The purpose of this study was to investigate job satisfaction of full-time faculty members at a large multi-purpose university in relation to gender, rank, and types of activity. The population consisted of 664 full-time faculty members at North Texas State University during the spring semester, 1984. The questionnaire consisted of two parts, the Job Descriptive Index and The Faculty Data Sheet. The theoretical basis of the study was Herzberg's theory of Motivation-Hygiene.

This study attempts to examine the conception which faculty members at North Texas State University have of their roles in university governance. These views of role perception are then compared with those reported in the study by Archie Dykes5 (discussed in detail in Chapter III), whose findings were made at a large Midwestern university and then projected to other campuses across the country. The purpose of this research has not been to delve into all the reasons behind the various perceptions which faculty members on the North Texas campus--or any other--have regarding their participation in university governance; nor has it been designed to investigate the total occupational image held by faculty members in regard to all their roles. While such topics would indeed be worthy of additional research, this paper simply attempts to uncover, assess empirically, and compare the perceptions regarding faculty involvement in academic decision-making which are held by faculty members on the North Texas State University campus and in the Dykes' study.

This study is concerned with the problem of analyzing the attitudes of the faculty and administration of North Texas State University. The purposes of this study are to describe the North Texas State University campus environment as perceived by the faculty and administration through responses to the CUES II questionnaire, and to compare selected subgroups of the faculty with regard to their perceptions of the campus environment. The questionnaire used in this study is the College and University Environment Scales: Second Edition. The questionnaire consists of 160 items or statements about facilities and conditions that may or may not be characteristic of a particular campus. There are seven different scores on the scales for the measurement of campus environmental characteristics. These scales are Practicality, Scholarship, Community, Awareness, Propriety, Campus Morale, and Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student Relations.

The problem of this investigation is to determine the relationships between certain cognitive, conative, and demographic variables and student ratings of instructors and introductory economics courses at North Texas State University. In addition, the study seeks to determine whether significant, interactive effects exist among the seventeen main variables: pretest, posttest, sex, age, college major, required course, actual grade, residence, SAT, socioeconomic class, Opinionation, Dogmatism, instructor, course rating, instructor rating, expected grade, and attitude. The principal sources of data are students' test scores on the Test of Understanding in College Economics, Rokeach Scales of Opinionation and Dogmatism, Modified Purdue Rating Scale, Personal Data Sheet with Hollingshead Index, and Questionnaire on Student Attitude Toward Economics-Revised. The organization of the study includes a statement of the problems, a review of the literature related to student ratings of courses and instructors, the ethodology used in the statistical analysis of the data, an analysis of the data, and the findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for additional research. Chapter I introduces the background and significance of the problems. Hypotheses are stated in the research form, terms in the study are defined, and limitations are delineated. Chapter II is a topically-arranged review of the related literature, including both experimental and descriptive studies. Literature is included on student ratings of courses and instructors, attitude, achievement, grades (actual and expected), and student characteristics. Chapter III includes information on the population of the study, the Test of Understanding in College Economics, Modified Purdue Rating Scale for College Instructors, the Rokeach Dogmatism and Opinionation Scales, the Questionnaire on Student Attitude Toward Economics-Revised, Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social Position, the variables used in each study, methods of data collection, and stepwise multiple linear regression, the basic statistical design employed in the study, with a nonlinearity factor added. In Chapter IV, data were analyzed and reported in tables of regression coefficients on Studies One through Six: actual grade, course rating, instructor rating, expected grade, student attitude, and posttest. A summary table is included for the significant, absolute beta coefficients for these six studies. Chapter V concludes that grade expectations, Opinionation and Dogmatism, ability levels, and attitude influence student ratings. For example, very bright students tended to be more discriminating in their ratings of their courses. Students who liked the instructor and were less open-minded tended to rate the course high. Grade expectations tended to exert a negative influence on course ratings; students with high grade expectations rated the course low, and students with low grade expectations rated the course high. The combination of a student with high grade expectations and a student with high SAT score resulted in a low rating for the instructor. A student's background (Dogmatism, Opinionation, and place of residence) influenced his attitude toward economics. Higher grade expectations were correlated significantly with a favorable attitude toward economics. Significant demographic variables related to conative and cognitive variables were SAT, expected grade, actual grade, Hollingshead socioeconomic class, residence, Dogmatism, and Opinionation. The implication from these findings is to use student ratings cautiously as a consideration for university merit raises and/or faculty promotions. Reasons for caution stem from the significant findings of the influence on student ratings of several cognitive, conative, and demographic variables. Too much appears to be happening in the teaching-learning process which cannot be measured accurately.