

toward duty. They want written policies, procedures, and

work duties. They prefer a boss who provides structure

and direction. Performance appraisal should reinforce

loyalty and recognize meeting performance objectives.

Fringe benefits are important because they provide security-

Motivation is a response to job responsibility, loyalty,

and organizational structure. Intrinsic job satisfaction

happens when the job is well organized with clearly speci­

fied duties. Achievement and individuality from job en­

richment are not important to the conformist.

4. Manipulative - These employees are oriented

toward materialism in life and work. They want to "wheel

and deal." Opportunities for advancement, greater in­

come, higher prestige, and flexibility to carefully maneu­

ver their career plans to achieve their goals are important.

Written procedures are viewed as barriers to the accomplish­

ment of work and fulfillment of personal needs and goals.

Motivation factors are status, achievement, advancement,

and opportunity to play the business game with money as

the main scorekeeping device.

5. Sociocentric - The sociocentric value system

focuses on people. Interpersonal relationships, human

29

human relations, friendly supervision, and harmony with

the work group are key values. The sociocentric personality

likes teamwork and personal contact with a supervisor who

is considered a peer and friend. Motivation comes from

social relations and getting paid for helping people.

Individual achievement and responsibility are not key moti­

vation factors for this type.

6. Existential - These people are mostly concerned

with themselves as individuals. For them job enrichment

and meaningful tasks are essential. They prefer to solve

problems and do meaningful tasks that present a challenge

and require imagination, initiative, and creativity. Pay

is important to the existential because it can buy the

freedom and opportunity to be oneself. The key motivators

are a sense of achievement from solving difficult problems

and reaching personal goals that are also important to the

institution. The opportunity to grow, learn, and change are

also powerful incentives.

Other writers agree that values have an effect on

individuals. Beck and Hillman (1976) stated that research

activities are providing increased awareness of the signifi­

cance of the values issue. They contended that values and

value systems provide direction to behavior. According to

Mankoff (1974) values give direction to our lives and help

to establish our character. They influence our basic ways

of behaving in our relations with others and the environment.

30

Gurth and Tagiuri (1965) stated that values evolve from

one's life experiences and each individual has a unique

combination of values that cause certain behavioral re­

sponses to occur.

Svmmiary

Research interest in the hypothesis that motiva­

tion to work and worker productivity were related to the

nature of the social relations on the job was stimulated

by the Western Electric Company studies carried out in the

Hawthorne Plant beginning in the late 1920's. Out of these

studies came the "Hawthorne Effect" which is the effect of

social, motivational, and attitudinal factors in the work

situation. The "Hawthorne Effect" has had a profound

influence on human relations psychology (for example, see

Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939, and Mayo, 1933).

Later Maslow (1970) developed his theory of self-

actualization. Based on personal need gratification he

developed a hierarchy of needs ascending from the physio­

logical needs of hunger, thirst, and sex, to the need for

security, the need for love, the need for self-esteem, and

at the top the need for self-actualization. Maslow de­

fined self-actualization as developing one's potential to

the fullest.

Herzberg's e t a l . (1959) two-factor theory, with i t s

concept of motivation and dissatisfaction factors, and

311

Graves *s ^l'?4) feh©©^^ with i t s (ZDiainai itt odE vMiise s I arfeanss

were outgrowths ©f th© hTOTnaa ffslattiiflaiiK nriEwsiiEartt.. TTitee d(i®4^w^

of the pr©s©nt study was bas<ad ^a^tsm tdhe liillrWfB sagg^sSife^ t to

the i n v e s t i g a t o r by the Herzbei^ amoffl (EDEK^/^ tlti

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOtiOSY

This chapter outlines the methods and gixoe nwe s ias@<

in this study. It includes the scope and limitations ®f th©

study, the research design, data collection and proc©<aiar s»

subjects and instrxaments, and the treatment of the data*

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The s\ibjects for this study were 88 senior l^v^l

students of the engineering technology department at T@xas

Tech University. Texas Tech University is a large univer­

sity and the generalization of the results to other types

of education institutions would be limited. The value

systems, motivation factors, and dissatisfaction factors

of students could change from school to school and from

department to department within an institution. This also

would limit the generalization of the results.

Texas Tech was chosen because it was convenient and

provides a good representation of other schools offering

similar engineering technology programs. The subjects wii-t

selected because they were willing to participate, th©

department chairman supported the project, and 1 have a

strong interest in technical education.

32

32

A questionnaire developed by Flowers and Hughes

(1977) of the Center for Values Research was used t©

measure the value systems and the personality types ©f the

sTobjects. The semistructured interview and content analy­

sis were used to obtain the motivation and dissatisfac­

tion factors. This study recognizes the limitations of

getting truly objective data from using these methods*

Research Design

The research design selected for this study is

defined as descriptive research. The investigator could

not select, control, and manipulate the factors needed to

study cause-effect relations in this project. A decision

was made to analyze what had happened in natural situations

to get the data needed for the investigation. As noted by

Van Dalen (1966) and Kerlinger (1973) the procedure is also

called an ex post facto design.

The analysis of the data was made in three steps.

First, the motivation and dissatisfaction factori wen

identified by using the semistructured interview and eon-

tent analysis. Second, the value orientations ami person­

ality types were obtained by using a questional ir@. Third>

the relationships between the variables were an.i lyi5e(;i with

the Pearson Product-Moment technique.

Conclusions and recommendations were raadu ffoiti t!i@

results of the statistical analysis.

34

Data Collection and Procedures

The semistructured interview and the values for

learning questionnaire were administered over a two-week

period in April of 1978. The identity of the scores and

the demographic data of each student were coded to insure

anonymity. The size of high schools they attended, the

technologies they majored in, and their grade point aver­

ages were verified with the school administration. The

students gave their permission to verify that data.

Subjects and Instrxjments

A total of 88 senior level engineering technology

students at Texas Tech University were the subjects for

the study. This was the total population except for 5

foreign students who were dropped from the study because

the investigator was not sure that accurate communications

had occurred during the interview sessions. All 88 sub­

jects were expected to graduate with Bachelor of Science

degrees. The material needed to develop the motivation and

dissatisfaction factors was obtained by using the semi-

structured interview.

Kerlinger (1973) wrote that when a person's behavior

cannot be observed directly, data about his behavior must

come from him or other people. The personal interview can

be used with a sxobject to get his reasons for doing or

believing something. He concluded the pre-tested interview

35

can be a potent and indispensable research tool and can

yield data other research tools cannot produce.

Van Dalen and Meyer (1966) suggested that a face-

to-face interview can encourage respondents and help them

probe deeply into a subject. The interviewer, by listening

to incidental comments and tone of voice, as well as

watching facial and bodily expressions, can acquire infor­

mation that would not show up in written replies. By

using these clues, the interviewer can elicit information

about motivation, feelings, attitudes, and beliefs.

Macoby and Macoby (1954) advised that the unstandard-

ized interview (a) permits standardization of meanings

rather than superficial aspects of the stimulus situation,

(b) is more valid because it encourages true-to-life

responses, and (c) is more flexible.

Herzberg et al. (1959) used the semistructured

interview in their original study- This method allowed

the interviewers to use specified questions but gave them

the flexibility to follow other lines of inquiry that

emerged during the interview. The respondents selected the

events they wanted to report. Interview probe questions

were designed to get the additional information needed. The

authors stated that the semistructured interview did obtain

analyzable data that allowed hypotheses about job attitudes

to be tested.

5&

Following the advice of Maeeby and Naoofey- (1954> ^h^

interview used in this study was degigntd ^nd cQn.!SiAc-t d- fc<?

enhance the validity and reliability of the dat«t c>i?tair> d..

According to them, validity and reliability d^p^nd i*^n

the nature of the particular interviiw, s\^j@et i^^tt^]^ of

the study, and circumstances in which the interview will

occur.

A derivation of the semistructured interview U8 <l fey

Herzberg et al. (1959) was selected and us©d by th© inv^t^

tigator for gathering the data needed to develop th# ?ft tiYa-

tion and dissatisfaction factors for this study. One

interviewer was used to eliminate the bias probleift a8g^=

elated with two or more interviewers. One leading question

was asked of each subject with a series of prebeg ox

optional questions to be used after the response t© the Jftain

question. The patterned interview used is fihown in App§n^ix

Section C.

The questions were designed to obtrthi faet tial informal

tion without embarrassment or guilt. As taj-ot i «i by Parry

and Crossley (1950), when a subject is aakfad tc> 'livm raotuai

information that the stibject is likely to knovi, nnd the

giving of the information does not caustj th«: guti^ort t.i

have guilt feelings, the subject can app- rer.tly j.cpr.i t

accurately. The questions were worded usin-j sinij.lc laiiguaye

so the interviewee would have as clear an urid<.r MI--u.di ny as

possible of the subject natter undc r di scuagigi/..

37

According to Macoby and Macoby (1954) the answers

will be more valid when there is good rapport between the

interviewer and the respondent. The interviews were

scheduled in a quiet comfortable room where there would

be no interruptions. Appointments were made to coincide

with the respondents' schedules so they could be free and

at ease. The nature and purpose of the study was explained.

It was made clear that the interviewer was serious and had

a genuine interest in what the respondents had to say. A

certain amoxint of reserve was maintained but there was a

friendly, permissive environment. The reliability and

validity of the interview technique used is apparently

supported by similar results obtained by other studies,

done in other populations, by other researchers using the

same method, and getting similar results (for example, see

Herzberg et al., 1959; Herzberg, 1966; Gruenfeld, 1962;

Saleh, 1964; Myers, 1964).

To make the data as reliable and valid as possible,

the material from the interviews was accumulated by verbatim

note taking.

Content analysis was selected and used by the inves­

tigator of this study to code the sequence of events ob­

tained by the semistructured interview. Content analysis

is a method of studying and analyzing communication in a

systematic, objective, and quantitative manner to measure

variables. This procedure can be applied to materials

38

especially prepared for research problems (Kerlinger, 19 73)

Berelson (19 54) suggested the item, as a unit of analysis,

could be useful for behavioral research. He defined the

item as a whole production. It can be a story or a dis­

cussion. He said the unit can be used and be productive

when the criteria to categorize a variable can be defined

and when there is agreement among judges in their coding

assignments.

Holsti (196 8) wrote that there are three charac­

teristics needed if content analysis is to be used for

scientific inquiry. The first is objectivity where the

analysis is conducted by a set of explicit rules so that

two or more coders can obtain the same results from the

same information. Next, the analysis should be systematic

so the inclusion and exclusion of content or categories is

done by consistent selection criteria. Last is generality

where the purely descriptive information about content must

be related to other attributes of content or to charac­

teristics of the sender.

Guetzkow (1950) pointed out that it is possible to

achieve a high level of reliability when coding most open-

ended or depth interview material. In his discussion of

reliability, Holsti (196 8) encouraged prior training so the

coders would use the same frame of reference in their deci­

sions. Individual reliability is the amount of agreement

between coders. Classification reliability is a function

39

of category definition and number of discriminations to be

made. He suggested pretesting on a sample of material to

be coded to determine if the categories need further classi­

fication. Holsti was confident that for simple forms of

content analysis where coding is basically a mechanical

task that high reliability can be achieved. The above

suggestions were followed in this study. The coders were

trained to use the same frame of reference and coding was

done on a sample of material to clarify the categories.

Herzberg et al. (1959) used content analysis to

analyze the data from their interviews. A posteriori

approach was used where the categories of analysis were

extracted from the material itself. They contended this

approach produced meaningful categories based on the

material gathered during the study. After getting 95%

agreement between two independent coders and a third person

check, they felt confident the analysis was objective and

produced reliable data. Other studies using the same pro­

cedure corroborate this view (for example, see Herzberg,

1966; Gruenfeld, 1962; Saleh, 1964; Myers, 1964). The

present study followed the content analysis procedure de­

veloped by Herzberg et al. to analyze the material obtained

with the semistructured interview method.

In discussing validity Holsti (1968) said adequate

sampling and reliability are conditions for validity, and

that content analysts frequently use content validity. He

40

further argued that if the research is descriptive in na­

ture, content validity is normally adequate. Content

validity can be done by the informed judgement of the

investigator by deciding if the results are plausible.

The data to measure the value systems of the s\ab-

jects was obtained by getting each respondent to complete

the values for learning questionnaire. The decision to use

the values for learning questionnaire was made by the in­

vestigator of this study. This questionnaire was developed

by Flowers and Hughes and is published by the Center for

Values Research, Inc. The norms for the instrument were

established by administering it to 1,634 college students

and 91 college teachers in March 19 77. The values for

learning questionnaire is shown in Appendix Section A and

the norms established for the questionnaire are shown in

Appendix Section B.

A feature of the values for learnirig questionnaire

is the ability to distinguish personality types. According

to Flowers and Hughes (1978) a sum of the sociocentric, con­

formist, and tribalistic value scores is a measure of the

introverted personality and a sum of the existential, mani­

pulative, and egocentric value scores is a measure of the

extraverted personality- The real personality type measure

is the difference between the two scores. If the difference

is more than 20 points and most of the points are in the

introverted pattern then that person is supposed to have an

41

introverted personality. On the other hand, if the

difference of more than 20 points is in the extraverted

direction, that person has an extraverted personality. A

difference of less than 20 points between the introverted

and extraverted scores signifies a mixed personality

pattern. This method was used for getting the personality

types of the respondents in this study.

Treatment of Data

The degree of relationship between two variables is

measured by an index called a correlation coefficient. The

Pearson Product-Moment method is probably the most widely

used technique for measuring relationships in behavioral

science research (Cornett & Beckner, 1975). The product-

moment correlation is an "extremely useful and powerful

tool of the researcher" (Kerlinger, 1973, p. 146) .

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation technique was

selected and used by the investigator of this study to

determine the relationships between the variables identified

and used in the research design.

Permission to use the values for learning question­

naire and the norms established for the questionnaire was

obtained from Flowers and Hughes. A copy of the letter is

shown in Appendix Section D.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The analysis of the data and significant findings

of the study are listed in this chapter.

Demographic Data

Demographic information was obtained during the

interview sessions. The data included the size of high

schools from which the subjects graduated, the engineer­

ing technologies in which they majored, and their grade

point averages.

Most participants 56 (64) graduated from large high

schools and fewer 32 (36%) graduated from small high schools.

Of the total of 88 engineering technology students

interviewed, 45 (51%) were electrical-electronics engineer­

ing technology majors, 24 (27%) were construction engineering

technology majors, and 19 (22%) were mechanical engineer­

ing technology majors.

The grade point averages were fairly evenly dis­

tributed from a low of 1.81 to a high of 4.00. The mean

of the grade point average scores was 2.68 with a standard

deviation of 0.50 (Table 1).

42

4:3:

Be5;o^a_%^'3:%

Size of High School

Large

Small

Engineering Technology Major

EET

GET

MET

M

M

43

ii

i§

6:4

^^

'^ }•

2 -

22

Grade P o i n t Average Mean

i . o

Mot iva t ion and D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f a e t e g i

The i n f o r m a t i o n for the nu^tivi t ien =»IA.I a i = = a^;= =

f a c t i o n f a c t o r s was ob ta ined by Uil't-a tho =omi = f > », t ut^sa

i n t e r v i e w . The s i i b j ec t s worf n-dk^d m I1IM>H - r = « imo .lii

t h e i r p a s t when they had f e l t .|K.:«pt i -a .^i iv j 1 P» - ' - o f

t i o n a l l y bad abou t t h e i r higher ft,d,,uit i e' ^d <:=.,.••='•'="•=•.

I t cou ld be a Texas Tech UruverHUy ^Hm^^h-u^i ^ n - ' ' - " g §

or any o t h e r c o l l e g e or vniv^^mUv ca-u^ni 1....=, 1 <=.t-- ' - " § -

they had been involved in fUnr;.- q r . du . t n.d fM.-n ..iu>. -^no.a

44

The respondents were asked to describe what had happened

during that experience. After the initial story probe,

questions were used to get the additional information needed.

A good and bad experience were solicited from each person.

To enhance objectivity and reliability the pertinent data

from the interviews were recorded verbatim. See Appendix

Section C for the semistructured interview used in this

study.

The motivation factors were developed from the excep­

tionally good experiences and the dissatisfaction factors

were developed from the exceptionally bad experiences. The

material at this stage of the investigation was qualitative.

Content analysis was used to translate the qualita­

tive material into quantitative terms. The material was

broken down into single ideas or thought units. These

thought units were assigned to categories by two coders.

The coders were trained on sample data and concrete selec­

tion criteria were used so the categories would be as ob­

jective and reliable as possible. After several trials,

90% agreement was reached on the categories by the two

coders. The frequency of occurrence was used as a quanti­

tative measure for testing the hypotheses.

Five motivation factors were identified from the

data. In order, they were: achievement, recognition,

growth, responsibility, and group feeling. The percentage

45

of motivation factors selected by the students of the study

are shown in Figure 1.

A comparison of the percentage of motivation factors

appearing in the current study with a composite of percen­

tage data from 12 Herzberg (1976) type studies are shown

in Table 2. The percentages of the five motivation fac­

tors found in the current study are in general agreement

with the findings in a composite of 12 Herzberg (1976)

type studies. The results of the current study for motiva­

tion factors appear to support the findings of the Herzberg

type studies (Table 2).

Using information from the extremely bad educational

experiences, six dissatisfaction factors were identified.

These factors were: block to achievement, failure, un­

fairness, block to growth, lack of responsibility, and

shame. The percentages of the dissatisfaction factors

selected by the students of the study are shown in Figure

2.

The value systems of the respondents were obtained

by using the values for learning questionnaire developed

by Flowers and Hughes (1977) . A copy of the questionnaire

with instructions for administering and scoring the instru­

ment are shown in the Appendix Section A.

The primary value systems of the subjects in this

study were 33 (37%) existential, 20 (23%) conformist, 16

(18%) sociocentric, 7 (8%) tribalistic, and 4 (5%)

4 6.

1 0 0 . ^

9 0 - -

80 —

70 —

03 6 0 - —

g 50-o u 0)

(^ 40-

30-

20—

10—

4J

>

c o •u

c O O

«

4J

> 1

•rt

0 a. w

• H

a*

0

Figure 1.

Note

Percentage of motivation facinrtt cid, Texas Tech University eny iiiH«i 1 n.j I o: s tudents

Colxomns t o t a l more than IODI l.c:.miaa mcio i u^.i one motivation factor ctml'i i" - boicoio.i n- •=='••1 student of the study

47

Table 2

Comparison of Percentage of Motivators Appearing in the Current Study with Herzberg Type Studies

Current Herzberg Type Factor Study (1976 Studies)

Achievement 39 42

Recognition 26 31

Growth 19 20

Responsibility 13 20

Group Feeling 6 7

Note: The growth and advancement percentages of the Herzberg type studies were added to be equiva­lent to the growth percentage of the current study.

Note: Columns total more that 100% because more than one motivation factor could be assigned to one response.

manipulative. A few of the siibjects or 8 (9%) did not show

a primary value system which according to Flowers and Hughes

(1978) means that those people are generally in transition

to a new value orientation or state of psychological exis­

tence. All possible values appeared except the egocentric.

This is typical because the research to date shows that

scores for college students are usually low in that category.

See the El Centre student profile scores in Appendix Sec­

tion B. The means and standard deviations for the categories

of values are shown in Table 3.

48

tn 0) en (0 4J G <\i 0 U (U cu

90 •

80 •

70 •

60 •

50 -

40 -

30 -

20 -

10 •

0

+J c (U

e 0}

chiev

ked A

o iH 0) o u

3 en >, rH tn +) •H QJ -H nJ C H fa k -w

•--1 i3 nj .^ >H 01 fl Jii C D 4J 0

IS a O 01

O «

3 >H

locke

ack o

arae

PQ Hi -C cn

Figure 2. Percentage of dissatisfaction factors selected by Texas Tech University engineering technology students.

Note: Columns total more than 100% because more than one dissatisfaction factor could be selected by each student of the study.

49

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations of the Categories of Value Orientation

Category

Existential

Sociocentric

Manipulative

Conformist

Egocentric

Tribalistic

Mean

28.11

20.52

9.30

21.70

1.16

15.27

Standard Deviation

18.27

16.89

11.27

19.89

3.95

11.87

The average of the value orientation scores from the

present study were compared to the ranges of scores obtained

by Flowers (1977) in a study of 1,634 El Centre College

students in Dallas, Texas. These scores are in general

agreement with each other and tend to support the idea that

the subjects of this study were similar in their values

selected to the students at El Centre College in 19 77

(Table 4) .

Relationship Between Valne Orientation and Other Variables

The data for the variables of value systems, motiva­

tion factors, dissatisfaction factors, grade point averages,

engineering technologies majored in, and the size of high

schools graduated from were entered into a Pearson Product

5 0

A v e r a g e V a l u e O r i e n t a t i o n S e o r © ^ o f i^hi^ C^rre-rit §;l T <Jy-Compared to Scores of Flow©rr§*s U?i7-7> §ti*fe- " '

Category

Existential

Sociocentric

Manipulative

Conformist

Egocentric

Tribalistic

Current Study

28

21

9

22

1

15

Low

7

7

5

13

0

8

FlQV}^2C-a StlAdY-

11

12.

9

18

0

13

Av^^^g^

U

17

12

2 a

3

18

23;

22

15

33

7

23

•i-~ " — - - ^ —

High

3(?

27

19>

42

12

2§

Moment statistics 1 program. The results w©3?@ mis^i* fe\i%

several significant relationships were prtaent*

There was a positive relationship between tht e>ii^"

tential value and the motivation factor of growth tu' c\\a ,05

level. As noted by Flowers and Hughes (197S) , "Tha Qpi>or-

tunity to grow, learn, change, make a eont3fibut4«Mi, oHpU'rc

new territory, and to be original and ereativ.^ >-iin the m.'ot

powerful factors. . . . A major motivator i§ tdie cii=.c ..f

achievement that comes from solving diffieult j,)i,tldauiQ and

reaching personal goals" (p. 35). The siqiilid.ni.t iciaii.-a

ship between the existential value and the grpwt h ni..t i va

tion factor partially supports the above p«.alii..i., hut: tt<oio

was an insignificant relationship betwenn t hc= ei( i =i o,it i Q 1

value and the achievement motivator, for the. .j>""i.' I= = <='T,

51-

that does n,Qt su^^port the> id^a t h a t the. major mctxvatox

for the e x i s t e n t i a l i s t i s a s.^ns.^. Q,f a9h.ieverae.n.t.

There was a a ign i f ic -an t n^ga t iy^ r e l a t i o a s n i p between.

the e x i s t e n t i a l va lue and thi^ niotiYatip.n f a c t o r of group

f e e l i n g t o t h e .05 l e v e l s J'lowers and Hughes, (19 7-3;) s t a t e d

that a t t h i s s t a g e of exia tenoe, , people- are t r u l y i n d i v i d ­

u a l s . They p r e f e r t o have aoc-^ss tP' t h e information, they

need and be al lowed t o do the job in t h e i r own way._ They

do not need p e o p l e . This s t^t^iueat i a auppprted by t h e

negat ive r e l a t i o n s h i p between the e x i a t e n t i a l value and

the group f e e l i n g motivator .

The data a l s o revealed a nega t ive r o i a t i o n s h i p be :

tween the va lue o r i e n t a t i o n ot oonformia^ and c:..c: mot iva­

t i o n f a c t o r of growth to th© .05 l e v e l , Th^ eoafotuu-a.- a a

described by Flowers and Hughes (IS?!) p t a f a r s ordee a»a

s truct i i re . These people b e l i e v e in long aervxca and l^-yaitv

They want d e t a i l e d p o l i c i e s and prooedurea BV tr>oy ...lu

operate e f f i c i e n t l y and e f f e c t i v e l y , They ahcula oi ..Y ^V,.-.\

from compet i t ive s i t u a t i o n s thrtt l e q u i t a the aaiiiuM of

ideas or have a high degroi- o i i-haiujc, ^enc ia i iv ofoatv.iii9,

t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n tends to suppoi i the no j a i t vc lo iat--u.i>cuit-

between the conformist value .iiui i lie ijiuwtti uUMiVai-...

Another p o s i t i v e rf.'lai. i()iish i p cmcijca i.ot.wooii uu .

t r i b a l i s t i c va lue and the a''hi«v>-iiiciit mui li/a i-. i ii^ .i>3

l e v e l . F l o w e r s and Huqh<-B ( I ' i /S) ndvibo.i i uai r . M b . M c ^ t i c

types v a l u e h i g h l y rout-in<- v/urH , Tiic^najy dui.'..;, :.i i.-

5-2

supervision, and a compatible work group. Pay and bene­

fits should be based on seniority and are for the purpoaes

of existing. They want to get along with their fellow

workers and supervisor instead of getting ahead^ This

finding appears to be inconsistent with the Flowers and

Hughes description of the tribalistic personality^ The

authors also noted that very few tribalistic people have an

advanced education. All the subjects in this study were

about to receive B.S. degrees in engineering technology

and this conflicts with the idea of the tribalistic type

being mostly poorly educated. Therefore, this finding does

not support the Flowers and Hughes position (Table 5),

Table 5

Coorelation Coefficients Between Value Categories and Motivation Factors

Category

*£ < .05

Recogni- Achieve- Reapon™ tion ment Growth aibility tceiiuvj

Existential

Sociocentric

Manipulative

Conformist

Egocentric

Tribalistic

-.0769

-.0358

.0916

-.0235

.1223

.0766

.0722

-.0592

-.0640

-.0933

-.0867

.2173*

.2171*

.1830

-.1868

-.2238*

.1235

-.0627

-,\6\i

.1358

-.0541

.0357

.1 I"-.!!

.1)1'ill

- , -• I 1 9 *

^ , 1 1 1 ' - . : '

. 1 5 11

,iJ 1.1 1

-,07-"--

. 1 n / tt

53

The relationship between the value systems of the

population and their motivation factors was inconclusive.

It does not support the descriptions of the value systems

as defined by Flowers and Hughes (19 78) . However, the

authors did point out that their descriptions were over­

simplifications and advised that most people have a combina­

tion of value systems at any given time. Also, some people

are in the process of changing from one value system to

another where the resulting measurements would not be clear

and possibly inconsistent until the change is complete.

All of the siibjects of this study were senior level univer­

sity students getting ready to graduate and enter the world

of work. Perhaps their value systems were in the process

of change. The descriptions of the value systems by both

Flowers and Hughes (19 78) and Graves (19 74) were in general

terms. Values may have to be defined in more specific terms

before a better relationship can be established between

values and motivators.

There were no significant relationships between

value orientation categories and dissatisfaction factors;

therefore, this null hypothesis was accepted (Table 6).

A significant negative relationship appeared between

the value system of manipulative and personality types to

the .01 level. The manipulator is materialistic in his

orientation toward life and work. He likes "wheeling and

dealing," opportunities for advancement, greater income.

54

vo

EH

to u o +J u (d

G O

• H 4J O fd m 01

•H +J (d m m

• H Q

-O c (0

m 0)

•H ^ O tn 0) +J (C U

<u

rH

>

QJ OJ ^ +J 0)

CQ

CO +J

Q) •H U

• H MH

0) O U

c O

•H 4J (0

rH 0)

o u

o

•H

m c D

tn to

G

u tn

0) u 3

•H 10

iH OJ

r ><

•^ tn

0

o o rH

o 4J

M u o rH PQ

1 0)

> <u •H

x; C)

<

+j

a <i) g

>1

o Cn Q) +J IT3

U

n o

o m o

U5 m ^ 00 t^ O i n rH (J, U3 ' 3 ' to n r^ ,H o o o o o

I I

r vo o o

CN r~ rn o

c o Lf) o

(71 rH CN

I

r-• ^

" o

i n ro r o

" r-t CO O

m r--• o

i-i r IX) o

n " ro H

CO CN CN o

CN cn n •-i

o 00 00 O

i n

o vo rH

i n [^ o rH

r~-co r~ o

n • CN O

(N CN CN O

cn i n CN o

" CN >-i O

VO iH ro O

r--(Tl CN O

" [^ CN O

m r~ o o

r--o in o

CN H in o

( ro <n o

r [ ^ 00

o

H H o o

i n i n CTi rH

ro 00 00 H

ro rH 00 O

rH •iT fN O

CN CN ro o

IH nj

•H +J U <D +J tn

•rl X W

•H iH

4J C (U O

o -H U 0 C/2

> •H •P (tJ

<-{ 3 a •H C (t)

s

+J tn

•H E p 0

IH G 0 u

o •H !H +J G (U O 0 Di W

o •H +J tn

•H H m 0

•H ^ EH

55

higher prestige, and room to carefully maneuver his career

plans to achieve his goals. The manipulation value system

could almost be called the managerial value because it

currently represents the most outstanding attribute of

people in leadership positions in industry. Many strong

manipulation people are found in marketing and sales jobs

(Flowers & Hughes, 19 78). In the present study, most of

the students (57%) had introverted personalities. There

would be a negative relationship between the introverted

personalities of the engineering technology students and

the apparent extraverted personality of the typical manipu­

lative oriented person (Table 7).

Table 7

Correlation Coefficients Between Value Categories and Personality Types, Grade Point Averages, and

Major Technologies

Category

Existential

Sociocentric

Manipulative

Conformist

Egocentric

Tribalistic

Personality Type

-.1485

.1997

-.3499**

.0420

.1057

.1699

Grade Point Average

-.0090

-.2491*

-.0034

.2700*

.0836

-.0519

Major Technology

.0560

.2123*

.0562

-.2225*

-.1006

-.0519

** £ < .05 £ < -01

56

The study produced two significant relationships be­

tween the value orientation of the respondents and their

grade point averages. There was a negative relationship

between the sociocentric value and grade point averages to

the .05 level. Also, a positive relationship between the

conforioist level and grade point averages to the ,05 level.

As noted by Flowers and Hughes (1978), Graves found no

significant relationship between intelligence and value

orientation of the people he tested. His study had hundreds

of people over a long period of time. This study had 88

subjects. Therefore, the significant relationship between

value systems and the grade point averages of the students

in this study appear to be peculiar to this group of stu­

dents and should disappear if the number of subjects were

increased (Table 7, p. 55).

Significant relationships appeared between the value

systems of the population and the technologies in which they

majored. The first was a positive relationship between

the sociocentric value and technologies to the .05 level.

The second was a negative relationship between the conformist

value and technologies to the .05 level. The preference for

value systems by technology was fairly evenly distributed

except for the two cases mentioned above. The construction

engineering technology students scored higher in their

preference for the sociocentric value than the electrical

electronic engineering technology students and the mechaaical

57

engineering technology students. The construction engin­

eering technology students also scored lower in their pre-

fererence for the conformist value than their electrical-

electronic engineering technology and mechanical engineer­

ing technology fellow students (Table 7, p. 55).

There was no significant relationship between the

value systems of the population and the size high schools

from which they graduated; therefore, the null hypothesis

was accepted.

The next significant finding was a positive rela­

tionship between the technologies in which the subjects

majored and their personality types to the .05 level.

A feature of the values for learning questionnaire

was its ability to determine personality type. The person­

ality scores of the respondents revealed that 50 (57%) were

introverts, 19 (22%) were extraverts, and 19 (22%) had a

mixed pattern.

McCaulley (19 76) pointed out that in the preliminary

data bank of 1,060 engineering specialities at the University

of Florida, 62% preferred introversion and 38% preferred

extraversion. The personality types of the subjects in

this study compare favorably with the personality types of

the subjects in the University of Florida data bank. The

students in this study are all engineering technology majors

and this accounts for the significant relationship between

58

the technologies in which the subjects majored and their

personality types.

Two significant relationships developed between the

grade point averages of the population and two other

variables. The first relationship was between grade point

averages and the size high schools from which the respon­

dents graduated to the .01 level. The average grade point

average of the students who graduated from large high

schools was 2.55 compared to 2.92 for the students who

graduated from small high schools. The best students in

this population, based on grade point average, came from

smaller high schools. For this study, a large high school

was defined as having 300 students or more and a small

high school was defined as having 299 students or less

(Table 8) .

Table 8

Correlation Coefficients Between Grade Point Averages and Graduating High School Sizes and Dissatisfaction Factor Failure

Category High School Size Failure

Grade point average .3560** .2130*

*£ < .05 **p < .01

The second relationship was between grade point aver­

ages and the dissatisfier of failure to the .05 level. The

59

data revealed that the student who complained about fail­

ure had a mean grade point average of 2.55 as compared to

a mean grade point average of 2.77 for the students who did

not mention failure. The students who mentioned failure

had a lower grade point average and that failure was probab­

ly the cause of the lower grade point average (Table 8,

p. 58) .

When the material from the interviews was processed

by content analysis, teaching as a category occurred often.

From the 88 subjects, the category of teaching appeared 80

times. There were 59 bad teaching experiences and 21 good

teaching experiences.

All of the good teaching experiences were related

to the motivation factors of achievement, growth, and recog­

nition. In other words, the students were motivated by what

the teacher did in the classroom.

On the other hand, the bad teaching experiences were

related to dissatisfaction factors. The students felt that

failure, unfairness, a block to achievement, and a block to

growth had happened to them because of poor teaching.

Evidently, according to this group of students, teach­

ing does have good and bad effects in the classroom.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s a summary, a summary of major

f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and recommendations.

Summary

The major purpose of this study was to examine the

relationship between value orientations and motivation

factors, dissatisfaction factors, personality types, grade

point averages, engineering technologies in which the sub­

jects majored, and size of high schools from which the sub­

jects graduated. The subjects were 88 senior level engin­

eering technology students at Texas Tech University.

The review of literature indicated that many studies

of motivation and dissatisfaction factors as well as studies

of value systems had been done in industry. Similar studies

done with students in education were rare.

The Herzberg et al. (1959) method of the semi-

structured interview and content analysis was selected

for identifying the motivation and dissatisfaction factors.

A questionnaire developed by Flowers and Hughes (1978) was

used for gathering the value orientations and personality

types. These methods were chosen because both had data from

other subject groups with which the data from this study could

60

61

be compared. The data from the variables selected were

entered into a Pearson Product-Moment statistical program

to determine relationships.

In Chapter 1 Flammer and Mecham (19 74) , and Albin

and Flammer (1974) suggested using the findings of motiva­

tion studies done in industry to help students strive and

achieve in education. A first logical step was to deter­

mine if students in higher education are motivated and

dissatisfied by the same factors as people in industry. If

the same factors appear then the argioment for using them

in education as well as industry would be strengthened.

Flowers and Hughes (1978) and Graves (1974) said

that the value systems of people have an influence on the

way they behave. If the value systems of students in edu­

cation are similar to the value systems of workers in in­

dustry this would support the idea that they will behave in

similar ways.

If significant relationships exist between the value

systems of students and their motivation and dissatisfaction

factors there would be evidence to assume that by using the

two theories in conjunction with each other, recommendations

could be made on how to motivate students to be happier and

more productive in their educational efforts.

Summary of Major Findings

The analysis of the data was made in three steps.

First, the motivation and dissatisfaction factors of the

62

population were identified. Second, the value orienta­

tions and personality types of the respondents were gathered,

Third, the relationship between the variables of value

orientations of the respondents and their motivation fac­

tors, dissatisfaction factors, grade point averages, engin­

eering technologies in which they majored, and size of high

schools from which they graduated was analyzed.

The major findings of the analysis are shown below:

1. The motivation factors found, in order, were

achievement, recognition, growth, responsibility, and group

feeling.

2. The dissatisfaction factors identified, in order,

were blocked achievement, failure, unfairness, blocked

growth, lack of responsibility, and shame.

3. All value systems of Graves's theory appeared

except egocentric. The primajry value systems of the re­

search group listed, in order, were existential, conformist,

sociocentric, tribalistic, and manipulative.

4. Significant relationships were found between

value orientations and motivation factors, but the results

were inconsistent and inconclusive.

5. A significant relationship appeared between the

value system of manipulative and personality types.

6. Significant relationships existed between grade

point averages and the value orientations of sociocentric

and manipulative.

63

7. Signifcant relationships were found between value

orientations of sociocentric and conformist and the techncla-

gies in which the subjects majored.

8. Significant relationships were found between

grade point averages and the dissatisfaction factor of

failure and the size of high schools from which the popula­

tion graduated.

9- The finding of the influence both good and bad

that the teacher has in the classroom.

Conclusions

The motivation and dissatisfaction factors found for

this population were similar in kind and strength to the same

factors foiind in industry. Satisfaction and increased

productivity are associated with motivators. The factors

of achievement, recognition, growth, responsibility, and

group feeling should motivate Texas Tech University engin­

eering technology students as well as workers in industry.

The factors of block to achievement, failure, unfairness,

block to growth, lack of responsibility, and shame should

dissatisfy Texas Tech University engineering technology

students. Disappointment and ineffectiveness are associared

with the dissatisfiers.

The construction engineering technology students had

a stronger preference for the sociocentric value and a weaker

preference for the conformist value than the electrical-

electronics and mechanical engineering technology studencs.

This suggests that the methods developed to motivate the

construction engineering technology students will have to

be developed with regard to those value systems that they

favor or dislike.

The majority of the subjects tested out as introverts.

This is typical of engineering students as noted by

McCaulley (1976). This will influence the manner in which

Texas Tech University engineering technology students are

motivated.

The best students, based on grade point averages,

came from small high schools. The mean of the grade point

averages was 2.92 for small high school graduates and 2.55

for large high school graduates. This finding deserves fur­

ther study.

Teaching for the people in this study did have an

effect both good and bad on their reactions. Based on these

findings, the teacher can have a great influence on their

students to strive, achieve, and enjoy education. On the

other hand, if the teacher's activities are poorly planned

and executed, the students can suffer disappointment and

become ineffective in their educational pursuits.

Affirmation or Rejection of Hypotheses

H, A significant relationship was found between some

of the value systems of the population and some of their

motivation factors. The results were inconsistent and in­

conclusive.

65

^2 There was no significant relationship between

the value systems of the population and their dissatisfac­

tion factors. This hypothesis was accepted.

H3 A significant relationship was fonn.d between the

value systems of the population and their personality types.

The majority of the subjects were introverts. There was a

significant negative relationship between personality of

introversion and the manipulative value that is obviously

an extravert.

H^ Significant relationships were found between the

values of sociocentric and conformist and grade point

averages. Graves found no significant relationship between

values and intelligence. He had hundreds of subjects over

several years of study. This finding seems peculiar to

this group and would probably disappear with a larger

population.

A significant relationship was found between the H 5

value systems of soc iocen t r i c and conformist and technologies

The preference for values by technology was fa i r ly evenly

d i s t r i bu t ed except the construct ion engineering technology

students had a s t ronger preference for the sociocentr ic value

and a weaker preference for the conformist value than the

e l e c t r i c a l - e l e c t r o n i c and mechanical engineering s tudents .

H- There was no s ign i f i can t re la t ionship between the 5 ^ • -

value systems of the population and the size high schools

from which they graduated. This hypothesis was accepted.

66

Recommendations

Based on the findings from this study, the following

recommendations are offered:

1. Motivation factors of achievement, recognition,

growth, responsibility, and group feeling and the dissatis­

faction factors of blocked achievement, failure, unfairness,

blocked growth, lack of responsibility, and shame were

found for the population of this study. These motivation

and dissatisfaction factors should provide the Texas Tech

University engineering technology faculty and staff with

guidelines on how to help their students be better satis­

fied and more productive in their educational endeavors.

2. Most of the subjects in this study had intro­

verted personalities. As noted by McCaulley (1976) this

condition exists in other engineering specialities programs.

Knowing that engineering technology students are predominant­

ly introverts can offer valuable clues on how to motivate

them in the classroom.

3. Teaching as an additional factor often appeared

in this study. Both good and bad experiences were related

to teaching. The bad experiences occurred about two times as

often. These findings suggest that teaching does have an

impact on how Texas Tech University engineering technology

students perform in their educational efforts. A conscious

effort should be made by Texas Tech University engineering

technology teachers to optimize the use of motivators and min­

imize the use of dissatisfiers in their teaching activities.

67

4. The be s t s tudents of the population of t h i s

study, based on grade point average, came from small high

schools with s tudent populations of less than 300. Fur­

ther s t ud i e s need to be made in t h i s area to determine i f

t h i s f inding i s cons i s t en t with other populations and why

i t occurs .

5. A study needs to be conducted to determine the

r e l a t i o n s h i p between motivation and d i s sa t i s fac t ion factors

and p e r s o n a l i t y types by using the Myers-Briggs Type

Ind ica to r .

6. Data are l imi ted on how motivators and d i s s a t i s ­

f ie rs opera te in higher education. Extensive research needs

to be undertaken to expand the base of motivation and d i s ­

s a t i s f a c t i o n f ac to r s to other populations within education.

7. A study comparing the motivation and d i s s a t i s ­

faction f ac to r s of the t r a d i t i o n a l and nontradi t ional

student should be conducted to determine i f any s i m i l a r i ­

t i e s or d i f fe rences e x i s t between them.

8. A study i s recommended to determine the r e l a t ion ­

ship between motivat ion fac to r s , d i s sa t i s fac t ion fac tors ,

and pe r sona l i t y types of higher education dropouts to see

if they d i f f e r from successful s tudents .

9. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between value systems and the

motivation of people i s important. Further studies between

these v a r i a b l e s , using d i f fe ren t methods and techniques, i s

recommended.

68

10. According to the findings of this study,

teaching does have an impact on the performance of the stu­

dent in the classroom. Further study needs to be con­

ducted to determine if this result is consistent with other

aroups in higher education and develop methods for increas­

ing the good student experiences and decreasing the bad

student experiences.

REFERENCES

A b l i n , H. L . , & F lammer , G. H. M o t i v a t i o n and t h e l e c t u r e me thod of i n s t r u c t i o n . E n g i n e e r i n g E d u c a t i o n , 1974, 6 4 , 4 0 4 - 4 0 7 .

A l s c h u l e r , A. S . , T a b o r , D . , & M c l n t y r e , J . T e a c h i n g a c h i e v e m e n t m o t i v a t i o n . M i d d l e t o n , C o n n e c t i c u t : E d u c a t i o n a l V e n t u r e s , 19 70 .

A r g y r i s , C. I n t e g r a t i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t h e o r g a n i z a ­t i o n . New Y o r k : Wi ley & S o n s , 1964.

A s t i n , A. W. C o l l e g e d r o p o u t s : A n a t i o n a l p r o f i l e . W a s h i n g t o n , D. C : American C o u n c i l on E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 7 2 .

A s t i n , A. W. F o u r c r i t i c a l y e a r s . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y -B a s s , 19 7 7 .

B a l l , S . M o t i v a t i o n i n e d u c a t i o n . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1 9 7 7 .

B a r n a r d , C. I . The f u n c t i o n s of t h e e x e c u t i v e . Cambr idge : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19 38 .

Beck, A. C , J r . , & H i l l m a r , W. D. Making MBO/R work . R e a d i n g , M a s s a c h u s e t t s : Add i son-Wes ley , 1976.

B e r e l s o n , B . C o n t e n t a n a l y s i s . I n G. Lindzey ( E d . ) , Handbook of s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y (Vol . 1 ) . Cambr idge: A d d i s o n - W e s l e y , 1959 .

B i e h l e r , R. F . P s y c h o l o g y a p p l i e d t o t e a c h i n g . B o s t o n : Hough ton M i f f l x n , 1974 .

B igge , M. L . L e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s f o r t e a c h e r s . New York: H a r p e r & Row, 1 9 7 1 .

B l a i , B . , J r . T w o - v e a r c o l l e g e d r o p o u t s - Why do t h e y l e a v e ? Who a r e t h i y ? — H o w many? Bryn Mawr, P e n n s y l v a n i a : Harcum J u n i o r C o l l e g e , 1972 . (ERIC Document Repro ­d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 058 8 7 9 ) .

69

70

Blake , R. R. , & Mouton, J . The managerial ariri.- Key o r i e n -t a t i o n f o r a c h i e v i n g p roduc t ion through peorJT^ Houston: Gulf P u b l i s h i n g , 1964.

Boyer, A. Four y e a r s a f t e r c o l l e g e . Ace Research Report 8. Washington, D. C : American Council on Education 1973 .

Carnegie Commission on Higher Educat ion. Toward a l e a r n -i n g s o c i e t y . New York: McGraw H i l l , 1973.

Cope, R. , & Hannah, W. Revolving co l l ege doors . New York-Wiley & Sons , 197r:

C o r n e t t , J . D. , & Beckner , W. In t roduc to ry s t a t i s t i c s for t h e b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s , coiumbus: Charles E. M e r r i l l , 1975.

Cross , K. P . The new l e a r n e r s . Change Magazine, 1973, 5, 31 -34 .

Cross , K. P . Accent on l e a r n i n g . San F ranc i sco : Jossey-Bass , 15T7T

Cummings, L. L . , & E lSa lmi , A. M. Empirical r e sea rch on t h e b a s e s and c o r r e l a t e s of managerial mot iva t ion . P s y c h o l o g i c a l - B u l l e t i n , 1968, 70 , 127-144.

deCharms, R. Enhancing m o t i v a t i o n . New York: I r v i n g t o n , 1976.

Dunnet te , M. D. F a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s of unusual ly s a t i s f y i n g and u n u s u a l l y d i s s a t i s f y i n g job s i t u a t i o n s for s i x o c c u p a t i o n a l groups I Paper p resen ted a t the meeting of t h e Midwest Psycho log ica l Assoc ia t ion , Chicago, A p r i l 1965.

Ewen, R. B. Some d e t e r m i n a n t s of job s a t i s f a c t i o n : A study of t h e g e n e r a l i t y of Herzberg ' s t heo ry . Journa l of App l i ed Psycho logy , 1964, 48_, 161-163.

Farber , J . D. A t t i t u d e comparison among s tuden t s a t t h r ee Texas commxinity c o l l e g e s ^ Unpublished doc to ra l d i s ­s e r t a t i o n , Texas Tech U n i v e r s i t y , 1979.

Flammer, G. H. App l i ed m o t i v a t i o n : A missing r o l e in teach­i n g . E n g i n e e r i n g Educat ion , 1972, 62 , 519-521.

Flammer, G. H . , & Mecham, R. C. Student achievement and m o t i v a t i o n . Eng inee r ing Educat ion, 1974, 6_4, 432-435,

71

F le i shman, E. A. S t u d i e s i n personne l and Industri;=.i p s v c h o l o g y . Homewood: Dorsey, i967~ ~

F lowers , v . , & Hughes, C, L. Value systems analvi^is theory and management appl ica t iHKF: Da l l a s :—Cente r for Values Resea rch , 1978.

Fuchs, H. O. On k i n d l i n g flames wi th c a s e s . Engineer ing E d u c a t i o n , 1974, 6£, 412-415. —

Graves, C. W. Human n a t u r e p r epa re s for a momentous leap The F u t u r i s t , 1974, 8, 72-82.

Graves , C. W. D e t e r i o r a t i o n of work s t a n d a r d s . Harvard B u s i n e s s Review, 1966, 44, 117-128.

Graves , C. W. Leve l s of e x i s t e n c e : An open system theory of v a l u e s . J o u r n a l of Humanistic Psychology, F a l l 1970, 131-155": ~ ^

Gruenfe ld , L. A. A s tudy of the mot iva t ion of i n d u s t r i a l s u p e r v i s o r s . Pe r sonne l Psychology, 1962, 15 , 303-314.

Guetzkow, H. U n i t i z i n g and c a t e g o r i z i n g problems in coding q u a l i t a t i v e m a t e r i a l . Journa l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1950, i , 4 7 - 5 8 . ~~

Gurth, W. D . , & T a g i u r i , R. Persona l va lues and corpora te s t r a t e g y . Harvard Business Review, 1965, 4^, 123-132.

Hankins, G. M o t i v a t i o n and i n d i v i d u a l l ea rn ing s t y l e s . E n g i n e e r i n g Educa t ion , 1974, 6£, 408-411.

Harvey, J . P r e v e n t i n g c o l l e g e d ropou ts : A review. Washing­t o n D. C , 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 043 7 9 9 ) .

Henry, W. E. E x e c u t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y and job success . (Per­s o n n e l S e r i e s No. 120) . New York: American Manage­ment A s s o c i a t i o n , 1948.

Herzberg, F . , Mausner , B. , P e t e r s o n , R. 0 . , & Catwel l , D. F . Job a t t i t u d e s ; Survey of r e sea r ch and op in ion . P i t t s b u r g : P s y c h o l o g i c a l Serv ices of P i t t s b u r g , 1957.

Herzberg, F . , Mausner , B . , & Snyderman, B. B. The motiva­t i o n t o work. New York: John Wiley, 1959.

Herzberg, F . The m o t i v a t i o n to work among Finnish s u p e r v i ­s o r s . P e r s o n n e l Psychology, 1956, 18., 393-402.

72

Herzberg, F. Work and the nature of man. New York: World 1966. '

Herzberg, F. The managerial choice. Homewood: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1976.

Holsti, 0. R. Content analysis. In G. Lindzey & E. Aranson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1968.'

Kagan, J., & Havemann, E. Psychology: An introduction. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. '

Kahn, R. L. Review of F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, & B. B. Snyderman, The motivation to work. Contemporary Psychology, 1961, 6_, 9-10.

Kast, F. F., & Rosenzweig, J. E. Organization and manage­ment: A systems approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

irrr. K e r l i n g e r , F . N. Foundat ions of behav io ra l r e s e a r c h . New

York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1973.

K i e s t e r , E . , J r . Ralph T y l e r , t he e d u c a t o r ' s educa to r . Change Magazine , 1978, 10_, 28-35.

Landis , R. B. Improving t h e r e t e n t i o n of minor i ty engin­e e r i n g s t u d e n t s . Engineer ing Educat ion, Apr i l 1976, 737-739 . ~

L i k e r t , R. The human o r g a n i z a t i o n : I t s management and v a l u e . New York! McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Macoby, E. E . , & Macoby, N. The i n t e rv i ew: A t o o l of s o c i a l s c i e n c e . In G. Lindzey (Ed.) Handbook of s o c i a l psychology (Vol. I ) . Cambridgel Addison-Wesley, 1959.

Mankoff, A. W. Values - no t a t t i t u d e s - are the r e a l key to m o t i v a t i o n . Management Review, December 1974, 23-29.

Maslow, A. H. M o t i v a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y . New York: Harper & Row, ITTW.

Mayo, E. The human problems of an i n d u s t r i a l c i v i l i z a t i o n . New York: McMillan, 1933.

McCaulley, M. P s y c h o l o g i c a l types in eng ineer ing : Impl ica­t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g . Engineer ing Education, 1976, 66, 729-736.

73

McGregor, D. M. The hijman side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Melton, A. W. Motivation and Learning. In D. C. McClelland (Ed.) Studies in motivation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1955.

Miller, W. C. What will the future bring for education? Phi Delta Kappan, 1978, 60_, 287-289.

Morse, N. C. Satisfactions in the white-collar job. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1953.

Myers, M. S. Who are your motivated workers? Harvard Business Review, 1964, 4_2, 73-88.

Myers, M. S., & Myers. Toward understanding the changing work ethic. California Management Review, Spring 1974, 16_, 7-19.

Parry, H. J., & Crossey, H. M. Validity of responses to survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19 50, 14 , 61-80.

Powell, J. E., Jr. Student attrition in higher education: A survey of recent literature. Washington, D~. C" 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 111 504).

Roberts, D. Y., Fox, C. F. & Bravely, C. V. Investigating the riddle of man. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, TTJ^

Saleh, S. A study of attitude change in the pre-retirement period. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48, 310-312.

Sartain, A. Q., North, A. J., Strange, J. R., & Chapman, H. M. Psychology: Understanding human behavior. New York: McGraw Hill, 1962.

U. S. Civil Service Commission. Managing human behavior. Personnel Bibliographic Series Number 35. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

Van Dalen, D. B., & Meyer, W. J. Understanding educational research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

74

Vroom, v., & Maier, N. R. Industrial social psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 1961, 12 , 413-446.

Williams, J. M. , Jr. A case study of attitudes held by faculty members and administrators in Tarrant County Junior College toward instructional objectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 19 72.

APPENDIX

A.

B.

C.

D.

V a l u e s F o r L e a r n i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

V a l u e s P r o f i l e o f E l C e n t r e C o l l e g e S tud ;

P a t t e r n e d I n t e r v i e w

L e t t e r o f A p p r o v a l

:3 and -ea

76

QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS

The values for learning questionnaire has eight

statements to which you need to respond. There must be a

total of 12 points for each question and a total of 96

points for each questionnaire. If you feel strongly about

one response, then 12 points should be assigned to that

response. If you feel that more than one response is

needed to project your feelings, then select more than one

response, but you must express the strength of each feeling

by assigning the correct niimber of points for that feeling.

The total niamber of points for each statement mtist still

total 12.

The instrument is scored by summing the points for

each letter in the questionnaire. The value systems are

associated with the letters in the questionnaire as shown

below:

Letter d Existential

Letter a Sociocentric

Letter f Manipulative

Letter c Conformist

Letter b Egocentric

Letter e Tribalistic

77

Appendix A: Values For Learning Questionnaire

VALUES FOR LEARNING ^ e TI>l,qM.W«0«W». l ,cqOV*t9'»i . i 'WO. VlWCW»ia.yi..wi>Ol..e«., T l i . r—.—..-.,-^ ^

,. To rat, • * « * > " ' " o " " " • " » * ~ " *" • ' ^ ' " ^ • " • b« an umlruciurcd procra t*mt peoplt h o * tlw op-

pwlunitv to icq««« mv knowttdgi that is hnporunl toUinn-

• bt • lii'lY ntucnif ed tyslim. M<wn riquiranMnti • » citarlv dtfinad and ittxtaMi ihould o k * ih* awncs pmaibtd by tlw ithool.

• gin people ilw ikiHi ilwy "—<> to tuniv* in tha "d(i9«al-d09" wwld o» oun.

. pio»itl« 900d itachen who • • aw* to guidt and di-tect itudann in the path IhM i« b«it lor them.

I help people underitind their Ixuc humenKa and indi people to IKn loqether in a v^'n ot biMtier-hood.

• meet individual career needs and giM ttudems the tools they need to be financially succeoiul in life.

d c

b e

a

f

X To eaoiieaee nudaaa I iMnk i

• prooide an open and noponiw miiruiimiiii vtherv nudenn are abta u relm to it» msiraeiarbodia** teaehar and a friend.

• (voiiide a nuiiile enofronmem valwre siudenn liam some iniM mm bodt wlai and how dwy learn.

• let the mdenn knoer aha ii m cttar^e ae an linvi, OHMneiae. they «•« t * > a * M j , > a f ihviMKHRw.

niadBKs unlvnam oiiaCs npfoerf of I dear and defailmt dan

* * " ^ nwtena *aom «m if Acy cart d> ihe dan <wrt, he/dw is <iia)i itwn to htl^ dtem.

• >« the nudenn ioww wnaTs in ir ror tlRnr and h«r HwanrsswM heJDihemaciiieMviltaircanBrnieKin We.

a d b c e f

2. The kind of teachar Hike it one who:

• tells me exactly what the asaiymMnis are and how lo do them and is these when I need help.

• keeps oil my back because I don't like anybody tell­ing me what to do or how to act.

• outlines the course in dttaii, isn't <• •>> chan^nq Ms/hef mind, and makes sure lha< students loHow the cotjtse outline.

• • understands the game of qetting through school ar«l

kinwi how and when to borfans wiili stwIentSL

• gets students working loqeiher in dose hamsony by being mora a liwnd tlian a teachs.

• gins me access to tf« inlormation I need and leans me akme to learn in nay own way.

e b c f a d

«. Grades are part of eirwysdwaasvssima. I tWiilr yadlny

Iliac

• is giM aaodxr war IB "pat down' he .nxlmn awf •ha gaod grades jsuaMV Dis ta ihc tear^xr's lawirimi

• stMBld ba baed on staeofied: nomlardy irnt ne con. MIBHly and fairhr applied lis aH students.

• is bast M r in ilea whafs best for UK

ft9 rtsr leaefters. Thay inww

[ nor ba w compenriva or rigid- ihai it cansi conllier or hant reeftnqs aman^ the studen is.

,s probahly nacessary. bar I lend lo-relyon'myself in ifelwiimwnii whasher or nor I met my awn li*afninf|

f b c e a d

78

5 Esery student attends classes wi th others. T o me the other

clan membefs;

• aie responsible for their o w n education and are free

10 behave at they choose without imposing their values

on me.

• can do wiiaiever they want just so they don't try to ixidi me around or gut me involved.

• should sticli together and try to learn as much as they can by listening carelully to their teacher.

I ihouki realiie it is their responsibility to study hard and (oilow Ihe class outline il they expect to do wel l .

• need lo realize that the whole thing is a game and they

sometimes need to pull together i l they want to coma

out ahead.

• should vnork together not only to understand tha course content, but more important ly , to gam a better uiKlersIanding of each other.

d

b e c

f a

7. Not all people leain tha l a m . way. I think I learn best when:

• I can do the assignments my own way so I can get through as quickly and as easily as possible.

• I know what's expected ol me and the teacher lectures well and makes delinile assignments in the text lor mo to read.

• I learn the hard way through my own experience. I don't trust most things I reail or hear.

• I am made aware o l the available resources and then given complete lieeilom to explore a problem in my

• the teacher shows me step-by-step how to do Ihe assignments and is there to help me il I have problems.

• I am part o l a group where everyone openly shares their ideas and feelings with Ihe class.

f c

b

d e a

. Emy teacher h j t certain formal or informal d a i t r o o m lulft. I think IhaM rulai ar t :

• neceiury to preserve order in t h * c lau , and sttxlents who violate the rules ifKHikl be made to undersiand how important i( ii to follow the r u l t i .

• best when they are few, and effective if they succeed in putlirtg the burden of responsibdity on ifw stu­dents.

• generally made by the teacfwrt for the teachers and many rules don't give the student a chanca.

• uielut if they piorT>o(e harnMHty anwng students arxt don't cause hard feelings.

• neceuary to keep students from doing the wrong lliings and protect us from students w h o want to break the rules.

• may be necessary for some people, but I believe it's lomeiimei o.k. to br=ak rules in harmless ways.

c

d

b

a

e

f

8. Ad courses have some kind of tasting system. I think testing:

• creates too much competition among students and destroys the spirit of cooperation and friendliness that ihould exist in every classroom.

• is I good way for the teacher to find out which stu­dents paid attention in class and did their assignments.

• IS often a necessary measuring system yet many limes depersonalizes and fails to reltect what a person has actually learnad.

• is often iust a way teachers have of showing the power and control they have over students.

• ihould only be one source of grading and studants ihouU have other alternative ways to get a good final grade.

• should be planned and announced well in advance and students should be told exactly what material the lest will cover.

a e

d

b

f c

CENTEH FOR VALUES R E S E A R C H • D I R E C T O R S

Dl. Ctiales L. Hughes Or. Vincent S. F lowers 13110 Mill Giuve Lane 106 Thompson Drive Dtlfcit. Texas 75340 R ichardson. Texas 7 5 0 8 0

TOTAL I J

TOTAL ALL POINTS ASSIGNED TO EACH LETTER d a f c

TOTAL 12

b e =96

Appendix B

79

Values Profile of El Centro College

Students and Teachers

VALUES FOR LEARNING

80

A p p e n d i x C: P a t t e r n e d I n t e r v i e w

• '^^^'^^ ° u 5 ^ i ""^ ' ' ^ ^ ' ' ^°'' ^^^^ e x c e p t i o n a l l y good o r e x c e p t i o n a l l y b a d a b o u t y o u r e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e - e i t h e r y o u r p r e s e n t e d u c a t i o n o r any o t h e r c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n you have h a d .

T e l l me w h a t h a p p e n e d .

(1) How l o n g ago d i d t h i s happen?

(2) How l o n g d i d t h e f e e l i n g l a s t ? VJhat s p e c i f i c a l l y made t h e c h a n g e of f e e l i n g b e g i n ? When d i d i t e n d ?

(3) Was w h a t h a p p e n e d t y p i c a l of what was go ing on a t t h e t i m e ?

(4) T e l l me p r e c i s e l y why you f e l t t h e way you d i d a t t h e t i m e ?

(5) What d i d t h e s e e v e n t s mean t o you?

(6) Did t h e s e f e e l i n g s a f f e c t t h e way you performed i n e d u c a t i o n ? How? How long d i d t h i s go on?

(7) Can y o u g i v e me a s p e c i f i c example of t h e way i n w h i c h y o u r e d u c a t i o n a l pe r fo rmance was a f f e c t e d ?

(8) Did w h a t h a p p e n e d a f f e c t t h e way you f e l t abou t •the i n s t i t u t i o n o r make you f e e l good o r bad a b o u t t h e o c c u r r e n c e i t s e l f ?

(9) Did t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of what happened a t t h e t ime a f f e c t y o u r c a r e e r ? How?

(10) I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g e l s e you would l i k e t o say about t h e s e q u e n c e o f e v e n t s you d e s c r i b e d ?

A s e c o n d s e q u e n c e o p p o s i t e t h e f i r s t sequence was s o l i c i t e d u s i n g t h e same p r o c e d u r e .

81

Appendix D: L e t t e r of Approval

March 15, 1978

Mr Joseph A. Patterson

2155 55th St.

Lubbock, Tx. 79407

Dear Mr. Patterson:

In response to your letter dated 3/5/78, you have my

permission to duplicate and use the VSA values for learning

questionnaire to collect the value orientation data for

your research project. Also feel free to show the (1)

values for learning questionnaire, (2) method of scoring

the questionnaire, (3) values for learning personal pro­

file based on the El Centro study, and (4) one page com­

posite of the value system used in the VSA, in the appendix

section of your dissertation.

106 Thompson Dr.

Richardson, Tx. 75080