Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Anti-Intellectual Attitudes and Academic
Self-Efficacy Among Business Students
Rafik Z. Elias
To cite this article: Rafik Z. Elias (2008) Anti-Intellectual Attitudes and Academic Self-Efficacy Among Business Students, Journal of Education for Business, 84:2, 110-117, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.84.2.110-117
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.2.110-117
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 63
View related articles
nti-intellectualismisapsycholog-ical variable that was introduced in the literature by Hofstadter (1963). However, it had not been operational-izeduntilrecently.Limitedresearchhas investigatedtheimpactofthisvariable. Itreferstoanindividual’slackofinter-estinanddisrespectforwhatistermed
thelifeofthemind.Severalresearchers have asserted that anti-intellectualism is a widespread feature of American culture(e.g.,Shaffer,1981).Inanaca-demic environment, a student who is high in anti-intellectualism can have seriousproblemsinadjustingtocollege and achieving success (Hook, 2004). Self-efficacy is another psychological variablethathasnotreceivedconsider-ableattentionintheeducationliterature. In a general context, it refers to an individual’s confidence in his or her abilitytoachievesuccessinaparticular task.Inanacademicsetting,itrefersto astudent’sbeliefthatheorshecansuc-ceedinchallengingexamsandprojects (Bandura,1977).
In the present study, I examined the extent of anti-intellectual attitudes amongbusinessstudentsandrelateditto academicself-efficacy.Thisstudyisthe first to investigate anti-intellectualism amongbusinessstudents.Ifsuchnega-tive attitudes are found among future business professionals, they can have serious consequences on the advance-ment of knowledge in the field. The
study also introduces a link between a student’s level of self-confidence (aca-demicself-efficacy)andhisorherlevel of anti-intellectualism. Demographics arealsoexaminedaspossibledetermi-nantsofbothvariables.
Following this introduction is a sec-tion on background regarding the lim-ited research that has been conducted onanti-intellectualismandself-efficacy, withafocusonacademicenvironments. That section precedes a discussion of thepresentstudy’sresearchdesignand sample selection. Last, I present the study’sconclusionsalongwithpossible consequencesandpotentialforresearch inthisarea.
BACKGROUNDAND HYPOTHESES
Anti-intellectualism
Hofstadter (1963) presented a pio-neering study that introduced the concept of anti-intellectualism in the generalpopulation.Hearguedthatanti-intellectualism was a prominent and widespreadfeatureofAmericanculture. Hofstadter sawAmerican anti-intellec-tualism as compatible with the techni-cal and vocational objectives of higher educationbuthostiletowardintellectual thoughtandtheacademicprofessionals whorepresentit.Shaffer(1981)defined
anti-intellectualismas a preference for
Anti-IntellectualAttitudesandAcademic
Self-EfficacyAmongBusinessStudents
RAFIKZ.ELIAS
CALIFORNIASTATEUNIVERSITY LOSANGELES,CALIFORNIA
A
ABSTRACT.
Anti-intellectualismreferstoastudent’slackofinterestinanddisre-spectforintellectualpursuitsandcritical thinkingandapreferenceforaneducation experiencethatispracticalandrequires onlymemorization.Academicself-efficacy
referstoastudent’sconfidenceinhisorher abilitytosucceedinchallengingacademic tasks.Theauthorinvestigatedtheextentof anti-intellectualattitudesandacademicself-efficacyamong666businessstudentsin3 universities.Theresultsshowedanaverage attitudeofanti-intellectualismandonly amoderatelevelofself-efficacyamong theseanti-intellectualstudents.Students withhighacademicself-efficacyhadlow anti-intellectualismattitudes.Demographic differencesalsoemergedthathaveconse-quencesforeducators.
Keywords:anti-intellectualism,business students,self-efficacy
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
recipe knowledge and learning that is fact-oriented, memorized, and routine. It entails a disinterest and disrespect forintellectualandacademicobjectives of 4-year university programs, such as theoretical, hypothetical, and intellec-tualpursuits,aswellascriticalthinking andacademicresearch.Howley(2002) argued that in an anti-intellectual cul- ture,moststudentswouldbeanti-intel-lectual as would most teachers and employers. Those individuals whose experiences had led them to intellec-tual pursuits would constitute a dis-tinct minority (Howley). Eigenberger (2002) agreed with this interpretation and noted that attaining the American dream may require intelligence, cun-ning, or the ability to endure 30 years of manual labor, but it did not require intellectualism.
Fewresearchershavetriedtoinves-tigate the causes of anti-intellectual-ism inAmerican culture. Long (1996) attributed anti-intellectualism to the American tradition that glorifies the person’s possessing practical knowl-edge and the realization that a degree no longer guarantees success or even ajob.Berube(1996)attributedtherise of anti-intellectualism to the public’s negativeperceptionofuniversitiesand faculty,asportrayedinHollywood.He arguedthatsuchperceptionwasfueled by the media’s feeding frenzy over political correctness, public confusion about academic work, and distrust of tenure.Wacquant(1996)simplyattrib- utedanti-intellectualismtotheunques-tioned supremacy of economic capital overculturalcapitalinAmericansoci- ety.Thisisespeciallytrueinthebusi-nessworld.
Eventhoughanti-intellectualismwas introduced as a psychological variable decades ago(Hofstadter, 1963), it has only recently been operationalized by EigenbergerandSealander(2001),and very limited empirical-research litera-tureexistsregardingitsdeterminantsor consequences. Hook (2004) examined the impact of students’ anti-intellectu-alism on their adjustment to college. Hefound thatanti-intellectualstudents were less likely to academically adjust to college and form attachments to theirinstitutions.Suchstudentswereat muchhigherriskforunderachievement,
failure, and attrition. However, no link wasfoundbetweenanti-intellectualism and social or emotional adjustment to college.Noresearcherhasinvestigated demographicfactorsaspotentialdeter-minantsofanti-intellectualism.
The present study is also the first to focus on anti-intellectualism among business students. Examining business studentsisimportantbecauseWacquant (1996)attributedanti-intellectualismto theAmerican corporate ideals of valu- ingeconomiccapitalandbecausebusi-nessstudentsconstitutefuturebusiness leaders.Becauseofthelackofresearch inthisfield,thefollowinghypothesisis testedinthenullform:
Hypothesis1(H1 ):Therearenodiffer- encesinbusinessstudents’anti-intel-lectualism attitudes that are based ongender,age,classgrade,selected major,andGPA.
AcademicSelf-Efficacy
Bandura (1977) definedself-efficacy
as “a self evaluation of one’s compe-tence to successfully execute a course ofactionnecessarytoreachdesiredout-comes”(p.195).Bandura(1986)argued thatapersonwithhighself-efficacymay effectively manage difficult tasks with appropriatetoolsandtraining.Suchhigh self-efficacy leads the person to under-take challenging tasks that are realistic andprovidemotivationforsuccess.On theotherhand,individualswithlowself-efficacy visualize scenarios that under-mineperformancesanddwellonthings that can go wrong (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy is a multidimensional construct that must be evaluated in the domain of the proposed task (Zimmer-man,2000).Forexample,J.E.Weber,P. S.Weber,Schneider,andSleeper(2007) foundthatstudents’self-efficacytoward service had a positive impact on civic behaviorsofvolunteerismandcharitable giving.Therefore, academic self-effica-cy should be studied in the context of academic institutions because the tasks consist of exams, projects, and papers. Studentswithhighacademicself-effica-cywouldhaveconfidenceintheirability to succeed on exams, even challenging ones,andtowritetermpapers.
Researchers have investigated the consequences of academic
self-effica-cy. Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001) foundthathighlevelsofacademicself- efficacywereassociatedwithlowerlev-els of stress in college. They argued that students with low academic self-efficacyviewedexternaldemands,such as exams and projects, as threats and therefore reacted with higher levels of stress.Thisrelationwasalsoconfirmed by Zajacova, Lynch, and Espenshade (2005). Numerous researchers found a significant relation between academic self-efficacy and performance in col-lege. Multon, Brown, and Lent (1991) conductedameta-analysisofsuchstud-iesandfoundthattheeffectsizeofthe relationbetweenacademicself-efficacy andperformancewas.38andthatitwas .34 for the relation between academic self-efficacy and persistence in col-lege. Such relations varied by achieve-ment status. Stronger relations were found among low-achieving students (.56) compared with high-achieving students (.33). These results suggested thatlow-achievingstudentscanbenefit morefromanincreaseinacademicself- efficacy (Multon et al.). More recent evidencebyRobbins,Lauver,Lee,and Davis (2004) confirmed these find-ings. Chemers et al. (2001) also found this relation particularly strong among freshmen students because in addition to academic performance, academic self-efficacy was also related to their abilitytorespondtothedemandsofcol-legelife.EliasandLoomis(2000)also noted that students with low academic self-efficacyweremorelikelytochange majors more often than students with high self-efficacy. In addition, further research by Freeman, Anderman, and Jensen(2007)foundthatstudents’sense of belonging was associated with high academicself-efficacy.
Few researchers have investigated the determinants of academic self-efficacy. Hackett, Betz, Casas, and Rocha-Singh (1992) determined that vocational interests and low levels of stress were important determinants of academic self-efficacy. Multon et al. (1991) noted that academic self-effi-cacy was likely to differ among dif-ferent types of students. However, no researcherhasinvestigatedthepotential impact of demographic characteristics on the level of academic self-efficacy.
The following hypothesis is therefore testedinthenullform:
H2:Therearenosignificantdifferences inthelevelofbusinessstudents’aca-demicself-efficacythatarebasedon gender, age, class grade, major, or GPA.
Studying business students’ aca-demic self-efficacy is important becausethesestudentsarefuturecor-porate managers and will frequently have to make challenging and risky decisions.Inthepresentstudy,Ialso examined the relation between anti- intellectualismandacademicself-effi-cacy.Angell(2006)conductedastudy to determine the effect of academic self-efficacy on students’ motivation to learn. The results indicated that studentswithhighacademicself-effi- cacylearnedforpleasureandsatisfac-tionandthattheywerereinforcedby feeling intelligent. On the basis of thesepreliminaryfindings,Itheorized anegativerelationbetweenacademic self-efficacy and anti-intellectualism. Therefore, the following hypothesis wastested:
H3: Business students with high aca-demic self-efficacy are less likely to possess anti-intellectual attitudes comparedwithstudentswithlowaca-demicself-efficacy.
METHOD Sample
The sample comprised undergradu-ate and graduundergradu-ate business students in three Association to Advance Colle-giate Schools of Business-accredited universities in the western, mountain, and northeastern regions of the United States.Asurveywasadministereddur-inga1-yearperiodtostudentsinmany different sections of various business courses. Participation was voluntary, andstudentswereassuredofconfiden-tiality. Overall, a total of 692 students participatedinthestudy.Aftereliminat-ingsurveysthatweremissinganswers, the useable sample consisted of 666 students. Several demographic ques-tions were in the questionnaire, which tookapproximately15mintocomplete. Anonymitywasguaranteed.
Measures
To measure anti-intellectualism, the questionnairedevelopedbyEigenberger and Sealander (2001) was used (see the present Appendix). Eigenberger and Sealander developed 25 questions that asked the respondents about their anti-intellectual attitudes. Each student recordedhisorheragreementwitheach statementona7-pointLikert-typescale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Examples of state-mentsarethefollowing:“Idon’tliketo take courses that are not related to my goals after graduation” and “Learning alotoftheoriesisfineforsomepeople, butIwouldrathergooutanddothings.” Eigenberger and Sealander extensively testedthequestionnaireusingmanydif-ferentsamplesofstudents.Theyfound the scale to be significantly correlated with openness to experience, authori-tarianism,dogmatism,andthedesireto adoptsurface-levellearningstyles.Reli-abilityoftheoriginalscalewasreported as.91.Inthepresentstudy,itwas.88.
To measure academic self-efficacy, I used the scale developed by Chem-ers et al. (2001), which was based on Bandura (1997). Leach, Queirolo,Voe, and Chemers (2003) refined this scale tofitthecollegeenvironment.Thescale consisted of eight statements, and the student recorded his or her agreement witheachstatementona7-pointLikert-typescalerangingfrom1(definitelynot trueofme)to7(definitelytrueofme).
Examplesofstatementswerethefol-lowing: “I am good at researching and writingcollegepapers”and“Iamvery capableatsucceedingattheuniversity.” Originalreliabilitywasreportedat.81. Inthepresentstudy,itwas.85.
RESULTS
The first step in the analysis was to compare the students in the three uni-versitiesthatIsurveyedtodetermineif theypossesseddifferentcharacteristics. A comparison of means on anti-intel-lectualism and academic self-efficacy yieldednosignificantdifferencesamong the three groups; therefore, they were combinedinthefollowinganalyses.
Table1presentsthebreakdownofthe
sampledemographics.Thesamplecom-prised approximately the same number of men and women. There were more younger (traditional,≤ 25 years old) students compared with older (non-traditional, > 25 years old) students. Regarding class grade, the majority of the students were juniors and seniors, preceding sophomores and freshmen. Therewerefewerfreshmenandsopho-moresbecausetheydonottakebusiness classes oftenand are typically concen- tratingontheirgeneraleducationclass-es. Also, many freshmen and sopho-moreshavenotyetselectedabusiness major. There were also 84 master of business administration students in the sample.Mostparticipants wereaccount-ingmajors,andtheremainderwere(in order of the majors with the most stu-dents)management,marketing,finance, managementinformationsystem(MIS), generalbusiness,oreconomicsmajors. There were 29 undeclared majors and 38nonbusinessmajors.
Overall,studentshadanaverageanti-intellectualism score of 3.84 (out of 7.00),andtheyscored5.07(outof7.00) on the academic self-efficacy scale. Their average GPA was 3.07 (out of 4.00). Table 2 presents the analysis of differences in anti-intellectualism and academic self-efficacy based on demo-graphics. I performed an ANOVA and aposthoccomparisonofmeansonthe significantvariables.
Inregardtoanti-intellectualism,the results indicated no significant differ-ences in anti-intellectualism between male and female students. Nontradi-tional students had lower anti-intel-lectualismattitudesthandidtraditional students.Juniorsandseniorshadlower anti-intellectualism attitudes than did freshmenandsophomores,andgradu-ate students had anti-intellectualism scores similar to freshmen and soph-omores. Undeclared majors had the highest anti-intellectualism attitudes, followed by accounting, management, and marketing majors. Economics majorshadthelowestanti-intellectual-ismscores.Usingcorrelationanalysis, I also found that GPA was negatively correlated with anti-intellectualism (r=–.06),indicatingthatstudentswith lower GPAs had higher anti-intellec- tualattitudes.Thiscorrelationwassig-nificantatp<.10.
Regarding academic self-efficacy, no significant differences were found between male and female students. Nontraditional students had higher academic self-efficacy than did tradi-tional students, and graduate students hadthehighestlevelsofacademicself-efficacy, followed by seniors, juniors, sophomores,andfreshmen.Economics majors had the highest levels of aca-demic self-efficacy, followed by MIS andnonbusinessmajors.Marketingand undeclared majors had the lowest aca-demicself-efficacies.Usingcorrelation analysis, I also found that GPA was significantly correlated with academic self-efficacy (r= .10), indicating that students with lower GPAs had lower academicself-efficacy.Thiscorrelation wassignificantatp<.01.
Toexaminetherelationbetweenanti-intellectualism attitudes and academic self-efficacy, correlation analysis was used.Therewasasignificantnegativecor-relationbetweenthesetwovariables(r= –.32;p<.01).Thisindicatesthatstudents exhibiting high academic self-efficacy wereleastlikelytohaveanti-intellectual attitudes.Therefore,H3issupported.
Discussion
In the present study, I investigated the extent of anti-intellectualism atti-tudesandacademicself-efficacyamong business students. I also explored the effect of demographic factors on both variables. Several significant results
emerged. Business students had aver-age anti-intellectual attitudes.Although these results are preliminary, they are somewhatdisturbing,especiallybecause sampled nonbusiness majors had lower anti-intellectualism than most business majors.Wacquant (1996) argued that a
TABLE1.SampleDemographic Characteristics(N=666)
Variable n
Gender
Male 330
Female 336
Age
Traditional(≤25years) 421 Nontraditional(>25years) 245 Grade
Freshman 38
Sophomore 91
Junior 269
Senior 184
Graduate 84
Major
Accounting 152
Finance 89
Economics 30
Management 115
Marketing 98
MIS 69
Generalbusiness 46
Undeclared 29
Nonbusiness 38
Note.MIS=managementinformation
system.
TABLE2.Demographics,Anti-Intellectualism,andAcademicSelf-Efficacy
Variable M SD
PanelA:Anti-intellectualismattitudes
Gender
Male 3.78 .41
Female 3.76 .69
Age
Traditional(≤25years) 3.86** .59 Nontraditional(>25years) 3.64** .35 Grade
Generalbusiness 3.75* .46
Undeclared 4.17* .69
Traditional(≤25years) 4.82*** .56 Nontraditional(>25years) 5.27*** .86 Grade
GeneralBusiness 4.90** .57
Undeclared 4.81** .79
Nonbusiness 5.23** .59
Note.Anti-intellectualism:1=stronglydisagree,7=stronglyagree.Academicself-efficacy:1= definitelynottrueofme,7=definitelytrueofme;MIS=managementinformationsystem. *p<.10.**p<.05.***p<.01.
reasonforanti-intellectualisminAmeri-can society was the corporate culture that valued economic capital over cul-tural capital. Accounting and manage-ment majors scored higher than other business majors on anti-intellectual-ism.Undeclaredmajorshadthehighest anti-intellectualism scores, indicating their uncertainty in selecting a major. Nontraditional students had lower anti- intellectualattitudesthantraditional stu-dents.Thisrelationalsoappearedwhen analyzingclassgradedifferences,where anti-intellectualismdeclinedasstudents moved closer to graduation. However, the finding that graduate students had anti-intellectualism scores that were similartothoseoffreshmenisparticu-larly surprising, although conceptually inlinewithpreviousresearch.Graduate students are typically exposed to more theory, and critical thinking skills are emphasized in graduate classes. There-fore,somestudentsmayhavedifficulty in adjusting to this environment and mayeventuallydevelopanti-intellectual attitudes. Instructors and administra-tors should help all business students, especially undeclared majors, graduate students, and freshmen, minimize their anti-intellectual attitudes. This can be accomplished through class discussion and an explanation of the role of aca-demicsandvalueofacademicresearch topracticalbusinessapplications.
Regarding academic self-efficacy, nontraditionalstudentshadhigherself-efficacy than traditional students. This conclusion also emerged because the results showed self-efficacy increasing as students progressed through their degree, withjust-graduatedstudents exhibiting the highest academic self-efficacy. Undeclared majors had the lowest academic self-efficacy, and that finding is consistent with research that showedthatstudentswithlowacademic self-efficacyoftenswitchedmajorsdur-ingtheircollegeyears(Elias&Loomis, 2000). However, the finding that non-business majors had higher academic self-efficacythanmostbusinessmajors is also disturbing because these future leaders will have to make many
chal-lengingandriskybusinessdecisionsin theircareer.
The present study also showed that anti-intellectualism was related to aca-demic self-efficacy and that both vari-ables were related to academic perfor-mance. Students with high academic self-efficacy and therefore more confi-denceintheiracademicabilitieswereless likelytohaveanti-intellectualattitudes. These students appeared to enjoy their studies and other intellectual pursuits. In addition, the present study showed a moderate relation between GPA and anti-intellectualism and a strong rela-tionbetweenacademicself-efficacyand academicperformance,withresultsthat were consistent with previous research (e.g.,Chemersetal.,2001).
Therearemanypossibilitiesforfuture researchinanti-intellectualismandaca-demic self-efficacy. Future researchers should compare business students to otherstudentsonamuchlargerscaleand examine further determinants of anti-intellectualism. Instructors and admin-istrators should focus their attention on understandingthisphenomenonandthe potentialremediesavailabletominimize it.Similarstudiesshouldalsobeconduct-edregardingacademicself-efficacyand methodstoincreaseit,becauseresearch (e.g., Chemers et al., 2001) shows a consistent link between academic self- efficacyandacademicperformance.
NOTE
Dr. Rafik Z. Elias is a CPA and professor of accounting at California State University, Los Angeles.HereceivedhisPhDinbusinessadmin- istrationinaccountingfromLouisianaTechUni-versity. His research interests include auditing, accountingeducation,andethics.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Rafik Z. Elias, Department of Accounting, California State University,Los Angeles,5151StateUniversityDrive,LosAnge-les,CA90032,USA.
E-mail:relias@calstatela.edu
REFERENCES
Angell, L. R. (2006).The relationship of impul- siveness,personalefficacy,andacademicmoti-vation to college cheating.College Student Journal,40,118–131.
Bandura,A.(1977).Self-efficacy:Towardsauni-fyingtheoryofbehavioralchange.
Psychologi-calReview,84,191–215.
Bandura,A.(1986).Socialfoundationofthought
and action: A social cognitive theory. Engle-woodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Bandura,A.(1997).Self-efficacy:Theexerciseof control.NewYork:Freeman.
Berube,M.(1996).Publicperceptionsofuniversi-tiesandfaculty.Academe,82,10–17.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. JournalofEducationalPsychology,93,55–64. Eigenberger, M. (2002). Is anti-intellectualism a
personality trait?A response to Howley. Psy-chologicalReports,90,593–596.
Eigenberger,M.E.,&Sealander,K.A.(2001).A scale for measuring students’ anti-intellectual-ism.PsychologicalReports,89,387–402. Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2000). Using an
academic self-efficiency scale to address uni-versity major persistence.Journal of College StudentDevelopment,41,450–454.
Freeman,F.M.,Anderman,L.H.,&Jensen,J.M. (2007).Senseofbelongingincollegefreshman
atclassroomandcampuslevels.TheJournalof
ExperimentalEducation,75,203–220.
Hackett,G.,Betz,N.E.,Casas,J.M.,&Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and socialcognitivefactorspredictingtheacademic achievement of students in engineering. Jour-nalofCounselingPsychology,39,527–538.
Hofstadter, R. (1963).Anti-intellectualism in
Americanlife.NewYork:Knopf.
Hook,R.J.(2004).Students’anti-intellectualatti-tudesandadjustmenttocollege.Psychological
Reports,94,909–914.
Howley, A. (2002). Is anti-intellectualism a personality trait?Psychological Reports, 90, 577–578.
Leach,C.W.,Queirolo,S.S.,Voe,S.D.,&Chem-ers, M. (2003). Choosing letter grade evalua-tions:Theinteractionofstudents’achievement
goals and self-efficacy.Contemporary
Educa-tionalPsychology,28,495–509.
Long, C. D. (1996). It came from Hollywood: Popular culture casts professors in a negative light.Academe,82,32–36.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991).Relationofself-efficacybeliefstoaca-demicoutcomes:Ameta-analyticinvestigation. JournalofCounselingPsychology,38,30–38. Robbins,S.B.,Lauver,K.,Lee,H.,&Davis,D.
(2004). Do psychosocial and study skills fac-torspredictcollegeoutcomes?Ameta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin,130,261–288. Shaffer, L. S. (1981). The growth and limits of
recipeknowledge.
JournalofMindandBehav-ior,2,71–83.
Wacquant,L.J.D.(1996).Theself-inflictedirrelevance ofAmericanacademics.Academe,82,18–23. Weber, J. E., Weber, P. S., Schneider, K., &
Sleeper, B. J. (2007). Preparing students for citizenship:An exploration of the antecedents andoutcomesofself-efficacytowardsservice. JournalofBusinessInquiry,6,3–10.
Zajacova,A.,Lynch,S.M.,&Espenshade,T.J. (2005).Self-efficacy,stress,andacademicsuc-cessincollege.ResearchinHigherEducation, 46,677–705.
Zimmerman,B.J.(2000).Self-efficacy:Anessen-tialmotivetolearn.ContemporaryEducational
Psychology,25,82–91.
APPENDIX SurveyInstrument
Pleaseanswerthefollowingquestionsaccordingtothefollowingscale(adaptedfrom M.E.Eigenberger&K.A.Sealander,2001).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neutral Slightly Moderately Strongly disagree disagree disagree agree agree agree agree
_____Iseecollegeasanecessaryevil—itisthepriceIhavetopaytofinda goodjob.
_____Manyofmycollegecoursesareawasteoftimeforme. _____Iwouldliketodeepenmyintellectualpursuitsaftergraduation. _____Idon’tliketakingcoursesthatarenotdirectlyrelatedtomygoalsafter college.
_____Ienjoyresearchingnewtopicsandsolvingintellectualproblems. _____Iprefercoursesofferingpracticalskillsoverliberalartskindsofcourses. _____Iwouldratherjustpaymoneyforadiplomathanhavetotakesomany uselesscourses.
_____Itisalwaysworthwhiletostudysubjectslikephilosophy,history,and educationaltheory.
_____AbigreasonIamincollegeisthatIvaluelearningforitsownsake. _____Somecollegeprofessorsarealright,butasawholeIdon’tcaremuch forthem.
_____Ienjoycoursesthatrequireresearch,writingandcriticalevaluation. _____Learningalotoftheoriesisfineforsomepeople,butIwouldrather gooutanddothings.
_____Someprofessorsaretoointellectualandoftenboremewiththeir abstractions.
_____Themainproblemsinliferequireclearanddirectanswers,notintellectual theorizing.
_____Requirementstotakehumanitiesandliberalartscoursesshouldbereduced oreliminated.
_____Generallyspeaking,professorsneedtobemoreinteresting.
_____Ipreferclasseswherethought-provokingissuesarediscussedwiththe professor.
_____Ipreferclasseswithoutalotofcriticalthinkingoranalyticactivities. _____Ibecomeboredinmyclasseswhendiscussionsseemtogettooabstract andhypothetical.
_____Overall,Ifindmycollegecoursesstimulatingandrewarding.
_____Ipaytuitionandfeelitistheprofessor’sjobtogivemewhatIneedto graduate.
_____Ioftenfeelangrytowardmanyofmyprofessors.
_____Iappreciateateacher’sdepthofknowledgemorethanhowentertaining theyare.
(appendixcontinues)
APPENDIX(cont.)
_____Iamnotinterestedinhearingstudentsandtheprofessordiscussphilosophical issues.
_____Iaminahurrytogetmyeducationoverwith.
Regardlessofthepreviousstatements,pleaseindicatehowtrueiseachofthefollowing statementsforyou(adaptedfromC.W.Leach,S.S.Queirolo,S.D.Voe,&M.Chem-ers,2003).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DefinitelyNOT Neutral Definitely trueofme trueofme
_____Iknowhowtoschedulemytimetoaccomplishmyacademictasks. _____Iknowhowtotakenotesincollegeclasses.
_____Iknowhowtostudytoperformwelloncollegetests. _____Iamgoodatresearchingandwritingcollegelevelpapers. _____Iamaverygoodstudent.
_____Iusuallydoverywellinschoolandatacademictasks. _____Itypicallyfindmyacademicworkinterestingandabsorbing. _____Iamverycapableofsucceedingattheuniversity.
Finally,pleaseanswerthefollowingimportantdemographicquestions. Youranonymityisguaranteed.
Gender: _______Male ________Female
Age: _______≤25yearsold _______>25yearsold
Major: _______Accounting _______ Finance _______Economics _______Management _______ Marketing
_______Managementinformationsystems _______Generalbusiness
_______Undeclaredmajor
_______Nonbusinessmajor(Pleaseindicate_______________)
Grade: ______Freshman ______Sophomore ______Junior ______Senior
______Graduatestudent
ApproximatecumulativeGPA:__________/4.00
Thankyouverymuchforyourtimeandparticipation.
