Factors affecting career choice of home economics and other ...

Order Number 8812320

Factors affecting career choice of home economics and other selected mrjors among Qatar University students

Abdulkarim, Fatima Abduiaziz Bakir, Fh.D.

The Ohio State University, 1988

Copyright ©1988 by Abduikarim, Fatima Abdulaxis Bakir. All righta reserved.

UMI300 N. Zceb Rd.Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. Glossy photographs or pages_____

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3. Photographs with dark background_____

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ____

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e______

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages.

8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

11. Page(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school orauthor.

12. Page(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages num bered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages_______

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received_________

16. Other______________________________ ___________ ____________________________

UMI

!

i

FACTORS AFFECTING CAREER CHOICE OF HOME ECONOMICS AND OTHER SELECTED MAJORS AMONG

QATAR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

D isse rta tio n

Presented in P a r t i a l F u lfillm en t of the Requirements fo r the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School

of The Ohio S ta te U niversity

by

Fatima Abdulaziz Ahdulkarim, B.A.

* * * * *

The Ohio S ta te U niversity

1983

D isse rta tio n Committee:

Sharon S. Redick Joan E. Gritzmacher Loren V. G e is tfe ld Donald R. Cruickshank

Approved by

Advisor College of Home Economics

Copyright by

Fatima Abdulaziz Abdulkarim

1988

In the name of Allah

The A ll-Com passionate, the A l l - K r c i f u l

To my p a ren ts , husband, and ch ild ren ,

I p resen t th i s humble worfc

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This resea rch i s th e c o lle c t iv e r e s u l t of the many people who

con trib u ted in sp e c ia l mays to ay f i r s t major w ritte n work.

F i r s t , thanks to God who g ives me the s tren g th to th in k and work

every minute of ay l i f e .

Second, my s in ce re ap p rec ia tio n i s ex <ded to the follow ing who

provided a ss is ta n c e w ith th is study:

— My ad v iso r, Dr. Sharon Redick,

study, fo r her time and fo r p.

throughout th is research e

--D r. Joan G ritzm acher, l ,

Cruikshank fo r serv ing as menc-

and inva luab le suggestions,

—Mike Loyd, fo r h is a ss is tan c e

—Judy Kauffman for -treat patience in typing th is document,

—Cathy Calhoun fo r her help in g,

—Dr. Wijdan B asit of Q atar U n iversity fo r her invaluab le

a ss is tan c e and continuous support throughout my graduate ca ree r,

—my fr ien d in the United S ta te s , Marilyn Cantwell, fo r her

understanding, kindness and enduring fr ien d sh ip throughout my years

as a graduate s tu d erc in the United S ta te s ,

i i i

oviding d ire c tio n fo r my

ten t support and guidance

s t f e ld , and Dr. Donald

...ittee and fo r th e i r time

m in is te rin g the p i lo t study,

—and f in a l ly , to my f r i e n d , AlAnood Al-Thani, Ib t i s a a Khader in

Qatar fo r th e i r in d isp e n s ib le and e n th u s ia s tic a ss is ta n c e in

adm inistering the q u estio n n aire a t Q atar U n iversity .

“-My b est f r ie n d Fatima MMadadi fo r her su p ro rt and

encouragement throughout my graduate s tudy .

Words of ap p rec ia tio n arc not enough to empress my h e a rt f e l t

thanks fo r the p a tien ce and encouragement received from my mother and

husband. I t mould have been extrem ely d i f f i c u l t to f in is h th is

document mithout th e i r unending support.

iv

VITA

1979........................................................................B .A ., Qatar U n iversityDoha, Qatar

1979-1980 ........................................................... T.A ., Department of HomeEconomics Education,Qatar U n iversity

1980-1982 ........................................................... Special Diploma in EducationHome Economics Education, Qatar U niversity

1982-present........................., „ ........................ Graduate A ss is ta n t, HomeEconomics Education,Qatar U niversity

1986........................................................................M.S., The Ohio S ta teU n iversity , Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major F ie ld : Home Economics Education

Studies in Home Economics EducationDr. Sharon Redick, Dr. Joan Gritzm acher, Dr. Ruth Dohner, and Dr. Jane t L aster

S tudies in Family Resource ManagementDr. Loren G e is tfe ld , Dr. Nancy M. Rudd, Dr. Kathryn S ta ffo rd , Dr. Margaret Sanik

Studies in Teacher Education Dr. Donald R. Cruickshank

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................... i i i

VITA.......................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES......................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................ x i

CHAPTERI INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

Statem ent of Problem..................................................... 8Purpose of the Study..................................................... 9Research Q uestions. . . . . . . . .............................. 10D e fin itio n of T e rm s..................................................... 11L im ita tions of the Study............................................. 12A ssum ptions...................................................................... 12

I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE.............................................................. 13Career Choice and Development of Career Goals . . 14

Teacher Education Students ...................................... 21Home Economics Teacher Education S tuden ts. . . 25

P ercep tion of Home Economics..................................... 27Demographic C h a ra c te r is tic s ........................................... 30

Gender of Teacher Education Students ................. 30Gender of Home Economics Teacher Education

S tuden ts .................................................................. 30Age of Teacher Education S tuden ts .................... 31Age of Home Economics Teacher Education

S tuden ts .................................................................. 32M arita l S tatus of Teacher Education

Students and Home Economics S tudents. . . . 32Family V ariables of Teacher Education

S tuden ts .................................................................. 32Family V ariables of Home Economics Teacher

Education S tuden ts............................................. 33High School Academic C h a ra c te r is t ic s .................... 34

Teacher Education Students ...................................... 34Home Economics Teacher Education S tuden ts. . . 35

C ollege Academic C h a ra c te r is t ic s ............................ 36Type of College and Academic C h a ra c te r is tic s

of Teacher Education Students .......................... 36Home Economics Teachers Education Students . . 37

v i

Page

CHAPTERSummary ............................................................... 38

I I I METHOD.................................................................................................Research Design .................................................................... 46P o p u la tion ................................................................................ 46In strum en ta tion .................................................................... 47P i lo t T e s t i n g ........................................................................ BOC o llec tio n of the Data....................................................... '->1Data A nalysis ........................................................................ 02

IV PRESENTATION OF RESULTS............................................................... 56Question 1 ................................................................................ 56S tu d en ts ' background........................................................... 57Family background ............................................................... 59High School Experience....................................................... 64C ollege Experiences ........................................................... 67Future G oals............................................................................ 68Question 2. ........................................................................ 71Question 3 ................................................................................ 76Q uestion 4 ................................................................................ 84Research Hypothesis 1 ...................................................... 86Research Hypothesis 2 ...................................................... 91Summary.................................................................................... 94

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, ANDRECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 96

Summary.................................................................................... 96F indings fo r Students C h a ra c te r is tic s ........................ 97F indings fo r the Most S ig n ific an t Factors

A ffec ting a S tu d en t's Choice of Major. . . . . 101Findings With Respect to the Image of Home

Economics.................................................................................102Findings Concerning A ttitu d es Toward Working

Women......................................................................................... 103Findings With Respect to the A ssociation

Between the S tuden ts ' A ttitu d e Toward Working Women and the S tu d en t's Background and Choiceof M a jo r .................................................................................104

Findings Concerning the A ssociation Between the S tu d en t's Image of Home Economics and the S tu d e n t's and Family Background, High School Experience, College Experience, A ttitu d e andChoice of Major.................................................................... 105

C o n c lu s io n s .................................................................................106Im p lica tio n s .................................................................................107Recommendations .................................................................... 109

v i i

Page

APPENDIX.......................................................................................................................I l lA Q uestionnaire in English ............................................................ 112B Q uestionnaire in A rabic.................................................................... 124C Data R e la tiv e to R esults ........................................................... 135

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................144

v i i i

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Research Q uestions/H ypotheses, R elatedQ uestionnaire Item s, and S ta t i s t i c a l A nalysis . . . . 54

2 S tu d en ts ' Backgrounds—-Home Economics lta jo rs andNon-Home Economics H ajors............................................... 58

3 Summary of Family Background of Home EconomicsMajors and Non-Home Economics Majors a t Qatar U n iv e r s i ty ..................... 61

4 Summary of High School Experience Data and CollegeExperience of Home Economics Majors and Non-Home Economics Majors a t Qatar U niversity .............................. 65

5 Summary o t Future Goals of Home Economics andNon-Home Economics Majors a t Qatar U n iv e rs ity . . . . 69

6 Summary of F actors In f lu e n t ia l in Choice of Majorfo r Home Economics Students and Non-Home Economics Majors a t Q atar U n iversity ................................................... 72

7 D iscrim inant A nalysis fo r .Host S ig n ific an t FactorA ffecting Choice of Major................................................ 74

8 Stepwise D iscrim inant A nalysis of S ig n if ic a n tFactors A ffec ting Choice of Major............................... 75

9 Mean Scores fo r Home Economics Image RatingScale (HEIRS)......................................................................... 77

10 Summary of Perception of Home Economics Students . . 79

11 Mean Scores fo r A ttitu d es Towards Working Women. . . 85

12 A nalysis of Variance of A ttitu d e Toward Working Women C la s s if ie d by M arital S ta tu s , Major, C lass,F a th e r 's Education, and M other's Education(Total A ttitu d e Scale) ........................................................... 87

ix

Table Page

13 A nalysis of Variance of A ttitu d e Toward Womenas Managers C la s s if ie d by M arital S ta tu s , Major,C lass, F a th e r 's Education, and M other's Education(Sub 1 ) ....................................................................... 89

14 A nalysis of Variance of A ttitu d e Toward Women asTeachers C la ss if ie d by M arita l S ta tu s , Major,C lass, F a th e r 's Education, and M other's Education(Sub 2 ) ............................................................................................. 90

15 A nalysis of Variance of General A ttitu d e TowardWomen C la s s if ie d by M arita l S ta tu s , Major, C lass,F a th e r 's Education, and M other's Education(Sub 3 ) ............................................................................................. 91

16 A nalysis of Variance of Borne Economics Image Rating Scale (HEIRS) Score C la ss if ie d by Age,M arita l S ta tu s , C itizen sh ip , Major, College C la s s if ic a t io n , F a th e r 's Education, and M other's Education, A ttending Home Economics C lass, andCollege GPA..................................................................................... 93

17 L inear degression Model of Home Economics ImageRating Scale (HEIRS) Score C la ss if ie d According to A ttitu d e Toward Working Women............................................... 94

18 Demographic C h a ra c te r is tic s of Female Sophomore and Senior Home Economics and Senior Science,Sociology and English Language M ajors.............................. 136

19 Summary of High School and College Experiencesof Home Economics, Science, Sociology, and E nglish Majors a t Q atar U n iversity ................................................... 137

20 S u g a ry of Future Goals of Home Economics, Science,Sociology, English Majors a t Qatar U n iv ers ity . . . . 138

21 Summary of Factors In f lu e n t ia l in Choice of Major. . 139

22 Response Frequency fo r the Home Economics ImageRating Scale (HEIRS) ................................................................ 140

zj Mean Scores of Home Economics Image Score fo r HomeEconomics, Science, Sociology, and English M ajors. . 142

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Sua*ary o£ Research S tu d ies ................................................... 39

x i

i

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Q atar i s one of the sm allest o i l s ta te s in the Arabian Gulf both

in terms of geographical a rea and popu la tion . I t c o n s is ts of an a r id

peninsula and is la n d s having a to ta l area of 11,437 square

k ilom eters , and i t i s s i tu a te d half-w ay along the w estern coast of

the Arabian G ulf.

Q atar has a d e se rt c lim ate w ith long, hot summers and mild

w inters w ith l i t t l e ra in . But due to Q a ta r 's a l t i tu d e , the average

hum idity, e sp e c ia lly in the in te r io r , is lower than the neighboring

regions in the Arabian Gulf. The tem perature during the long summers

averages between 22°C (72 F) and 46°C (115 F ) , and during the sho rt

w in ters between 7°C (45 F) and 25°C (77 F ) .

Th p resen t population of Qatar numbers approxim ately 270,000

in h a b ita n ts , the m ajo rity of whom liv e in the c a p ita l Doha, which is

the a d m in is tra tiv e cen te r of the country . Islam is the co u n try 's

o f f i c i a l r e l ig io n and Islam ic ju risprudence i s recognized as the

b asis of the le g a l system. Arabic i s the o f f i c i a l language of Q atar.

Although the trend towards m odernization began to emerge in Qatar

e a rly in the tw en tie th cen tu ry , the discovery of o i l and i t s

1

2

extensive production a f te r World War I I have had a tremendous impact

on fu r th e r development in the communities. O il has co n trib u ted to

changing the economic system from a t r a d i t io n a l economy, based upon

p earl d iv ing , f ish in g and lim ited farming a c t i v i t i e s , to a modern

economy based upon in d u s try , trad e and f in a n c ia l a c t i v i t i e s .

The S ta te of Q atar considers i t s manpower a most p recious and

enduring source of w ealth . T herefore, much a tte n tio n and concern a re

d ire c ted toward guiding the development of th is resou rce . I t w ill

req u ire the proper environment in which th is source can in te ra c t

p o s itiv e ly in order to help pave the way fo r a b e t te r environment,

s te e r the n a tio n 's p rogress and c o n trib u te to human c iv i l iz a t io n as a

whole.

I f the S ta te of Q atar i s to develop, and i f the revenues of o i l

are to be used fo r the b e n e fit of the people, the s ta te government

w ill have to gain co n tro l of i t s d estin y and resou rces. The f i r s t

s tep must be education . Before 1952 Q atar had no formal schools

o ffe rin g a modern academic sy llab u s . I t had only the t r a d i t io n a l

Koranic schools (lea rn in g about the Holy Book) o ffe rin g some educa­

tio n which, though im portan t, was not enough to confront the problems

of the modern s t a t e . Regular s ta te education began in 1952, and the

presen t th re e -s ta g e , 12-year system (elem entary, p repara to ry and

secondary) was implemented in 1956. The S ta te o ffe rs free schooling

to everyone a tten d in g a t a l l le v e ls of education . The S ta te su p p lies

s tuden ts with a l l m a te ria ls requ ired fo r th e ir academic work free of

charge, inc lud ing tra n sp o r ta tio n and h ea lth se rv ice s as w ell as

f in a n c ia l support to help in su re th e i r continued p a r t ic ip a t io n .

3

Special emphasis i s p laced on providing g i r l s o p p o rtu n itie s equal to

those given to boys. In 1973, the Higher Teacher T raining College

was opened and became the nucleus of the various o th er co lleg es of

the U n iv ers ity of Q atar. Qatar U n iversity i s s te a d ily expanding,

o ffe rin g more and more programs as the educational a sp ira tio n s A the

school ch ild ren in c re a se , e sp e c ia lly s in ce g i r l s a re now eager to

pursue h igher s tu d ie s . Attempts are made to lin k u n iv e rs ity s tu d ie s

to the co u n try 's needs, p a r t ic u la r ly in providing tra in e d eng ineers ,

teach e rs , s c ie n t i s t s and ad m in is tra to rs . The u n iv e rs ity i s c a lle d

upon to in te ra c t w ith the so c ie ty so as to be able to s a t i s f y the

co u n try 's needs fo r h igh ly q u a lif ie d , competent c i t iz e n s and leaders

who can shoulder the r e s p o n s ib i l i t ie s of socio-economic

re c o n stru c tio n .

Q atar U n iversity i s the only u n iv e rs ity in the country th a t

supp lies the so c ie ty w ith h ighly educated people. The s tu d en ts of

th is u n iv e rs ity w ill be the fu tu re leaders of Qatar so c ie ty .

Q atar U n iversity i s a p u b lic , academic and c u ltu ra l in s t i tu t io n

with an autonomous le g a l id e n ti ty and an independent budget. I t i s

concerned w ith a l l aspec ts of academic education and s c ie n t i f i c

research fo r the p rep a ra tio n of p ro fe ss io n a ls , te ch n ic ian s , and

ex p erts , to g e th er w ith the advan u»t of the a r ts and sc ien ces .

Q atar U n iversity s ta r te d w ith two co lleg es of education , one fo r

boys and the o th e r fo r g i r l s , and has continued to expand and

d iv e rs ify i t s a c t i v i t i e s . Today i t comprises s ix major co lleg es

namely: The College of Education, The College of Science, The

College of Humanities and Social Sciences, The College of Islam ic

4

S tud ies , The C ollege of Engineering and The College of A dm inistration

and Economics. A ll co lleg es o ffe r b a ch e lo r 's degrees. The number of

s tu d en ts in the u n iv e rs ity has grown from 150 in the year 1973-74 to

5,281 in 1986-87. The number of fa c u lty members has grown ra p id ly

since the beginning of u n iv e rs ity education in Q atar. In the aca­

demic year 1973-74, the fa c u lty members numbered 15; in 1986-87 th e re

were 453. P a rt of the co n trib u tio n to the o v e ra ll in c rease in the

s ize of Qatar U n iv ers ity has occurred in the College c£ Education.

The home economics program a t Qatar U n iversity i s a new program

which began in 1973 under the auspices of the College of Education.

When th i s program s ta r te d , th e re were not many s tu d en ts e n ro lle d ,

perhaps, because home economics in Q atari cu ltu re was viewed

p rim arily as a sewing and cooking program. Enrollment in home

economics a t Q atar U n iversity has been in c reasin g g radua lly since

1973. A ll of the s tu d en ts who a re en ro lled in the home economics

program are m ajoring in Home Economics Education w ith an emphasis on

e ith e r c h ild development or n u tr i t io n .

The home economics program a t Qatar has been in ex isten ce only 15

years, thus l i t t l e da ta i s av a ilab le to d ire c t i t s fu tu re . However,

reviewing data from o th er co u n trie s , p a r t ic u la r ly the United S ta te s ,

could be u sefu l in considering research e f f o r t s .

Previous s tu d ie s have produced p ro f ile s of home economics

studen ts a tten d in g co lleg es and u n iv e rs i t ie s in the United ta te s .

Also recen t surveys in the United S ta te s have amassed d esc rip ive

data concerning s tu d e n ts ' backgrounds, cu rricu lu m -re la ted

experiences, in f lu e n t ia l persons and im portant fa c to rs e ffe c t in g :he

5

choice of major and l i f e g oa ls, a t t i tu d e and s tu d e n ts ' images about

home economics (Whitehead, Osborn and Stevens, 1956,* Howell and

P aren t, 1979; S to u t, e t . a l . , 1977; P u rn e ll, 1980; Aadland, e t . a l . ,

1983; White, 1985; Young and Johnson, 1986).

Howell and Parent (1979) say th a t managers and designers of home

economics c u rr ic u la as w ell as those advising in d iv id u a ls making

educational and ca ree r choices should find th a t knowledge of

background experiences, goals and a t t i tu d e s of contemporary home

economics s tu d en ts w ill f a c i l i t a t e th e i r ad m in is tra tiv e and

counseling e f f o r t s .

Women's c a ree r development has re c en tly received increased

reco g n itio n in to d a y 's so c ie ty . Equal r ig h ts to work and e q u a lity of

employment o p p o rtu n itie s comprise the c e n tra l th ru s ts fo r change in a

country where 90 percen t of a l l women w ill work a t some time in th e i r

l iv e s (S tinson , 1978). A dearth of th e o re t ic a l bases fo r research

re la t in g to the dynamics of women's caree r development p o in ts to the

need fo r em pirica l da ta on academic and vocational progress (Wolfson,

1976; Ory and H e lfrich , 1978). While these au thors spoke of American

women, s im ila r s tatem ents can be made abc^t Q atari women.

In the fu tu re a new d is t in c t ch arac te r fo r Q atari women w ill

emerge which combines both the t r a d i t io n and the t r a n s i t io n a l

p re sen t, where more p o s itiv e tendencies are ga thering momentum. In

the 1960s and e a r ly 1970s, Q atari women were simply not expected to

go out and take jo b s ; so c ie ty believed th e i r b asic ro le was in the

house. I t was considered to be the husband's o b lig a tio n to provide

fo r the fam ily . Education has in fluenced the a t t i tu d e s of so c ie ty in

6

favor of women working and has provided a labo r market fo r women.

Education was the f i e ld in which, i n i t i a l l y , most jobs became

a v a ila b le . By the mid 1970s, u n iv e rs ity graduates were ready to

en te r the teach ing p ro fessio n and the h ie rarchy of school

ad m in is tra tio n . According to the Personnel Departm ent's Annual

Report of 1980, the p roportion of Q atari women employed in education

c o n s ti tu te d over h a lf of the to ta l female work force (1,317 out of

2 ,333). Teaching has been mainly a woman's occupation (Abu suad,

1984).

The ro le of women has been undergoing change in most co u n trie s in

the world in recen t y e a rs . Beyond her t r a d i t io n a l ta sk s as a

housew ife, the ro le s a woman can play have been broadened to include

p a r tic ip a tio n in a l l aspects of so c ie ty . U n til re c e n tly , most women

were lim ited by having and rea rin g c h ild ren , tak ing care of th e i r

husbands and e th e r domestic r e s p o n s ib i l i t ie s . These p e rsp ec tiv es

have changed due to the changes w ith in the fam ily, changes in the

labor market and changes in sex ro le s fo r both males and fem ales.

..apabel P a ta i (1967:1), s ta te s :

. . .Throughout the world women have moved toward g re a te r freedom and have achieved g re a te r e q u a lity w ith men both w ith in and o u ts id e the fam ily in the sexual, s o c ia l , occupationa l, economic p o l i t i c a l , and c u ltu ra l realm s. The o ld o rd er, which confined women to the home as se rv an ts , andh e lp ers to th e i r menfolk, has been, or i s in the process ofbeing rep laced by a new one in which women in c reas in g ly undertake to f i l l many ro le s w ith in the home as w ives, m others, and homemakers, and ou tside i t , as p a rtn e rs and co-workers of men in a l l types of e n te rp r is e s .

This trend has a ffe c te d most p a r ts of the world. For in s ta n ce , in

the 1970 's, a time of rap id so c ia l change in the developing co u n trie s

and in the e f fe c ts of human r ig h ts , the women's movements has had a

v a r ie ty of p o s itiv e consequences fo r women. This movement of so c ia l

change embodies new ro le s fo r women in which they c o n trib u te more

eq u a lly . As O 'Barr (1967:1) s ta te s :

The s o c ia l , economic, and p o l i t i c a l co n trib u tio n s women maketo th e i r communities and na tions are being a lte re d infundamental ways.

In the summary, a f te r the discovery of o i l , many changes took

place in the so c ie ty . One of the most im portant changes th a t

e ffe c ted the so c ie ty occurred in so c ia l and c u ltu ra l l i f e .

S o c io -cu ltu ra l change impacted on the ro le of women in so c ie ty .

Women began to share men’s d a ily a c t i v i t i e s such as occupations,

so c ia l even ts . A lso, the in fluence of education and of Western

c u ltu re came channeled through communication systems such as

te le v is io n , ra d io , newspapers, e t c . , and had g rea t p o s itiv e im pact.

Consequently, fundamental changes have taken place in a l l aspec ts of

l i f e , e sp e c ia lly in women's so c ia l and le g a l s ta tu s . Work p a tte rn s

during the 1960s re f le c te d the a v a ilab le o p p o rtu n itie s , e sp e c ia lly in

education and n u rs in g , a t a time when the government was

concen tra ting i t s e f f o r t s on bu ild ing the c o u n try 's in f r a s tru c tu re

and planning fo r ev er-in c reas in g standard of w elfare and so c ia l

s e rv ic e s . In the e a r ly 1970s, sev era l changes occurred which opened

new doors fo r Q a tari women in the job m arket. These were centered

b a s ic a lly around the government's investm ents in in d u s try and

education .

8

These events provided impetus fo r developing and implementing a

b a ch e lo r 's degree program in home economics a t Q atar U n iv ers ity .

Thus, women had increased opportun ity fo r advanced education and

en try in to the lab o r fo rce .

Statement of Problem

There i s a lack of inform ation about s tuden ts who choose home

economics majors a t Q atar U n iv ers ity . A dditional inform ation would

be u sefu l to e f fe c t iv e ly in c rease enro llm ent. This resea rch er

b e liev es th a t before a d d itio n a l s tu den ts can be a t t r a c te d in to home

economics, i t i s im perative to determ ine the r e la t iv e importance of

se le c ted v a ria b le s on the choice of major in order to d is tin g u ish

home economics s tu d en ts from studen ts in o ther m ajors. Such

inform ation would be of value to aid in the recru itm ent of s tu d en ts .

Knowledge about s tu d en ts who choose to e n ro ll in the d if f e r e n t home

economics majors i s needed to increase the e ff ic ie n c y of the

re c ru it in g program (Aadland, Dunkelberger, Honlar and P u rc e ll,

1983). R ecru iting s tu d en ts to e n ro ll in home economics courses, as

w ell as re c ru it in g persons to become home economics p ro fe s s io n a ls , is

one of the most im portant functions of home economics teach ers a t a l l

le v e ls (Meyer, Crawford, and K laurens, 1975? Smith, 1975).

F u rth e r, th i s re sea rch er b e liev es th a t ex p lo ra tion of answers to

questions concerning the c h a ra c te r is t ic s of studen ts who e le c t home

economics as th e i r major in Qatar U n iversity w ill be u sefu l fo r

program planning and s e l f ev alu a tio n . Knowledge of the

9

c h a r a c te r is t ic s and d iffe ren ces among s tu d en ts can help teach ers to

d i f f e r e n t ia te between le a rn e rs and to s e le c t teaching methods

app ro p ria te fo r the p a r t ic u la r s tu den ts involved. According to

Peterson and Rascoe (1983), examining the c h a ra c te r is t ic s of home

economics s tu den ts can be of value in numerous ways. I t w ill enable

home economics to r e c r u i t more s tu d en ts , thereby in su rin g the

con tinua tion and streng then ing of the p ro fessio n and i t s ro le in

meeting the needs of fa m ilie s . I t w ill help mentors prepare studen ts

fo r th e i r inc reasin g ly ac tiv e ro le s and r e s p o n s ib i l i t ie s as

p ro fess io n a ls in the home economics d is c ip lin e s .

No study has been done of home economics majors a t Qatar

U n iv ers ity . And, l i t t l e documented inform ation i s re a d ily av a ilab le

concerning the educational and socio-economic backgrounds of

s tu d en ts , or th e i r percep tions and a t t i tu d e s . T herefore, a survey

designed to o b ta in such data would provide needed inform ation fo r

educational p lanning .

Purpose of the study

The purpose in th is study i s to determ ine the r e la t iv e importance

of se le c ted v a ria b le s on s tu d en ts ' choice of a major a t Qatar

U n iv ers ity . In th is study the resea rch er examines fa c to rs such as

fam ily background, high school experiences, co llege experiences,

reason fo r choosing home economics as a f ie ld of study, l i f e g oa ls,

a t t i tu d e towards working women and image of home economics.

S p e c if ic a lly , the o b jec tiv es of the study were to ;

10

1. develop a p ro f i le of studen ts c u rre n tly m ajoring in home

economics education a t Qatar U n iversity .

2 . compare se le c te d v a riab le s of Qatar U n iversity home

economics education majors to those of o ther majors a t the

same u n iv e rs ity .

3. determ ine re la tio n sh ip s among those se le c ted v a r ia b le s .

Research Questions

The follow ing research questions have been chosen to d ire c t the

study:

1. What are the c h a ra c te r is t ic s of female s tu den ts majoring in

home economics and se lec ted non-home economics majors a t

Q atar U n iversity in terms of

1) S tuden ts ' background

2) Family background

3) High school experiences

4) College experiences

5) Future goals

2. Vhat are the most s ig n if ic a n t fa c to rs a ffe c tin g a s tu d e n t 's

choice of major?

3. Vhat image of home economics i s held by s tu d en ts en ro lled in

home economics majors and by s tu den ts in o th e r majors?

4 . Vhat a t t i tu d e s toward working women are held by s tu den ts

en ro lled in home economics majors and by s tu den ts in o ther

majors?

The hypotheses to be addressed in th i s study are as fo llow s:

1. A p o s itiv e a sso c ia tio n e x is ts between the s tu d e n t 's

a t t i tu d e s toward working women and the s tu d e n ts ' background,

p a re n ts ' education , and choice of major.

2. A p o s itiv e a sso c ia tio n e x is ts between the s tu d e n ts ' image of

home economics and the s tu d e n ts ' background, p a re n ts '

education, high school experiences, co lleg e experiences, and

choice of m ajor.

D efin itio n of Terms

For the purpose in th is study , the follow ing d e f in i t io n s w ill be

app lied which have been adapted from d e f in it io n s used by Howell and

Parent (1979) and VThite (1985):

S tu d en ts ' background — v a ria b le s co n sis t of the general

demographic inform ation inc lud ing age, m a rita l s ta tu s ,

country of c it iz e n s h ip .

Family background — v a ria b le s c o n s is t of p a ren ta l employment

s ta tu s and educational achievements and income le v e l .

P a re n ts ' occupation — categorized as fo llow s: chairperson ,

which inc ludes department heads of one of the government

m in is try ; p ro fess io n a l which in c lu d es, te ac h e rs , doc to rs ,

d e n t is t , nu rse , lawyers; and the employee inc ludes jobs with

government such as accountant, foreman, s e c re ta r ie s .

High school experience — data re la te d to grade percentage

a ttend ing home economics c la s s e s , in f lu e n t ia l course.

12

College experience — d a ta re la te d to m ajo r(s), grade le v e l

c la s s i f ic a t io n , grade po in t average.

S ig n if ic a n t o th e rs — d if fe re n t s ta tu se s used to desc rib e a

v a r ie ty of p o te n tia l re la tio n sh ip s th a t s tu d en ts might

perceive as having influenced th e i r decis io n to choose home

economics as a major in co lleg e .

Future goals - - a re both id e a l i s t i c a sp ira tio n s ard r e a l i s t i c

ex p ec ta tio n s re la te d to fu tu re educational p lans, caree r

choice and l i f e s ty le .

Image of home economics — the mental conception held by home

economics s tu d en ts th a t i s symbolic of th e i r a t t i tu d e ,

fe e lin g s and o r ie n ta tio n toward the p ro fess io n .

L im itations of the Study

Because th is study involved the population of female s tu d en ts in

se le c ted majors a t Qatar U n iversity , i t s find ings can not be

genera lized fo r o ther popu la tions. A s e lf - r e p o r t instrum ent was used

in th is study and the weaknesses of such instrum ents would be a

l im ita tio n to th i s study .

Assumptions

For the purposes in th is study i t was assumed th a t s tu den ts were

honest in rep o rtin g th e i r responses, and they would provide accurate

inform ation on the s e lf - re p o r tin g instrum ent. F u rth er, th e i r percep­

tio n s would provide a v a lid data base fo r education'*! decis ion

making.

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The recen t p u b lic a tio n of sev e ra l documents regard ing the s ta te

of a f f a i r s of American education has sp o tlig h te d the pub lic concern

fo r e f fe c t iv e , q u a li ty teach ing . I t was in e v ita b le th a t one focus of

concern would be teach er p rep ara tio n programs. The in v e s tig a tio n was

d ire c te d to the m u ltip le v a ria b le s of teach ing p rep a ra tio n programs.

Curickshank (1984) p re sen ts primary v a ria b le s ex tan t in the f ie ld of

p re se rv ice teach er education as: teacher educato rs , the s tu d en ts ,

the curricu lum , the in s tru c tio n , the o v e ra ll contex t and, fu r th e r ,

how th ese fa c to rs r e la te to e f fe c t iv e teaching i f decis ions about

accepting re s p o n s ib i l i ty fo r education a re to be r e a l i s t i c .

This sec tio n i s an in v e s tig a tio n in to the resea rch of one of

these v a r ia b le s , the teacher education s tu d en ts . L ite ra tu re which

describes teacher education studen ts i s not p le n t i f u l , ye t th e re

seems to be sev e ra l l in e s of inqu iry in th is a rea . Caution must be

used when attem pting to draw conclusions about teacher education

stu d en ts because the methodology and con tex t of the s tu d ie s vary

w idely.

What we know about teacher education studen ts lo g ic a lly begins

with who they a re . An understanding of th e i r c h a ra c te r is t ic s may

help to determ ine i f any predisposing fa c to rs in fluence the s e le c tio n

13

14

of teach ing as an occupation. Host previous s tu d ie s done deal w ith

(1) c a ree r choice and developnent of caree r g o a ls; (2) percep tion of

hone economics education ; (3) teacher education stu d en ts demographic

c h a r a c te r is t ic s ; (4) academic c h a r a c te r is t ic s ; and (5) co llege

s e le c tio n and a ttendance .

CAREER CHOICE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CAREER GOALS

Kany th e o rie s of vocational development have been d iscussed in

the l i t e r a tu r e such as G inzberg 's theory , Super's theory , H olland 's

theory and B laus' theory (Child, 1977).

Probably the th e o rie s most re lev an t to th is study are th e o rie s

which consider the causal in fluences in vocational decision-m aking

and in defin ing occupational in te r e s t . One such theory i s H olland 's

theory which assumes th a t , a t the time of vocational choice, the

person i s the product of the in te ra c t io n of h is p a r t ic u la r h e red ity

with a v a r ie ty of c u ltu ra l and personal fo rces inc lud ing p eers ,

p a ren ts and s ig n if ic a n t a d u lts ; h is so c ia l c la s s ; c u ltu re ; and the

physica l environment.

Each person has a l i f e s ty le compounded from va lues, in te r e s t s ,

a p titu d e s , p e rso n a lity fa c to rs , in te ll ig e n c e and se lf-co n cep t which

helps to o r ie n t him or her in d if fe r in g degrees towards the s ix

occupational environments which a re :

1. M otoric: which includes lab o re r and machine o p e ra to r.

2. I n te l le c tu a l : which includes p h y s ic is t, an th ro p o lo g is t, and

b io lo g is t .

15

3. Supportive: which includes so c ia l worker, te ach e r, and

v o catio n al counselor.

4. Conforming: which includes se c re ta ry , bookkeeper, and

c le rk .

5. Persuasive : which includes salesman, p o l i t ic ia n , and

p u b lic ity o f f ic e r .

6. A es th e tic : which includes m usician, p oe t, w r ite r , and

photographer. (Child, 1977)

According to H olland 's theo ry , fo r every in d iv id u a l one can

a rr iv e a t a rank order of h is or her o r ie n ta tio n by using measures of

occupational in te r e s t s , p e rso n a lity , values and needs. V ocational

choice i s an expression of p e rso n a lity , r e f le c t in g a lso the

in d iv id u a l 's m otivation , knowledge, and a b i l i ty .

The o th er theory which i s u sefu l to th is study i s B lau 's theory

which focuses on e x te rn a l fa c to rs . His model attem pts to show the

equally dominant ro le of so c ia l agencies in shaping a p e rso n 's

h ie ra rch y of p re fe ren ces . I t a lso r a is e s the im portant is su e of

socio-economic and lab o r requirem ents which mediate the s e le c tio n

p rocess.

From these th e o rie s i t appears th a t the choice of a caree r i s the

product of in te rn a l and e x te rn a l f a c to r s . In te rn a l fa c to rs r e f e r to

va lues, in t e r e s t s , and a p titu d e s , while ex tern a l fa c to rs r e f e r to

socio-economic fa c to r s . There a re some s tu d ie s which support these

th e o r ie s . For example, a study done by Suad Bdair (1965) (c ite d in

Abdulhamid, 1979) found th a t choice of u n iv e rs ity major depends on

16

sev e ra l fa c to rs such as a p e rso n 's in te r e s t s , economic fa c to rs and

fam ily in flu en ce .

To go from general to s p e c if ic , th e re i s a study done on stu d en ts

who chose teach ing as a c a ree r . Abdulhamid (1979) conducted a study

a t Q atar U n iversity to compare s tu d e n ts ' percep tion of th e i r major

and the re la tio n s h ip of th is to th e i r ca ree r choice. The data were

c o lle c te d from 233 s tu den ts en ro lled in 1978 and 297 s tu d en ts

en ro lled in 1979. He a lso found four main reasons fo r s e le c tin g

teach ing as a c a ree r inc lud ing in te r e s t in teach ing , the d e s ire to

prepare fo r a c a ree r, the value of teaching as a p ro fessio n to the

so c ie ty and fam ily in flu en ce .

Suchner and More (1975) found th a t gender continues to p lay an

im portant ro le in occupational cho ice. Shinar (1975) examined sex

ste reo ty p es in occupations from th ree p e rsp ec tiv e s: the p roportion

of males and fem ales in s p e c if ic jo b s , the judged app rop ria teness of

c e r ta in job t i t l e s fo r both sexes, and judgments of inheren t

requirem ents of occupations according to sex. The r e s u l t s of

S h in a r 's study in d ic a te th a t occupations were very c le a r ly sex

re la te d , and in very s im ila r ways, reg a rd le ss of the th ree vantage

p o in ts s tu d ied . In a d d itio n , both males and females tend to

s tereo ty p e occupations in the same way.

S h in a r 's study (1975) examined the n a tu re of sex s te reo ty p es of

occupations as they e x is t among co llege s tu d en ts . The method of

e l i c i t in g sex s te reo ty p es of occupations was d is t in c t iv e in th a t

th ree types of ra t in g c r i t e r i a were used, each emphasizing a d i f f e r ­

ent aspect of p e rcep tio n . On the b a sis of th ese , ra tin g s of

17

occupations as m asculine, fem inine, or n e u tra l were subsequently

made. The r e s u l t s in d ic a te th a t sex s tereo ty p es of occupations were

c le a r ly defined and held in common by both co llege men and co llege

women.

Research by B arnett (1975) s tu d ied sex d iffe ren ces and age trends

as they re la te to occupational preferences and aversions and

occupational p re s t ig e . His study used 1,531 male and 988 female

middle and upper-m iddle c la ss su b je c ts , ages 9 through 17, to t e s t

the hypothesis th a t females learn e a r ly to avoid h ig h -p res tig e

occupations. These re la tio n sh ip s had not been examined p rev io u sly .

Rank-order c o rre la tio n c o e f f ic ie n ts between em pirica lly e s ta b lish e d

p re s tig e rankings and preference and aversion rankings were

c a lcu la ted se p a ra te ly fo r each sex a t each age. The re la tio n sh ip s

between preference and p re s tig e were p o s itiv e and stro n g er fo r the

males than fo r the fem ales. Those between aversion and p re s tig e were

p o s itiv e and s tro n g e r fo r females than fo r males. Sign t e s t fo r both

re la tio n sh ip s was s ig n if ic a n t . Males le a rn to p re fe r p re s tig io u s

occupations; females le a rn to avoid them.

Sex ro le se lf-c o n ce p ts are in c reas in g ly e ffe c tin g choice of

l i f e s ty l e fo r most women (Vogel, Broverman and Clarkson, 1975). In

fa c t , "sexual typ ing o f occupations is as pervasive and p e r s is te n t as

occupational s te reo ty p in g and sex ro le s te reo typ ing are in the

American so c ie ty " (S hinar, 1975, p. 108).

Some fac to r in f lu e n t ia l in the d ire c tio n of a woman's choice are

m other's education , a t t i tu d e s toward women's ro le% re l ig io n , and

grade p o in t average (McEwen, 1975). A conceptual framework fo r the

18

caree r development p a tte rn s of co lleg e women was p o s tu la ted by

Zytowski (Volfson, 1976). He th eo rized th a t m o tiv a tio n a l,

environm ental, and in h eren t personal c h a r a c te r is t ic s in te r a c t to

shape a woman's c a ree r development. Values, in te r e s t s , in te l l ig e n c e ,

and s i tu a t io n a l events are some of the s p e c if ic co n trib u tin g

elem ents.

Ginzberg and h is co lleagues po in ted to some valuable conditions

p resen t in the process of vocational development and choice which

have s in ce been e lab o ra ted by Super. B as ica lly , occupational choice

i s preceded by a gradual developmental process from childhood through

adolescence. The process i s la rg e ly i r r e v e r s ib le and the f in a l

choice i s e s s e n t ia l ly a compromise between sev e ra l p o s s ib i l i t i e s

a v a ilab le a t the moment of choice. For an understanding of the p a rt

played by home and school, one need to know something about

in d iv id u a l a b i l i t i e s , in te r e s t s , p e rso n a lity , occupation,

se lf-co n cep ts and self-know ledge in order to a sc e r ta in whether a

choice i s r e a l i s t i c and app rop ria te fo r a p a r t ic u la r person.

Super s tre s s e s the in te ra c t iv e e f fe c ts of personal and s o c ia l

fa c to rs and the p a r t they play in forming a se lf -c o n c e p t. Another

po in t i s h is emphasis on development as a continuous process which

follow s a sequence of c h a ra c te r is t ic s tages only lo o se ly connected

w ith ch ronolog ical age.

Brown (1984), reviewing the l i t e r a tu r e on occupational choice,

found th a t not u n t i l 1975 d id women's caree r development, in the

c u rre n tly accepted view as a life lo n g p rocess, begin to be s tud ied

ex ten s iv e ly . In a review of the l i t e r a tu r e published in 1970, Brown

19

included only a handful of s tu d ie s w ith women as s u b je c ts . E arly

caree r development th e o r is ts such as Super and Ginzberg gave primacy

to women's homemaker ro le . Although in l a te r years they t r i e d to

take in to account gender and o th er so c io c u ltu ra l demographic

v a r ia b le s , n e ith e r has developed p ro p o sitio n s th a t sp ec ify the

e f fe c ts of these v a ria b le s (Brooks, 1984).

Kieva and Gutek (1981) c a re fu lly d is tin g u ish ed between women's

caree r choices (defined as p references) and the jobs or occupations

they f in a l ly pursued. Since p e rso n a lity v a ria b le s in fluence the

form er, the process i s mainly p sycho log ica l. The l a t e r , however, i s

in fluenced by a number of demographic v a ria b le s and economic

c o n s id e ra tio n s .

Gutek and Larwood (1987), as a r e s u l t of th e i r l i t e r a tu r e search ,

strengthened the suggestion th a t th e re a re a t le a s t th ree groups of

women w ith re fe ren ce to caree r commitment: those committed to

n o n -tra d it io n a l c a re e rs , committed to t r a d i t io n a l c a re e rs , or

committed to the homemaker ro le . Osipow (1983) c ite d changes in the

p roportions of women in various n o n -tra d it io n a l occupations over the

past two to th re e decades as evidence th a t sex -ste reo typed a t t i tu d e s

toward work and work ro le s are not impervious to change. He c ite d

sev e ra l s tu d ie s , inc lud ing a c ro s s -se c tio n a l comparison of women a t

th ree educa tiona l le v e ls , th a t in d ica ted th a t d e s ire fo r m arriage was

an im portant c a ree r v a riab le a t the ju n io r high school le v e l and an

im portant aspect of planning by the time women reached co lleg e .

Plans a t a l l th re e le v e ls included a combination of work, m arriage,

and fam ily r e s p o n s ib i l i t ie s .

20

Carney and Morgan (1981) compared the percep tions of co lleg e

women choosing n o n - tra d it io n a l c a ree rs w ith those choosing

t r a d i t io n a l c a re e rs . They found th a t women choosing n o n - tra d it io n a l

c a ree rs had h igher achievement t e s t sco res , higher degree

a sp ira tio n s , f e l t b e t te r prepared in mathematics, came from h igher

income le v e ls , and viewed women’s ro le s ou tside the home as le ss

r e s t r i c t iv e .

O liver (1975) compared the p a re n ta l antecedents of c a ree r versus

homemaking o r ie n ta t io n in co llege women. She found th a t fa th e rs

appear to be more im portant than mothers in determ ining the degree of

caree r commitment fo r th e i r daughters.

A c le a r p ic tu re of th e caree r development process fo r women has

not y e t emerged, and i t may w ell be premature to form ulate a theory

th a t exp lains i t , as i t has been l i t t l e more than a decade since

dram atic changes in women's ro le in the working world began to take

p lace . Given th a t caree r development i s viewed as l i f e long p rocess,

involving demographic, socio-econom ic, educational and a t t i tu d e , much

more research i s obviously needed.

In ad d itio n to research devoted to the ex te rn a l and environm ental

fa c to rs in flu en c in g caree r choice among co llege s tu d en ts , i t i s a lso

h e lp fu l to in v e s t ig a te the s tu d e n ts ' own percep tions of the teach ing

p ro fess io n .

Many s tu d ie s of teacher education stu d en ts have been done

regard ing th e i r a t t i tu d e s o r percep tions about teaching and th e i r

p ro fess io n a l p re p a ra tio n . Most of those s tu d ie s have used L ik ert

21

type sca le s or semantic d i f f e r e n t ia l sca le s as measures of a t t i tu d e s

or p e rcep tio n s .

Teacher Education Students

Many s tu d ie s of teacher education studen ts have been done re ­

garding th e i r a t t i tu d e s about teach ing . An im portant component of

the knowledge about teacher education studen ts i s understanding th e i r

a t t i tu d e s . Thurston defined the term a t t i tu d e as " . . . t h e degree of

p o s itiv e or negative a f fe c t a sso c ia ted with some psychological

ob jec t" fThurston, 1946, p . 39, c ite d in Redick, 1974). The psycho­

lo g ic a l ob ject can be a phrase, symbol, person, an idea toward which

people can have p o s it iv e or negative fe e lin g s . Callahan (1980) con­

s id e rs the s tu d e n ts ' a t t i tu d e s tru c tu re as one of the most in flu en ­

t i a l aspects of the teaching learn in g p rocess . Thus, educational

p ra c tic e s must account fo r a t t i tu d e s in order to be e f fe c t iv e .

Book and Freeman (1984) repo rted th a t elem entary teacher

can d id a tes ' reasons fo r choosing teaching as a career i s to s a t i s f y

the d e s ire to work w ith ch ild ren ; w hile secondary teacher cand idates

were more l ik e ly to be a t tr a c te d to teaching by th e i r d e s ire to teach

su b jec t m atte r. Both elem entary and secondary teacher candidates

were more l ik e ly to check two reasons; (a) "through teach ing I can

help s tu den ts gain a sense of personal achievement and se lf-esteem "

and (b) "through teaching I can help youngsters become ex c ited about

learn in g new th in g s ." This study a lso found l i t t l e support fo r the

popular b e lie f th a t a r e la t iv e ly high proportion of in d iv id u a ls en te r

teaching because they are not ab le to "make the grade" in th e i r

22

p u rsu it of o th e r c a re e rs . However, male secondary teacher candidates

(21 percen t) were more l ik e ly than e i th e r elem entary (12 percen t) or

secondary female teach er candidates (8 percent) to say th a t they

chose teaching because they were unsuccessful in courses th a t would

have prepared them fo r th e i r i n i t i a l choice of c a ree r.

Wood (1978) rep o rted th a t personal experience w ith ch ild ren and

a l t r u i s t i c reasons were most freq u en tly c ite d as reasons fo r wanting

to become a te a c h e r. Greene (1980) reported th a t s tu den ts se le c ted

education because teach ing appealed to them, they lik ed ch ild re n ,

employment o p p o rtu n itie s were good and education programs were

challeng ing . C harters (1963) f e l t th a t p re s tig e was a s tro n g

in flu en ce on those who en tered teach ing . "The p re s tig e of teaching

may operate noc only as a s e le c tiv e fo rce—by a t t r a c t in g c e r ta in

people and "d riv in g out" o th e r people—but as a fo rce a ffe c tin g

d ir e c t ly the performance of incumbents" (p. 747). Andrew (1983) in a

study of teacher education studen ts in a 5-year program a t the

U niversity of New Hampshire compared those favoring a ca ree r in

teaching with those not favoring such a c a ree r. In g en era l, s tuden ts

favoring a ca ree r in teach ing were more concerned w ith help ing

o th e rs , job v a r ie ty , autonomy and v aca tio n s . Students not favoring a

caree r in teaching were more concerned w ith s a la ry , lack of

f l e x ib i l i t y , red tap e , personal c o n f l ic t , re s p o n s ib i l i ty , ex tra

d u tie s and many o th e rs (p. 22). Sharp and H irshfe ld (1975) found

th a t the caree r goals of s tu d en ts in education were more s t 'b l e than

s tu d en ts in o th e r d is c ip l in e s . Book, Byers and Freeman (1983)

rep o rted th a t 38 percen t of the s tu d en ts en te rin g education a t

23

Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity had decided to be teachers p r io r to

graduating from high school.

Johnson (1983) rep o rted th a t the r e s u l ts of h is survey of 215

co llege freshmen education majors shoved four main reasons fo r

s e le c tin g a teach ing c a re e r : fam ily in flu en ce , p o s itiv e and negative

examples by th e i r te ac h e rs , personal experiences and personal

b e n e f its .

F a r r e l l (1980), rep o rted some reasons fo r becoming a teacher

revealed by ju n io r le v e l co llege s tu d en ts : so c ia l reasons (25%)

(love c h ild ren , l ik e ch ild re n , l ik e to work with c h ild re n ) , sp ec ia l

in te r e s t (19%) (wanted to teach a sp e c if ic group of s tu d en ts or teach

a sp e c if ic s u b je c t) , teach ing i s a challenging p ro fessio n (11%), and

wanted to tra n s fe r th e i r knowledge and s k i l l s to o ther people (10%).

Andrew (1983) rep o rted the follow ing fa c to rs in favor of a caree r

in teach ing : he lp ing human growth (27% of men, 65% of women);

enjoyment of ch ild ren (4.5% men, 32.5% women); and love of su b jec t

(3% men, 21% women).

Jan tzen (1981) has conducted a study regard ing why teachers

choose to teach . From 1946 to 1979, he adm inistered a 16-item

c h e c k lis t f iv e tim es to s tu d en ts in th ree C a lifo rn ia in s t i tu t io n s

with over 200 s tu d en ts per sampling. R esults in d ic a te th a t studen ts

s e le c t teaching most o ften because of th e i r in te r e s t in dealing with

ch ild ren as w ell as th e i r b e lie f th a t i t provides l i f e lo n g lea rn in g

o p p o rtu n itie s .

Book, Byers, and Freeman (1983) conducted a study of 473 studen ts

en terin g teacher education a t Michigan S ta te U n iv ers ity . Their

24

fin d in g s in d ica ted th a t s tu den ts be lieved th a t the most im portant

goal of teaching was enhancing the se lf-co n cep t of s tu d en ts (46.1%).

This was considerab ly h igher than the goal of promoting academic

achievement (30.6%). Coupled w ith the fin d ings th a t teach ers f e l t

confiden t about th e i r a b i l i ty to teach and the fa c t th a t they do not

h igh ly value pedagogy courses, the resea rch er suggested th a t many

teacher education s tu d en ts may f a i l to recognize the importance of

academic achievement and i t s re la tio n s h ip to p o s itiv e se lf-e s teem .

Ryans (i960) in h is c la s s ic study on the c h a r a c te r is t ic s of good

teachers s ta te d th a t good teachers are those who a re s k i l l f u l in

developing understanding of the world in which man l iv e s , in s ig h tfu l

with re sp ec t to the ways and means of s tim u la tin g in te l le c tu a l

a p p e ti te s , and capable of p a tien ce , understanding, and s in ce re

fe e lin g s fo r o th e rs . Dravland and Greene (1980) rep o rted th a t

education s tu d en ts scored higher on subm issiveness, communality and

s o c ia l iz a t io n .

Bontempo and Bigman (1985) conducted a study about the a t t i tu d e

toward the teach ing p ro fessio n of undergraduate s tu d en ts a t the en try

le v e l of a teacher p rep ara tio n program a t Vest V irg in ia U n iv ers ity .

They found th a t 88 percen t of the en try le v e l s tu d en ts were s tro n g ly

committed to teach ing as a c a ree r; " the enjoyment of working with

ch ild ren and people" (50.3%), and "the d e s ire to help o th ers le a rn "

(26.3%) seem to be the major m otivators fo r these s tu d en ts . This

study a lso concluded th a t the m ajority of these s tu d en ts perceived

them selves rem aining in the classroom or in ed u ca tio n -re la ted

p ro fessions throughout th e i r c a ree rs .

25

As a summary, choice of major depends on sev e ra l fa c to rs such as,

p e rso n 's in t e r e s t , economics f a c to r s , f a a i ly in flu en ce , enjoynent of

working w ith people, and the d e s ire to help o th e rs .

Borne Economics Teacher Education Students

East (1980) drew on find ings fron sev e ra l s tu d ie s to develop a

p ro f i le of s tu d en ts in hone economics. She concluded th a t they were

a o tiv a ted p rim arily by concern fo r help ing people and the d e s ire to

prepare th ease lv es *or fu r th e r c a re e rs .

S tout and o th ers (1977) d e tera in ed the r e la t iv e importance of

se le c te d v a ria b le s on the choice of major in home economics which

d is tin g u ish ed black women (N = 1198) a ttend ing southern 1890

lan d -g ran t u n iv e r s i t ie s fron white women (N = 1009) a ttend ing

southern 1862 lan d -g ran t in s t i tu t io n s . From th e ir s tudy , i t appears

th a t f a a i ly re la t io n s ( s i s t e r , b ro ther and o ther r e la t iv e s ) were more

ia p o rta n t sources of in fluence fo r choosing a major among the black

s tu d en ts than they were aaong w hite s tu d en ts .

Young and Johnson (1986) compared fa c to rs in fluenc ing s tu d en ts

who se le c ted home economics as a major w ith those who se le c ted

business. The r e s u l ts showed th a t the business majors rep o rted th a t

they re ly a g rea t deal on p a ren ta l advice . Mothers were viewed as

in flu en ce rs by most (75 percent) of the home economics s tu d en ts .

While the advice of a v a r ie ty of s ig n if ic a n t o thers such as fr ien d s

a lso had an impact on the home economics s tu d e n t 's choice of a

m ajor. Business m ajors c ite d fa th e rs as being in f lu e n t ia l in th e i r

choices of co llege major w ith mothers ranking second.

26

Whitehead, Osborn and Steven (1965) repo rted th a t the d iffe ren c e

in percentages of co lleg e s tu den ts who had taken hone economics

courses in high school were s ig n if ic a n t . Kore a r t and home economics

majors took home economics courses in high school than d id sociology

and language m ajors.

Wyatt (1979) developed a p ro f i le of home economics majors a t a

p r iv a te C h ris tia n u n iv e rs ity and compared th e i r g o a ls , a t t i tu d e s and

percep tions w ith those of home economics majors a t 1862 land -g ran t

in s t i tu t io n s . The d a ta were co lle c te d from 200 home economics majors

a t Bob Jones U n iv ers ity (BJU). Most home economics majors had never

attended another co llege o r u n iv e rs ity and 55.5 percen t had never

changed th e i r m ajor. Parents had been the most in f lu e n t ia l persons

in th e i r s e le c tio n of a major, and the d e s ire to help o th ers was the

s tro n g e s t m otivation in th e i r s e le c tio n . Home economics m ajors a t

1862 schools rep o rted h igher educational a sp ira tio n s , higher

educa tiona l ex p ec ta tio n s , and h igher expecta tions ^ remain a t th e i r

p resen t school fo r graduate work than home economics s tu d en ts a t BJU.

Howell and Parent (1977) p resen t inform ation about the

c h a ra c te r is t ic s of home economics s tu d en ts and a g r ic u ltu re s tu den ts

a t the U n iv ers ity of Puerto Rico (N=506). Parents have been the most

i r t l u e n t i a l persons in th e i r s e le c tio n of a major. A g ricu ltu ra l

science s tu d en ts expected a higher s a la ry in th e i r f i r s t job than

th e ir home economics co u n te rp a rts .

A study done a t Utah S ta te U niversity by P u rnell (1980) in d ica ted

th a t s tu d en ts re p o rt very t r a d i t io n a l a t t i tu d e s concerning women's

ro le s which support the study done by Wyatt (1979). I f a t t i tu d e s

27

are as po ten t a fa c to r in shaping the ac tio n s of in d iv id u a ls , then

any in fo rn a tio n p e rta in in g to a t t i tu d e s held by s tu d en ts could

co n trib u te to understanding of th e i r becoming teach ers and th e i r

classroom behavior.

Since a t t i tu d e s appear to govern co llege women's l i f e g o a ls ,

frequen t in v e s tig a tio n s a re needed to provide c u rre n tly accura te

inform ation . While some da ta a re a v a ila b le , they a re in s u f f ic ie n t to

draw conclusions about re la tio n sh ip s between a t t i tu d e toward working

women and c h a r a c te r is t ic v a ria b le s of s tu d en ts who choose home

economics as a major of study .

PERCEPTION OF HOME ECONOMICS

W ithin home economics a number of lead e rs have long c a lle d fo r a

p h ilo soph ical exam ination of the p ro fessio n . They acknowledge the

p o s s ib i l i ty th a t members of the p ro fessio n have not done a l l they can

to b u ild the p ro fe ss io n a l image and p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e s toward home

economics th a t a re d e s ire d .

Horn (1981) suggested chat s tu den ts a re not making a connection

between the philosophy of home economics and what they a re r e a l ly

doing. Home econom ists who have a lready en tered the world of work

need to help fu tu re p o te n tia l members "see the bond of shared

commitment to a common g oal, a common language, a shared s e t of

values, (and) develop a s trong id e n t i f ic a t io n w ith the p ro fession"

(Horn, 1981, p . 20). S tudents need the help of fa c u lty and o ther

p ro fess io n a l home economists in developing an in te rd is c ip l in a ry

28

a t t i tu d e toward hone economics. The b asic d e f in it io n s o f the

p ro fessio n are grounded in th i s ph ilo so p h ical o r ie n ta tio n (Green,

1981; Eorn, 1981; V incen ti, 1982).

Recent s tu d ie s have shown the impact th a t re fe ren ce groups and

f ie ld work exposure have on s e l f image and caree r m a tu rity . Carmon

and Mannheim (1979) found th a t the s tro n g er the re la tio n s h ip between

the re fe ren ce group and the s tu d en t, the c lo se r was the s e l f image of

the s tu d en t was to th a t re fe rence group.

White (1985) determined p ro fess io n a l commitment and the image of

home economics held by sen io r u n iv e rs ity home economics s tu d e n ts . A

sample of 101 Ohio S ta te U n iv ers ity , College of Rome Economics sen io r

s tu d en ts completed the L o ftis (1972) P ro fess io n a l Commitment

C heck list (PCC) and the Home Economics Image Rating Scale (HEIRS)

developed by W hite. C o rre la tio n c o e f f ic ie n ts were determined fo r the

PCC and HEIRS and oneway an a ly s is of variance was employed fo r m ajor,

age, f i r s t co lleg e choice, p a r t ic ip a tio n in fieldw ork, a c tiv e

involvement in s tuden t o rg an iza tio n s, gender and m arita l s ta tu s , and

the c r i te r io n v a ria b le s of the mean score of the PCC and the HEIRS.

She found th a t 52.6 percen t of the responses were p o s itiv e concerning

the image of home economics. A re la tio n sh ip ex is ted between the

s tu d e n t 's chosen major in home economics and h is /h e r image of home

economics. The te x t i l e s and c lo th in g m ajcrs held the lowest image of

home economics w ith a mean score of 2.31 on a fo u r-p o in t s c a le , w hile

the home economics education majors held the h ighest image of home

economics with a mean score of 3 .07 . No re la tio n sh ip ex is ted between

the s tu d e n t 's f i r s t co llege choice and h is /h e r image of home

29

economics, and th e re was no re la tio n sh ip between the s tu d e n t 's age

and h is /h e r image of home economics.

->ome p ro fe ss io n a ls b e liev e the image of the p ro fessio n i s

in fluenced by the name "home economics". Yet, Yankelovich (1974)

found th a t th e d is c ip l in e of home economics has no c le a r id e n t i ty in

the p u b lic 's mind, th a t i s , n e ith e r a negative nor a p o s itiv e image.

He suggested th a t changes in the name of home economics may in c rease

the confusion th a t a lready e x is ts concerning the pub lic image of home

economics.

Carver (1980) designed a d e sc rip tiv e study fo r the purpose of

id e n tifv in g some changes tak ing p lace in the ad m in is tra tiv e s tru c tu re

of home economics h igher education u n i ts . These changes included

name and curriculum . C arv er 's sample of 253 higher education home

economics a d m in is tra to rs was taken from inform ation provided by the

P ro fessiona l Development D ivision of the American Home Economics

A ssoc ia tion . C arv er 's r e s u l ts in d ica ted th a t a m ajority of the

rep o rtin g u n its (81.4%) re ta in ed the name home economics. The

reasons fo r m ain tain ing the name were (1) d e s ire to m aintain or

improve the v i s i b i l i t y of the f i e ld , (2) emphasis on the m ission of

the f i e ld , (3) d e s ire to improve the o u ts id e view of the m ission of

the f i e ld , (4) p ressu re from fa c u lty w ith in the f i e ld and, f in a l ly ,

(5) h i s to r ic a l impact of the f i e ld as a whole. The Yankelovich

study (1974) helps support the reasons Carver (1980) found fo r

m aintaining the name of home economics.

Home economists must have a p o s itiv e image of home economics i f

they hope to p ro je c t a p o s itiv e image of th is f ie ld and to increase

30

enrollm ent in h igher education . Huch more research nee :s to be done

regard ing home economics and i t s image.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Gender of Teacher Education Students

H is to r ic a l ly teach ing has been a female dominated occupation .

Sharp and H irsh fe ld (1975) found th a t 80 percent of the 1971 co llege

graduates in education were fem ale. Schalock (1979) in a review of

research on teach er se le c tio n found th a t women teachers s t i l l ou t­

numbered men. Females continue to make up the m ajo rity of a l l

teacher education s tu d en ts . A study conducted by Dravland and Greene

(1980) reported th a t 67 percent of education s tu d en ts were fem ale.

Book, Byers and Freeman (1983) reported in a study of 413 en te rin g

teacher cand idates a t Michigan S ta te U niversity th a t 79 percen t of

the candidates were fem ale. Book, Freeman and Brousseau (1984)

conducted a study comparing academic backgrounds and caree r

a sp ira tio n s of education and non-education m ajors. The r e s u l t s of

th is study showed th a t r e la t iv e to th e i r non-teaching co u n te rp a rts ,

s tuden t e n ro llin g in teacher p rep ara tio n programs were more l ik e ly to

be female (75 percen t versus 56 p e rc e n t) .

Gender of Home Economics Teacher Education Students

Recent surveys of home economics s tu d en ts have amassed

d e sc r ip tiv e data concerning s tu d e n ts ' backgrounds. East (1980) drew

on find ings from sev e ra l s tu d ie s to develop a p ro f i le of s tu d en ts in

31

home economics. She concluded th a t the v a st m ajo rity of home

economics were fem ales. Young and Johnson (1986) compared fa c to rs

in flu en c in g s tu d en ts a t Washington S ta te U niversity (N = 93) who

se le c ted hone economics as a major w ith those who se le c te d bu sin ess .

They found th a t a l l of the home economics s tu d en ts were fem ale.

Wyatt (1979) developed a p ro f i le of home economics n a jo rs a t a

p r iv a te C h ris tia n u n iv e rs ity . The da ta were c o lle c te d from 200 home

economics majors a t Bob Jones U n iv ers ity . Eighty percent of the home

economics n a jo rs were fem ale. Howell and Parent (1977) p resen ted

inform ation about the c h a ra c te r is t ic s of home economics s tu d en ts and

a g r ic u ltu re s tu d en ts (H « 606) a t U n iversity of Puerto Rico. A ll the

s f udents in home economics were fem ale. These s tu d ie s provide

conclusive evidence th a t hone economics i s dominated by female

p ro fe s s io n a ls .

Age of Teacher Education Students

One might expect the average age of teacher education s tu d en ts to

be between 19 and 21. Although in some s tu d ie s th is has been the

case th e re are some in te re s t in g d iffe re n c e s . Joyce, Yarger, Hawley,

Harbeck, and Kluwin (1977) s tud ied 2,200 p reserv ice teacher education

s tu d e n ts . They rep o rted th a t 75 percent of a l l s tu d en ts seeking a

degree in education were under 25 years o ld . Dravland and Green

(1980) repo rted th a t the mean age fo r the 188 s tu den ts pursuing an

education degree was 21.7 y ears . The mean age fo r the 71

non-education majors was 22 y ea rs .

32

Age of Home Economics Teacher Education Students

Young and Johnson (1986) a lso s tu d ied the age of home economics

s tu d en ts and found th a t the age ranged between 18-25 y e a rs . Whereas,

Wyatt (1979) found th a t the age ranged between 17-23 years fo r a

s im ila r group. Based on the inform ation provided by these s tu d ie s ,

the m ajo rity of teach er education s tu d en ts , inc lud ing home economics

education s tu d e n ts , range in age from 17-25 y ears .

M arital S ta tus of Teacher Education Students and Home Economics Students

Joyce, e t . a l . (1977) found th a t 30 percent of the teacher

education s tu d en ts they surveyed were m arried . The s tu d ie s done in

home economics by Whitehead, Osborn and Steven (1965); Howell and

Parent (1977); Wyatt (1979); and Young and Johnson (1986) reported

s im ila r find ings th a t most of the s tu d en ts majoring in home economics

teacher education were s in g le .

fam ily V ariab les of Teacher Education Students

A number of s tu d ie s have described the fam ily c h a r a c te r is t ic s of

teacher education s tu d en ts . P a re n ts ' occupations were s tu d ied by

Joyce, e t . a l . (1977) who found th a t 31 percen t of the fa th e rs of

teacher education graduates had p ro fess io n a l occupations o r were s e l f

employed. Over a th ird (36%) of the mothers were homemakers. Sharp

and H irsh fe ld (1975) rep o rted th a t 70 percent of the 1971 education

g rad u a tes ' fa th e rs had a t le a s t a high school education . This f ig u re

was 80 percent fo r th e i r m others. P a ren ta l income was considered in

33

some s tu d ie s . Sharp and H irsh fe ld (1975) found th a t 65 percen t cf

the p a ren ts of education graduates in 1971 had incomes between 6,000

and 14,000 d o l la r s . Schalock (1979) repo rted th a t a d isp ro p o rtio n a te

number of p re se rv ice teacher education s tu d en ts came from the low and

middle socio-economic le v e ls . Book, Freeman, and Brousseau (1984) in

th e i r s tu d ie s of education and non-education majors found in te re s t in g

s im i la r i t ie s and d iffe ren c es in the fam ily background of the two

groups. A m ajo rity of the studen ts in both groups came from

r e la t iv e ly la rg e fa m ilie s , w ith 55 percent from fam ilie s w ith four or

more c h ild re n . Across both groups, over 57 percent of the s tu d e n ts '

mothers and more than tw o-th irds of th e i r fa th e rs had earned a t le a s t

some co llege c r e d i t s . However, a much h igher p roportion of

non-education majors came from fam ilie s whose combined income was

more than $50,000 (36 percen t versus 12 p e rc en t) .

Family V ariab les of Home Economics Teacher Education Students

S tud ies done in home economics by East (1980) support Schalock 's

fin d ings th a t home economics teacher education s tu den ts were

p rim arily from lower-middle c la ss fa m ilie s . Wyatt (1979) found th a t

n early h a lf of the mothers of home economics majors a t a p r iv a te

C h ris tia n u n iv e rs ity were fu ll- tim e homemakers; o n e -th ird were

employed fu ll- t im e o u ts id e the home. Howell and Parent (1977) found

th a t more than h a lf of the paren ts (N * 506) had completed high

school, and th a t 26.6 percent of the mothers worked fu ll - t im e or were

self-em ployed.

34

Fro* th is review of l i te ~ a tu re on demographic c h a r a c te r is t ic s , i t

appears th a t many s tu d en ts being a t t r a c te d to teacher education

programs are fem ale, s in g le , and from lower socio-economic fa m ilie s .

HIGH SCHOOL ACADEHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Teacher Education Students

The academic q u a lif ic a tio n s of teacher education s tu d en ts have

re c e n tly received a g re a t deal of a t te n tio n . Many s tu d ie s have

rep o rted the poor academic a b i l i ty of s tu d en ts pursuing ca ree rs in

education . The l i t e r a tu r e reviewed g en e ra lly supports the statem ent

th a t teacher education s tu d en ts a re not the most academ ically

ou tstand ing s tu d e n ts .

The F e i s t r i t z e r A ssociates Report on "The American Teachers"

(c ite d in S ta r , 1983} found, in 1982, th a t s tu den ts a n tic ip a tin g

education as a major scored 32 p o in ts lower on the verbal and 48

p o in ts lower on the mathematics s ec tio n s of the SAT. Cooperman and

Klagholz (1985) rep o rted th a t the 1982 SAT scores of New Jersey high

school graduates planning to major in education were lower than those

of high school g raduates planning to major in 22 of 24 o ther f ie ld s

of s tudy . Dravland and Greene (1980) found th a t s tu d en ts en ro lled in

education have h igher program completion ra te s than stu d en ts in o ther

programs. They a lso found th a t education s tu den ts were more l ik e ly

to complete degree requirem ents than non-education s tu d e n ts .

Book, Freeman, and Brousseau (1984) repo rted th a t the academic

p rep ara tio n of en te r in g teacher candidates was comparable to th a t of

35

non-teaching m ajors. Andrew (1983) rep o rted th a t the academic

c h a ra c te r is t ic s of education s tu d en ts were outstand ing when he

reviewed n a tio n a l da ta on the academic c h a ra c te r is t ic s of p rospective

teachers in the 5 year program a t the U n iversity of New Hampshire.

Approximately 40 percen t of those adm itted to the 5-year program were

honor studen ts as undergraduates.

Savage (1982) conducted a study to answer two q u estio n s: 1) What

are the academics q u a lif ic a t io n s of women choosing education as a

career? 2) How do these women compare w ith women choosing o ther

programs? The sample was drawn from a la rg e land -g ran t in s t i tu t io n

with a re p u ta tio n fo r s tro n g programs in engineering , a g r ic u ltu re and

sc ience . A ll women in seven se le c ted f ie ld s were included in the

study. The same group of women was followed fo r a period of 4-

y ea rs . Comparing the academic achievement of undergraduate women

majoring in education w ith the academic a b i l i t i e s of those majoring

in more male-dominated p ro fessions showed lower SAT scores fo r the

women education m ajors. This study in d ica ted th a t engineering

a t t r a c te d women w ith the h ighest academic q u a lif ic a tio n ,: . I t seems

th a t education i s indeed a t t r a c t in g women with lower academic

q u a lif ic a tio n s than most o th e r f i e ld s .

Hone Economics Teacher Education Students

Young and Johnson (1986) in th e i r study found th a t only 60

percent of s tu d en ts who major in business had graduated in the top

o n e -th ird of th e i r high school c la s s , w hile 67 percent of home

economics s tu d en ts ranked in the top th i r d . Also, the Wyatt study

36

repo rted th a t high school grade po in t averages of home economics

majors were g en era lly h igh .

While the fin d in g s of the resea rch r e s u l ts on high school

academic c h a r a c te r is t ic s are somewhat co n trad ic to ry i t i s c le a r th a t

many s tu d en ts being a t t r a c te d to teacher education programs a re of

lower academic a b i l i t y . This da ta suggests a need fo r increased

re c ru it in g e f f o r t s to a t t r a c t s tu den ts of the d esired q u a lity in to

education programs.

COLLEGE ACADEMIC CHARACTERISTICS

F actors in flu en c in g the type, s iz e and q u a lity of the co lleg es

se le c ted by teacher education studen ts provides valuable inform ation

about the c h a r a c te r is t ic s of teacher education s tu d en ts . C ollege

se le c tio n fa c to rs seem to be d ire c t ly re la te d to many of the

demographic and academic c h a ra c te r is t ic s of those s tu d en ts .

Type of College and Academic C h a ra c te r is tic s of Teacher Ed ica tio n Students

Sharp and H irsh fe ld (1975) found th a t most of the 1971 co lleg e cf

education graduates were tra in e d in small to medium s iz e ( le s s than

5,000 s tu d en ts) p u b lic or p r iv a te 4-year co lleg es . Public

u n iv e rs i t ie s ranked th ir d on the l i s t .

The academic c h a r a c te r is t ic s of teacher education s tu d en ts has

received a g rea t deal of a t te n t io n . L ite ra tu re has shown th a t

s tu d en ts en te rin g education are le ss academ ically in c lin ed than

s tuden ts in o th e r f i e ld s . Does th is trend in fluence th e i r success in

37

college? Andrew (1983) reported a GPA of 3.1 fo r s tu d en ts in a 5-

vear teacher education program a t the U niversity of New Hampshire.

This fig u re was h igher than the average u n iv e rs ity GPA of 2 .8 . Sharp

and H irsh fe ld (1975) found th a t over 60 percen t of the s tu d en ts in

education had GPA's of 2.75 o r h ig h er. Less than 4 percen t had GPA's

of 2 .0 or le s s . Wardlow (1984) s tu d ied s tu d en ts a t The Ohio S ta te

U niversity and found th a t education s tu den ts had h igher GPA's (2.96)

than th e u n iv e rs ity average (2 .87 ). Dravland and Green (1980) made

s im ila r find ings in th e i r sample of 259 s tu den ts en ro lled in a

teacher o r ie n ta tio n program. They reported th a t education s tu den ts

had h igher te rm in a tio n GPA's than non-education s tu d e n ts .

Home Economics Teachers Education Students

Studies done in home economics a lso supported the idea th a t the

s tu den ts en te rin g home economics a re le s s academ ically ab le than

studen ts en te rin g o th e r f ie ld s .

E ast (1980) rep o rted th a t home economics s tu den ts achieved

average academic g rades. Whitehead, Osborn and Steven (1965) s tu d ied

a sample of 575 women who received b ach e lo r 's degrees w ith a major in

e i th e r home economics, socio logy, language or a r t from the U n iversity

of Iowa during the years 1946 through 1952. The r e s u l ts showed th a t

home economics m ajors, inc lud ing home economics education s tu d en ts ,

not d if fe re d from the s tu den ts majoring in socio logy, language or

a r t . The percentage of studen ts in each f iv e le v e ls of grade po in t

averages did not d i f f e r s ig n if ic a n t ly . Approximately 15 percen t of

the s tu d en ts had a grade po in t average of 2.00 or le s s , 26 percent

38

bad a t le a s t a 2 .50, 34 percen t a t le a s t a 3 .00, and 23 percen t had

a t le a s t a 3 .50 .

A study was done a t Utah S ta te U niversity by P u rn e ll (1980) to

develop a p ro f i le of s tu den ts majoring in home economics a t the Utah

S ta te U niversity and to compare th e i r a t t i tu d e w ith those of home

economics majors a t 1862 land gran t in s t i tu t io n s . She rep o rted th a t ,

computed on a fo u r-p o in t s c a le , grade po in t averages revealed th a t 80

percen t of the sample (N •* 158) averaged 2.6 or h ig h e r. Of th e se , 60

percen t averaged 3.1 or h ig h er, and 34 percent averaged 3.6 or

h ig h e r. From th is review of l i t e r a tu r e , although the fin d in g s can

not be genera lized to the to ta l population , i t appears th a t education

s tu d en ts share some common c h a r a c te r is t ic s , and th a t those

c h a r a c te r is t ic s are not n e ce ssa rily the ones which educators favor in

th e i r s tu d en ts .

These in v e s tig a tio n s suggest th a t much research s t i l l needs to be

done on s tu d en ts ' c h a r a c te r is t ic s to attem pt to seek q u a lif ie d

teach ers and to fin d methods fo r se le c tin g teacher education

cand ida tes.

SUMMARY

L ite ra tu re on the fiv e to p ic s re la te d to th is study has been

explored, th a t i s , teacher education s tu d e n ts ' ca ree r choice and

development of c a ree r gouls; perception of home economics,

demographic c h a r a c te r is t ic s ; high school academic c h a r a c te r is t ic s ;

and co lleg e s e le c tio n and a ttendance. (See Figure 1 .)

f ig u re 1. Summary of Research S tu d ies .

39

V ariable Researcher fin d in g s

Choice of majo rCareer Choice: depends on;

F a r r e l l (1980), Nieva and person in te r e s t s ,Gutek (1981), Suad Bdair economics fa c to rs(1965)

Young and Johnson (1906)*, fam ily in fluence Wyatt (1979)*, Howell and Parent (1977)*, Stout (1977)*,O liver (1975), Johnson (1983),Abdulhamid (1979)

Book and Freeman (1984), Andrew (1983)

East (1980)*

B arnett (1975), Suchner (1975), Shinar (1975)

Osipow (1983)

Wyatt il979)* , P u rn e ll (1980), McEwen (1975)

F a r r e l l (1980), Ginzberg (1970), Wolfcon (1976), Super (1970)

Vogel, Broverman and Clarkson (1975)

in te r e s t in teach ing

d e s ire to prepare fo r caree r

lik e d ch ild ren

help o thers

gender

combination of work, m arriage and fam ily re sp o n si­b i l i t y

a t t i tu d e toward woman's ro le s , r e l ig io n , grade po in t average

personal and so c ia l fa c to r

Sex ro le , s e l f - concept

Wood (1978), Jan tzen (1981), Green (1980)

E ast (1980)*, Bontempo and Bigman (1985), Andrew (1983)

*home economics s tu d ie s

40

V ariable Researcher Findings

Career Choice:

C harters (1963), B arnett (1975)

Choice of major depends on:

The re la tio n sh ip between and p res­tig e were p o s itiv e and stronger fo r male than female

Gutek and Larwood (1987) Three groups of women with r e f e r ­ence to career commitment

Percep tion of Home Economics White (1985)*

White (1985)*

Yankelov?ch (1974)*, Carver (1980)

P o sitiv e image There i s r e la t io n ­sh ip between image and major

No re la tio n sh ip e x is ts between s tu d e n t 's f i r s t co llege choice, age and image

Public has n eu tra l image of home economics

Demographic Chat c t e r i s t i c of Teacher Education Students

Gender H irshfeld (1975), M ajority of educa-Schalock (1979), Book, tio n studen ts areByers and Freeman (1983), i',maleBook, Freeman and Brousseau(1984), East (1980)*, Youngand Johnson (1986)*, Howelland Parent (1977)*

*hcme economics s tu d ies

Figure 1 (continued).

41

V ariable Researcher Findings

Age Joyce, Yarger, Hawley, Harbeck and Klawin (1977), Young and Johnson (1980)*, Wyatt (1979)*

Average age between 19-21

M arital s ta tu s Joyce (1977), Whitehead, Osborn and Steven (1965)*, Young and Johnson (1986)*, Howell and Paren* (1977)*, Wyatt (1979)*

most of the s tu ­dents were s in g le

Familyv a riab les

Joyce (1977) S tuden ts ' fa th e rs had p ro fessio n al occupations

Wyatt (1979)* Mothers were home­makers

Howell and Parent (1977)*, Sharp and H irshfeld (1975)

Fathers had a t le a s t high school education

East (1980), Schalock (1979) Low and middle socio-economic lev e l

High School c h a ra c te r is t ic

Cooperman and Klagholz (1985), Dravland and Greene (1980), Savage (1982)

SAT s.’ore were lower fo r education studen ts

Andrew (1983), Young and Johnson (7 986)*

The academic char­a c te r i s t ic s of education studen ts were outstanding

College Academic c h a ra c te r is t ic

Sharp and H irshfeld (1975) Trained in small co lleges

Purnell (1980)*, East (1980)*, Dravland and Green (1980), Andrew (1983), Sharp, Whitehead, Osborn and H irshfeld (1975)*, Wardlow (1984), Steven (1965)

Education students had high GPA

*home economics s tu d ie s

Figure 1 (con tinued).

42

The inform ation o u tlin ed in th is chap ter in d ic a te s th a t th e re are

sev e ra l l in e s of in q u iry about teacher education s tu d en ts . Continued

re sea rch must be conducted to help illu m in a te the c h a r a c te r is t ic s of

in d iv id u a ls th a t nay predispose then to an occupation in teach ing .

A dditional in fo rn a tio n i s needed about teacher education s tu d en ts in

o th e r c u ltu re s . The scope of s tu d ie s on teacher education s tu d en ts

needs to be broadened to improve the p o s s ib i l i ty of g en era liz in g

th e i r f in d in g s . Andrew (1983) suggested th a t the re la tio n s h ip

between the various c h a ra c te r is t ic s of teacher education s tu d en ts

needs to be in v e s tig a te d more thoroughly.

The review of l i t e r a tu r e presen ted here c le a r ly in d ic a te s th a t

much s t i l l needs to be researched about the s tu d en ts ' c h a ra c te r is ­

t i c s . This inform ation could be used by teacher educators to shape

and to p lan teach er education programs in order to enhance the

lea rn in g and development of fu tu re te ac h e rs . Secondly, although many

s tu d ie s have been done regard ing the a t t i tu d e s of teacher education

s tu d en ts , re sea rch needs to be done which w ill a sc e r ta in the impact

of a t t i tu d e s on the se le c tio n of m ajors. Once th is connection i s

made, a t t i tu d in a l inform ation w ill be u sefu l in understanding program

can d id a tes . These in v e s tig a tio n s have suggested much s t i l l needs to

be researched about the re la tio n sh ip of teacher education s tu d e n ts '

a t t i tu d e s and th e i r c h a r a c te r is t ic s .

H olland 's and B laus' caree r development th e o rie s support the need

fo r in q u ir in g in to various fa c to rs a ffe c t in g career choice, th a t i s ,

personal c h a r a c te r is t ic s , fam ily background, a t t i tu d e and

43

percep tio n s . More in q u iry i s needed e sp e c ia lly on female caree r

de7elopment to examine fa c to rs a f fe c t in g caree r choice.

L ite ra tu re on image in d ic a te s th a t the image of home economics

has been a concern among hone economists fo r most of the p ro fe s s io n 's

h is to ry . Enrollment trends support the need to reso lve th is image

problem.

F in a lly , s in ce th e re are no s tu d ie s done on home economics

education s tu d en ts a t Q atar U n iv ers ity , i t i s im portant to know who

the s tu d en ts a re , what are th e i r c h a r a c te r is t ic s , and what a re th e i r

a t t i tu d e s , and s p e c i f ic a l ly , the re la tio n s h ip of these c h a ra c te r is ­

t i c s on caree r cho ice .

CHAPTER I I I

METHOD

Program planning and s e l f ev alu a tio n should include some exp lora­

tio n fo r answers to questions concerning the c h a r a c te r is t ic s of

s tu d en ts who e le c t home economics education as th e i r m ajor. Such

inform ation would be of value to a id in the recru itm ent of d e s ira b le

s tu d en ts to home economics programs as w ell as in planning e f fe c t iv e

programs.

The purpose in th is study i s to determ ine the r e la t iv e importance

of se le c ted v a ria b le s on choice of major, and e sp e c ia lly to determ ine

which v a ria b le s d is tin g u ish home economics education s tu d en ts a t

Qatar U n iversity from stu den ts in o ther majors a t the same

u n iv e rs ity . S p e c if ic a l ly , the o b jec tiv es of the study were to :

1. Develop a p ro f i le of studen ts c u rre n tly majoring in home

economics education a t Qatar U n iversity .

2. Compare se le c ted v a riab le s of Qatar U n iversity home

economics education majors to those of s tu d en ts in o ther

majors a t the same u n iv e rs ity .

3. Determine re la tio n sh ip s among those se le c ted v a r ia b le s .

44

45

The sp e c if ic resea rch questions were:

1. What a re the c h a ra c te r is t ic s of female s tu d en ts m ajoring in

home economics and se le c ted non-home economics majors a t

Qatar U n iv ers ity in terms of

1) S tuden ts ' background

2) Family background

3) High school experiences

4) College experiences

5) Future goals

2. What a re the most s ig n if ic a n t fa c to rs a ffe c tin g a s tu d e n t 's

choice of major?

3. What image of home economics i s brtld by s tu d en ts en ro lled in

home economics majors and by s tuden ts in o th e r majors?

4. What a t t i tu d e toward working women are held by studen ts

en ro lled in home economics majors and stu d en ts in o ther

majors?

This study te s te d the follow ing hypotheses:

1. A p o s itiv e a sso c ia tio n e x is ts between the s tu d e n t 's

a t t i tu d e s toward working wo«r\, and s tu d e n ts ' background,

p a re n ts ' education , and choice of m ajor.

2. A p o s itiv e a sso c ia tio n e x is ts between the s tu d e n t 's image of

home economics and the s tu d en ts ' background, p a re n ts '

education , high school experiences, co llege experiences, and

choice of m ajor.

46

Research Design

A survey resea rch design was used in the study . F i r s t , the

survey was designed to answer questions regard ing c h a r a c te r is t ic s of

Qatar U n iv ers ity hone economics s tu den ts such as why they chose home

economics, and what th e i r a t t i tu d e s and images of home economics

a re .

Population

The popu la tion fo r th is study co n s is t of sophomore and sen io r

s tu d en ts a t Q atar U n iversity majoring in home economics education ,

and sen io r s tu d en ts in socio logy , E nglish language education and

science education m ajors. The respondents fo r th i s study were the

female studen t population a t Qatar U n iversity in September 1987. The

study included only female s tu d en ts because home economics programs

are o ffe red fo r female s tu d en ts only . The in v ite d p a r t ic ip a n ts were

sophomore and sen io r s tu d en ts since sp e c ia liz a tio n occurs in the

second year of enro llm ent.

The survey p a r t ic ip a n ts included a l l sophomore and sen io r s tu ­

dents en ro lled in the home economics education major (N=114), or more

s p e c if ic a l ly , sophomore s tu d en ts , n*70, and sen io r home economics

education s tu d en ts , n*44; sen io r English language education s tu d en ts ,

na37; sen io r socio logy s tu d en ts , n=38; and sen io r science education

s tu d en ts , n*38. The study included only sen io r s tu d en ts fiom o th er

majors because o th e r co lleg e c la s s i f ic a t io n has sm all number of

enrollm ent which can not be compared w ith home economics s tu d e n ts .

47

Instrumentation

One instrum ent was developed to o b ta in the da ta needed to answer

the research q u estio n s . A 10-page q u estio n n a ire , "The Study of

Q atari U n iv ers ity S tudents" was prepared (see Appendix A). The

questio n n aire was developed from o ther instrum ents which have been

used by o ther re se a rc h e rs .

Questions 1-22 of the q u estionnaire dealing w ith demographic

v a r ia b le s were taken from The Study of A gricu ltu re and Home Economics

Students Q uestionnaire . The Study of A gricu ltu re and Home Economics

Students Q uestionnaire was developed and used in the S-114 Southern

Regional Study (Howell, 1979).

ine Study of A gricu ltu re and Home Economics Students Question­

n a ire was i n i t i a l l y developed on the b a s is of the recognized need fo r

inform ation as perceived by persons involved in home economics

education and a g r ic u ltu re education, ad m in is tra tio n and counseling .

Inqu iry focused upon the follow ing s ix general c a te g o rie s :

1. Background d a ta :

—encompasses demographic inform ation such as age and

m a rita l s ta tu s .

2 . P aren ta l inform ation:

—includes questions concerning employment, and educa tiona l

a tta inm ents of the responden t's p a ren ts .

3. High school d a ta :

—explores the in fluence of high school experiences on

se le c tio n of a co llege major and grade po in t average.

48

4. College Experience:

—id e n t i f ie s s p e c if ic in flu en ces in the s e le c tio n of a

co lleg e m ajor, grade p o in t average, and the s t a b i l i t y of

co lleg e and major cho ices.

5. Goals:

—in v e s t ig a te s the responden t's a sp ira tio n s concerning

education , c a re e r , and l i f e s ty le .

6. A ttitu d e s :

—in c ludes statem ents regard ing various is su e s c u rre n tly

emphasized in home economics' occupational r o le . The

respondents may agree or d isag ree on a L ik e rt-ty p e s c a le .

This resea rch er chose to use a l l s ix ca teg o rie s fo r the purpose

in th i s study . The responses to item s in th is s e c tio n , th a t i s

questions 1-22, were used to t e s t the hypotheses in th is study .

Q uestions 23 to 43 xere taken from the Women as Managers Scale

(WAMS) developed by Terborg (1979). The o r ig in a l instrum ent xas

reproduced fo r th i s resea rch in i t s exact form. This instrum ent was

chosen fo r the purpose of determ ining a t t i tu d e s toxard xorking xomen.

The WAMS con ta in s 21 item s presented in a L ik ert-ty p e form at,

ranked according to a seven-poin t s c a le . Eleven item s a re xorded to

d esc rib e xomen as managers favorably and 10 items a re xorded to

d escribe xomen as managers unfavorably. The items from the WAMS xere

p resen ted to 345 male and 196 female undergraduates a t sev era l

u n iv e r s i t ie s . According to Terborg, based on item an a ly s is and

p r in c ip a l components an a ly s is these items have s u b s ta n tia l in te rn a l

consistency and r e l i a b i l i t y but no sp e c if ic r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f ic ie n t

49

was repo rted fo r the in strum ent. As described by Terborg (1979), a

to ta l score i s to be obtained by adding scores of a l l item s a f te r

reversing scored item s, 23, 25, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, and 43.

The WAMS can be used both as a teaching instrum ent and as a

s c ie n t i f i c a l ly v a lid a ted measure fo r re sea rch . The re sea rch er added

10 o th e r items (44-53) to th is instrum ent in a format s im ila r to WAMS

to describe women as te ac h e rs . A to ta l score i s to be obtained by

adding scores of a l l item s a f te r rev ersin g scored item s, 50, 51, 52,

and 53. These measures were thought to be sp e c if ic to be used fo r

understanding how a person might behave toward a worn®-, te ach e r.

F in a lly , fo r the general a t t i tu d e toward women questions the

resea rch er added four item s (54-57) from the q u estio n n a ire in the

Study A gricu ltu re and Home Economics Students (Howell, 1979). The

f in a l instrum ent con tains 35 item s determ ining a t t i tu d e s toward

working women.

The l a s t p a r t of the q u estio n n a ire , Home Economics Image Rating

Scale (HEIRS) was developed by White (1985). The o r ig in a l instrum ent

was reproduced fo r th is study in i t s exact fo ra . A s e lf rep o rt

ra t in g sca le format was chosen fo r the instrum ent because of the

d e s ire to r e la te a number of items to the given v a riab le "home

economics". The i n i t i a l l i s t of items was p resented to a panel of

judges from the home economics p ro fessio n to e s ta b lis h v a l id i ty .

Responses to ra t in g sca le item s were scored from 1 to 4 w ith one

in d ic a tin g a negative fe e lin g toward home economics and four

in d ic a tin g a p o s itiv e fe e lin g toward home economics. A mean score

fo r the group was c a lc u la te d . A mean score of 2.5 or above in d ica ted

50

an o v e ra ll p o s it iv e inage of the hone economics p ro fess io n . The

r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f ic ie n t fo r the HEIRS was .79 fo r p i lo t te s t in g and

.94 in the f in a l s tu d y . A covariance m atrix fo r r e l i a b i l i t y analysi®

was used.

P ilo t Testing

The questio n n aire fo r th is study was p i lo t - te s te d . The "Home

Economics Teacher Education Students" questio n n aire was adm inistered

to home economics s tu d en ts (N * 90) a t The Ohio S ta te U n iv e rs ity .

Each studen t was asked to complete the q u estio n n a ire . In a d d itio n ,

they were asked to comment on problems encountered while responding

to the instrum en t. Their comments were used to modify the instrum ent

before adm in istering i t to the sample of the study.

R esu lts of the p i lo t t e s t in d ic a te th a t the average age of home

economics majors inc lud ing home economics education majors was 20

years w ith a grade po in t average of 2.57 on a fo u r-p o in t s c a le .

N inety-seven p ercen t of the s tuden ts were s in g le . When studen ts

responded to a question asking about the occupational s ta tu s of th e i r

fa th e rs , ’7 percen t repo rted th a t th e ir fa th e rs were self-em ployed.

Twenty-one percen t of the s tu d en ts rep o rted th a t th e i r mothers were

very in f lu e n t ia l in th e i r choice of m ajor. A mean score on the HEiRS

(2.96) was obtained for the p i lo t group. A mean score of 2.5 or

above in d Jca tes an o v o ra n p o s itiv e image of the home economics

p ro fessio n .

A mean score of 6.22 n s obtained fo r the group on the a t t i tu d e

instrum ent. The sca le ran g 'd from 1 * s tro n g ly d is a g re e .. . . 7 *

51

stro n g ly ag ree . A mean score of 4 .5 or above in d ic a te s an o v e ra ll

p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward working women. A mean score fo r the group

on th e subscales of th e a t t i tu d e was ob ta ined . A mean score fo r the

group on the a t t i tu d e toward women managers was 6 .08. A mean score

fo r the group on the a t t i tu d e toward women as teachers was 6 .25 . A

mean score fo r the genera l a t t i tu d e toward women was 5 .54 . The

re s u l ts of the p i lo t t e s t scores revealed a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f ic ie n t

fo r the home economics image of .89, and a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f ic ie n t

fo r the a t t i tu d e toward working women sca le of .95. The r e l i a b i l i t y

c o e ff ic ie n t fo r the th re e subscale were c a lc u la te d . The r e l i a b i l i t y

c o e f f ic ie n t fo r a t t i tu d e toward women as manager was .79, and fo r

a t t i tu d e toward women teach ers and general a t t i tu d e toward women were

.70 and .65, re sp e c tiv e ly , using Cronbach's alpha.

The q u estio n n a ire fo r th is study was tra n s la te d in to A rabic. I t

was than adm inistered to 12 Arabic s tu d en ts in d if fe re n t majors a t

The Ohio S ta te U n iv e rs ity . Each s tuden t was asked to complete the

q u estio n n a ire . In ad d itio n , they were asked to comment on problems

encountered w hile responding to the instrum ent. Their comments were

used to c la r i f y sta tem en ts in the instrum ent and make i t usable fo r

home economics s tu d en ts a t Qatar U n iversity .

C o llec tion of the Data

The re sea rch er tra v e le d to Qatar to p e rso n ally adm in ister the

instrum ent. S tudents were contacted through sophomo. and sen io r

c la sse s which a re req u ired of a l l sophomores and s e n io rs . The

stu den ts were given in s tru c tio n s fo r completing the "Home Economics

Teacher Education Student" q u es tio n n a iie , and they completed and

52

re tu rn ed the q u estio n n a ire during c la ss p e rio d . The q u estio n n aire

was adm inistered through c la s s , which helped to reach a l l sophomore

and sen io r home economics and sen io r sc ien ce , sociology and E nglish

s tu d en ts en ro lled in those majors (N - 227).

Data Analysis

The responses fo r each person were coded and en tered in to the

computer using SAS. In order to answer the question regard ing the

c h a r a c te r is t ic s of the s tu d en ts , d e sc rip tiv e a n a ly s is , inc lud ing

frequencies and means was provided to define the c h a r a c te r is t ic s of

s tu d en ts .

D iscrim inant a n a ly s is , includ ing stepw ise d iscrim inan t a n a ly s is ,

was used to determ ine the most s ig n if ic a n t fa c to rs th a t a f fe c t a

s tu d e n t 's choice of m ajor. In fe re n tia l s t a t i s t i c a l analyses

inc lud ing C hi-square an a ly s is and t - t e s t were a lso used (see Table

1 ) . A .05 le v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific an ce was accepted fo r

Chi-square and t - t e s t . These kinds of s t a t i s i c a l an a ly s is was used

because the na tu re of th is study i s to develop p re d ic to r fo r fu tu re

u se . Therefore, the s tu d en ts in th is study were considered as a

sample of a l l fu tu re s tu d en ts .

To analyze the d a ta from the a t t i tu d e toward working women s c a le ,

th ree composite a t t i tu d e subscales were computed and used as the

dependent v a r ia b le s . A nalysis of variance procedures were used to

see what v a r ia b le s , th a t i s m a rita l s ta tu s , co llege c la s s i f ic a t io n

and p a re n ts ' education fo r home economics education major versus

studen ts in o th e r m ajors, were a ffe c tin g the a t t i tu d e sca le and the

su b sca les .

53

F in a lly , analyses of variance and reg ress io n were employed to see

i f the independent v a r ia b le s , i . e . s tu d e n ts ' background, fam ily

background, high school experience, co llege experience, fu tu re goals

and a t t i tu d e toward working women accounted fo r a s ig n if ic a n t amount

of v a r ia b i l i ty in the dependent v a ria b le which i s the composite image

score (see Table 1 ).

As a summary, percentage and mean values based on the demographic

data were used to d esc rib e the sample, and to develop a p ro f i le of

s tu d en ts c u rre n tly m ajoring in home economics education a t Qatar

U n iv ers ity . Table 1 r e f le c ts the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses app lied to

each research qu estio n .

54

Table 1. Research Q uestions/H ypotheses, R elated Q uestionnaire Item s, and S t a t i s t i c a l A nalysis.

Research Questions/Hypotheses R elated Items A nalysis

1. What are the c h a ra c te r is t ic s of female s tu d en ts majoring in home economics nomics and s e le c te d non-home economics majors a t Q atar U n iversity in :erms of

a . S tu d en ts ' background 1-5 Frequencies1 Mean

f ,3 ,4 Chi-square1,4 t - t e s t

b. Family background 6-9 Frequencies

6 ,7 ,8 ,9 ,4 Chi-square

c . High School experience 10-12 Frequencies

10,11,12,4 Chi-square

d. College experience 13-14 Frequencies

13 Mean4,13 t - t e s t

e . Future goals 4,17-22 Frequencies Chi-square

55

Table 1 (con tinued ).

Research Questions/Hypotheses R elated Items A nalysis

2. What are the most s ig n if ic a n t fa c to rs a ffe c t in g s tu d en ts choice of major?

15-16 FrequenciesD iscrim inant

A nalysisStepwise

D iscrim inantA nalysis

3. What image of home economics i s held by s tu d en ts in home economics majors and by s tu d en ts in o ther majors?

59-79 FrequenciesComposite

Image Score Mean

4,59-79 t - t e s t4,58 Frequencies

Chi-square

4, What a t t i tu d e s toward working women are held by s tu d en ts in home economics majors and by s tu d en ts in o th e r majors?

23-57 CompositeA ttitu d e Score

Composite 23-43(Sub 1) Mean 44-53(Sub 2)54-57(Sub 3)

HI. A p o s itiv e a sso c ia tio n e x is ts between the s tu d e n t 's a t t i tu d e s toward working women, and s tu ­d e n ts ' background, p a re n ts ' edu­c a tio n and choice of major.

H2. A p o s itiv e a sso c ia tio n e x is ts between the s tu d e n t 's image of home economics and the s tu d e n ts ' background, p a re n ts ' education , high school experiences, co llege experiences, and choice of m ajor.

2 .4 .5 .9 .2 3 -4 3 2 ,4 ,5 ,9 ,4 4 -5 3 2 ,4 ,5 ,9 ,5 4 -5 72 .4 .5 .9 .2 3 -5 7

I , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9II ,1 3 ,5 9 -7 9

23-58,59-79

A nalysis of Variance

Tukey (HSD) t e s t

A nalysis of Variance Tukey (HSD)

t e s t Regression

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The primary aim in th is study i s to determ ine the r e la t iv e

importance of s e le c te d v a ria b le s on choice of major and e sp e c ia lly to

determ ine which v a ria b le s d is tin g u ish home economics education

stu d en ts a t Q atar U n iversity from stu d en ts in o ther majors a t the

same u n iv e rs ity .

The data fo r the study were obtained from a questio n n aire

adm inistered to sophomore and sen io r female s tu d en ts en ro lled in the

home economics education major, and to sen io r studen ts m ajoring in

English language, sociology, and science education m ajors. The

fin d ings are based on an an a ly s is of 227 q u estio n n a ire s .

The con ten t of th is chapter includes the find ings and a

d iscussion of the r e s u l ts in re la t io n to what o ther re sea rch ers have

found. The o rg an iza tio n o1 th is chapter i s based on the questions

and hypotheses of the in v e s t ig a tio n .

Question 1

What are the characteristics of female students majoring in home

economics and selected non-home economics majors at Qatar University

in terms of:

56

57

1 . S tu d en ts ' background

2. Family background

3. High school experience

4. College experience

5. L ife goals

S tuden ts ' background

Data on s tu d e n ts ' background a re summarized in Table 2 w ith the

number and percen t of respondents rep resen ted by studen ts in the home

economics education major and in se le c ted non-home economics m ajors.

As the ta b le shows, 57.0 percent of the home economics education

s tu d en ts were between 18 and 21 years of age with a mean of 20.9

y ears . Whereas, 63.7 percen t of the non-home economics majors were

between 18 and 21 years of age w ith a mean of 21.4 y ears . Of the 227

respondents only fou r persons were o ld er than 28 y ears . I t should be

noted th a t home economics s tu d en ts inc lude sophomore and sen io rs

while non-home economics majors were a l l s e n io rs . See Appendix C,

Table 18, fo r da ta on s p e c if ic m ajors.

A t - t e s t was computed to determ ine i f th e re was a s t a t i s t i c a l

d iffe ren ce in the age of heme economics studen ts and non-home

economics s tu d e n ts . The r e s u l ts in d ic a te th a t th e re was no

s ig n if ic a n t d iffe ren c e between the age of home economics s tu d en ts and

non-home economics s tu d en ts .

58

Table 2. S tu d en ts’ Background-Home Economics Majors and Non-Home Economics Majors.

Demographic V ariab leNumber and Percent of Respondents Home Non-Home

Economics Economics Majors Majors T otal

(n) = 114 (n) = 113 (n) = 227

“Age18-2122-2526-30

Mean

(61) 57.0% (44) 41.1%

(2) 1.9% 20.9

(72) 63.7% (39) 34.5%

(2) 1.8% 21.4

(133) 60.5% (83) 37.7%

(4) 1.8% 21.1

bM arita l S ta tus S ingle M arried

(92) 80.7% (22) 19.3%

(91) 80.5% (22) 19.5%

(183) 80.6% (44) 19.4%

cCountry of C itizen sh ip Q atar Other

(108) 94.7% (6) 5.3%

(74) 65.5% (39) 34.5

(182) 80.2% (45) 19.8%

NOTE*.• t (227) = 1.844, p = . 066

bX *(l, N * 227) = 0.001 . p = 0.97

cXa (1, N * 227) * 30.548, 2 0.0001

The fin d in g s about age of home economics education s tu d en ts are

somewhat s im ila r to those found by Young and Johnson (1986) th a t the

age ranges between 18-25 y ea rs . The average age of home economics

education s tuden t a t Q atar U n iversity i s s im ila r to the average age

of s tu d en ts m ajoring in home economics a t The Ohio S ta te U n iv e rs ity ,

which i s 20 y e a rs .

59

Almost 80 percen t of a l l nome economics education and non-home

economics majors were s in g le . Q atarian s tu d en ts rep resen t 80.2 p e r­

cent of the to t a l respondents, where 19.8 percen t in d ica ted c i t iz e n ­

sh ip in another coun try . Of the 114 home economics m ajors, 94.7

percen t were Q atarian as compared to the non-home economics majors

where 65.5 percen t in d ica ted Qatar as th e i r country of c i t iz e n s h ip .

The s tu d ie s done in home economics by Whitehead, Osborn and

Steven (1965); Howell and Parent (1977); Wvatt (1979); and Young and

Johnson (1986) found th a t most cf the studen ts majoring in home

economics were s in g le , which i s s im ila r to the find ing of th is study .

A Chi-square t e s t was ca lcu la ted to determine i f th e re was some

degree of a sso c ia tio n between majors and m arita l s ta tu s , and between

majors and country of c i t iz e n s h ip . The re s u lt in g Chi-square value

was not s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05 le v e l , in d ic a tin g th a t no s ig n if ic a n t

a sso c ia tio n e x is ts between home economics education s tu d en ts and

non-home economics majors and th e i r m arita l s ta tu s .

The r e s u l ts in d ic a te a s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n a t the 0.001 le v e l

between the home economics education s tuden ts and non-home economics

majors in th e i r country of c it iz e n s h ip . The home economics education

s tu d en ts are more l ik e ly to be asso c ia ted w ith country of c it iz e n s h ip

of Q atar, w hile s tu d en ts from o ther co u n tries a re more l ik e ly to

major in non-education f ie ld s .

Family background

Family background c o n s is ts of v a riab le s describ ing c h a ra c te r is ­

t i c s of p a re n ts . Students were asked to supply inform ation regard ing

60

th e ir f a th e r s ' occupations. A wide range of occupations was

rep resen ted in the sample and these are ca tego rized in Table 3. The

ca teg o rie s were ch airperson , which includes department heads of one

of the government m in is try ; p ro fess io n a l which in c lu d es, te ac h e rs ,

d o c to rs , d e n t is t , nu rse , law yers; and the employee includes jobs w ith

government such as accountant, foreman, s e c re ta r ie s . The la rg e s t

co n cen tra tions were found in the ca teg o rie s of ch airperson ,

p ro fe s s io n a l, businessman, and employee. The h ig h est percen t fo r

home economics education s tu d e n ts ' fa th e rs was in the category of

chairperson (30.7 p e rc e n t) , whereas, the h ighest percentage of

non-home economics s tu d e n ts ' fa th e rs were businessmen (35.2

p e rc e n t) . Twenty-five percen t of home economics s tu d e n ts ' fa th e rs

were p ro fess io n a l w hile 28.4 percent of non-home economics s tu d e n ts '

fa th e rs were p ro fe s s io n a l. Almost 22 percen t of a l l responden ts '

fa th e rs were employees.

This fin d in g i s expected because home economics s tu d en ts were

Q atarian . T herefore , th e i r f a th e r s ' occupations would be w ith the

government m in is try . Non-home economics s tu d e n ts ' fa th e rs would be

in p ro fess io n a l and business ca teg o rie s because many of them were

from o ther co u n trie s who come to Qatar as an expert in those f i e ld s .

Over 95 percen t of the mothers fo r a l l majors were homemakers.

This i s ty p ic a l in Qatar so c ie ty because i t has been t r a d i t io n a l to

be liev e th a t th e b est ro le fo r a Q atarian women was to be a

housewife. But in recen t y ears , education and economic n e ce ss ity

have changed th i s t r a d i t io n a l idea to some ex ten t.

Table 3. Summary of Family Background of Home Economics Majors and Non-Home Economics Majors at Qatar University.

Number and Percent of Respondents Characteristics Home Economics Students Non-Home Economics Students Total

n = 114 n = 113 n = 227______________________________ Father______Mother________ Father_______Mother_________ Father_______MotherOccupation

Chairperson “ (24) 30.7% (13) 14.8% (37) 22.3%Professional (20) 25.7% b (2) 1.8% (25) 28.4% (5) 4.6% (45) 27.1% (7) 3.2%Businessman (17) 21.8% (31) 35-2% (48) 28.9%Employee (17) 21.8% (19) 21.6% (36) 21.7%Homemaker (108) 98.2% (102) 95.3% (210) 96.8%

EducationDid not attend school c (62) 55.4% “ (76) 67.9% (38) 33.6% (48) 42.9% (100) 44.4% (124) 55.4%Elementary (22) 19.6% (29) 25.9% (19) 16.8% (25) 22.3% (41) 18.2% (54) 24.1%Preparatory (5) 4.5% (5) 4.5% (8) 7.1% (18) 16.1% (13) 5.8% (23) 10.3%Secondary (11) 9.8% (2) 1.8% (17) 15.0% (14) 12.5% (28) 12.4% (16) 7.1%College and Graduate (12) 10.7% (31) 27.4% (7) 6.3% (43) 19.1% (7) 3.1%Vork

Annual Income* Combined* Combined9 Coabined{Qatarian Reyals)Less than QR 20,000 (5) 5.1% (3) 2.7% (8> 3.8%QR 20,000 to QR 39,999 (34) 34.7% (19) 16.8% (53) 25.1%QR 40,000 to QR 59,999 (24) 24.5% (35) 31.0% (59) 28.0%QR 60,000 to QR 79,999 (15) 15.3% (27) 23.9% (42) 19.9%QR 80,000 to QR 99,999 (10) 10.2% (11) 9.7% (21) 10.0%Over QR 100,000 (10) 10.2% (18) 15.9% (28) 13.3%

NOTE: “Xa {3, N » 166) = 8.71, R = 0.06bXa (l, N = 217) = 1.79, E » 0.40cXa (4, N = 225) ■ 16.34, p « 0.003dXa (4, N = 224) = 29.96, p * 0.0001•3.65 QR = $1.00 U.S.* number of non-respondents = 16 9number of non-respondents = 0

62

A Chi-square t e s t was computed to determ ine i f th e re was a

s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n between the home economics education s tu den ts

and non-home economics s tu d en ts w ith re sp ec t to th e i r p a re n ts '

occupations. No a sso c ia tio n a t th e .05 le v e l was found between the

occupations of the p a ren ts of home economics education s tu d en ts and

non-home economics s tu d en ts (See Table 3 ).

J u s t over h a lf , 55.4 p e rcen t, of the home economics education

s tu d e n ts ' fa th e rs d id not a tten d school, whereas, one th i r d , 33.6

p e rcen t, of the non-home economics s tu d e n ts ' fa th e rs did not a tten d

schoo l. Approximately 11 percen t (10.7) of the home economics

education s tu d e n ts ' fa th e rs graduated from co lleg e , whereas, 27.4

percen t of non-home economics s tu d e n ts ' fa th e rs graduated from

co lle g e .

Only 1.8 p ercen t of the home economics s tu d e n ts ' mothers

graduated from high school, whereas, 12.5 percent cf the non-home

economics s tu d e n ts ' mothers graduated from high school. Mothers of

non-home economics majors had more education than mothers of home

economics education s tu d en ts . Mothers who did not a tten d school were

the h ig h est percen t fo r a l l m ajors. S lig h tly more fa th e rs than

mothers had earned a b a ch e lo r 's degree,

A C hi-square t e s t was computed to determ ine i f any a sso c ia tio n

ex is ted between the home economics education stu d en ts and non-home

economics s tu d en ts in r e la t io n to th e i r p a re n ts ' education . The

re s u lt in g C hi-square had a s ig n ific a n ce le v e l of 0.003, in d ic a tin g a

s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n fo r the s tu d e n ts ' f a th e r s ' education . The

home economics education s tu d e n ts ' fa th e rs had le s s education

63

than non-hone economics s tu d en ts . Since non-hone economics s tu den ts

are nore l ik e ly to be from o ther co u n trie s , i t i s expected th a t th e i r

fa th e rs w ill have more education than hone economics s tu d e n ts '

f a th e r s . The t e s t a lso revealed a s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n of le s s

than 0.001, in d ic a tin g a s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n fo r the s tu d e n ts '

m others' education . Mothers of home economics education s tu d en ts

tended to have le s s education than non-home economics s tu d e n ts '

mothers (see Table 3 ).

The find ings are somewhat s im ila r to those found by Joyce (1977)

th a t the fa th e rs of teach er education s tu den ts had p ro fess io n a l

occupations or were self-em ployed. The major d iffe ren ce was th a t the

m ajo rity of the mothers in the cu rren t study were homemakers and d id

not a tten d schoo l. This find ing i s expected because education fo r

women in Qatar d id not s t a r t u n t i l 1956, and u n t i l re c e n tly , most

women were lim ited to having and re a rin g ch ild re n .

Reported annual income, fa th e r and mother combined, c lu s te re d in

the ca teg o rie s ranging from QR 20,000 to over QR 100,000. The

percentages could be m isleading due to m issing da ta fo r some home

economics studen ts (N * 16) and the p ro b a b ility of s tu d en ts having

in accu ra te percep tions of to ta l fam ily income. The h ig h est percen t

of combined income fo r home economics s tu den ts and non-home economics

s tu den ts were in ca teg o rie s QR 20,000 and QR 79,999. As Table 3

shows, 59 percent of home economics education s tu d e n ts ' fam ily income

64

was in ca teg o rie s between QR 20,000 and QR 59,999, whereas, 54.9

percen t of non-home economics s tu d e n ts ' fam ily income was in

ca teg o rie s between QR 40,000 and QR 79,999. Almost 16 percen t of

non-home economics s tu d e n ts ' fam ily income was over QR 100,000, and

10.2 percent of home economics education s tu d e n ts ' fam ily income in

the same range. Thus, home economics education s tu d e n ts ' fam ily

income i s s l ig h t ly lower than non-home economics s tu d e n ts ' fam ily

income. In Q atar, the average fam ily income i s QR 50,000 a year.

A Chi-square t e s t was computed to determ ine i f any a sso c ia tio n

e x is ted between the home economics education s tuden ts and non-home

economics s tu d en ts in regard to th e i r fam ily income. The re s u lt in g

Chi-square was s ig n if ic a n t a t the .04 le v e l . The re s u l ts in d ic a te

th a t th e re i s a s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n between the home economics

education s tu d en ts and non-home economics studen ts regard ing th e i r

fam ily income. Home economics education studen ts are more l ik e ly

than non-home economics studen ts to come from lower-middle

socio-economic c la s s fam ilie s (see Table 3 ).

The fin d ings about fam ily income a re somewhat s im ila r to those

found by Book, Freeman, and Bronsseau (1985) and East (1980) in th a t

home economics s tu d en ts were p rim arily from lower-middle

socio-economic c la s s fa m ilie s .

High School Experience

High school grade po in t averages were g en era lly high fo r a l l

m ajors, with only a few respondents rep o rtin g below a "C" average

(see Table 4 ) . Home economics education studen ts had the lowest high

65

Table 4. Summary of High School Experience Data and College Experience of Hoae Economics Majors and Non-home Economics Majors a t Q atar U n iv ers ity .

C h a ra c te r is tic s

Number and Percent of Respondents Home Non-Home

Economics Economics Total n=114 n=113 n*227

“High School ExperienceGrade po in t average

A (4) 3.5% (16) 14.2% (20) 8%B (33) 28.9% (56) 49.6% (89) 39.2%C (66) 57.9% (89) 34.5% (105) 46.3%D (11) 9.6% (2) 1.8% (13) 5.7%

6Attended home economicsc la sse s (97) 85.8% (92) 82.1% (189) 84.0%

cClass in fluenced choiceof major (40) 36.0% (31) 27.7% (71) 31.8%Home economics (33) 29.0% (9) 0.8% (42) 18.5%Non-home economics (3) 2.7% (26) 23.0% (29) 12.7%

College ExperienceStudents have changed

major (41) 36.9% (5) 4.5% (46) 20.6%Previous Major (n * 34) (n = 39)

L ib era l A rts (17) 50.0% (4) 66.7% (215 52.5%Science Education (11) 32.4% (11) 27.5%Medicine (3) 8.8% (3) 7.5%2-year Elementary

Education program (1) 2.9% (1) 2.5%Language Education (2) 5.9% (2) 5.0%Gome Economics Education (1) 16.7% (1) 2.5%

dGrade Point Average2.00 - 2.79 (14) 12.8% (1) 0.9% (15) 6.8%2.80 - 3.59 (71) 65.2% (75) 67.0% (146) 66.0%3.60 - 4.39 (20) 18.3% (28) 25.1% (48) 21.7%4.40 - 5.00 (4) 3.7% (8) 7.0% (12) 5.5%

Mean 2.84 3,.15 2.99

■X*(3, n = 227) = 26.31, £ * 0.0001bX2 (1, n - 225) * 0 .57 , p » 0.44cx2 ( l , n - 233) « 1 .79 , p - 0.180* t (221) - 3.85 p * 0.0002

66

school grade po in t averages with 67.5 percent having an average of C"

or below. While 36.3 percen t of the non-hone economics s tu d en ts had

averages of "C" or below.

A Chi-square t e s t was ca lcu la ted as in (Table 4) to determ ine i f

th e re was some degree of a sso c ia tio n between majors and th e i r grade

po in t averages in high school. The re s u lt in g Chi-square value was

s ig n if ic a n t a t the 0.0001 le v e l , in d ic a tin g a s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n

between the home economics education studen ts and non-home economics

s tu d en ts in th e i r grade po in t averages in high school. The home

economics education s tu d en ts seem to be a sso c ia ted w ith lower grade

po in t averages in high school than non-home economics s tu d en ts .

More than 80 percen t of a l l s tu d en ts a ttended high school home

economics c la s s e s . This was expected because home economics i s

req u ired fo r a l l s tu d en ts a t high school le v e l . A r e la t iv e ly sm all

p ro p o rtio n , 36.6 percen t (n » 40), of home economics education

s tu d en ts in d ica ted th a t a c la s s in high school d i r e c t ly a ffec ted

th e i r choice of a co llege major while even fewer, 27.7 percen t (n =

31), of non-home economics s tuden ts reported high school c la sses

a ffe c ted choice of co llege major. Keeping in mind th a t the to ta l

percentage i s sm all, a c lo se an a ly s is of th is group i s provided. For

29 percen t (n ■ 33) of home economics s tu d en ts , che in f lu e n t ia l

course was in home economics, while fo r 3 percen t o th e r c la sses were

in f lu e n t ia l . (See Appendix C, Table 19, fo r da ta on s p e c if ic

m ajors.)

The C hi-square, a t e s t of a sso c ia tio n , was computed to determ ine

i f a sso c ia tio n e x is ted between home economics education s tu d en ts or

67

non-home economics s tu d en ts in r e la t io n to a tten d in g home economics

c la s s e s in l*j.gh schoo l. The r e s u l t s , as shown in Table 4, in d ic a te

th a t no a sso c ia tio n a t the 0.05 le v e l between home economics

education s tu d en ts and non-home economics studen ts e x is t s .

A d d itio n a lly , as in d ica ted in Table 4, no a sso c ia tio n a t the 0.05

le v e l e x is ts between the two groups in terms of the in fluence of

courses taken in high school on the choice of a co llege major.

College Experiences

The responses io the survey questions p e rta in in g to co llege

experience in d ic a te th a t 36.9 percen t (n = 41) of home economics

education s tu d en ts had changed th e i r m ajor. Of those who in d ica ted

they have changed (n * 41), 50.0 percent sh if te d from l ib e r a l a r t s to

home economics education anu 32.0 percen t of them s h if te d from

science education . Other s tu den ts s h if te d to home economics

education from m edicine, the 2-year elem entary education program and

language education . Only one of the non-home economics majors had

s h if te d out of home economics education , and she changed to l ib e r a l

a r t s education (see Table 4 ) .

Computed on a f iv e -p o in t a le , grade po in t averages revealed

th a t 12.8 percen t of home economics studen ts averaged 2.00 .o 2 .79,

65.2 percent averaged 2.80 to 3 .59, 18.3 percent averaged ' 0 to

4.39, and 3.7 percen t averaged 4.40 to 5 .00. Non-home economics

s tu den ts had s l ig h t ly h igher grade po in t averages than home economics

s tu d en ts . I t should be pointed out th a t home economics s tu d en ts

involved sophomores and sen io rs w hile o th e rs were a l l s e n io rs . When

68

only sen io rs were compared, the grade po in t &7erage fc r science

education s tu d en ts was h igher than o ther majors (see Appendix C,

Table 19, fo r d e t a i l s ) . A t - t e s t was computed to determ ine i f th e re

was a s t a t i s t i c a l d iffe ren ce in the GPA a t the co lleg e le v e l . The

re s u l ts in d ic a te th a t th e re was a s ig n if ic a n t d iffe ren c e between home

economics education s tu d en ts and non-home economics s tu d en ts

regard ing th e i r GPA (p = .002 ). Home economics education stu d en ts

had lower grade p o in t averages a t the co llege le v e l than • a-home

economics s tu d e n ts . A c o n trib u tin g fac to r may be th a t both sophomore

and sen io rs were included in home economics, where only sen io rs were

in the o th e r group- The find ings in th is study support the idea in

the l i t e r a tu r e th a t American s tu d en ts en terin g home economics are

le s s academ ically ab le than s tu den ts in o th e r f ie ld .E ast, 1980). I t

appears th a t Q atarian home economics studen ts share some common

c h a r a c te r is t ic s w ith th e i r American co u n te rp arts .

Future Goals

Ac expressed in Table 5, both groups d esired more formal

education than they expected, rfith non-home economics s tu d e n ts '

d e s ire s and ex p ec ta tions being h igher than those of home economics

education s tu d e n ts . The m ajo rity from both groups expected to remain

a t the same u n iv e rs ity and to be employed in th e ir major a re a . (See

Appendix C, Table 20, for d a ta on sp e c if ic m ajors.)

C hi-square t e s t s wer. c a ^ ’O ated to determine whether h " i

economics education majors or non-hi<me economics major* asso c ia ted

w ith l i* o goals (see Table 5 ) . For the expected to be employed in

69

Table 5. Summary of Future Goals of Home Economics and Non-Home Economics S tudents a*- Qatar U n iv ers ity .

Number and Percent of Respondents

C h a ra c te r is tic s Home Non-HomeEconomics Economics(n = 114) (n = 113)

• D esired EducationComplete work fo r b ach e lo r’s

degree (66) 58.4% (61) 54.0%Complete work fo r m aste r ' 3

degree (26) 23.0% (24) 21.2%Complete work fo r d o c to ra l

degree (21) 18.6% (28) 24.8%

bExpected Education Q uit schoolComplete b a c h e lo r 's degree

(3)(82)

2.7%73.9% (84) 74.3%

Complete m a s te r 's degree (11) 9.9% (11) 9.7%Complete d o c to ra l degree (14) 12.6% <18) 15.9%

cExpected to be employed in major (108) 94.7% (105) 92.9%

Expected to remain a t u n iv e rs ity (106) 93.0% (96) 85.7%

'D es ired OccupationTeaching (82) 73.9% (73) 64.6%M anagerirl (17) 16.3% (36) 31.9%Housewif (12) 11.1% (4) 3.5%

'Expected OccupationT each i. j (80) 74.1% (95) 84.1%M anagerial (16) 14.8% (14) \4%Housewife (12) 11.1% (3) 4.7%

•X*(2, n S 226) s= If 27, p = 0.528bX2 (3, n S 224) * 4 ,50 , p = 0.342CX3 (1, n s 227) tt 0 .32 , p = 0.569“ Xs (1, n a 226) s 3.14, p = 0.076'X* (3, n a 224) • 27.90 , p = 0 . 0 0 0f X2 (2, n a 221) s 11.97 , p = 0.018

70

major area and to remain a t U n iversity c a te g o rie s , the r e s u lt in g

C hi-square values were not s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05 le v e l . This

in d ic a te s no s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n between home economics education

s tu d en ts or non-home economic s tu den ts in th e i r ex p ec ta tion to be

employed or to remain a t U n iv ers ity . A lso, fo r the d esired and re a l

educa tiona l goals of home economics education studen ts or non-home

economics s tu d e n ts , the values of Chi-square were not s ig n if ic a n t a t

the .05 le v e l .

In te re s tin g d iffe ren c es are apparent between the d e sired and

expected occupations of non-home economics m ajors. The respondents

in d ica ted h igher ex p ec ta tion than d e s ire to en te r the teach ing

f i e ld . Also, the non-home economics studen ts in d ica ted a lower

exp ec ta tio n than d e s ire to en ter occupations in m anagerial f i e ld .

A s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n on the le s s than .001 le v e l was found

between uome economics education studen ts and non-home economics

s tu d en ts w ith re sp ec t to th ? i r desired jo b s . In th is catego ry , home

economics s tu d en ts seem to h i a sso c ia ted w ith the d e s ire to take jobs

as te ac h e rs . F in a lly , a s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n a t the 0.01 le v e l

e x is ts between home economics and non-home economics majors and th e i r

re a l job ex p ec ta tio n s , in d ic a tin g th a t non-home economics s tu d en ts

a le ., ^eem to be a sso c ia ted w ith expecta tions of becoming teachers

For both groups, the la rg e s t fe n e n ta g e s of d esired occupations w eu

found ir. the teach ing category , because the teaching f ie ld i s s t i l l

recommended as an occupation fo r women in Qatar so c ie ty .

71

The find ing in th is study is s im ila r to e th e r research fin d in g s

O liver (1975), Book and Freeian (1984), Wood (1978) and Andrew (1983)

in th a t one of the reasons fo r becoming a teacher was sp ec ia l

in te r e s t and d e s ire to be a te ach e r.

Question 2

What are the Most significant factors affecting a student's

choice of lajor.

As in d ica ted in Table 6, although home economics education

studen ts in d ica ted a s l ig h t ly h igher tendency to be in fluenced by

high school fr ie n d s in th e i r choice of co llege major (22.1 versus 8

p e rcen t) , i t seems th a t th e re are sev e ra l p o te n tia l sources of

in fluence lo r s tu d en ts choosing home economics as a m ajor. S is te r as

in f lu e n t ia l person in choice of major received 20.4 percen t of

respondents of hone economics education s tu d en ts . Other r e la t iv e s

received 16.1 percen t of respondents of home economics education

s tu d en ts . Father and co llege fr ien d as in f lu e n t ia l persons received

over l i percen t of home economics education s tu d en ts . Onl ’ 8 percent

of non-hcne economics studen ts reported th a t they were in fluenced by

high school f r ie n d s . S is te r and o th er r e la t iv e s as fa c to rs

in fluenc ing choice of major fo r non-home economics majors received

only 7.1 percent and 4 .4 p e rcen t, re sp e c tiv e ly . Other teachers wore

iound to have le s s in fluence on the homo economics s tu d e n ts ' choice

of major, 5.3 p e rcen t. l it the same time they had the h ighest

in fluence on non-home economics s tuden ts in th e i r choice of major,

13.3 p e rcen t.

72

Table 6. Summary of Factors I n f lu e n t ia l in Choice of Major fo rHome Economics Students and Non-home Economics Majors a t Qatar U n iv ers ity .

Number and Percent of Respondents Home Non-Home

Factors Economics EconomicsMajors Majors Total

(N) = 114 (N) = 113 (N) *= 227

E luen tia l Persons in >ice of Major:High School F riend (25) 22.1%* (9) 8.0% (34) 15.0%*S is te r (23) 20.4% (8) 7.1% (31) 13.7%Other R ela tive (18) 16.1% (5) 4.4% (23) 10.2%Father (15) 13.5% (10) 8.8% (25) 11.2%College Friend (15) 13.4% (7) 6.3% (22) 9.8%Other (14) 12.4% (9) 8.0% (23) 10.2%Home Economics

Teacher (11) 9.8% (4) 3.5% (15) 6.7%Mother (10) 9.0% (12) 10.6% (22) 9.8%B rother (9) 8.1% (10) 8.8% (19) 8.5%Other Teacher (6) 5.3% (15) 13.3%* (21) 9.3%

*Most I n f lu e n t ia l

Reasons fo r Choice of Major:

Combining work andfam ily (94) 82.5%* (23) 20.4% (117) 51.5%*

To prepare fo r a caree r (42) 37.2% (39) 34.5% (81) 35.8%

To help o th ers (29) 25.4% (47) 41.6%* (76) 33.5%Good income (19) 16.7% (29) 25.7% (48) 21.1%Family thought th is

would be b est (19) 15.8% (16) 14.2% (34) 15.0%Friend in th i s major (16) 14.0% (7) 6.2% (23) 10.1%B ette r grades (15) 13.3% (14) 12.4% (29) 12.8%Good career (1J) 11.4% (19) 16.8% (32) 14.1%Had courses re la te d

to i t in high school (9! 8.0% (6) 5.3% (15) 6.7%

High school teacher suggested i t (1) 0.9% (10) 8.8% (11) 4.9%

*Top ra te d reason

73

Reasons fo r choice of major were described as follow s (see

Table 6 ) . Combining work and fam ily , p reparing fo r a c a ree r and

help ing o th ers were very im portant reasons to 82.5 p e rcen t, 37.2

p e rcen t, and 25.4 p e rcen t, re sp ec tiv e ly ?imong home economics

education s tu d e n ts . Whereas, fo r non-home economics s tu d en ts the

m otivation to help o th e rs has exerted the most in fluence as a reason

in th e i r choice of m ajor, 41.6 p e rcen t. T h irty -fo u r percen t of

non-home economics s tu d en ts reported th a t to prepare fo r a c a ree r was

very in f lu e n t ia l in th e i r choice of m ajor. Good income as a reason

in choice of major was s tro n g er among non-home economics s tu d en ts

than among home economics education s tu d en ts , 25.7 percen t versus

16.7 p e rcen t. B e tte r grades as a reason in choice of major was very

im portant fo r 13.3 percen t of home economics education s tu d en ts and

12.4 percent of non-home economics s tu d en ts . Over 16 percen t of

'jon-home econraoics s tu d en ts reported good caree r as a reason fo r

choice of m ajor. (See Appendix C, Table 21, fo r da ta on s p e c if ic

m ajo rs).

These r e s u l ts a re s im ila r to o th e r research find ings t h i t

s tu den ts favoring a caree r in teaching were more concerned w ith

help ing o th e rs , and preparing fo r a career (Andrew, 1983; Bontempo

and Bigman, 1985; Jan tzen , 1981; F a re l l , 1980). Also the fin d in g s in

th is study support a study done by Stout and o thers (1977) which

revealed th a t another r e la t iv e was one of the most in f lu e n t ia l

persons in choice of m ajor. Stout and o th ers (1977) found th a t the

mother was one of the most in f lu e n t ia l persons in choice of major fo r

home economics s tu d en ts . Johnson (1983), Abdulhsmid (1979), Wyatt

74

(1979), Howell and Parent (1977) a i r found th a t p a ren ts have been

the most in f lu e n t ia l person in choice of major. But th i s study does

not support th is f in d in g , since only 9.3 percen t of the respondents

rep o rted th a t they were in fluenced by th e i r mother in th e i r choice of

m ajor.

I t appears th a t th e re a re sev e ra l fa c to rs a ffe c tin g s tu d e n ts '

choice of m ajor. This w ill be more c le a r when the e n t i r e s e t of in ­

f lu e n t ia l persons and reasons in choice of major a re en tered in to a

d iscrim inan t a n a ly s is procedure* to determ ine i f these fa c to rs can be

used as a p re d ic to r fo r choice of a a jo r . The procedure was ab le to

c o rre c tly c la s s i f y 86.5 percen t of ihe home economics s tu d en ts and 83

percen t of the non-home economics s tu den ts (see Table 7 ) . According

to th i s fin d in g th ese v a ria b le s can be used as p re d ic to rs fo r

s tu d en ts choice of m ajor. These data can be in te rp re te d to mean th a t

home economics majors possess unique c h a ra c te r is t ic s in terms of

fa c to rs in flu en c in g choice of major th a t d is tin g u ish them from

non-home economics m ajors.

Table 7. D iscrim inant A nalysis fo r Most S ig n ific an t Factor A ffec ting Choice of Major.

Number and Percent of P red ic ted Major Home Non-Home

Actual Major Economics EconomicsMajors Majors T otal

(N) * 114 (N) * 113 (N) * 227

Home Economics (90) 86.54 (14) 13.46 (104)100.00

Nr/i-hoae Economics (19) 16.96 (93) 83.04 (216)100.00

75

The e n t i r e s e t of in f lu e n t ia l persons and reasons in choice of

major was en tered in to a stepw ise d iscrim inan t a n a ly s is (see Table

8 ). In te re s t in g ly , combine work and fam ily , high school teacher

suggestion , o th e r r e la t iv e , help o thers and home economics teacher

emerged as the most im portant d iscrim in a tin g v a ria b le s among home

economics education s tu den ts and non-home economics s tu d en ts .

Combine work and fam ily , o ther r e la t iv e and home economics teacher

were more im portant sources of in fluence fo r home economics education

s tu d en ts than fo r non-home economics education s tu d en ts . High school

teacher suggestion and help o thers were more im portant sources of

in fluence fo r non-home economics studen ts than fo r home economics

education s tu d en ts . These da ta provides in s ig h t in to unique

c h a ra c te r is t ic s of home economics teacher education s tu d en ts .

Table 8. Stepwise D iscrim inant Analysis of S ig n if ic an t Factors A ffec ting Choice of Major.

S ig n ific an t Factor V ariab les Step

wi LK Lambad F B

Combined work and fam ily 1 0.64 119.222 0.0001High school suggest i t 2 0.59 15.520 0.0001Other r e la t iv e 3 0.57 8.352 0.0043Help o thers 4 0.55 7.826 0.0056Home economics teacher 5 0.54 5.154 0.024Good income 6 0.53 2.946 0.0876Family 7 0.52 3.495 0.063Other 8 0.51 2.783 0.096Other teacher 9 0.50 3.721 0.055

76

Question 3

What image of home economics is held by students enrolled in the

hone economics education major and by students in other majors?

The responses on the home economics image ra tin g sca le (HEIRS)

were coded from one to four with one and two in d ic a tin g a negative

image and th ree and four in d ic a tin g a p o s itiv e image. (See Appendix

A fo r in strum en t.) Table 9 shows the mean fo r each item of the home

economics image in strum en t. The range of means across each item fo r

dU respondents in the home economics education major and o ther

majors extended from 2.47 as a negative image to 3.69 as a p o s itiv e

image. A to ta l mean score of 3.10 was obtained in d ic a tin g a p o s itiv e

image of home economics fo r the respondents (N = 227). Item 66, "the

home economics degree i s a valuable d eg ree ," received the h ighest

p o s it iv e mean fo r a l l respondents. This was followed by item 59.

"home economic* prepares s tu d en ts fo r valuable work." A mean score

fo r the group on th i s item was 3.67 which in d ic a te s a p o s itiv e image

of home economics. For item s 61 and 77, "home economics has a good

image", and "home economics graduates w ill not h e s i ta te to in troduce

themselves as home econom ists", the mean scores were 3.51 and 3.55.

The low est mean sco re , 2 .47, was repo rted fo r item 72, "p ro fessio n a l

a b i l i t i e s of home economists are understood by the general p u b lic ,"

which in d ic a te s a negative iaage of home economics fo r the group.

This fin d in g in d ic a te s th a t much work i s needed to improve the

general p u b lic 's image of home economics (see Appendix C, Tables 22

and 23, fo r da ta on s p e c if ic m ajors).

77

Table 9. Mean Scores fo r the Hone Economics Image Rating Scale (HEIRS).

Mean Scores of Respondents Item Home Mon-Home

Economics EconomicsMajors Majors T otal

(n = 114) (n = 112) (n » 227)

59) Prepares s tu d en ts fo r va luab le vork

60) I value as a p ro fessio n

61) Has a good image

62) Other p ro fess io n a ls value as a p ro fessio n

63) Society in general values as a p ro fessio n

64) Is fu tu re o rien ted

65) Is p rogressive

66) The degree i s a valuable degree

67) Content i s researched base

68) Degrees have high p re s tig e

69} Prepares s tu d en ts fo r high sa la ry p o s itin o s

70) Has s trong fa c u lty /s tu d e n t r e la t io n s a t th i s u n iv e rs ity

71) P ro fess io n a l a b i l i t i e s are understood by p ro fess io n a ls o u tside home economics

72) A b il i t ie s *re understood by general p u b lic

3.67 3.67 3.67

3.14 2.88 3.01

3.44 3.58 3.51

2.57 2.83 2.70

2.59 2.96 2.77

3.49 3.49 3.49

3.43 3.38 3.40

3.75 3.62 3.69

3.06 2.91 2.99

3.34 3.36 3.35

3.40 :.2 2 3.31

2.51 2.86 2.69

2.82 2.70 2.76

2.35 2.58 2.47

78

Table 9 {continued).

Mean Scores of Respondents Item Home Non-Hone

Economics EconomicsMajors Majors T otal

{n * 114) {n « 112) (n = 227)

73) Has a s tro n g academic program

74) Provides f l e x i b i l i t y to perform w ell in a v a r ie ty of caree r araas

75) Have a unique c o n tr ib u tio n to make to so c ie ty

76) I s the b e s t academic u n it in which to house my major

77) I would not h e s i ta te to in troduce myself as a home economists

2.78 2.77 2.78

2.79 2.69 2.77

2.88 2.54 2.71

3.52 3.19 3.35

3.66 3.43 3.55

78) My le ad e rsh ip , o rgan iza­t io n a l £ d ec is io n making s k i l l s have been enhanced as a r e s u l t of the horns economics a t th isu n iv e rs ity 2.79 2.62 2.71

79) I would d e f in i te ly encourage o th e r s tu d en ts to consider a home economics program forth e i r co lleg e major 3.52 3.36 3.44

Mean Score6 3.12 3.08 3.10

■based on (Four-point sca le 1 * low /negative 4 = high p o s itiv e )

bt (227) * 0.62 p - 0.535

79

An in d ica ted in Table 9, the Bean score on i te n s fo r iaage of

hone econoaics aaong home econoaics studen ts ranged fro a 2 . ' 5,

in d ic a tin g a negative iaage of hone econoaics, to 3 .75 , in d ic a tin g a

p o s itiv e iaage of hoae econoaics. For non-hone economics s tu den ts

the mean score ranged from 2.54 to 3 .67. item 66, " the home

econoaics degree i s a valuable degree," had a mean score o£ 3.75

in d ic a tin g a p o s itiv e iaage fo r home economics education s tu d en ts and

a mean score of 3.62 in d ic a tin g a p o s itiv e image fo r non-home

economics s tu d en ts as wel^.. Nest is item 59, "home economics

prepares s tu d en ts fo r valuable work," which has a mean score of 3.67,

in d ic a tin g a p o s itiv e iaage cf home economics fo r home econoaics

education s tu d e n ts . The sane nean score held fo r non-home economics

n a jo rs . Item 77, "hoae economics graduates w ill not h e s i ta te to

in troduce th ease lv es as hoae econom ists," had a p o s itiv e mean S'-ore

of 3.66 fo r hoae economics education s tu den ts and 3.43 fo r non-home

economics m ajors. Iten# 76 and 79, "the College of Education i s the

best academic u n it in which to house the hoae economics m ajor", and

" I would d e f in i te ly encourage s tu den ts to consider a home economics

program fo r th e i r co lleg e major", had p o s itiv e mean scores of 3.5 fo r

both item s fo r hone economics education s tu d en ts . Items 61 and 64,

"hoae econoaics has a good ia ag e ," and "home econoaics i s fu tu re

o r ie n te d ," had p o s itiv e iaage mean scores fo r non-home economics

s tu d en ts , 3.58 and 3.49 re sp e c tiv e ly . The lowest mean score of image

of hoae econoaics fo r non-hone economics s tu d en ts was on item 75,

"home economists have a unique co n trib u tio n to make to s c c ie ty ."

80

This score i s 2.54 which i s s t i l l considered a low p o s it iv e inage of

home econonics.

\ t - t e s t was computed to d e tern ine i f th e re was a s ig n if ic a n t

d iffe ren c e between the home economics education s tu d en ts image of

home economics and the non-home economics s tu d en ts image of home

economics. The re s u lt in g t - t e s t was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t a t

the .05 le v e l (see Table 9 ).

The fin d in g s in th i s study are s im ila r tc those revealed in the

p i lo t study and by White (1985), in th a t home economics education

s tu d en ts have a p o s it iv e image of home economics. But home economics

education s tu d en ts a t Qatar U n iversity have h igher mean score (X =

3.12) on the image of home economics than s tu den ts a t The Ohio S ta te

U niversity (X * 2 .9 ) .

In a d d itio n , respondents were asked to compare home economics

s tu d en ts to o th e r co lleg e s tu den ts in regard to percep tion of home

economics.

M a jo r itie s , 62 percen t o r more, from both groups of home

economics education s tu den ts and non-home economics s tu d en ts agreed

th a t home economics majors a re no d if fe re n t from o ther co llege

stu d en ts w ith re sp ec t to the following c h a r a c te r is t ic s : (item 58b)

in te re s te d in competing fo r high grades; (item 58e) in te re s te d in

making a lo t of money; (item 58f) to le ra n t of people who come from a

d if f e r e n t background (see Table 10).

Half of the re ten ts from both groups agreed t h i t home

economics s tuden t maj< 'S are no d if f e r e n t from the o th e r co llege

s tu d en ts with re sp ec t to these c h a ra c te r is t ic s : (item 58a) sure of

81

what they want to do in l i f e ; (item 58d) w illin g to accept new and

unusual id e a s ; and ( i t e a 58g) s e r io u s ly concerned about the s ta t e ,

the n a tio n , and the w orld.

Of the hoae econoaics s tu d en ts 58.7 p e rcen t, agreed th a t hoae

econoaics s tuden t a a jc r s a re no d if f e r e n t from o ther co lleg e s tu den ts

w ith re sp ec t to i t e a (58c), f r ie n d ly and h e lp fu l to o th e r people,

while 68.1 percen t of non-hone econoaics n a jo rs agreed th a t home

econoaics s tuden t n a jo rs are the same as o th e r s tu d en ts .

S ix ty -fo u r percen t of hoae econoaics education stu d en ts agreed

th a t hoae econoaics s tu d en ts a re aore d if f e r e n t than non-home

economics s tu d en ts in re sp ec t to strong p ro fess io n a l commitment,

whereas, only 46 percen t of non-hoae economics s tu d en ts agreed th a t

home economics s tu den ts are d if fe re n t than studen ts in o th e r majors

in re sp ec t to s tro n g p ro fess io n a l commitment.

For a l l but th ree of the p e rcep tio n s , no s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s ig n if ic a n t d iffe ren c e was found between home economics s tu den ts and

non-hoae economics s tu d e n ts . As compared to non-home economics

m ajors, hoae economics studen t majors viewed themselves as f r ie n d l ie r

aore h e lp fu l to o th e r people, same as non-hoae economics (39.47

p e rc en t) . Thiu value was s ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e n t from the responses

in d ica ted by non-hoae economics s tu d en ts . Also, as compared to

non-home economics m ajors, home economics studen t majors viewed

themselves aore to le ra n t of people who come f ’-om a d if f e r e n t

background (35.96 percent) than stu d en ts in o ther m ajors. This value

was s ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e n t (p ■ .01) from the responses in d ica ted by

non-hoae econoaics s tu d en ts . F in a lly , hone economics s tu den ts

82

Table 10. Percep tions of Hone Economics Students by Home Economics and Non-home Economics S tudents.

Number and Percent of Respondents

C h a ra c te r is tic s Home Non-HomeEconomics Economics{n = 114) (n = 113)

HOMEa.

ECONOMICS STUDENTS ARE:Sure of what they want to do in l i f e .

More than non-home economics (33) 38.60% (38) 33.63%Same as non-home economics (62) 54.36% (60) 53.10%Less than non-home economics (8) 7.02% (14) 12.39%

b. In te re s te d in competing fo r high grades.

More than non-home economics (30' '6.32% (30) 26.55%Same as non-home economics (81) /1.05% (75) 66.37%Less th?n non-home economics (3) 2.63% (8) 7.08%

c. F riend ly and h e lp fu l to o ther people.

More than non-home economics (45) 39.47% (28) 24.78%*Same as non-home economics (67) 58.77% (77) 68. IdLess than non-home economics (2) 1.75% (8) 7.08%

d. W illing to accept new and unusual id e a s .

More than nou-home economics (48) 42.11% (38) 33.63Same as non-home economics (62) 54.39% (70) 61.95%Less than non-home economics (4) 3.51% (5) 4.42%

e. In te re s te d in making a lo t of money.

More than non-home economics Same as non-home economics Less than non-home economics

f . T o leran t of people who come from a d if f e r e n t background.

More than non-home economics Same as non-home economics Less than non-home economics

(15) 13.60% (12) 10.62%(87) 76.32% (87) 76.99%(12) 10.53% (14) e.i?%

(4i; 35.96% (21) 18.58%’(71) 62 28% (88) 77.88%

(2) 1.75% (4) 3.54%

83

Table 10 (continued)

C h a ra c te r is tic s

Number and Percent of Respondents

Home Non-Home Economics Economics (n - 114) (n » 113)

g. S eriously concerned about the s t a t e , the n a tio n and the world.

More than non-home economics (45) 39.£7% (39) 34.51%Same as non-home economics (71) 62.28% (88) 77.88%Less than non-home economics (2) 1.75% (4) 3.54%

h. In te re s te d in having a good time a t co lle g e .

More than non-home economics (45) 39.47% (35) 30.97%Same as non-home economics (62) 54.39 (68) 60.18%Lesc than non-home economics (7) 6.14% (10) 8.85%

i . Strong p ro fe ss io n a l commitment. More than non-home economics (73) 64.04% (52) 46.02%*Same as non-home economics (35) 30.70% (53) 46.90%Less than non-home economics (6) 5.26% (7) 6.19%

“X* (2, n S 227) 8 3.10, £ » 0.37bX*(2, n 8 227) 8 2.49, £ 8 0.28

*CX* (2, n s 227) 8 8.24, £ 8 0.01dX* (2, n 8 227) 8 1.75, £ a 0.41•X* (2, n 8 227) 8 0.48, £ 8 0.78

*f X*(2, n s 227) 8 8.93, £ 8 0.01*X*(2, n s 227) 8 4.49, £ 8 0.1bX2 (2, n s 227) 8 2.05, £ 8 0.35

*1X*{2, n a 227) 8 8.28, £ 8 .04

viewed them selves as having aore s trong p ro fess io n a l commitment than

non-home economics s tu d en ts (64 p e rc en t) . This value was

s ig n if ic a n tly d if f e r e n t )p * .04) from the responses in d ica ted by

non-home economics s tu d e n ts .

On th e b a s is of the above in form ation , as determined by the

Chi-sguare t e s t , home economics s tu d e n ts ' c h a ra c te r is t ic s seem to be

84

lik e th e c h a r a c te r is t ic s of s tu d en ts in o ther m ajors. Both home

economics majors and non-home economics majors preceive fu tu re home

economists as being more l ik e the s tu d en ts than d i f f e r e n t .

Question 4

What attitudes toward working women are held by students

enrolled in the home economics major and by students in other

majors?

When s tu d en ts responded to the item s on a t t i tu d e s toward working

women, a mean score of 4.92 fo r a l l respondents out of maximum score

of 7 (W * 227) was obtained (see Table 11). A mean s^ore of 4 .5 or

above in d ic a te s an o v e ra ll p o s itiv e a l t i tu d e toward working women.

Also, th e mean scores fo r the group on the subscales of the a t t i tu d e s

toward working women were ob tained . A ttitu d es toward women as

managers (Sub 1) was p o s itiv e (X * 4.83) fo r a l l respondents (M *

227). Whereas, a t t i tu d e toward women as teachers (Sub 2) obtained

the h ig h es t p o s it iv e mean score which was 5.23 fo r a l l respondents (N

* 227). F in a lly , a mean score of 4.64 in d ica ted a p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e

on genera l a t t i tu d e toward women (Sub 3) fo r a l l respondents.

The find ing in th is study supports a study done by P u rn e ll (1980)

in th a t s tu den ts rep o rt very t r a d i t io n a l a t t i tu d e s concerning women's

ro le s .

More s p e c if ic a l ly , home economics s tu d en ts have a p o s itiv e

a t t i tu d e toward women as manager (Sub 1) (X * 4 .7 9 ), whereas,

non-home economics have s l ig h t ly h igher score (X ■ 4.87) in d ic a tin g a

85

Table 11. Mean Scores fo r A ttitu d es Towards Working Women

ScalesMean Score of Respondents

Home Non-Home Economics Economics Mean

Majors Majors T otal (N « 114) (N * 112) (N « 227)

A ttitu d es toward women as managers (Sub 1) 4.79 4.87 4.83

A ttitu d es toward women as teach e rs (Sub 2) 5.12 5.33 5.23

General a t t i tu d e s toward women (Sub 3) 4.60 4.68 4.64

A ttitu d es toward working women (TOTAL) 4.86 4.98 4.92

Scale: 1 = s tro n g ly d isag ree ------ 7 * s tro n g ly agree.

p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward women as managers (Sub 1 ). Home economics

education s tu d en ts have a p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward women as teachers

(Sub 2) (X * 5 .1 2 ). But non-home economics s tuden ts scored s l ig h t ly

h igher (X = 5.33) in d ic a tin g a p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward women as

teachers (Sub 2) among th is group as w e ll.

Teaching has been mainly a women's occupation (Abu Saud, 1984)

and education was the f ie ld in which, i n i t i a l l y , most jobs became

a v a ilab le fo r women in Q atar. Therefore, th is find ing of p o s itiv e

a t t i tu d e confirmed ex p ec ta tio n s . In the p i lo t study, home economics

s tu den ts a t The Ohio S ta te U n iversity had h igher mean scores (X =

6.22) on a t t i tu d e toward working women than s tuden ts majoring in home

economics education a t Q atar U n iversity (X = 4 .86 ).

86

Hone economics education s tu d en ts a lso have a p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e on

general a t t i tu d e toward women (Sub 3) (X = 4 .6 0 ). Non-home economics

s tu d en ts scored a p o s it iv e a t t i tu d e (X ■ 4.68) here as w e ll. In

a d d itio n , non-home economics s tu d en ts have a p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward

working women (X = 4 .9 8 ) . But home economics education s tu d en ts

scored lower (X » 4.86) in th is category . S t i l l the score in d ic a te s

a p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward working women.

Q atarian s tu d en ts had a p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward working women,

but lower than The Ohio S ta te U n iversity s tu d en ts . I t seems th a t

education has in fluenced the a t t i tu d e in favor of women working in

developing c o u n trie s .

Research Hypothesis 1

Association exists between the student's attitude toward working

women and the student's background and choice of major.

A one way a n a ly s is of variance between the a t t i tu d e toward work­

ing women and demographic v a ria b le s was computed. Table 12 shows the

an a ly s is of variance r e s u l t s fo r the a t t i tu d e toward working women

and demographic v a r ia b le s . Each was te s te d sep a ra te ly to determ ine

the p ro b a b ility of i t s being s ig n if ic a n t in explain ing the variance

in sco res .

The ANOVA r e s u l t s (see Table 12) of co llege c la s s i f ic a t io n was

found to make p o ss ib le s ig n if ic a n t co n trib u tio n s to the v a r ia tio n of

scores on the a t t i tu d e toward working women. The F value of 17.40 i s

s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05 le v e l , r 2 = .071 in d ic a tin g th a t seven per­

cent of the variance can be exp lained . The d iffe ren ce between means

87

Table 12. A nalysis of Variance of A ttitu d e Toward Working WomenC la ss if ie d by M arital S ta tu s , Major, C lass, F a th e r 'sEducation, and M other's Education (Total A ttitu d e S ca le ) .

Source of Variance df SS MS F

Between m a rita l s ta tu s 1 0.1877 0.1877 .64Within m arita l s ta tu s 225 66.2648 0.2945

Between major 1 0.8028 0.8028 2.75Within major 225 65.6497 0.2917

Between c la s s 1 4.7708 4.7708 17.40*Within c la s s 225 61.6817 0.2741

Between f a th e r 's education 4 0.4182 0.1045 0.35Within f a th e r 's education 220 65.3159 0.2968

Between m other's education 4 0.4867 0.1216 0.41Within m other's education 219 65.5056 0.29991

*r2 ■ .07 i P < .05

fo r sen io r s tu d en ts (X * 5.02) and sophomore s tu den ts (X = 4.71) was

s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05 le v e l as revealed by Tukey's t e s t . This

in d ic a te s th a t sen io r s tu d en ts have a more p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward

working women than sophomore s tu d en ts . This suggests a lso th a t more

education has a p o s it iv e impact on the a t t i tu d e toward working women.

Table 12 shows th a t the remaining v a ria b le s , m a rita l s ta tu s ,

major, f a th e r 's education , and m other's education were found to have

no s ig n if ic a n t re la tio n s h ip to s tu d e n t 's a t t i tu d e toward working

women. The score in the a t t i tu d e toward working women instrum ent was

found to be independent of these v a r ia b le s , showing only s l ig h t

d iffe ren c e in th e mean sco res .

88

There were th re e subscales fo r the a t t i tu d e toward working

women. Each was p re lim in a rily te s te d sep a ra te ly to determ ine the

p ro b a b ility of i t s being s ig n if ic a n t in exp lain ing the variance in

sco res . The ANOVA r e s u l ts in Table 13 suggest th a t fo r a t t i tu d e

toward women as managers (Sub 1), m a rita l s ta tu s r 2 =■ .02, and the

co lleg e c la s s i f ic a t io n r 2 - .03, a re p o ssib le s ig n if ic a n t co n trib u ­

to r s . The F values of 5.00 and 8.98 are s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05

le v e l . The d iffe ren c e between means fo r m arried s tu d en ts (X ■ 4.74)

and s in g le s tu d en ts (X = 4.90) was s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05 le v e l as

revealed by Tukey’s t e s t . This in d ic a te s th a t s tu d en ts who are

s in g le have a more p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward women as managers (Sub 1)

than m arried s tu d e n ts . The d iffe ren ce between means fo r sen io r

s tu den ts (X * 4.92) and sophomore s tu d en ts (X = 4.74) was s ig n if ic a n t

a t the .05 le v e l as te s te d by Tukey 's.

Table 13 shows th a t major, f a th e r 's education and m other's

education were found to have no s ig n if ic a n t e f fe c t on the s tu d e n t 's

a t t i tu d e s toward women as managers (Sub 1 ).

The re s u l ts of the ANOVA on the a t t i tu d e toward women as teachers

(Sub 2) are summarized in Table 14. Of the f iv e v a ria b le s te s te d ,

only major and co lleg e c la s s i f ic a t io n were s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05

le v e l . Major r 2 » .02 , and co llege c la s s i f i c ia t io n r 2 = .06,

found to be p o ssib le s ig n if ic a n t c o n trib u to rs to the v a r ia tio n of

scores on a t t i tu d e toward women as te ac h e rs . The F value of 4.82 is

s ig n fic a n t a t th e .G5. S ig n ific an t d iffe ren c es a t the .05 le v e l

between home economics s tu den ts (X = 5.34) was te s te d by Tukey.

Non-home economics s tu d en ts have a h igher p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward

women as teach ers than home economics education s tu d en ts .

89

Table 13. A nalysis of Variance of A ttitu d e Toward Women as ManagersC la s s if ie d by M arital S ta tu s , Major, C lass, F a th e r 'sEducation, and M other's Education (Sub 1 ).

Source of Variance df SS MS F

Between m a rita l s ta tu s 1 1.888 1.888 5.00*“Within m a rita l s ta tu s 225 85.0329 0.3779

Between major 1 0.3647 0.3647 0.95Within major 225 65.6497 0.2917

Between c lass 1 3.3360 3.3360 8.98*bW ithin c la s s 225 61.6817 0.2741

Between f a th e r 's education 4 1.3154 0.3288 0.85Within f a th e r 's education 220 85.0182 0.3864

Between m other's education 4 0.8560 0.2140 0.55Within m other's education 219 85,2150 0.3891

P < .05 ■r* * .02 br* = .03

The F value fo r co lleg e c la s s i f ic a t io n i s 16.37, which i s

s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05 le v e l . The d iffe ren ce between the means on the

a t t i tu d e toward women as teachers fo r sen io r s tu d en ts (X - 5.36) and

sophomore stu d en ts (X * 4.94) i s s ig n if ic a n t . Senior s tu d en ts ,

th e re fo re , had s ig n if ic a n t ly more p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e s than sophomores.

The re s u l ts of the ANOVA on the general a t t i tu d e toward women (Sub

3) are summarized in Table 15. M arital s ta tu s r* = .02 and co llege

c la s s i f ic a t io n r z * .02 were found to be s ig n if ic a n t co n tr ib u to rs to

the v a r ia tio n of scores on the general a t t i tu d e toward women. The

d iffe ren ce between means fo r s in g le studen ts (X * 4.57) and s tu d en ts

90

Table 14. A nalysis of Variance of A ttitu d e Toward Women as TeachersC la ss if ie d by M arita l S ta tu s , Major, C lass, F a th e r 'sEducation, and M other's Education (Sub 2 ).

Source of Variance df SS MS F

Between m a rita l s ta tu s 1 0.2450 0.2450 0.45Within m arita l s ta tu s 225 121.7800 0.5412

Between major 1 2.5617 2.5617 4.82“ *W ithin major 225 119.4633 0.5309

Between c la ss 1 8.27-9 8.2759 16.37b*Within c la s s 225 113.-492 0.5055

Between f a th e r 's education 4 1.- 26 0.3356 0.62Within f a th e r 's education 220 120.0 -2 0.5457

Between m other's education 4 2 0.2893 0,53Within m other's education 219 1 0.5485

P < .05 ■r* « .02 br 2 = .06

who a re m arried (X = 4.01) was s ig m a t the .05 le v e l as

revealed by Tukey’s t e s t . Also, the rence between means fo r

sen io r s tu den ts (X * 4.75) and sophomor students (X * 4.42) was

s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05 le v e l as revea by Tukey's t e s t . This

in d ic a te s th a t high le v e ls of educatic are a sso c ia ted w ith p o s itiv e

a t t i tu d e s toward women.

These bindings on the a t t i tu d e toward working women and the th ree

subscales supports a study done by HcEwen (1975) th a t a t t i tu d e toward

women's ro le can a f fe c t choice of major since th e re i s a re la tio n sh ip

between s tu d e n t 's major and a t t i tu d e toward women as te ach e r. But i t

seems th a t h igher education could be re la te d to a higher p o s itiv e

91

Table 15. A nalysis of Variance of General A ttitu d e Toward WomenC la ss if ie d by M arita l S ta tu s , Major, C lass, F a th e r 'sEducation, and M other's Education (Sub 3 ).

Source of Variance df SS MS F

Between m a rita l s ta tu s 1 4.6810 4.6810 3.80“ *Within m arita l s ta tu s 225 2?6.8060 1.2302

Between major 1 0.4240 0.4240 0.34Within major 225 281.0630 1.2491

Between c la ss 1 5.3151 5.3151 4.33b*W ithin c la s s 225 276.1719 1.2274

Between f a th e r 's education 4 6.4127 1.6039 1.30Within f a th e r 's education 220 271.3478 1.2333

Between m other's education 4 3.8214 0.9553 0.76Within m other's education 219 275.2772 1.2569

P < .05 “r 2 = .02 br* = .02

a t t i tu d e toward working women s in ce in th is study i t showed th a t

a t t i tu d e scores were dependent on the co lleg e c la s s i f ic a t io n .

Research Hypothesis 2

Association ex ists between the student's image of home economics

and the student's background, parent's education, high school

experience, college experience, attitude and choice of major.

Table 16 shows AMOVA re s u l ts on the Home Economics Image Rating

Scale (HEIRS) fo r the stude** i background, p a re n t 's education , high

school experience, and co lleg e experience. The score on the Home

92

Economics Image R ating Scale was found to be independent of these

v a r ia b le s . As a r e s u l t of th i s a n a ly s is none of the v a ria b le s age,

m arita l s ta tu s , c i t iz e n s h ip , m ajor, co llege c la s s i f ic a t io n , f a th e r 's

e d n a t io n , m other's education , a tten d in g home economics c la s se s a t

high school and GPA a t co lleg e accounted fo r a s ig n if ic a n t amount of

the v a r ia b i l i ty in the image of home economics.

This find ing i s s im ila r to the study done by White (1980) which

a lso revealed th a t no re la tio n s h ip e x is ts between s tu d e n ts ' age and

m arita l s ta tu s and Home Economics Image s c a le . But White d id fin d

th a t a re la tio n s h ip e x is ts between the s tu d e n ts ' choice of home

economics as a major and h is /h e r image of home economics. This,

however, i s not tru e fo r th i s study .

A l in e a r reg re ss io n model using the Home Economics Image Rating

Scale (HEIRS) as the dependent v a ria b le and the a t t i tu d e toward

working women subsca les as the independent v a riab le was computed.

Table 17 shows th e r e s u l t s of the l in e a r reg ress io n model fo r the

th ree su b sca les . The r e s u l ts in d ic a te th a t no l in e a r re la tio n s h ip

e x is ts between th e a t t i tu d e toward working women, a t t i tu d e toward

women as managers (Sub 1) and a t t i tu d e toward women as teachers (Sub

2) and the Home Economics Image Score. There i s , however, a

re la tio n sh ip between general a t t i tu d e toward women (Sub 3) and the

Home Economics Image Rating Scale (HEIRS) sco re . The F value of 4.52

i s s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05 le v e l . The image score seems to be

asso c ia ted in a negative way w ith the general a t t i tu d e toward women

in a negative way: The h igher a t t i tu d e score the lower image score

were ob tained .

93

Table 16. A nalysis of Variance of Home Economics image Rating Scale (HEIRS) Score C la ss if ie d by Age, M arital S ta tu s , C itiz en sh ip , Major, College C la s s if ic a tio n , F a th e r 's Education, and M other's Education, A ttending Home Economics C lass, and College GPA

Source of Variance df SS MS F

Between age 1 0.8942 9.8942 3.6.4Within age 218 53.8208 0.2468

Between m arita l s ta tu s 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.13Within m arita l s ta tu s 225 55.3214 0.2458

Between c itiz e n sh ip 1 0.0138 0.0138 0.06Withrn c itiz e n sh ip 225 55.3386 0.2459

Between major 1 0.0946 0.0946 0.39Within major 225 55.2579 0.2455

Between c la ss 1 0.1185 0.1185 0.48Within c la ss 225 55.2339 0.2454

Between f a th e r 's education 4 0.9953 0.2488 1.03Within f a th e r 's education 220 53.4008 0.2427

Between m other's education 4 0.1884 0.471 0.19Within m other's education 219 54.6252 0.2494

Between Attending HomeEconomics c la s s 1 0.4214 0.4214 1.74

Within A ttending Home Economics c la s s 223 54.0857 0.2425

Between GPA 1 0.0151 0.0151 .06Within GPA 218 53.6766 0.2462

94

Table 17. L inear R egression Model of Hose Economics Image Rating Scale (HEIRS) Score on A ttitu d e Toward Working Women.

Source of Variance df SS MS

Between (Sub 1 )A 1 0.0962 0.0962 0.39Within (Sub 1) 225 55.2562 0.2455

Between (Sub 2 )B 1 0.4139 0.4139 1.70Within (Sub 2) 225 55.3214 0.2458

Between (Sub 3)c 1 1.0907 1.0907 4.52*Within (Sub 3) 225 54.2618 0.2411

Between T otal A ttitu d e 1 0.0472 0.0472 0.19Within T otal A ttitu d e 225 55.3052 0.2458

*P < .05

A = A ttitu d e toward women as manager B * A ttitu d e toward women as teacher C * General a t t i tu d e toward women

Summary

Home economics education studen ts are somewhat ty p ic a l of o ther

female s tu d en ts a t Q atar U n iv ers ity . Their average age i s 20 y ears ,

they a re s in g le and they a re n a tiv e s of Q atar. As in o ther

developing co u n trie s where u n iv e rsa l p ub lic education began in the

50s, th e i r p a ren ts a re not w ell educated and have average income

d is t r ib u t io n s .

A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n was found between major

and country of c i t iz e n s h ip , p a re n ts ' education, high school grade

po in t average, d e s ire and expected occupation. This in d ic a te s

95

stu d en ts in none economics d if fe re d from non-hone economics s tu d en ts

in regard to th ese f a c to r s . Hone economics studen ts are l ik e ly to be

fron Q atar, v i th le s s educated p a re n ts . They have le s s grade po in t

average a t high school and they d e s ire to take job as te ac h e rs .

Data c o lle c te d fro n hone economics education s tu den ts and

se le c ted oth majors a t Q atar U n iv e rs ity , in d ica ted th a t the choice

of a c a ree r i s product of in te rn a l and ex te rn a l f a c to r s . High school

f r ie n d s have exerted the nost in fluence on choice of major fo r home

economics education s tu d en ts w hile fo r non-home economics s tu d en ts ,

o ther teachers have had the nost in fluence on choice of th e i r major.

To prepare fo r a caree r was the second h ig h est reason fo r choice of

na jor fo r both groups. Combining work and fam ily , o th e r r e la t iv e and

home economics teach e r were more im portant source of in flu en ce fo r

home economics education n a jo r than non-home economics m ajors. Those

v a ria b le s a lso can be used as a p re d ic to r fo r choosing home economics

as a major of s tudy .

A tt ie toward wonen as teacher i s a sso c ia ted w ith s tu d e n t 's

major, • j a t t i tu d e toward working wonen score was found to be

indent i t of m a rita l s ta tu s , n a jo r and p a re n ts ' education of home

economics s tu d en ts and non-hone economics s tu d en ts . Both home

economics education s tu d en ts and non-home economics s tu den ts have a

high p o s itiv e image of hone econonics.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The hose economics program in Q atar U n iversity i s a new program

which began in 1973 under the auspices of the College of Education.

The recru itm en t of s tu d en ts to e n ro ll in home economics courses and

program planning and development can b e n e fit from a d d itio n a l

knowledge of the c h a ra c te r is t ic s of studen ts who e le c t home economics

education as th e i r major.

Summary

The purpose in th is study was to determine the r e la t iv e

importance of s e le c te d v a ria b le s on s tu d e n ts ' choice of a major a t

Qatar U n iv e rs ity . The v a ria b le s considered were s tuden t background,

fam ily background, high school experience, co llege experience, l i f e

g oals, fa c to rs fo r choosing home economics as a major of study,

a t t i tu d e toward working women and image of home economics.

A survey re sea rch design was implemented in th is study . Data

were c o lle c te d by means of a q u estionnaire which was developed by the

re sea rch er to e l i c i t answers to questions regard ing the c h a ra c te r is ­

t i c s of Q atar U n iversity home economics education s tu d en ts as

compared to those of non-home economics s tu d en ts . Q uestions such as

96

97

why s tu d en ts choose hone economics, what th e i r a t t i tu d e s toward

working women a re , and what image of home economics they hold were

probed.

The population fo r th i s study can be defined as female s tu d en ts

a t Q atar U n iversity who a re m ajoring in home economics education ,

socio logy , English language education and science education m ajors.

The survey population included a l l sophomore and sen io r s tu d en ts

en ro lled in the home economics education major (n * 114), a l l sen io r

sociology majors (n * 38), sen io r English Language education majors

(n * 37) and sen io r sc ience education majors (n = 38).

Procedures used fo r d a ta an a ly s is included c a lc u la tio n s of

frequency, percentages and mean scores fo r d e sc r ip tiv e purposes.

In f e re n t ia l s t a t i s t i c a l an a ly s is included Chi-square a n a ly s is and

t - t e s t . A stepw ise form of d iscrim inan t a n a ly s is was used to

id e n tify a s e t of v a r ia b le s th a t d is tin g u ish home economics education

majors from non-home economics m ajors. F in a lly , an a ly s is of variance

and the reg re ss io n model were employed to in v e s t ig a te the

re la tio n s h ip between the d iffe re n c e s , i f any, among the v a r ia b le s .

Findings fo r S tudents C h a ra c te r is tic s

F ifty -sev en percen t of the hone economics education majors were

between 18 and 21 years of age w ith a mean age of 20.9 y e a rs . By

comparison, 63.7 percen t of the non-home economics majors were

between 18 and 22 years of age w ith mean age of 21.4 y ea rs . The

t - t e s t r e s u l ts in d ic a te th a t th e re was no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe ren ce a t

98

the .05 le v e l between the ages of home economics education s tu den ts

and non-home economics s tu d en ts . Almost 80 percent of a l l home

economics education majors and non-home economics majors were

s in g le . Almost 95 percen t of home economics education majors were

Q atarian as compared to the 65.5 percen t of non-home economics majors

who in d ica ted Q atar as th e i r country of c it iz e n s h ip .

The h ighest percentage of home economics education majors

responded th a t th e i r f a th e r 's occupatioi. was th a t of ch airp erso n .

Over 95 percent of the mothers of a l l majors were homemakers. Ju s t

over h a l f , 55.4 p e rcen t, of the home economics education m ajors'

fa th e rs d id not a tten d school, whereas, only o n e -th ird , or 33.6

p e rcen t, of the non-home economics m ajors' fa th e rs did not a tten d

school. Mothers who d id not a tten d school accounted fo r the h ig h est

percentage in both groups. S lig h tly more fa th e rs than mothers have

earned a b a ch e lo r 's degree. In gen era l, non-home economics m ajors'

paren ts have h igher le v e ls of education than paren ts of home

economics education s tu d en ts .

Reported annual incomes, fa th e r and mother combined, are

c lu s te re d in the ca te g o rie s ranging from QR 20,000 to over QR

100,000. F if ty -n in e percen t of home economics education m ajors'

fam ily income f e l l in c a teg o rie s between QR 20,000 and QR 59,999. In

comparison, 54.9 percent of non-home economics m ajors' fam ily income

f e l l in c a teg o rie s between QR 40,000 and QR 79,999. Home economics

education m ajors' fam ily income was lower o v e ra ll than the fam ily

income of non-home economics m ajors.

99

Ho»e economics education majors had the lowest high school grade

po in t average w ith 57.9 percen t having an average of "C" and 9.6

percent have lower than C. More than 8C percent of s tu d en ts in a l l

majors had a ttended high school home economics c la s s e s . A r e la t iv e ly

sm all p ro p o rtio n , 36.6 percent {n = 40), of hone economics education

m ajors, in d ica ted th a t c la sse s in high school had a ffe c ted th e i r

choice of a co lleg e major in home economics. Twenty-nine percen t

(n * 33) in d ic a te high school home economics c la sse s in fluenced th e i r

choice of m ajor.

The responses to the survey questions p e rta in in g to co llege

experience in d ic a te th a t 36.9 percent of home economics education

s tu d en ts (n = 41) had changed th e i r m ajor. Half of them had come

from l ib e r a l a r t s m ajors, the o th e r h a lf s h if te d from science

education , m edicine, 2-year elem entary education and language

education m ajors. Computed on a f iv e -p o in t s c a le , grade po in t

averages a t c o lleg e le v e l revealed th a t 65.2 percen t of home

economics s tu d en ts averaged "C", and 67.0 percent of non-home

economics s tu d en ts averaged "C". But 12 percen t of home economics

s tu den ts had lower than "C" average which in d ic a te s the s ig n if ic a n t

d iffe ren ce between the two groups. Both groups desired more formal

education than they expected to complete, hut non-home economics

m ajors' d e s ire s and expecta tions were h igher than those of home

economics education m ajors. The responses of non-home economics

majors in d ica ted h igher expecta tions than d e s ire s w ith re sp ec t to

en te rin g the teach ing f ie ld as an occupation.

100

Between the v a ria b le s a a r i t a l s ta tu s , f a th e r 's occupation,

■ o th e r 's occupation, attended hone economics c la sses a t h igh school

and course in flu en ce , expected to be employed in n a jo r area and to

remain a t U n iv ers ity , d e s ire and r e a l education , and choice of major,

the re s u lt in g C hi-square values were not s ig n if ic a n t a t .05 le v e l .

This in d ic a te s th a t no s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n e x is ts betveen home

econonics education n a jo rs or non-home economics majors w ith re sp ec t

to the above v a r ia b le s .

But the r e s u l t s of the Chi-square in d ic a te a s ig n if ic a n t

a sso c ia tio n a t the 0.001 le v e l between the home econonics education

majors and non-hone econonics majors and th e i r country of

c it iz e n s h ip . The m ajo rity of home economics education majors seem to

be a sso c ia ted w ith country of c i t iz e n s of Q atar. Furtherm ore, the

re s u lt in g Chi-square values had a s ig n ific a n ce le v e l of 0.0003

between n a jo rs and f a th e r 's education , and a s ig n ific a n ce le v e l of

.04 between n a jo rs and m other's education . These fig u res in d ic a te

th a t home econonics m ajors' paren ts had le s s education than p aren ts

of non-hone econonics n a jo rs . Another s ig n ific an ce le v e l of .04 was

found between s tu d en ts n a jo r and fam ily incone. The r e s u l t s in d ic a te

th a t th e re i s a s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n between home economics

education n a jo rs and non-hone econonics majors and th e i r fam ily

incone. Hone econonics education n a jo rs seen to cone fron

low er-niddle socio-economic c la s s fa m ilie s .

The re s u lt in g Chi-square value fo r the comparison between majors

and s tu d e n ts ' grade po in t average a t high school was s ig n if ic a n t a t

the 0.0001 le v e l . The home economics education n a jo rs had lower

101

grade po in t averages a t high school than non-hone econonics n a jo rs .

F in a lly , a s ig n if ic a n t a sso c ia tio n of le s s than .001 le v e l was found

between na jo r and s tu d e n ts ' d es ired jobs, a lso a s ig n if ic a n t

a sso c ia tio n a t the 0.01 le v e l e x is ts between n a jo r and expected

jo b s . These s t a t i s t i c s in d ic a te th a t non-hone econonics n a jo rs seen

to be a sso c ia ted w ith expecta tion to take teaching jobs w hile hone

econonics n a jo rs seen to be nore s tro n g ly assoc ia ted w ith the d e s ire

to take teach ing jo b s .

Findings fo r the Most S ig n if ic an t Factors A ffecting a S tu d en t's Choice of Major

High school fr ie n d s have exerted the nost in fluence on choice of

na jo r anong hone econonics s tu d en ts . Meanwhile, o th e r teach ers have

had th e nost in flu en ce on non-hone econonics studen ts in th e i r choice

of n a jo r . Combining work and fa n ily was very im portant to 82.5

percen t of home economics education majors as a reason fo r th e i r

choice of n a jo r . While fo r non-home economics s tu d en ts , to help

o th ers (41.6 percen t) was very in p u rtac t as a reason fo r th e i r choice

of n a jo r To p repare fo r a caree r was the second h ig h est reason

given fo r choice of n a jo r fo r both groups.

Combining work and fam ily , high school te ach e rs ' suggestions,

o ther r e la t iv e s , help ing o thers at lone econonics te ac h e rs '

suggestions emerge as the nost im portant d is c r in in a tin g v a r ia b le s .

Combining work and fa n ily , o ther re la t iv e s and hone economics

teachers were more im portant sources of in fluence fo r home economics

education majors than fo r non-home economics m ajors. For non-home

102

economics m ajors, h igh school te a c h e rs ' suggestion and help ing o thers

were more im portant sources of in fluence than they were fo r home

economics m ajors.

Findings With Respect to the Image of Home Economics

The responses concerning the image of home economics were ranked

from one to four w ith one and two in d ic a tin g a negative image and

th ree and four in d ic a tin g a p o s itiv e image of home economics A

to ta l mean score of 3.1 was obtained fo r a l l the respondents (N =

227) in d ic a tin g a p o s it iv e image of home economics. The mean score

fo r item s on the Home Economics Image Rating Scale (HEIRS) among home

economics s tu d en ts ranged from 2 .35 , in d ic a tin g a negative image of

home economics, to 3 .75, in d ic a tin g a p o s itiv e image. For non-home

economics s tu d en ts , the mean scores ranged from 2.54 to 3 .76 . The

re s u l ts of the t - t e s t were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05

le v e l .

When comparing home economics s tu den ts to o th e r co lleg e s tu d en ts

in regard to percep tion of home economics, m a jo r itie s , 62 percen t or

more from both groups of home economics education stu d en ts and

non-home economics s tu d en ts agreed th a t home economics majors a re no

d if f e r e n t from o th e r co llege s tu d en ts w ith resp ec t to the follow ing

c h a r a c te r is t ic s : " in te re s te d in competing fo r high grades",

" in te re s te d in making a lo t of money", and " to le ra n t of people who

come from a d if f e r e n t background'.

For a l l but th ree of the p e rcep tio n s , no s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e was found between hone economics s tu d en ts and

103

non-hone econonics s tu d e n ts . As conpared to non-hone econonics

n a jo rs , hone econonics s tu den ts n a jo rs viewed them selves f r ie n d ly and

h e lp fu l to o th e r people, sane as non-hone econonics (39.47 p e rc e n t) .

Also hone econonics s tuden t n a jo rs 7iewed thenselves to le ra n t of

people who cone fron d if f e r e n t background nore s tu d en ts in o th e r

n a jo rs (35.9 p e rc e n t) . F in a lly , hone econonics s tu d en ts viewed

thenselves as having nore s trong p ro fess io n a l commitment than

non-hone econonics s tu den ts (64 p e rc e n t) . These values were

s ig n if ic a n tly d i f f e r e n t fron the responses in d ica ted by non-home

econonics s tu d en ts .

F indings Concerning A ttitu d es Toward Working Wonen

When s tu d en ts responded to the ite n s concerning a t t i tu d e s toward

working wonen, a mean score of 4 .9 fo r a l l respondents (N * 227) was

ob ta ined . This in d ic a te s an o v e ra ll p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward working

women. Mean scores fo r the group on th ree subscales of the a t t i tu d e

toward working wonen were ob tained . A ttitu d es toward women as

managers (Sub 1) was p o s itiv e fo r both groups but higher among

non-hone econonics than home econonics education n a jo rs . A ttitu d e

toward wonen as teach ers (Sub 2) obtained the h ig h est p o s it iv e mean

score fo r a l l respondents (N « 227). Hone econonics education majors

scored a p o s it iv e a t t i tu d e on general a t t i tu d e toward wonen (Sub 3)

(X * 4.60) as d id non-home econonics n a jo rs (X * 4 .6 8 ).

104

Findings With Respect to the A ssociation Between the S tuden ts ' A ttitu d e Toward Working Women and the S tu d e n t's Background and Choice of Maior

A nalysis of variance between the a t t i tu d e toward working women

and sev e ra l demographic v a ria b le s was computed to see what v a ria b le s

th a t i s m a rita l s ta tu s , co lleg e c la s s i f ic a t io n and p a re n ts '

education , a re re la te d to a t t i tu d e s fo r home economics education

majors versus s tu d en ts in o ther m ajors. The ANOVA r e s u l ts in d ic a te

th a t a a sso c ia tio n e x is ts between co lleg e c la s s i f ic a t io n and the

a t t i tu d e toward working women. The F value i s s ig n if ic a n t a t the .05

le v e l , and the d iffe re n c e between means fo r sen io r studen ts (X *

5.02) and sophomore s tu d en ts {X * 4.71) was s ig n if ic a n t as revealed

by Tukey's t e s t . This in d ic a te s th a t sen io r s tu den ts have a more

p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward working women than sophomore s tu d en ts . No

s ig n if ic a n t a s so c ia tio n was revealed between m arita l s ta tu s , p a re n ts '

education , and major and the a t t i tu d e toward working women.

T herefore, m a rita l s ta tu s , major and p a re n ts ' education seem not to

be a ffe c t in g th e a t t i tu d e of s tu d en ts .

Three subscales of a t t i tu d e toward working women were posted .

Each was p re lim in a r ily te s te d sep a ra te ly to determ ine the p ro b a b ility

of i t s being s ig n if ic a n t in exp lain ing the variance in sco re s . The

ANOVA r e s u l ts suggest th a t , fo r a t t i tu d e toward women as managers

(Sub 1 ) , m a rita l s ta tu s and co lleg e c la s s if ic a t io n were s ig n if ic a n t

a t the .05 le v e l , and in d ic a te th a t s in g le s tuden ts have a more p o s i­

tiv e a t t i tu d e toward women as managers than m arried s tu d en ts .

F u rth e r, sen io r s tu d en ts seem to have a more p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward

women as managers than sophomore s tu d en ts . Major and p a re n ts '

105

education do not seen to a i£ ec t the a t t i tu d e toward wonen as nanagers

(Sub 1 ).

A ssociation a lso e x is ts between n a jo r and co llege c la s s i f ic a t io n

and the a t t i tu d e toward wonen as the teachers (Sub 2 ). Non-hone

econonics n a jo rs have a h igher p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e toward wonen as

teacher than hone econonics s tu d en ts . Here again , sen io r s tu d en ts

have a nore p o s it iv e a t t i tu d e toward wonen as teachers than sophonore

s tu d en ts . M arita l s ta tu s and p a re n ts ' education do not seen to

e f fe c t the a t t i tu d e toward wonen as teach ers (Sub 2 ).

F in a lly , a s so c ia tio n does e x is ts between n a r i t a l s ta tu s and

co llege c la s s i f ic a t io n and the s tu d e n t 's general a t t i tu d e toward

wonen (Sub 3 ). Married s tu den ts have a h igher p o s itiv e general

a t t i tu d e toward wonen than s in g le s tu d en ts , and sen io r s tu d en ts have

a nore p o s itiv e general a t t i tu d e toward wonen than sophomore

s tu d en ts . Major and p a re n ts ' education do not a f fe c t the general

a t t i tu d e toward wonen (Sub 3 ).

Findings Concerning the A ssociation Between the S tu d en t's Inaqe of Hone Econonics and the S tu d en t's and Family Background. High school Experience, College Experience. A ttitu d e and Choice of Maior

The r e s u l t of the ANOVA in d ic a te s th a t no a sso c ia tio n e x is ts

between age, m a rita l s ta tu s , country of c it iz e n s h ip , n a jo r , co lleg e

c la s s i f ic a t io n , p a re n ts ' education, hone economics c la sses a ttended

a t high school and GPA a t co llege le v e l and the s tu d e n t 's inage of

hone econonics.

Furtherm ore, a reg ress io n model in d ic a te s th a t no a sso c ia tio n

e x is ts between a t t i tu d e toward working women, a t t i tu d e toward wonen

106

as Managers (Sub 1) and a t t i tu d e toward wonen as teachers (Sub 2) and

the s tu d e n t 's image of home economics. However, th e re i s a sso c ia tio n

between the genera l a t t i tu d e toward women (Sub 3) and the s tu d e n t 's

image of home economics. The image score seems to depend on the

general a t t i tu d e toward women score in a negative way: the h igher

a t t i tu d e sco re , the lower image scores were obtained .

CONCLUSIONS

The respondents in th is study co n sis ted of the s tuden t population

en ro lled in se le c te d majors a t Qatar U n iv ers ity . Tbe s tu d en ts who

responded rep resen ted female s tu d en ts a t Qatar U n iversity majoring in

home economics education , socio logy , English language education and

science education .

Based upon the fin d in g s of the study i t can be concluded th a t:

1. In terms of demographic c h a r a c te r is t ic s , home economics

m ajors a re s im ila r to o ther female studen ts a t Q atar

U n iv e rs ity .

2. In regard to fa c to rs th a t in fluence caree r choice home

economics s tu d en ts have some unique c h a r a c te r is t ic s th a t

d is t in g u is h them from o ther female s tu d en ts .

3. The female s tu d en ts in the study have p o s itiv e a t t i tu d e s

toward working women and based on th is could be

c h a rac te riz ed as more "contemporary" Islam ic women.

4 . An in c rease in le v e l of education tends to improve the

a t t i tu d e toward working women.

107

5. The respondents hold p o s itiv e views of home economics as a

p ro fessio n and of home economics s tu d en ts who are preparing

to be p ro fe ss io n a ls in the f i e ld .

IMPLICATIONS

A dvisors, in s t ru c to r s , recru itm ent personnel, and ad m in is tra to rs

can b e n e f it from the inform ation provided by th i s p ro f i le in th e i r

e f fo r ts to guide the educational experiences of home economics

education m ajors.

The r e s u l t of th i s study in d ic a te th a t th e re i s an im p lica tio n

fo r h igh school te a c h e rs , inc lud ing but not lim ited to home economics

since they appear to e x e rt some in fluence on caree r cho ice . I t i s

im portant fo r a l l high school teachers to be aware of caree r

o p p o rtu n itie s fo r p ro fess io n a l home econom ists. They can provide

inform ation re la te d to various employment o p p o rtu n itie s w ith in the

d is c ip lin e of home economics.

This study has im p lica tio n fo r those persons involved in

recru itm ent in th a t th e re are in f lu e n t ia l fa c to rs regard ing caree r

choice th a t d isc r im in a te s home economics majors from non-home

economics m ajors. This inform ation could be used e f fe c t iv e ly in

recru itm ent s t r a te g ie s .

C areer p rep a ra tio n was very im portant fo r the m ajo rity of

respondents in th is s tudy . This has an im p lica tio n fo r curriculum

p lan n ers , i t i s recommended th a t i f caree r education i s included in

more secondary programs, young people could be helped to make more

app rop ria te c a ree r cho ices.

108

The r e s u l ts of th i s study in d ic a te th a t th e re a re some s tu den ts

who bad changed th e i r n a jo r since e n ro llin g in co lle g e . I t i s

recommended th a t c a ree r education not be lim ited to the high school

le v e l as many s tu d e n ts , e sp e c ia lly hoae economics m ajors, made th e i r

caree r choice w hile in co lle g e . Hoae economics educators have an

o pportun ity to expand the option fo r the employment of th e ir

graduates through a non-school teach ing a rea .

Since aany s tu d en ts in th is study sh if te d th e i r m ajor, an

on-caapus program can help to in c rease hoae economics enro llm ent.

System atic rec ru itm en t programs th a t take these fa c to rs in to

co n sid era tio n can help in c rease enrollm ent in home economics.

This study has im p lica tio n s fo r home economics p ro fe s s io n a ls .

They can plan events th a t allow p o te n tia l s tu den ts to d iscuss home

economics c a ree rs w ith th e i r p eers . They can develop work experience

or in te rn sh ip s th a t provide the opportun ity fo r p rospective s tu d en ts

to view f irs th a n d the many caree rs av a ilab le fo r home econom ists.

An im p lica tio n from th i s study i s th a t ad d itio n a l education fo r

females i s l ik e ly to be a fa c to r in developing more l ib e r a l a t t i tu d e s

toward working women.

An increased awareness of the c h a r a c te r is t ic s , p e rcep tio n s , ai.a

a t t i tu d e s of home economics studen ts w ill be h e lp fu l to mentors who

are p reparing s tu d en ts to assume r e s p o n s ib i l i t ie s as p ro fe ss io n a ls in

the hone economics d is c ip l in e s .

This study has an im p lica tio n fo r teacher tra in in g programs in

th a t i t should id e n tify a t t i tu d e s such as a t t i tu d e of s tu d en t teacher

109

toward s tu d en ts which a re e s s e n tia l fo r teachers and develop ,1 system

fo r a ssess in g studen t teacher a t t i tu d e throughout the program.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the fin d in g s of th i s study , sev era l recommendations fo r

fu tu re resea rch a re suggested below.

1) More resea rch studying the s i tu a t io n of home economics in

o th e r developing co u n trie s i s needed to determ ine the c h a ra c te r is ­

t i c s , percep tions and image of home economics in order to seek

q u a lif ie d teachers in to the f i e ld .

2) C ro ss-c u ltu ra l comparisons of c h a ra c te r is t ic s of s tu d en ts may

be u se fu l in rev ea lin g the d iffe ren c e between c u ltu re s . A study i s

needed to a s s i s t us in answering the question , "Are s tu den ts who

major in home economics a t Q atar U n iversity d if f e r e n t from stu d en ts

m ajoring in home economics in o th e r co u n tries?" This can be u sefu l

in fin d in g methods fo r evalua ting and se le c tin g can d id a tes, as w ell

as developing re le v an t in s tru c tio n m a te ria ls u sefu l in mere than one

country .

3) Cross comparison of c h a r a c te r is t ic s between majors o th e r than

education may be very inform ative and u sefu l fo r program development

and rec ru itm en t.

4) A dditional study regard ing program o ffe rin g s would help

c re a te a balance in drawing conclusions regard ing the find ings

rep o rted .

110

5) A dditional study regard ing the re la tio n s h ip between the

students* c h a r a c te r t i s t ic s and e f fe c t iv e teaching w ill a sc e r ta in how

these c h a r a c te r is t ic s in p act on teaching behav iors.

6) Kore re sea rch needs to be done on what a t t r a c te d e f fe c t iv e

teach e rs to the f i e ld . With th is knowledge, i t n ig h t be p o ss ib le to

a t t r a c t s tu d en ts of d esired q u a li ty in to the f i e ld of education .

APPENDIX A

Q uestionnaire in English

111

The Study of Q atari U n iversity Students

This q u estio n n a ire adm inistered to a l l sophomore and sen io r home

economics and socio logy major s tu d en ts , so c ia l work education major

s tu d en ts , language education major s tu d en ts , and science education

major s tu d en ts a t Qatar U n iv ers ity . So your responses a re extrem ely

im portan t.

Thank you fo r your w illingness to help w ith th is re sea rch .

P lease read the d ire c tio n s fo r each sec tio n and answer as h o nestly

and com pletely as p o ss ib le . R esults of the study w ill be p resen ted

in re p o r ts so th a t answers on any s in g le question can not be

id e n t i f ie d according to a sp e c if ic in d iv id u a l. Thank you fo r youi

a s s is ta n c e .

113

Please respond to each question by narking (x) on the ap p rop ria te l in e or where in d ic a te d , f i l l i n g the c o rre c t response.

P art I . BACKGROUKD DATA

1. Age __________

2. M arita l S ta tu s : S ingle __________M arried __________Separated_________ __________Divorced __________Widowed _____

3. Country of C itiz en sh ip s :QatarOther (specify)

4. Major Hone Econonics educationScience education Sociology English language

5. College C la s s if ic a t io n :SophomoreSenior

P art I I . FAMILY BACKGROUND

6. a . What i s your f a th e r 's cu rren t occupation?

b . I s your fa th e r employedF u ll time __________P a rt time

Yes Mo

c . Is your fa th e r s e l f - e m p l o y e d __________ __________Unemployed __________ ______R etired_________ __________ ______Otherwise

employed __________ ______

7. a . What i s your m other's cu rren t occupation?

b . Is your mother employedF u ll t in e __________P a rt t in e

114

c . Is your mother self-em ployedUnemployedR etiredOtherwise

employed

8. Approximately what i s your p a re n t 's combined average y ea rly income? (Q atarian Reyals)

Less than QR 20,000 __________QR 20,000 to QR 39,999 ~QR 40,000 to QR 59,999 __________QR 60,000 to QR 79,999 __________QR 80,000 to QR 99,999 __________over QR 100,000 __________

9. What i s the h ig h est school le v e l completed by your pa ren ts?Father Mother

Did not a tte n d school______________ __________ _________Elementary __________ _________P repara to ry __________ _________Secondary___________________________ __________ _________V ocational __________ _________College __________ _________Graduate work

P art I I I . HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCE

10. C irc le one of the follow ing which i s c lo se s t to your o v e ra ll high school grade po in t average?1. A 2. B 3. C 4. D 5. E

11. Did you a tten d home economics c la sses in high school?Yes Ko______

12. a . Did one course in high school, more than o ther cou rses,in fluence your decis ion to choose your major in co llege?Yes Ho______

b. I f "yes", what was th is course? (specify)

115

P art IY. COLLEGE EXPERIENCE

13. What i s your o v e ra ll co llege 6PA?

14. a . Since f i r s t e n ro llin g in co lleg e , have you ever changed your sa jo r? Yes No______

b . I f "yes" what i s your previous major? ______________________

c . I f "yes" in what year d id th is change occur?Freshman __________Sophomore__________Ju n io r __________Senior _________

P art V. SIGNIFICANT REASONS IN CHOICE OF HAJOR15. How in f lu e n t ia l have each of the follow ing people been in helping

you to choose your co lleg e major?Very Somewhat Not

In f lu e n t ia l In f lu e n t ia l I n f lu e n t ia lMother ___________ ___________ ___________Father ___________ ___________ ___________Brother ___________ ___________ ___________S is te r_____________ ___________ ___________ ___________Other r e la t iv e ___________ ___________ ___________High school f r ie n d ___________ ______________ ______________Home Economics

Teacher ___________ ___________ ___________Other teach e r ( s ) ___________ ______________ ___________College f r ie n d ___________ ___________ ___________College teach e r ___________ ___________ ___________Other (specify )

116

16. P lease in d ic a te how i ip o r ta n t each of the follow ing reasons were in choosing your a a jo r :

Very Some NotIm portant Importance Im portant

To prepare fo r a caree r _________ __________ _________To help o th e rs _________ __________ _________My fr ie n d s were in th is

major _________ __________ _________My fam ily thought th is

would be b e s t _________ __________ _________High school teach er

suggest i t _________ __________ _________Had course r e la te d to

th i s in h igh school _________ ______________ _____________Chance to make b e t te r

grades _________ ______________ _________I t would in su re a good

income _________ __________ _________I t i s a good ca ree r

choice fo r combiningwork and fam ily _________ __________ _____________

P art VI. FUTURE GOALS

17. Do you expect to be employed in your major area a f te r graduation?Yes No______

18. Do you expect to remain a t your u n iv e rs ity a f te r g raduation fo r advanced education?

Yes No______

19. I f you a re com pletely f re e to choose any job , what would you d e s ire most as a l ife tim e caree r po sitio n ?

20. Sometimes we a re not always ab le to do what we want most. Vhat kind of job do you r e a l ly expect to have most of your l i f e ?

117

21. I f you coui.il have as much formal education as d e s ired , which one of the fo llow ing would you d esire?

Quit school befo re bachelors degree __________Complete work fo r a bachelors degree __________Complete a program fo r a m asters degree_________ __________Complete a program fo r a p ro fess io n a l degree __________Complete a program fo r a d o c to ra l degree __________

22. Which one of the follow ing do you th in k you re a l ly w ill do about your formal education?

Quit school befo re bachelors degree __________Complete work fo r a bachelors degree____________ __________Complete a program fo r a m asters degree __________Complete a program fo r a p ro fess io n a l degree __________Complete program fo r a d o c to ra l degree __________

P art V II. ATTITUDE

Rating Scale:

1 — Strongly D isagree2 — Disagree3 — S lig h tly D isagree4 ~ n e ith e r D isagree nor Agree5 — S lig h tly Agree6 — Agree7 — Strongly Agree

Using the numbers from 1 to 7 on the ra t in g sca le l i s t e d above, in d ic a te your personal opinion about each statem ent by c i r c l in g the ap p ro p ria te number. Remember give your personal opinion according to how much you agree or d isag ree w ith each item . P lease respond to a l l item s.

23. I t i s le s s d e s ira b le fo r women than fo r men to have a job th a t req u ire s re s p o n s ib i l i ty .

24. Women have the o b je c t iv i ty req u ired to ev a lu a te business s i tu a tio n s p roperly .

25. Challenging work i s more im portant to men than i t i s to women.

26. Men and women should be given equal opportun ity fo r p a r t ic ip a t io n in management tra in in g programs.

27. Women have the c a p a b il i ty to acquire the necessary s k i l l s to be su ccessfu l managers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

118

1 - - S trongly Disagree2 — Disagree3 — S lig h tly D isagree4 — N either D isagree nor Agree5 ~ S lig h tly Agree6 — Agree7 — Strongly Agree

28. On the average, women managers are le ss capable of c o n trib u tin g to an o rg a n iz a tio n 'so v e ra ll goals than are men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. I t i s not accep tab le fo r women to assumelead e rsh ip ro le s as o ften as men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. The business community should accept womenin key m anagerial p o s it io n s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31. Society should regard work by femalemanagers as va luab le as work by male managers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32. I t i s accep tab le fo r women to compete w ithmen fo r top execu tive p o s it io n s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33. The p o s s ib i l i ty of pregnancy does not makewomen le s s d e s ira b le employees than men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34. Women would no more allow th e i r emotions to in fluence th e i r m anagerial behaviorthan would men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35. Problems asso c ia ted w ith m enstruation should not make women le s s d e s ira b le than men asemployees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36. To be a su ccess fu l execu tive , a women doesnot have to s a c r i f ic e some of her fem in in ity . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37. On the average, a woman who s tay s a t home a l l the time w ith her ch ild ren i s a b e tte r mother than a woman who works ou ts id e the honea t le a s t h a lf tim e. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38. Women are le s s capable of lea rn in g mathemati­c a l and mechanical s k i l l s than are men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39. Women are not am bitious enough to be success­fu l in the business world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40. Women can not be a s s e r t iv e in businesss i tu a t io n s th a t demand i t . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

119

1 — Strongly D isagree2 — Disagree3 — S lig h tly D isagree4 — N either D isagree nor Agree5 — S lig h tly Agree6 — Agree7 — Strongly Agree

41. Women possess the se lf-co n fid en ce requ iredof a good le a d e r . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42. Women are not com petitive enough to besu ccessfu l in the business w orld. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

43. Women cannot be aggressive in businesss i tu a tio n s th a t demand i t . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44. Women have th e o b je c t iv i ty req u ired to evalua te teach ing , and learn in g s i tu a tio n sp ro p erly . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

45. The teach ii g community should accept womenin key ad m in is tra tio n p o s itio n s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

46. Society should regard teach ing by female educators as va luab le as teach ing by maleeduca to rs . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

47. I t i s accep tab le fo r women to compete withmen fo r top ad m in is tra tio n p o s it io n s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

48. Women would no more allow th e i r emotions to in fluence th e i r teaching behavicr thanwould men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

49. To be a su ccessfu l te ach e r, a woman does nothave to s a c r i f ic e some of her fem in in ity . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

50. Women are no t am bitious enough to be success­fu l in the teach ing world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

51. Women cannot be a s s e r tiv e in teachings i tu a tio n s th a t demand i t . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

52. Women a re not com petitive enough to besu ccessfu l in the teach ing world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

53. Women cannot be aggressive in teachings i tu a t io n s th a t demand i t . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

120

1 — Strongly D isagree2 — Disagree3 — S lig h tly D isagree4 — N either Disagree nor Agree5 - - S l ig h tly Agree6 — Agree7 — Strongly Agree

54. Wonen in co lleg e are so re concerned with g e ttin g a husband than with p reparing fo ra c a re e r . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

55. I t i s a l r ig h t fo r a wonan to work but her re a l t u j i i l l n e n t in l i f e coses with■otherhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

56. A wosan who does the sane wor* as a nanshould rece iv e the saae pay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

57. I t i s a l r ig h t fo r vonen to work f u l l t in eeven when they have ch ild re n . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

58. Beside each of th e s ta te n e n ts l i s t e d below, p lease in d ic a te how would you r a te hone econonics s tu d en ts conpared to non-hone econonics s tu d en ts .

Hone Econonics Students a re : More than Sans as Less thannon-HEC non-HEC non-dEC

a . Sure of what they wantto do in l i f e . _________ ____________ ____________

b. In te re s te d in conpetingfo r high g rades. _________ _________ _________

c . F riend ly and h e lp fu lto o th e r people. _________ _________ _________

d . W illing to accept newand unusual id e a s . _________ _________ _________

e . In te re s te d in nakinga lo t of noney. _________ _________ _________

f . T o leran t of people whocone fro n a d if f e r e n tbackground. _________ ____________ ____________

g. S eriously concernedabout the s t a t e , then a tio n and the world. _________ _________ _________

h. In te re s te d in having agood t in e a t co lle g e . _________

i . Strong p ro fess io n a lco n n itn en t.

121

P art V III . HOME ECONOMICS IMAGE

For each s e t of "opposites" l i s t e d below, p lease in d ic a te w ith an "X" in the spaces provided which statem ent most a ccu ra te ly r e f le c t s what you b e liev e about becoming a hose econom ist. For example, an "X" in the space n ea res t a s ta tem en t, as shown below, would in d ic a te th a t you s tro n g ly b e liev e th i s s tatem ent.

EXAMPLE: The teach ing p ro fes­sion i s not valued by the gen era l p u b lic . ___

The teach ing p ro fes ­sion i s valued by

: x the general p u b lic .

P lease be as honest and accu ra te as p o ss ib le . Your cooperation with th is p ro je c t i s g re a tly ap p recia ted . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

59) Home economics prepares s tu d en ts fo r meaningless work

60) I do not value home economics as a p ro fessio n .

61) Home economics has a poor image

62) Other p ro fess io n a ls o u ts id e home economics do not value home economics as a p ro fess io n .

63) Society in general does not value home economics as a p ro fessio n

64) Home economics i s more o rien ted to the p ast

65) Home economics i s conservative

66) The Home Economics degree i s a w orth less degree

67) Home economics con ten t i s based on opinion

68) Home Economics degrees have low p re s tig e

Home economics p repares s tu d en ts fo r va luab le

: ___work

I value home economics : ___as a p ro fessio n

Home economics has a good :___image

Other p ro fe ss io n a ls o u ts id e home economics value home economics as

:___a p ro fessio n

Society in general values home economics as a

:___pro fessio n

Home economics i s fu tu re :___o rien ted

Home economics i s :___progressive

The Home Economics degree i s a valuable degree

Homr economics content _is resea rch based

Home Economics degrees _have high p re s tig e

122

69) Hone economics prepares s tu d en ts fo r low sa la ry p o s itio n s

70) Hone econonics a t th is u n iv e rs ity has weak fa c u lty /s tu d e n t r e la t io n s .

71) P ro fess io n a l a b i l i t i e s of hone econonists are not understood by p ro fe ss io n a ls o u ts id e hone econonics

72) P ro fess io n a l a b i l i t i e s of hone econon ists are not understood by the g enera l pub lic

73) Hone econonics has a weak acadenic progran

74) Hone econonics provides graduates only w ith the a b i l i t y to perfo rn w ell in a hone econonics designated p o s itio n

75) Hone eco n o n is ts ' c o n trib u tio n s to so c ie ty i s very s i n i l a r to con­tr ib u tio n s nade by o ther p ro fessions

76) The College of Education i s the w orst acadenic u n it in which to house the hone econonics n a jo r

77) Hone econonics graduates h e s i ta te to in trcduce thense lves as a hone econonist

78) Leadership, o rgan i­z a tio n a l & decis io n naking s k i l l s w ill not change as a r e s u l t of the hone econonics pro gran a t th is u n iv e rs ity

Hone econonics p repares s tu den ts fo r high sa la ry

:___p o s itio n s

Hone econonics a t th is u n iv e rs ity has s trong

:___fa c u lty /s tu d e n t re la t io n s

P ro fess io n a l a b i l i t i e s of hone econonists are understood by p ro fes ­s io n a ls o u ts id e hone

:___econonics

P ro fess io n a l a b i l i t i e s of hone econonists are understood by the

:___general pub lic

Hone econonics has a :___strong acadenic progran

Home econonics provides g raduates w ith the f l e x i ­b i l i t y to perfo rn w ell in a v a r ie ty of ca ree r

:___areas

Hone eco n o n is ts ' have a unique c o n trib u tio n to nake to so c ie ty

The College of Education i s the b est acadenic u n it in which to house

_the hone econonics n a jo r

Hone econonics g raduates w ill not h e s i ta te to in troduce thenselves

_as a hone econonist

Leadership, o rgan i­za tio n a l & decis io n naking s k i l l s w ill be enhanced as a r e s u l t of the hone econonics p ro -

_gran a t th is u n iv e rs ity

79) I would never encourage a s tuden t to e n ro ll in a hone economics program fo r th e i r co lleg e major

I would d e f in i te ly encourage s tu d en ts to consider a home economics program fo r

:___th e i r co lleg e major

APPENDIX B

Q uestionnaire in Arabic

124

125

&JLJ!

Initial j a-JljJJ «,_.«> ,;. II oli*Jl,j.Li J j» j j X i wIjLe ioe ■*»*; <fJLJI w.L*jueJlliflc

• L>J I ^ aV~i 11 IajI iTi->I J l J>> l wUblsiSl j

• u a ^ I j a J I a a a ^ L y - t l c J ^ ^ I i _ » ^ j i J l w l i j I i . . li j l . ; i ‘i r l )j i J ^ . t L j U j ^ y l c A j I i j A j » - J I I a a ^ L * . . : j

* « > *i m • 11 ^LJLkJ I iV,«> i

<L»jJli U.Bj^ ifl.ij Ijl^ Ijlj L,(-Jc a^UVi j w b wIjLuJI S « I j j t UjJI IjJ

• “ * i

i * i i Ij'L.i + .

j-ij—*Jl *JJI j

126

• 4jLxJ£ pl..l-Ui«.*-l»lj - -'ti'-'j' «* jl '"

*JlkJliji> - : J/KI«>?JI------------------- ja i* J lii--1

- : < u x L ^ » ^ l l i Jb J I - T

— — — —— ‘ - M r - j* *

fclrfj I- : «„-,;» II - r

J**

jJ^U jllhill

t s ^

- : *-<—IjjJl«,; — 11 -o 4j—

A » |* lj 4* , —

•j—Kta^ii* - -T.4 llfc.ll aJIjJI i t*bjj^U *1-1

jLJIj J*x JJUj AL. • wfljj

4 in i.i'J »t ii jJgJIj tJjb • yt

■\-rli"«

j->l J i j 4_J

127

,c •

* j II-w II llj * * ^*** J uLiaJIj J X 4Jl>|jAla *

JrflS (iljJ

— —w* 11 - * 11 if I" s llj Ja • -> L^JL>

— -------- a .u l i l a

— —— I J i j LfJ- : AJ_OUkS>i_JlJ»jJly>U -A

- ■■■ JIjj T • j» * • Jjl---------------- J L j O V ' ^ 1 J W j i - y

— Jk>vV,m

------------------- Jl-ifj o - IwVI ~ i ■j.>illjJUa,t 1)iil«11Iijj" — *.ll jaU “ T

— — i. ■ ■* —j ' - 11 J>A<# ja-J j -L l iL i l

_ ^j Ia-xI j^ iL t

—— ij—*■!■*----- kT*-*

■ ^Lc AiImIjA

■ ! 4 >ll II p lj f» “ I «£*Jl£-JI *“ V

V A al I H AgjjUjI Ift" ll t I* 1 Jftiis >J<|« il ytLa • I •Jj^la — >V* —— Li> _ _ jl#iai

T <Uj iU .l^ j J j aa.ll aU i W I i ll ja | ^ a a ^ 4 a j l l < CuS (Ja * M

."i ■r4-? aIj-» jt>i^IS Ja —1—IT

— A.l l ■« II AAAtj A U ” | 4 l l ..7 n f t> I C w lS l i t — w

ooCSJ

I3ti

A V- wt : :o — )■ v

\i 4fi- "Ji ]■

3 - 3) i: 3.

i

' S -

5 a vi ia3 j.$• -V4 4

VJ

I

3J>

I O

3 1,1 4» *1 11IIS <1I * 3 %js

1_n 7;i 3 4i1 i v,

■* 3 3 ^a .A

1 J J J3 % a a' i

jT- -j ’ Tq;1 b J g 1 i1&•

J 3 c ^

J ' 3 § \ 3 - 'ri

7*O**

2 1 3 1 1 j - j i

l j ■} 'f 0 i

129

«_-k J ^ J I 0

- t -

■I.r, yjlgal j--<> -li «jjJ<

u I'fl JI -jl — I- --■ «I ! Il j_ **j" J *• —IV

” ^ j i ir.ijV._J _ft _1H,

— ? ^

tibLj. if JJI J t «HjJ> 1 i J . all J t„ _■*. > 1 Iji ft—aJlliL oJc-.lt ( ,H —

----------

— JjJt J—Jlj^ jft I «*—*/ il JS —'.'i jL>^l0 ,

• cL-U J^-kl

----------------

I J jJ I I ;> L i u .jUr.H^j . . i ll ,y i—jjJftbLolcoE IJl—Tt

i M — U f i S J ' 2 «l l y i I J - i «-*< 1>J <1*3=. I

^ JjajJJ i-H~. LJJ O J—/ J

------ J?---J ^ J L l i ^ L J I J._____________ \j J J _ S I

.. IjfiS J t i .■ J i J^JU 2_«. UI JL— I J J_*S I -'■'1 * iT't* * • l| '— J>*»H (/“ j; •> J<S t

H j - J h 1. - T V

jJb JJ LJt djui

■ 1 ■ ir*u»J SJ12 j Ifa ylt Jj «.»U J-ju UJI I, j I

• . U l j i J— ___Ijj J—51

• *\f£ J1 J t J —

: o-l •Us'ijl t —l !l »>JI

I.U. j i

*-**»• JS* - T

•tr—lJIJui* «—»*!»• je* —'f

i J J

*u—iJ lui-v *—i* V —0

i - iitj. _1

lu_>. i i; 14 _Y

t>~* •«■*! cS * J*» fr-* I-' t r " *J •**

- 3

JJ1 JfcjJtjji i i , T f

■ i . \f ‘ ,-«i -lialj

J«* llo« « /^<j> 11 J**S I

i —Jo.

j j jjoJIi... 1 Ur., j JJI J..«.iJI T*

•« \ j J lg _ UJ L

* Or? *r> s* o*y 0 *>r-*s —\ j T t j Lj. * j l j l SSjLJJ j | (

C.IjlrJK -i— & i,J*H M iV J I -T V

\ j *j'V tp^*je

, j j l i ' v t.ll h U J I J I jA ^ I ^ i u L J I

’ Vr J*-*5

j^ .^ sU u s jV s i* j* ± r & ' J-* - n• J * 4V L-5

il^JI JJ- o ' — T*

Y 1 6

Y 1 6

Y 1 6

Y 1 o

Y 1 o

_ 131

t Y 1 1 ^ .-6 t j 1 j k u jw -JTT

t. . f f i t t f j i i J»*D *—l^-E

• cW»

t Y T I J J , JU jJ l.j-i t s o 1 - W 10 - J r * * * - ; 1 -T 'C

■ J rf

I T T 1 — 0,5,11 K t U l u ^ i i l j J I o j S :-Y*

v i ° t T T I I r — ;1jji _r t

Y * ° t t T ) _T»

* « J l—*1

Y 1 e I r T I i - , l j « O s £ J s l^ J I _Y«*

Y 1 I T T > j y . Miitie. J jisl^ji _ rv

C— • y * r» J*-*l ^ J t j i ^ j l o a J - i i K i j j J I

v 1 0 i t t i * i— , - y i ^ ^

* I 4 mjIm Fyil lc» Vy« l ty

Y 1 0 I Y T :i « _ ~ . t o £ J J i p j j t

• J—-J l^

Y 1 ° I T T I j v * ’i i v> J L . j U 0 ^ ' « W ' - I *

■ rill j t p. Hr.

I T T I ^ U t ■»i6U..Jk.Hty>jmaU»rilbs«iJ» _ i»

* t T I _ I C

Y 1 * I T T 1 ^ ik j J lv L J l J V .I I ^ ^ U - i iU l l _ t*

■ riUJ

V 1 I T T 1 - n

* a I ■■yttfl «~.H

I

I J j j <!■ ‘-J j J I J »f | *_J> 1 _ i V

IK

\ u»-

t ^ «-».»-L —..) i_-, uJ I _a>

• jj- XJ I

1 f1 j* A- -j * "j '-^• dJJi,, I L j J t

t ^ jU J J iL — K i — j j J I - o C

-O jjjJI

I cy-JtiJ.i.l»'.HiJu^JI)y j—.Lc^ i \ jJ \^ e f

• cU.:«.

i ; l_»J \ J UjL^tj«Ll,i1,JLJ J_**JL _«•

* *■ ■ ^ j j x ■ *- o* u~—1V

v1'/! * ty *!»l—- d L* j f i i o^v—■** —

* ! Ij J—» 1 O—TT

o' > J—• K (•j(J J . K> 1J 11 Ch-3*. —• V* J I an I y **J f Jl Ah! U

133

• ■ c - L J I U I j .

u* jU.n'IJL_JU.

• LpLeUjj Je J ^ j J I ^ fZ z,

* ^ I tk 1 •■* w

jE ^ I J*-SJ l , J _ .

* i - - ^ 1

*’»— IO* *~>J * J»"J I A~»' — •*

-* U«—m » 5

i I. . M kJ L -i-A • I ■*!. fi^Z, _ ^

Jj—JljU ii'J l«_jar< *j » -■, -•-• _ £

_: u-J^JI _: j ___fcJI *>»JISSSSSttSSS

liW li O* r *5 f x ) *— i— 'c. t ,L J l ^ JS j l y l _ B

» U-.r.J« ■ IUJ !-• UJ1 I :,

t l _

* ^ *J ,

*h * e * s u-lr*^ * - I g j 1» 11

* tiji—*. J . /

'j^*' J / i J I j Lii^ g«" »M I '

J J t - J l IkUjIjSS^J^JIjUiTII

• J > J I .Lci-il

u—lr*JI . U»yj ij^lnlU

• *—r* M

lit j i i .•.,«! i-JUaJI .uw i j j z d l .• Lsi U-O:------ :----L L l _ n -

* I" * ■— ■ Juw J ^JljLjVJTI— * I J»» £j L- I _ ir

ij/** i_/- « / ^

: J y - i l JJ**

■ v i l ^ » I > . ^ 3

■:---- :-----ur^lj^y JyJIjLtfV'J _H

.:---- :----- J k J U trJ>JI j LsJKI _•%>

1 uiyJijLsjyj _ n

jtfju _nv

_ q - _ 134

• j k j~ \ u j y j i j u r x i i j i ^

i •£ L. I i —/ ii% dL*

: *- 1>J 1< i*

•lUsi^lt jfc'n t j J v^>Jtol*DDI-

• Ovts* 10KA»-J * « «m-*» \J'j '

•* -t.ll

4„ i uJ>JIJLsi5Utw J8KIG.t^JI .

; o j L’S i orr s -v - i d u _ y *

A OJA , y J j m i I j L a g ' ll , j i * l k ) jj

.U l

. j U j^ i is. j J v^Jivii-usJi _vt

> J > J l a U r * 1 S ^ 4 - ^ l c , l« lS J I -VC

'SaLJi<a « mkj., »• jf.

l>Jt.>u;)Uw-g jD iic. t JJ i -v*

^IJULUuhSd) ^ .

^ i iaJt 1—• L,J yJ/iaJ I -' Li# "i I• Jj—i*i I Iam*I ,>

l^- oA J tf l J > j IJUSTI«ys

, tX g * u » J > d d J J aa# , j i * g y J . r J l j U i i ' i l — V I

a**L—- —VC

* ly Im Ii LaL—I A* t—

. 0 1 i * ! 5 * _ J J ^ L U i V I L - J S _ V J *

*!>■ lrtf* OyH

.■ Lei I i*y>5 u— L ui

^ U#*-1 't -» !»: J V*J' v/ u— L W-

«itdbj fl gibyjacy iCjfjC

• i n LJI # Jut <y‘ 1

C*»ft^a V \ j u—’j K* —VA

J Li^1)' I £« tgJ lyii ^

• a j u I f J • A i * t j j r * } *

. vjl—-JiU^jilAJlLjj—jljJ -W

| AA«m2 ( oL&lli I £a t g j l

APPENDIX C

Data R ela tive to R esults

135

T able 18. Demographic C h a r a c te r i s t i c s o f Female Sophomore and S en io r Horns Economics and S en io r S c ien ce , S o c io logy and E n g lish Language M ajo rs.

Demographic V a r ia b le s

Number and P e rc e n t

Home Economics M ajors Sophomore S en io r S tu d en ts S tu d en ts

(n}=70 (n)=44

of R espondents

S cien ceS en io r

S tu d en ts(n)=38

S ocio logyS en io r

S tu d e n ts(n)*38

E n g lish Language S en io r

S tu d e n ts (n)*37

Age

18-21 (55) 84.6% (6) 14.3% (21) 55.3% (18) 47.4% (33) 89.2%

22-25 (9) 13.9% (35) 83.3% (17) 44.7% (18) 47.4% <4) 10.8%

26-30 (1) 1.5% (1) 2.4% (2) 5.2%

M a r ita l S ta tu s

S in g le (58) 82.9% (34) 77.3% (34) 89.5% (28) 73.7% (29) 78.4%

M arried (12) 17.1% (10) 22,7% (4) 10.5% (10) 26.3% (8) 21.6%

C ountry o f C i t iz e n s h ip

Q a ta r (65) 92.9% (43) 97.7% (21) 55.3% (29) 76.3% (24) 64.9%

O ther (5) 7.1% (1) 2.3% (17) 44.7% (9) 23.7% (13) 35.1%

T able 19. Summary o f High School and C o lleg e E x p erien ces o f Hone Econom ics, S c ien ce , S o c io lo g y , and E n g lish H a jo rs a t Q a ta r U n iv e r s i ty .

Number and P e rc e n t o f R espondents S en io r Home S en io r S en io r S en io r

C h a r a c te r i s t i c s Econonics S c ien ce S ocio logy E n g lishM ajrrs M ajors M ajors M ajors

(n) = 44 (n) = 38 (n) - 38 <n) = 37

High School E xperien ce tirade P o in t Average

A (1) 2.3% (9) 23.7% (4) 10.5% (3) 8.1%B (14) 31.8% (21) 55.3% (17) 44.7% (18) 48.6%C (27) 61.4% (7) 18.4% (16) 42.1% (16) 43.2%D (2) 4.5% (1) 2.6% (1) 2.6%

A tten d home econom ics c la s s e s (32) 74.4% (32) 86.5% (26) 68.4% (34) 91.9%C lass in f lu e n c e d ch o ice

o f m ajor (12) 27.3% (12) 32.4% (2) 5.3% (17) 45.9%Hone econom ics (8) 18.2% (2) 5.3% (15) 40.5%Mon-home econom ics (1) 2.2% (9)

C o lleg e E xperienceS tu d e n ts have changed m ajor (13) 29.5% (1) 2.6% (1) 2.6% (4) 10.8%P re v io u s m ajor

L ib e ra l A rts (7) 15.9% (4) 10.8%S cience (5) 11.3%M edicine (1) 2.6%Tiro y e a rLanguage E d u ca tio n (1) 2.2%Home Economics (1) 2.6%

Grade P o in t AverageA (2) 4.5% (3) 7.9% (1) 2.6%B (2) 4.6% (3) 7 .8 % (6) 15.7% (8) 22.2%C (27) 61.3% (25) 65.8% (27) 71.0% (24) 66.7%D (13) 29.5% (7) 18.4% (4) 10.5% (4) 11.1%

T ab le 20 . Summary o f F u tu re G oals o f Home Econom ics, S c ie n ce , S o c io lo g y , E n g lish M ajors a t Q a ta r U n iv e r s i ty .

Number and P e rc e n t o f R espondents S en io r Home S en io r S en io r S en io r

C h a r a c te r i s t i c s Economics S c ience S o c io lo g y E n g lishM ajors M ajors Majovs M ajors

(n) » 44 (n) ■ 38 (n) * 38 (ni * 37

D e sired E d u ca tionComplete work f o r b a c h e lo r 's

deg ree (29) 65.9% (20) 52.0% (20) 52.6% (21) 56.8%C o ap le te work f o r w a s te r 's

deg ree (10) 22.7% (6) 15.8% {>> 23.7% (9) 24.3%C o ap le te work f o r d o c to ra l

d eg ree (5) 11.4% (12) 31.6% (9) 23.7% (7) 18.9%Expected E d ucation

Q u it sch o o lC o ap le te b a c h e lo r 's d eg ree

vl)(35)

2.3%81.4% (22) 57.9% (31) 81.6% (31) 83.8%

C o ap le te w a s te r 's d eg ree (3) 7.0% (5) 13.2% (2) 5.3% (4) 10.8%C o ap le te d o c to ra l d eg ree (4) 9.3% (11) 28.9% (5) 13.2% (2) 5.4%

E xpected to be employed in m ajor (41) 93.2% (31) 81.6% (37) 97.4% (37)100.0%E xpected to rem ain a t u n iv e r s i ty (43) 97.7% (28) 75.7% (33) 86.5% (35) 94.6%D esired O ccupation

T eaching (12) 27.3% (4) 10.5% (2) 5.3% (10) 27.0%P r o fe s s io n a l (23) 52.3% (26) 68.4% (15) 39.5% (16) 43.2%M anageria l (6) 13.6% (6) 15.8% (19) 50.0% (9) 24.3%Housewife (3) 6.8% (2) 5.3% (2) 5.3% (2) 5.4%

E xpected O ccupationTeaching (38) 86.4% (35) 92.1% (30) 78.9% (30) 81.1%M anageria l (2) 4.5% (1) 2.6% (7) 18.4% (7) 18.9%Housew ife (4) 9.1% (2) 5.3% (1) 2.6%

T able 21 . S a u a r y o f F a c to rs I n f l u e n t i a l in Choice o f M ajor

Nuaber and P e rc e n t o f R espondents S en io r Home S en io r S en io r S en io r

C h a r a c te r i s t i c s Economics S c ien ce S ocio logy E n g lishM ajors M ajors M ajors M ajors

<n) = 44 (n) * 38 (n) S 38 (n) = 37

I n f l u e n t i a l P e rso n in Choiceo f M ajor:

M other (3) 7.0% (7) 18.4% (1) 2..6% (4) 10.8%F a th e r (6) 13.6% (2) 5.3% (1) 2..6% (7) 18.4%B ro th e r (1) 6.8% (5) 13.2% (3) 7..9% (2) 5.4%S i s t e r (3) 6.8% (4) 10.5% (3) 7 ,5% (1) 2.7%O ther R e la t iv e (4) 9.1% (2) 5.3% (1) 2..6% (2) 5.4%High School F r ie n d (7> 15.9% (2) 5.3% (5) 13..2% (2) 5.4%Hose Economics Teacher (3) 6.8% (3) 7.9% (1) 2.7%O ther T eacher {3} 6.8% (6) 15.8% (2) 5..3% (7) 18.9%C o lleg e F rien d (8) 18.2% (4) 10.8% ?) 7..9%O ther (4) 9.1% (8) 21.1% (1) 2.7%

Reasons f o r Choice o f M ajor:To p re p a re f o r a c a re e r (14) 31.8% (15) 39.5% (10) 26..3% (14) 37.8%To h e lp o th e r s (13) 29.5% (39) 50.0% (16) 42..1% (12) 32.4%F rie n d in t h i s m ajor (11) 25.0% (5) 13.2% (1) 2..6% (1) 2.7%Fam ily th o u g h t t h i s would

be b e s t (8) 18.2% (7) 18.4% (2) 5..3% (7) 18.9%High sch o o l te a c h e r su g g e s tio n (3) 6.8% (4) 10.5% (6) 16.2%Had co u rse r e l a t e d to i t

in h ig h sch o o l (2) 4.5% (4) 10.5% (2) 5.4%B e t te r g rade (2) 4.5% (7) 18.4% (2) 5..3% (5) 13 5%Good income (5) 11.4% (16) 42.1% (5) 13..5% (8) 21.6%Good c a re e r (15) 34.1% (11) 28.9% (4) 10..4% (4) 10.8%Combining work and fa m ily (34) 77.3% (8) 21.1% (10) 26..3% (5) 13.5%

T ab le 22 . Response F requency f o r th e Home Economics Image R a tin g S ca le (HEIRS).

Number and P e rc e n t o f Number and P e rc e n t o fR espondents In d ic a t in g R espondents I n d ic a t in g

N egative Image P o s i t iv e ImageHome Non-Home Home Non-Home

Item s Economics Economics Economics Economics(n) = 114 (n) = 113 (n) = 114 (n) = 113

59) P re p a re s s tu d e n ts f o r v a lu a b lework (13) 11.4% (14) 2 2.4% (101) 88.6% (99) 87.6%

60) I v a lu e as a p ro fe s s io n (22) 23.3% (44) 3i\.9% (81) 71.7% (69) 61.1%61)62)

Has a good imageO ther p r o f e s s io n a ls v a lu e as

(20) 17.7% (16) 14.2% (93) 82.3% (97) 85.8%

63)a p ro fe s s io nS o c ie ty in g e n e ra l v a lu e s as

(52) 46.0% (45) 39.8% (61) 54.0% (67) 59.2%

a p ro fe s s io n (52) 45.6% (40) 35.4% (62) 54.4% (72) 63.6%64) I s f u tu r e o r ie n te d (18) 15.9% (19) 16.8% (95) 84.1% (94) 83.2%65) I s p ro g re s s iv e (20) 17.5% (24) 21.2% (94) 82.5% (89) 78.8%€6) The d eg ree i s a v a lu a b le deg ree (9) 7 .9 % (14) 12.4% (105) 92.1% (99) 87.6%67) C on ten t i s re s e a rc h e d based (33) 28.9% (41) 36.6% (81) 70.1% (71) 62.4%68)69)

D egrees have h ig h p r e s t ig e P re p a re s s tu d e n ts f o r h ig h

(23) 20.2% (25) 22.1% (91) 79.8% (88) 77.9%

70)s a la r y p o s i t io n sHas s t ro n g f a c u l ty / s tu d e n t

(19) 17.0% (29) 25.7% (93) 83.0% (74) 74.3%

71)r e l a t i o n s a t t h i s u n iv e r s i ty P r o fe s s io n a l a b i l i t i e s a re u n d e rs to o d by p r o f e s s io n a ls

(55) 48.7% (41) 36.2% (58) 51.3% (72) 63.8%

72)o u ts id e home econom ics A b i l i t i e s a re u n d e rs to o d

(42) 37.5% (47) 41.6% (70) 62.5% (66) 38.4%

by g e n e ra l p u b lic (62) 54.4% (55) 48.7% (52) 45.6% (58) 51.3%73)74)

Has a s tro n g academ ic program P ro v id es f l e x i b i l i t y to perfo rm w e ll in a v a r i e ty

(42) 37.8% (47) 41.6% (69) 62.2% (66) 58.4%

o f c a r e e r a re a s (48) 40.4% (50) 44.3% (68) 59.7% (63) 55.7%

T able 22 (c o n tin u e d ) .

Number and P e rc e n t o f Number and P e rc e n t ofR espondents I n d ic a t in g R espondents I n d ic a t in g

N eg ativ e Image P o s i t iv e ImageHome Non-Home Home Non-Home

Item s Economics Economics Ecorom ics Economics(n) - 114 (n) = 113 (n) ■ 114 (n) ■ 113

75) Have a un ique c o n tr ib u t io nto make to s o c ie ty (41) 36.0% (54) 47.8% (73) 63.0% (59) 52.2%

76) I s th e b e s t academ ic u n i tin which to house my m ajor (16) 14.2% (29) 25.7% (97) 85.8% (84) 74.3%

77} I would n o t h e s i t a t e to in tro d u c e m yself as ahome econom ist (12) 10.5% (22) 19.4% (102) 89.5% (91) 80.6%

78) My le a d e r s h ip , o rg a n iz a ­t i o n a l and d e c is io n making s k i l l s have been enhanced a s a r e s u l t o f th e homeeconom ics a t t h i s u n iv e r s i ty (44) 38.6% (51) 45.1% (70) 61.4% (62) 54.9%

79) I would d e f i n i t e l y encourage o th e r s tu d e n ts to c o n s id e r a home econom ics program fo rt h e i r c o lle g e m ajor (17) 15.1% (24) 21.2% (96) 84.9% (89) 78.8%

T able 23 . Mean S cores o f Eome Economics Image Score f o r Home Econom ics, S c ien ce , S o c io lo g y , and E n g lish M ajo rs.

Item sS en io r Home Economics

M ajors (n) = 44

Mean S cores S en io r S cience M ajors

(N) = 38

o f R espondents S en io r

S ocio logy M ajors

(N) = 38

S en io r E n g lish M ajors

(n) = 37

59) P re p a re s s tu d e n ts f o r v a lu a b le work 3.6818 3.5789 3.6578 3.7837

60) I v a lu e a s a p ro fe s s io n 2.9772 3.1578 3.1052 2.378361) Has a good image 3.3181 3.6315 3.5789 3.540562) O ther p r o f e s s io n a ls v a lu e as

a p ro fe s s io n 2.5227 2.9736 2.9210 2.594563) S o c ie ty in g e n e ra l v a lu e s as

a p ro fe s s io n 2.6363 3.1315 3.1052 2.648664) I s f u tu r e o r ie n te d 3.5909 3.7631 3.1842 2.540565) I s p ro g re s s iv e 3.5681 3.5263 3.1842 3.432466) The d eg ree i s a v a lu a b le deg ree 3.8863 3.6842 3.4473 3.756767) C on ten t i s re s e a rc h e d based 3.5227 3.4864 2.5263 2.756768) D egrees have h ig h p r e s t ig e 3.1818 3.7105 2.8947 3.486469) P re p a re s s tu d e n ts f o r h ig h

s a l a r y p o s i t io n s 3.5909 3.1842 3.G789 3.405470) Has s t ro n g f a c u l ty / s tu d e n t

r e l a t i o n s a t t h i s u n iv e r s i ty 2.1590 2.8157 2.7894 3.000071) P ro fe s s io n a l a b i l i t i e s a re

u n d ers to o d by p r o f e s s io n a ls o u ts id e home econom ics 2.6590 2.6315 2.5263 2.9722

72) A b i l i t i e s a re u n d e rs to o d by g e n e ra l p u b lic 2.4318 2.8447 2.2368 2.6216

73) Has a s tro n g academ ic program 2.3409 2.6578 2.9210 2.756774) P ro v id es f l e x i b i l i t y to perform

w e ll in a v a r i e ty o f c a r e e r a re a s 2.9090 2.9210 2.1578 3.0000

T able 23 (c o n tin u e d ) .

Mean S cores of R espondentsS en io r Home S en io r S en io r S en io r

Item s Economics S cience S ocio logy E n g lishM ajors M ajors M ajors M ajors

(n) = 44 (n) = 38 (n) = 38 (n) = 37

75) Have a un ique c o n tr ib u t io n tomake to s o c ie ty 2.8863 2.7368 2.4210 2.4864

76) I s th e b e s t academ ic u n i t inwhich to house my m ajor 3.3409 3.1052 3.1052 3.3783

77) I would n o t h e s i t a t e to in tro d u c e m yself as a homeeconom ists 3.6818 3.7368 3.0789 3.4864

78) My le a d e r s h ip , o rg a n iz a ­t i o n a l and d e c is io n making s k i l l s have been enhanced a s a r e s u l t o f th e home econom ics a t t h i s u n iv e r s i ty

79) I would d e f i n i t e l y encourage o th e r s tu d e n ts to c o n s id e r a home econom ics program f o r t h e i r c o lle g e m ajor

T o ta l Mean Score

2.9318

3.3181

3.1017

2.9216

3.4473

3.2230

2.4473

3.1578

2.9298

2.5135

3.4864

3.0965

REFERENCES

Aadland, J . , Dunkelberger, S .C ., Nonlnar, J . & F u rc e ll , M. (1983).

S im ila r i t ie s - D is s im ila r i t ie s Among Students in Home Economics

Majors a t Southern Land-Grant U n iv e rs itie s . Home Economics

Research Jo u rn a l. 12(1), 3-15.

Abdul Hamid, J . (1979). Students percep tion of th e i r major and the

r e la t io n of th i s to caree r cho ice. Educational Research C en ter,

U n iv ers ity of Q atar.

Abu Saud, Abeer. Q atari Women P ast and P rese n t. Longman, England,

1984.

Andrew, M.D. (1983). The C h a ra c te r is tic s of Students in a Five

Year Teacher Education Program. Journal of Teacher Education.

34(1), 20-23.

B arn e tt, R.C. (1975), Sex d iffe ren ce and age tren d s in occupational

p references and occupational p re s t ig e . Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 22, 35-38.

Book, C .L ., e t . a l . (1983). Comparing Academic Backgrounds and

Career A sp ira tio n s of Education and Llon-education M ajors.

Research and Evaluation in Teacher Education. Program E valuation

S eries No. 2 . East Lansing, MI: Michigan S ta te U n iv ers ity ,

College of Education.

144

Book, C.L. & Freeman, D .J. (1984). Comparing Academic Backgrounds,

Career D ecisions, and Educational B e lie fs of Elementary and

Secondary Teacher Education C andidates. Research and Evaluation

in Teacher Education. Program Evaluation S eries No. 2 . East

Lansing, MI: Michigan S ta te U n iversity , College of Education.

Bontempo, B.T. & Digman, S. (1985). Entry Level P ro f i le : Student

A ttitu d es Toward the Teaching P ro fess io n . The American

Educational Research A ssociation , Chicago, IL. (ERIC DOCUMENT

REPRODUCTION SERVICE NO. ED 258 949).

Brooks, L. (1984). Counseling sp ec ia l groups: Women and e th n ic

m in o r itie s . In Dr. Brown, L. Brook, and A ssociates (E d s.) ,

Career Choice and Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

vjb-368.

Brown, D. (1984). Summary, comparison, and c r i t iq u e of major

th e o r ie s . In D. Brown, L. Brooks, and A ssociates (E d s.) , Career

Choice and Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 311-336.

Callahan, R. (1980). A Study of Teacher C andidates' A ttitu d e s .

College Student Jo u rn a l. 3, 167-175.

Carmon, N. and Mannheim, B.F. (1979). Reference groups and

p ro fess io n a l s e l f image: The case of a rc h i te c ts . Journal of

V ocational B ehavior. 14, 169-180.

Carver, M.N. (1980). Home Economics in Highest Education: Major

Changes in A dm inistrative S tru c tu re and Curriculum. Unpublished

d o c to ra l d is s e r ta t io n .

146

Carney, M. and Morgan, C.S. (1981). Female co llege p e r s is te r s :

N o n trad itio n a l versus t r a d i t io n a l c a ree r f i e ld s . Journal of

College Student P ersonnel, 22, 418-423.

C h arte rs , V. (1963). The Social Background of Teaching. In N. Gage

(E d .), Handbook of Research on Teaching, Chicago: Rand McNally,

715-813.

C hild , D. I . (1977). Psychology and the Teacher. Nev York: H olt,

R inehart and Winston.

Cooperman, S. & K lagholz, L. (1984), Ne* J e r s e y 's A lte rn a te Route to

Teacher C e r t i f ic a t io n . Phi D elta Kappan, 66(10), 691-695.

Cruickshank, D. (1984). Tovard a Model to Guide Inqu iry in

Pres* rv ice Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education,

35(6), 43-48.

Dravland, V. & Greene, M. (1980). A Comparison of Students Who

Enter Education lfith Those Who Do Not. Paper presen ted a t the

annual conference of the Canadian Society fo r the Study of

Education. M ontreal, Quebec. (ERIC DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION

SERVICE NO. ED 191 826).

East M. (1980). Home Economics. P a s t, P resen t, and F u tu re . Boston:

A llyn and Bacon, Inc .

F a r r e l l , R. V. (1980). But They Keep Coming. A sh o rt essay on why

people choose teach ing as a c a re e r . Contemporary Education,

51(4), 210-213.

Green, K.B. (1981). A gainst the C urren t. Journal of Hone Economics.

Greene, M.L. (1980, A p ril) . Follow-up Studies on the Succes of

Education G raduates. Paper p resen ted a t the annual Meeting of

the A ierican Educational Research A ssocia tion . Boston, MA.

(ERIC DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION SERVICE NO. 191 824).

Gutek, B.A. and Larirood, L. (1987). Women's Career Development.

Newbury Park, CA: SAGE P u b lica tio n , In c .

Horn, M.J. (1981). Home Economics: A R ec ita tio n of D e fin itio n .

Journal of Home Economics, 73, 19-23.

Howell, F and P a ren t. (1979). Methodology and Data fo r Study of

Higher Education in A gricu ltu re and Home Economics in the South:

A user's Guide, Vol. 1 (ERIC Document Reproduction S erv ice, No. ED

186152).

Jan tzen , J.M. (1981, M arch-A pril). Why College Students Choose to

Teach: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Teacher Education.

23(2), 45-48.

Johnson, B. (1983). Why Students S e lect Education as a C areer.

Tennessee Education, 13(2), 27-30.

Joyce, B .R ., Y arger, S .J . , Howley, K.R., Harbeck, K.M., & Kluwin,

T.N. (1977). P rese rv ice Teacher Education. U.S. O ffice of

Education C ontract No. OEC-O-74-9279. (ERIC DOCUMENT

REPRODUCTION SERVICE NO. ED 146 120).

McEwen, H.K. (1975). Counseling women: A review of the re sea rch .

Journal of College School P ersonnel. 16(5), 382-387.

Meyer, W.G., Crawford, L.C. and K laurens, M.K. (1975). C oordination

in Cooperative V ocational Education. Columbus, OH: C harles E.

M errill P ub lish ing Company, 124-149.

148

Nieva, V.F. and Gutek, B.A. (1981). Women and Work: A

Psychological P e rsp e c tiv e . Key York: P raeger.

O 'Barr, J . (1976). Third World Woien: Factor in Their Changing

S ta tu s . Durham, KC: Duke U n iv e rs ity .

O liv e r, L.W. (1975). The re la tio n sh ip of p a ren ta l and a t t i tu d e s and

paren t id e n t i f ic a t io n to c a ree r and homemaking o r ie n ta tio n in

co llege women. Journal of V ocational Behavior. 7, 1-12.

Ory, J .C . and H e lfr ic h , L.M. (1978). Study of in d iv id u a l

c h a r a c te r is t ic s and caree r a sp ira tio n s . V ocational Guidance

Q u a rte rly , 27(1), 43-49.

Osipov, H. (1976). V ocational behavior and caree r development, 1975

Review. Jou rna l of V ocational Behavior, 9, 129-142.

P a ta i, R. (1967). Women in the Modern World. MacMillan Company.

Peterson , K.L. & Rascoe, L.B. (1983). The Home Economics Under­

graduate As Seen in Demographic P ro f i le s . Journal of Home

Economics, 75(2), p . 38-40.

P u rn e ll , M. (1980). A comparison of l i f e goals, a t t i tu d e and p e r­

ception of home economics major a t Utah S ta te U niversity and

1862 co lleg e and u n iv e rs ity in the southern reg ion . (ERIC

Document Reproduction Serv ice, No. ED 19C633).

Redick, R.S. (1974). Se lec ted C h a ra c te r is tic s of Home Economics

Teachers and Programs fo r P hy sica lly Handicapped S tudents . Iowa

S ta te U n iv ers ity , Doctoral D is se r ta tio n .

Ryans, D.G. (1960). C h arac te ris t i c s of Teachers. Washington, D.C.:

American Council on Education.

Savage, T.Y. (1983). The Academic Q uality of Women Choosing

Education as a Major. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1),

14-19.

Schalock, D. (1979). Research on Teacher S e lec tio n . In B erlin e r,

D.C. (E d .). Review of Research in Education. American

Educational Research A ssocia tion .

Sharp, L.M. & H irsch fe ld , S.B. (1975). Who Are the New Teachers?

A Look a t 1971 College Graduates Bureau of Social Science

Research, In c . Washington, D.C.: (ERIC DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION

SERVICES NO. ED 115 582).

Shinar, E.H. (1975). Sexual s tereo ty p es of occupations. Journal o

V ocational Behavior , 7, 99-111.

Smith, E .J . (1975). P ro f i le of the black in d iv id u a l in v o cational

l i t e r a tu r e . Journal of V ocational Behavior , 6, 41-59.

S ta r , N.K. (1983). Q uality and Q uantity of A pplicants fo r Teacher

Education Rapidly D im inishing. Education, 104(2), 150-154.

S tinson , M.L. (1978). Women in the 7 0 's—have o p p o rtu n itie s r e a l ly

changed? Journa l of Business Education, 54(2), 75-77.

S tout and o th e rs (1980). Two Paths in to Home Economics: A Study

of Black and White Women in 1890 and 1852 Land-Grant

U n iv e rs itie s . Howe Economics Jo u rn a l. 9 (3 ), 211-220.

Suchner, R.W. and More, D.H. (1975). S tereotypes of males and

females in to two occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 6,

i - 8 .

150

Terborg, J .R . (1979). Women as Managers Scale, in J .E . Jones and

J.W. P f e i f f e r (E d s.) . The 1979 Annual Handbook fo r Group

F a c i l i t a to r s . L aJo lla , CA: U niversity A ssoc ia tes , In c . , 79-81.

V incen ti, V.B. (1982). Toward a C learer P ro fess io n a l Id e n ti ty .

Journa l of Home Economics, 514, 20-25.

Vogel, S.R. and o th e rs . (1975). S ex -ro le ,se lf-co n cep ts and l i f e

s ty le p lans of young women. Journ a l of Consulting and C lin ic a l

Psychology. 43 (3 ), 427.

Wardlow, G.W. (1984). The Academic A b ility of A g ricu ltu ra l Education

Graduates Compared With Other Ag r ic u ltu re . Education and

U n iversity Graduates of the Ohio S ta te U n iv e rs ity . Unpublished

d o c to ra l d is s e r ta t io n , The Ohio S ta te U n iversity , Columbus, Ohio.

White, J.M. (1985). Measurement of the Degree of P ro fess io n a l

Commitment and Image of Home Economics Held by S elected Senior

Students i n the Colle g e of Hoae Economics, The Ohio S ta te

U n iv e rs ity , Columbus, Ohio.

Whitehead, Osborn and Stevens, (1965). Selected C h a ra c te r is tic s of

Majors in Home Economics, Sociology, Language and A rt. J ourna l

of Home Economics, 57(9), 705-710.

Wolfson, J .L . and Leonard, T.H. (1971). Decision making of high

school g i r l s . Jo u tu a l of Home Economics , 63(4), 241-245.

Wood, K.E. (1973). What M otivates Students to Teach? Journal of

Teacher Education, 29(6). 48-50.

Wyatt, W.A. (1979). A Comparison of L ife Goals, A ttitu d e s , and

P ercep tions of Home Economic Majors a t Bob Jones U n iversity and

1862 C olleges and U n iv e rs it ies in the Southern Region. Utah S ta te

151

U n iversity , Logan, Utah {ERIC DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION SERVICE, NO.

E!) 196 633).

Yankelovich, D. {1974). Hoae Economics Image Study: A Q u a lita tiv e

In v e s tig a t io n . Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics

A ssoc ia tion .

Young, A.A. & Johnson, B. (1986). Why Students are Choosing Home

Economics. Journal of Home Economics, 36-38.