Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Tulsa, 1972. / Bibliography: leaves [96]-106.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Ill., 1999. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 296-301).

Thesis (M.A.)--Lancaster Bible College, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 103-107).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Ill., 1999. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 296-301).

Thesis (M. A.)--Guo li zheng zhi da xue, 1971. / Cover title. On double leaves. Reproduced from typescript. Bibliography: leaves 159-164.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Graduate School of Education, Oral Roberts University, 2008. / Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 91-96).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Miami University, Dept. of Educational Leadership, 2006. / Title from second page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 92-94).

Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of Toledo, 2009. / Typescript. "Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Education in Higher Education." "A thesis entitled"--at head of title. Bibliography: leaves 76-80.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University. / 1. The Problem The problem of this dissertation is to determine if there is any significant difference between the way students of high and of low religiosity view themselves. "Religiosity" refers to religious behavior in church attendance and contributions, in reading religious literature, and in affirming religious belief. 2. The Method This study tested religiosity by using Strunk's Wesleyan Religiosity Index, which was administered to 186 students, enrolled in a required first year course. Of these, 74 students were classified as "high religiosity," and 50 as "low religiosity." The scores in religiosity were then correlated statistically with the self-reports of these students. To evaluate the self-reports and personality characteristics of the students involved, five other standard tests were administered. [truncated]

The purpose of this study was to determine if the small liberal arts Christian colleges provide a distinctive environment apart from the traditional classifications of colleges and universities. The environments of the six sample colleges were assessed by administering the Institutional Functioning Inventory (IFI) to faculty and administrators. Statistically significant differences were found among the colleges on eight of the 11 environmental dimensions. However, it was concluded that the colleges constituted a relatively homogeneous group on all dimensions measured except Self-Study and Planning. Total sample means on the 11 scales of the IFI allowed for a generic description of 11 dimensions of the environments at these colleges. They were described as environments low on intellectual-aesthetic extracurriculum activities, human diversity, personal and academic freedom, concern for improving society, and concern for advancing knowledge, while being high on institutional esprit and placing high emphasis on undergraduate teaching and learning. The environments were characterized as having moderate amounts of democratic governance, self-study and planning, innovative educational practices, and programs designed to meet the needs of their immediate communities. The sample colleges differed significantly from both the liberal arts colleges and the four-year state colleges on eight of the IFI scales. When compared to the liberal arts colleges, the most notable differences were the considerably lower scores on Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum, Freedom, Human Diversity, and Concern for Advancing Knowledge. When compared to the four-year state colleges they were most distinguished by considerably lower scores on Intellectual-Aesthetic Extra curriculum, Freedom, and Human Diversity, and by higher scores on Concern for Undergraduate Learning and Institutional Esprit. The conclusion of the study is that these colleges do provide a unique college environment. It is suggested that additional research focus on other environmental dimensions, student and faculty characteristics, institutional goals, and the value of environments such as these in higher education.