The Army ROTC instructor at the University of Utah.

Recent controversy en the nation's college campuses has focused the attention of the American people on the Reserve Officers Training Program and the role it plays in providing commissioned officers for the armed forces of the United States. Caught up in the midst of this controversy is the AROTC Instructor whose presence on the University campus is not only being questioned, but also the position he occupies and the recognition he receives. It was the purpose of this study to examine the AROTC Instructor at the University of Utah, his selection and assignment to the faculty, and the response of the students at the University to the instruction lr/hich they received. A review of both official military publications and unofficial sources provided the information concerning the selection and assignment of Army officers as instructors in the AROTe program. Student response was measured by extracting the results of student course evaluations, student opinion polls, and official University studies as they related to this study. Additional information concerning the instructor traits of the AROTC instructors was obtained by evaluating them on the basis of a list of traits developed to form an image for the "Ideal" instructor.

THE ARMY R.OTC INSTRUCTOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH by Lawrence K. Raty A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements f'or the degree of Master of Arts Department £)f Educati'onal Administration University of Utah June 1970 fbtl 7hesis for: the by ft8.$ beeD ap·pr""e,d Kay U70 Supervisory Committee ACKNOWLEDGMENTS is Appreciation expressed who has been most cbairman. guidance and assistance For completed. as both to Dr. To the Professor of in helpful providing necessary to enable this this he shall be teacher and a E. T. Demars, my committee a.ppreciated the study to be and remembered personal friend. a Military Sc:f ence .. , LTC Oscar R. Frandsen, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks for his theught> ful understanding and support during the Included in my study. acknowledgment members of the Cadre of the Military preparation must be Science of this the other Department, Major Robert H. Grassi, Captain Jon D. Collins, and Captain Eric Ao the Perry whose help statistics Corps at the was essential to the concerning the Arm.y UniV$xsity Reserve Officer acknowledge I have received from Mr'. John S. Harris English initial at J Assistant Professor is also course the for this study. expressed to the A. S. U. U. Course Evaluation Committee for their assistance in their the assistance Brigham Young University J who provided inspiration Appreciation Training sf Utah. I would be remiss if I failed to of compilati.on of evaluation materials. iii making available Especial appreciati for his course n is expressed to Mr. personal help in obtaining the Bob Ingebretsen results ()f past evaluations and the assistance he has rendered in interpreting the results thereofo iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT. • • • 0 • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION •• 1 The Problem • • 2 Delimitations • 3 Definitions 0 3 Related Studies 5 Justification 7 • Methods • 9 Organization. II. THE AROTC IN8l'RUCTOR. • • Selection Procedures. Instructor Preparation. • • • STUDENT COURSE EVALUATIONS. s. U. U. Opinion Report University of Utah. 0 Summary ••••••• .... • 15 24 • 26 • 27 " 34, •• 37 • Poll. Ad Hoc Committee • •••• Student Course Evaluation Questionnaire A. 11 .11 Summary III • • • ROTC at the 39 IV. THE ItIDEALH INSTRUCTOR of the Development Qtlestionnaire. The Iethod 43 criteria. 45 47 • 47 • Surntna, ry. V. ••• SUMMAI.Y l) • • • • • • CONCLUSIONS, • • AND • • • It • • .53 Conclu.sions. 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY • •• • " • .. APPENDICES. ••• 53 aEC,?lNDATIONS. Summary. Recommendations VITA 51 • 60 pp. .. It vi • • • It .. • It .. • 55 58 87 88 tAILES AID FIGURES rAG£! 1. lWTC ASSICWMi1fl l?mmlQUISITES., II. 14 2. UCOMMIWl&D IltSnuctO& Tl\\DUJIG SCHIllUL&... 16 10 e, it', • • STroUT RlSPOlISI,S TO THE ASUU OrUIIOH POLL. AlrrUM.l 1969. , • 3S FIGUIES 1, • STUOiNT COURSE EV;A,LUATlQH QU&iTI01OlAIlE 1961 66. ... .' 2.8 2. COURSE IVALUlTIOR QUE&TIOHNAliB 1969-1910. 29 3. SAMfU OF THI COMfLETID QUiSTIOI:MAIBI. .. :,1 4., COUltU IVALUilT10il 1961. 1967 •• 32 .. - .5. • • • COUitSI IVALUATION 1968 1969 • 1. .. '. " • • • • • • • • • • • ,IJISULtS, wnrtEI. QUAiifi& • • • • • • • • • • • COUkSE EVALUATION UIULTS, AUTUMN QUAllTER. 1968, 1969. (II ., .. 6. ..' .. • iI • • • • • • •• UstJLTl, wnrtU QUAl.TU ••••• 0 •••• •••• <.:OURSI EVALUATIOW RESULTS, AUTUMN QUARTBit 1969 "1970. ....".."........ vii 33 34· ABSTRACT Recent controversy has en nation's college campuses the focused the attention of the American Reserve Officers people the role it Training Program and the armed providing commissioned officers for the on in plays forces of the United StateSa AR.OTC Instructor whose presence not It the purpose of this Instructor at the assignment at also the the to the University faculty, to sources selection and study of University was course and official study. students they received. the information Student response opinion polls, this examine the AROTC Utah, his selection and assignment of Army officers to occupies and military publications extracting the results of student they related to the instruction lr/hich provided the AROTe program. student he and the response of the A review of both official unofficial position he receives. recognition was University campus is the on only being questioned, but and the controversy is the up in the midst of this Caught as concerning instructors in measured by evaluations, University studies Additional information viii the as concern- ing instructor traits of the AROTC instructors the obtained by developed eva Iuat.Leg form to an them the basis of on list of traits nldealu instructor. for the image a was CONCLUSIONS The results of this Lns t rucccx qualified with , to a serve sound background of on also showed that based ance the as Lnscruccor an average addition, a study indicated that the AROTC experience, 1s Vi'ell the faculty of on student evaluations. his perfoz:m­ compared very this University. favora.bly It with -that of for all instructors at this institution. comparison In of the AROTC instructor l'lith the characteristics of the t'ldealu instructor would indicate that here of his reasons the academic as is ranked contemporaries. the also he coo a for these the by It may be concluded findings qualificati.ons are development genuine of his be concern students. ix therefore. found, that just in not instructor, but trf.ll.ning and educational he has received in the dedica.tion and to of the AROTC direct result of the experiences students above the average Army along with he has for the the training and RECOMMENDATIONS It h recommended that the efforts of the AROTC instructor and no longer be fnlstra.ted with distorted but rather be misund.erstandings recognized as objections an impor­ tant, vital part of th$ education and t.raining necessary in the preparation of our young men to occu.py posttiOllS gf authority and leadership in the Army of the United States,. It is further recommended that contitlUed efforts be made to coordinate the rk of the AROTC instruotor with that of other instruct.ou at the University in fields related to the AROTC pr;'osram ,to further enhanee the eduea­ don and training of the AROTC student" x · CHA.PTIlt I INTRODUCTION The recent controversy on the na.tion's campuses the ROTC program has f,oc:used the ing of this contry on axmed foreu. cur p)!'oducing at least meet the needs of in wide a colleges t.he majQ.r seunce concern­ attention of the people of· resexv••:fficers for The ROTC program dO'oe has thfJ' task of 15.000 offtceu each aft yea% ill order ee Arluy which requires pe.rs,onnel tra:Lned variety of fields. Ctirrent.lYi there and universities which '9£fer Army ara 274 Re serve Officer Training, with approximately 20,000 studeQts registered in the AROTC program. couunissioned sents a In through production 1969. there were 16,,000 officers the AlWTC program alone. of 20% greater than that This r'epre­ junior officers which is approximately pxeduced by West 'oint for a similar period. Included in this controversy is the question of the competency of the ROTC instructor level. or Closely allied with this not academic credit to teach is the on the question university of whether should be given for ROTC instruction. 2 It was these the purpose of this to examine study questions, both from the p·oint qualification perhaps, is well as best in the as qualified to the first of of view of academic of the epinion student, who, evaluate the effect Qf the instruction he has received. I. THE PROBLEM Statement Q.t the Problem. It wa,s to examine the AROTC: instructor stt?-dy Utah to determine what factors tion and 8JJsignment to are po.sition a the purpo se of this at the Universi.ty '0£ considered in his sebec­ at the University, and what the response has been to bis instt''Uction by the students within the AROTC programo Specific Objectives. study were: tion and ROTC; (2) (1) specific objectives of this review the factors to auignment :0£ officers students (3) instructors; students to a opinion polls the to to the selec­ staff of the Arm.y course evalua­ determine the attitude concerning the effeotiveness of the AROTC determine the response of the AROTC questionnaire concerning of the AROTC instructor instructor. to concerning examine the results of student t· tions and student of the The compared the characteristics with those of the uldealu II. DELIMITATIONS study deals ,dfUdly with the riulult. of student Thh 0,lldo1\8 at the .apreBaed 8S IlOTC proaram in ,emn:a1 aDd, l·ft l,pacifieD the AB.OTC ,rolnm. lftt.rp.ted The result. and ecftduaioBs should be lisht of course' the .valuatioQ. aDd the stlldent thoM of the author aad bl au no ..ay of off1cial expreuioft Ualverslty of Utah 'oplo.i,oft polh wld.eh !be were opini... exprfu184 shou.ld be lnterpreted are to ' oplfl1on either for the t.he Oait.a Stete. or onl, 1,a found ill the sttl4eat specific info1:1lAatiol1 used tn formulating tbis stwiy. be of Utah toward. the Uaiveutty Army. III. DDD1ITIORS ABOTC. The Ie_rve Officers' train:1rtg Corps p1!0lram which is eoaducted by the United St,ates A,rtAy. 18 tu.d to AlP!' cadit. ReMrwe Officer . in this a student ;t,ft. the Atay Tralnias 'roar_. MiUt",! Sei'Ace. Deparcment ldeatify The name to the A&OTC University of Utah. at the Reserve Officen' study b auilned 8 T-rainlns Corps. ·ROTC 8S used term which includes in its definition all of the programs of the Art41. lavy. AUld Air Faxee. IV. METHODS Tbe inforlllstion ioatruetox8 technique student wea was eoncernins the, selecti,on of AlWTC hhtodcal methods. compiled usirag also used in reviewing the results of the opinion polls and the student frOtl1 the Student res,ults of a student Uni'V8%sity of Utah, from the sent to all compiled Committee, Associated Studens of the Course Ivaluat.ion poll was publ1&hed by evaluations course evaluations. eou.:ue Informatio-n fg,r this portion of the study the student Ifhi.s prospective students at op1:0100 the Ulliversity long witb their tegistration materials for el1stration for the A.utumn Qua-rter, 1969, and from the report of the AD HOC C01\1mittee ap·point.ed to study the ROTC prolram at the University of Utah. Survey techniques of ABOTt Cadets to instructor. used in obtaining the responses questi.onnaire coneernins 'the tae.lu The questionnaire obtained from the Utlivers1ty. a were was developed from materials llngliah Department of the Brigham Young 5 In 19}& It Kenneth F. Cravens made programs at the University of' il University Qf Utah •• a;.: the ROTC study ·of entitled, tiROTO Utah at the Th.is in-depth IttJ.dy coas1dered .any face·ts of the IOTC proaram. The ROTC student W46 asked to tbe ROTC and compare it witb other aspects af the edueataull at the offeriqs rO:l'1:1085 of bis study e••. it Uniye:uity. witb tbe effectiveness of the 1Dstru·etlon 1;,ecetved the ROTC departments. A throllSh eompadsoQ of the responses to his que stlcnaa1M revealed that the ROTC cadets felt tbat the instruction they received C:r8vens their mean own department of 3.0. the n concludes. nAll groups Tbe as above average u, and, ftt. rated the instruction ill bains .significantly above Army ratiDi ·of 3.13 The Air Foree lWTC at was was the subject of Colgate University in 1953. in the Association of American lKenneth Francis Cravens, was 2 In the a all hiahest 2.rhe scale ••• u. stwiy conduc.ted article appearin& Coll.les Bulletin in "'ROTC at the University of Utahu• (UapubU,bed Master's Theeis, University Impa,ct of the of Utah, 1958.) BOTe Stud, Commiue,. of Collate University. uThe an ROTC Program on a Liberal A:tts College: A case Study of Collate Un1venlty·t t HamiltoD, Bew York, 1953. 6 1952.3 December. was S Mr. J. French reported that. the study II that areas of completi-on and nsat' rec·ei·vi-ng the attention that specific interest they require to produce were a comprehensive report which would identify the position of the ROTC with respect to a Liberal Arts College. t This re,pol't, cited in Mr .• Cravens thesis., in part relates to the pres,ent the findings study. in particular that porti0n of status of the which re.fer:s to the instr,ucU.oQ_ Not all of the BOTe work seems yet to be strictly of college caliber, and the text materials are not The t;eaching ·Qf ROTC of uniformly high standard •• subjects, is pet'force, done by many people with less pedagogical trairtilll and experience than is usually required foX' college teachers. «I. In June. 1969, the members of the Officer Education Advisory Committee at asked to conduct study of the ROTC program institution. a Their the University of Washington comprehensive study,4 at were that while not making specific recommendations, did ascertain the status of the program at that University in light academic excellence. of the requirements for Their study reviewed the history of 3Sidney J. French, "Impact of the Air Ferce ROTC Program on a Liberal Arts CollegeU, Ass,ociation of American Colleges Bulletin, 38 :532 De,c., 1952, pp 532-3. , 4The Officer Education Advisory Committee, "Factual Analysis of Matters Relating to the ROTC Program at the University of Washington", Seattle, Washington, 1969, pp. 29-34. 7 the ROTC program at that University, the eontractural agreements made by the Untve.rsity with the military and the services, formal re It obligations la.tionship s was of the University under their • concludad by the committee, among other that the staff of the ROTC program at the Washington for its for uprofessiondly competent wu respective faculty appointment ROTC 0 FUI',thenoore faculty appointments for many other ranks under are departments J things, of University and fully qua l.Lf Led prevailing criteria .the academic critn'ia for the not inconsistent 141th those within the university.u5 VI. JUSTIFICATION Since the inception of the ROTC progr at the Univer­ sity of Utah in 1919, many changes have been recorded. of these have been due to military services country. war requirements by number of young over, the and the ROTC 5Ibid• during requirement experienced p. 34. the i'n accordance with the needs ·of the that maintained was the With the advent of the Second World War, example, the twice change s in Some a men for in the ROTC program the pre-war years. Once was the for trained officers decreased corresponding decrease in enroll- Enrollment followed tl. ..at. ta. Kore.A ,cOQfllct. refluix:emants of the OtM:% pattern same at the faet,,,:s. ill add.itioB th\e of the to stude,llt ,enzQllmeat in aiU.t.1. effect the ,pr08:r_. CU%i'ently. it b the public aeeeptaaee and .uppert which are 1.0TC pJ:0at:am. unpopulall: the two At Chb wal' major facten that influ.eace the __ At f,be in Viet Ra. 1n :the must of are we an of this country peopl. faced with the heavy bU1:deQ of co,o.tinuiQg to support cOBfl1ct witb money and what ,is of our young men. As of a the lives baportaat. more are May. 1970. this co_itment bas cost the Amel'ican taapaye:r vast &mOunts of money and. has been for the loss G,f respoaslble The reaulttl'll ovar 40,000 of ou.%' X"Mllt_Itt. hu caused many meA. youn.a ill people tbis eountEY to fi..AC fau.lt with t,be United States Goy_rD.­ ment,. MaQY of the pt:OSr:8l. of the iOVErrJ.llDent ba.. unde!: the cloM with some individual brought scrutiny ·of the f s the life such as to a11 are oppo'rUlllty which has incurred the 1t touches the a8 or the and tch:aftt. efficiency has of heir iDluediate attention. Unfortunately. there who wait for t_at1on organization, operation government ,1:'0'I%8m8 Personal. expert.oce people. a.$pElot of the lovernmeat. come to those elements in seize upon displeasure of our some ofte the American. society topic people 9 it te use been the as a ease vehicle tD fuxtber their with t.he aOTC program. own Such has ends. In many colleges and univex:sities th¥'.eu.gbout the CCHmtry J where ROTC Ls taught, dis.s1dent student groups have agitated to have the ROTC program reuwved from. the campus. they have created ceaeezas the status of the ROTC instruc­ They ceazend that neither tor. One of the issues which do they belong in acad.emio atmosphere where freedom of and freedom of serve on It the was thought are faculty of a found t political expression nor the purpose of this specifically qualifications are have been at the results of this they qualified are to university. study contentions have any basis in fact and instructor an to determine if these to examine to ascertain what his the AROTC particular and wbat the results of his 1nstrt£tion University of Utah. study m.ay assist in t is that the resolving future tions concerning the AlWTC in.structor and of reference for further studies hoped provide concerning a ques­ source the ROTC program. VII. ORGANIZATION The ized to of the study on the present both Army ReTC Instructor a has been organ­ factual consideration of the opinions students in the AROTC program, as expressed in the 10 student course evaluatioBs, as well as a hypothetical evaluation in, which the AltOTC ia$truetor 1.$ "Ideal InstruetorH 1mqe. To compared with an accomplisb thb. the remainder af the study bas been oraanized a8 follows: Chapter' II. tiThe Army B.OTC InstruetoJ:." Chapter In. ffStudent Eva;lu.t1on. u Chapter IV. "The 'Ideal' Inst'l'tlc'tor.u Cbapter v. nSummary t Conclusions. and Reandatlons. n CHAPTER II THE AIlN.t I.OTC INSTaUCTOll 1. SELECTION faoc&I>UUS Foa AI.MY ROTC INSTRUCTORS. for the AROTC poi'r- bave been established at the Depue­ ..-n.t of the A:rrtr! and are utilized by tbe Office of the Office:r fer$olUtel Directorate 1n tlualified •• t.o sen:. i9 tbat Pl'OIX'sm" I'M HaiRr. ctmilldl 1'lftCh. lectin. tbose tldfi.cen 6 The Major: Ceaaaruis Branch deals with offiaen in the arade ef First Lieu.teDaat to Ll.'utenant Colonel. aAd The Ooloneb D1v1110'n of the Officer a.$silmaent of CoUme1e Ml11ta¥1 Scieac•• Tbe to. sene ., f;ro·feslors of 7 p'Eosxammed equ1.itt,Galftl eycle be.ins with fo%mulat.ion of the lbt of all eff1cers Major Commands Ir:ancb. 7Headquarten ROTC Co·nfe re nee It , On the first of on B.OTC the duty by the a.'ptetlber thb United States Army Command. '*1th Annual Morn:oe. Virginia. 1969, pp 30-33. F'ort , 12 rostet; i$ to have sent the to the career (Infantry, Armor, etc.) branches pzoj ectied reassignment date At the annotated. for each officer time coordination is established same with the Enlisted Pers()nnel Directorate (ErD) to compa.re projected reassignments of office.rs with senior enlisted men. If the tions are personnel is turnover conducted with the career excessive, the negotia­ the evaluations and the screening Ls ."ex, roster is sent to (USCONARC) and are adjusted the basis for the annual as On the first of due at the Department of the validated the the United States Continental Army CODDand serves tioning fo'r ROTC. February Tbe Army. the requisi­ requisitions requisitions by the Majol' Commands Branch and forwarded appropriate career When bra.nches and EPD. branches for aetion. monitored by the Majer Conmands Bxanch, The to are the branches, forward nominations for the ROTC positions to the Continental United States (CONUS) are Armies and the schools for normally confirmed CONUS Armies. The at an Acceptances the Major Commands Branch from the appropriate assignment instructions possible, to approval. are attempt is made career issued. to the schools between June and branch is notified and To the maximum extent have tbe August. replacements arrive 13 It b the loal of the OrD' to PpUdes. to provide fiU 100 percent of the autbo:d.zed positions. thb h made difficult loal 'Officers Aab1evial by the competitive demand for top quaHey officers from t Department of the Arm:y. joint staff and aotivltl.es, raquhitioni.ftg cycle provides of measure a of cQutrol, the sCRool yeal: to that 8sdsnme'nts an ac.eeptable to and Potie,. di.ctates fr'olfl ROTC duty will be for the and of tbe school year don will not elte,ead SO perecent A IJ:eat •• al of time is ual l"ecords of officers and before a man a .. analyzing their profess:lonal is nominated for ROTC the perogatlve empbasis placed --his to duty. accept a.omillation 'by the Department of the Arm.y_ sbould be noted,. that \-dlile there is tbe most liven iAstitu'" spent in review1. tbe individ­ receiving institution has to decline programed (June througb Auaust) and tbat the anaual ills.trlNtor tUXllover at any qualifications tbe course of duriftl leveL in terms and liraits the tima, for 9uignments And reusisnments, number ·0£ officers wbQ must be moved The The aaaual c.ommib'aents. ,military on • ox It 8%'eat deal of the individuals academic qualifications important consideration h--and will continue military traini'tlS, experience, and demonstrated f to be 14 pedormaQce.8 Tbe f'oUowlal table preNUlh a """<P'"',"""'''''''','''',P. repreaeatatloa of the lIuaUflc,atbas 1tef;.',SGI'1 ,fer' .ad,_- TABL! 1 IOTe ASSIG:tfMIRT PUWiQUUITlS x x Cnte.r (:our" aladu.at. x -CG'-IC-.'-G-'r-a-d-,Q8-te---------------------X-·,----------.-'--------- x Able to pelt'fom elf.ocively to '19 IC._:l.c ,egy&UP!I!.t Hla1mu.ll of 4 yeau on 80&1v. dUo"" plul b,s;k8UUlld" _" $ ..",oce DemoDIt.s_teet above "'.'x'" ItE·fPPM!S' " X X x . Sufficient tUle r"mainlaa to " tip 1'.* taw;: cRmp1,51 x '* .. ,. AI ..y appointed In the mandatory de§i·nblt to case of June. be seen fl'om the foregotna table, the ROTC t4us't be at least of' the P:rofess(.n:'s of 1969, all such a each offic.r college Iraduate. Military Science (PHS) positlofts bave been validated advanced des%ee positions by tl,. Department of the I. a. /tr:.,,, as 15 II.. INSTRUCTOR PREPARATION tiThe of the success Army depends the effectiveness on of the instrnctign that individuals and units receive during training.tt9 This statement, taken frQIQ the training its the on Army instructors; indicates the importance placed by In each of the instruction. prograz of instruction f.or both the Basic Advanced calls fot' course techniques of a lent for they of their As that the as specialists in the to some may possess an excel- part,icular field; 'but,; also know the best methods and must imparting The well All officers and non-comm.issioned military profession" they knowledge others as tborough C0n$iderati,Q'1l of offi<i..ers must kno,w hew to teach. of the service scbools the military instruction that contribute successful teaching. phase by the Army in text used to teach procedures knowledge. tra.ining that they receive is divided into the following general areas: Discussion of the instructor's role in training. Principles of instruction. Presentation of oral instruction. 9U• S. Department of the Army, FM 21-6. Military Instruction, (Washington, D. C.: ing Office, 1967), p. 3. Techniques of Government Print­ 16 Speech Techniues. Ilreparation and use Preparation folt Instruction. of Training Aids. Practical Application. As indicated in the ft'll10'wing comprehensive on and oriented towards use cof prgper area RECOMMENDED 2 hrei. Army well re'quirement 4S to be ift the theory 2 _INSTRUCTOR J!AINING SCHEDULE HOURS SUBJECT as am awareness teaching principles and teebniq,ues, TABLE The de.velo,pi,ng the part of the instructor both of the weH pnpared in his subje,ct and table, this trebling is Instruct,er SCOPE To provide It general knQwled,le 'of the purpose and conduct of the ceur S8 and facilities available 1 Discussion of the instructor s role in trainlng, his qualifications, how he can improve, and how he should Q think of and deal with seudent s Principles Instruction of 1 hr. , To provide a general knowledge ·af the teaching-bernini pxoce ss , in­ cluding the nature of learning, the instructional preee ss , and the prin­ ciples 0·£ instru.ction. TABLE 2 continued. '* SCOPE MOUltS . Presenting Oral 2 'hu. Te, pr'ovide Instruction the elements of oral instruction that are C€lmtnon to the presentation a general knoWledie' ,of of i.nstruction. Explanation will include how t·o preset leuoQ. ob· jectivest how to handle problems of organization. trsnsitif>ll, inl.n:estJ and emphasi$' and how to summa.rize. Speech Tech­ 1 hr. TfJ pr'Qv1d.e a geoex:a.l krlowledge of How to effecti"e speech techniques. maintain contact and load bearing; niques use n<tes; impqrtsQcQ of avoiding dhtrac:tinl mannerhms; bow tfl) how ee c'ontrol ncn:vou,sness develop enthueiasmj sud and the i.mPQr­ vocal variety. tance of develt;)ping fQ:r;ce, and distinctness. Preparation for Stud" Lessons 2 hra. it: To provide a working knowledge of hQW to prepa:re an introdu;4tion. StudEUlts will make indivi.dual pre­ pai'atie"ll under the auldanee Qf instructors. Pxeparat;1on should include rehearsah. Introductions 3 hr s, To provide a world-ug knowledge ef how to present effective introduc­ Each studeRt will plan •.ad tions. preaseRt Ii, 3·5 minute introduction included in the instructional pro· gram of the u.nit to which he is assigned. The teehni.q,ues pr,ev1ously presented will be critiqued. 18 TAILI 2" eoatlaued. .. :I br, '* pl'ovtd. • seaenl worktal kaewl­ .._ of -the ty,.. of 'tl!8i aid,s .. _d 1_ the Am,. aDd the lHat ,04U:"At. aM t8e'hGlque .• of To _ them. b,l.natLo.• aad deatoa.tJ'a­ tiena, will lMl. how co __ the ahalkboa:rd. the ·oftrbea4 AI.1!'flP'tl-''iltl!l,II1\I>''''_4'l? aad, actusl tteme Mabadab aad ec\It-l"Pl.llt& ';!fovUe' locally i.l: will .bo be o:xplat_d eh4'Ets_ .. t. 8t... te4 •. Dam.oDst:t:ation Method 1 hI! Qu,e,I'tiootQl Teabaiques 1 rut.. 0 • kllOWl8tlae of _ad of tl\elt: OM 1. _1.1ta7:1 In,I't%Wltioo., iaclude iaetara to Q.liI£.l\l'i"IaIIo.!" w11,l .. deaoaatatloD Gould.x ia aad of de1.0"st::a1tUtas To pl:otde tbe, u. of tact_iQl q_.Clol\ a ".,lrl.'1:•.4 qt.JtflQI lQ'liiPII;ii'(O,.:.IW"iia: eNI%a"U:'1St:3L(,UI 4'''. sUoa. J ..4, student .1'1,.1:'. hepal'atloD ,102: Student lA.SOftS J on. Yo pOYJ"d. a of botI to ,,1:epare ,tm expl,eaatica. tile eb&lId)o,al:d. Itu4eat# will lmt1vUual 't"arat1oR \1ftd. the c\d.dMlCe of bst1:uotou hepara­ tloD ehOtt1t'l lao!"". 'rebe.nat. If' 19 SUBJECT. HOURS Chaliboard Presentations 6 hxs Application 2 hr s SCOPE , , pt:Qv:Ld& a world ni, lmcrwl.ed&e Qf t.he U$8 ,0,£ the chalk.board dud"ns Eacb student oral presentation. will plan and present a, lO'-mlnute Each student will be lesson. critiqued. The dass will be d1vid*" ad int€) sections. To .. T,Q pt'Qvlde a general knowledge ,of the methods and tecbniqufu; empl.yed in conductil.lg ,applicat,ory training. E.xplanation will e:mpha.$,ize the pro­ gl',euive nature of applicat.,xy A demonstration leuen the group performance metbod will be presented. mcathodso employing 2 hxs , To provide a general ktlcrwledae of t.he ole of e,valuat,ion in the instructional process. includ1,ng f'oms of' te ats t with $fUpha,sis 06 the pe,rformance test, Q.bservation tech­ n1.quest and the p;r.Qcedu,res for administering Planning the Lesson 4 hr s , To pruq'lde a tests. woxking knowledge of a u.nit .of instrution for teaching. Explanation will inclLlde use and study of approved Le asen materials, hew to de.velop how to prepare ins:tructor note,s, requirements for and te.ehniquQ S of reht!ars1nh and how to wdte a simple Le saen plan. fractieal work will consis.t of students writing their lesson plans for short lesson presentations. 20 tABLE SUBJECT HOURS Ihoxt LeSSQn rJresentations 8 bu 2 - continued. scori 0 pr'ovtde a werkina kncrwledse of th meth9de and teehniques f(lr pre­ senUa.g a ,conffJreftc$ unit 8£ To Each student will plan luso,n applicable to the trainil1.g program of tbe unit to which assigned, in which he will apply techniques so A. far presented ,ill. the course. lesson plan will be submitted for airadins. Ft'E!sGntations will be instxuction. an4 present: at 5 'minute supported by a:lds. ti."ued student made training Pr'esentatitUl$ wHi be cd· by members of the class and the instructor. Preparation for Student Lessons 12 hrs. To provide a workiag knowl,edge of how to prepare a unit of instruction in wh1c,l\ the complete lflstructional process of presentatioD·application Students will evaluation is used. make individual prepare,tioD under the guidance of t,he instru.ctor s Preparation will include writing a lesson plan and l'enearsing. • L()ng Le ssen Pre senta'tion 16 hr s, To qualify each student to prepal'e and present a complete unit of in­ struction. Students will be re­ quired to teach unit of instruction from their training schedule, in the classroom ox area normally scheduled for such tt'aining, when possible. Presentations will be 35 minutes 1001_ A Le sson plen will be pre­ Each presenta­ sented for grading. tion will be critiqued by the students and the instructor. 21 2· continued. TABLE SUBJECT HOURS Final E)tamina* don and 2 hra. Critique As this table has, SCOPE Each student' wi'll take a' '.5'0 minute examination that will test his nderstanding of the material taught in the course. A critique ef th examination will be conduoted during the second hour. indicated, the prQgram followed by the Army in :i.nstJ.'uetor trainins is comprehensive prospective instruct(>l' introduces the of the edueati,onal prQcS$. struetion in the theory of also a Not which the vad.,us facets' only does he receive in- the! methdt5, work wbich is prac,tical to one of instruction, but observed., evaluated and critiqued. Superior as instruction the t:esult of who know their them to others. come, about n&t by accident, but having well trained instructors, instru.ct'(7l'S subjects thoroughly 81\d know hew to, pre,sent! 10 One of the first things that. i'Rstru.ctcr trainees taught is what constitutes a gO.Gd instru.ctor. teristics which tbe instruetor should possess are Those chaeacare: 22 I<nowledge. of the Subject. 'Knowledge of the Teaching Techniques. Positive Pen;onality Charaeteristi'es.- To be able to adopt and make use ,of these characteris .... tics presuppo,ses that the 'individual has receiVed instruc­ tion concerning them. 'it 'has been one of the purp'oses 'of thiS study to indicate how and to what extent the AROTC - instructor has had it bas been trainl'ng effective.' will in this This area. training, if be reflected in tbe subjecti¥. evaluations of the students taulht'by the instructors 1n the nOTe program. of As pxofeuionl1sm for selection ·fer discussed previously J the characteristics and leadership abUity assignment to prerequisite are the AROTO program and because of 'this will not be discussed here. realized, however; that these part' in the the AROTe two presentation of the subject receivej they are given a matter example of the training that refresher ing with their duties 'in the 'an play ad. im.portant presentfJd by department. In addition to the initial for factors It must be course MOTe program. training 'schedule for Instructor's Orientatiot1 Course the instructbrs prior to commenc (See'Appendix the AROTC conducted t Fort Letf1s, .... 2 23 >Wshngton in 1968.} into f·oul' ge.ner:al The orient:atio,a eeur se may be divided categ,orie·a: Procedures and Duti.es ,o·f Personnel in the ROTC p%'olram. he ROTC Cu.rriculum. Methods of Instruction. Gu,ut Speakers from Universities Repre$,nted .8t., the Cp. A of tbe Major portion eeur se is devoted to the me,thod. of instr.uction,. whieh includes ,lesson presentations by partiei­ pants in the course. Th;e impellitanee of the AROTC program is particu:larly stressed,: with speeial emphas1, provitie junior These Army. bas been study designed offic·ers through as to on fo.r the active that the AROTC pogt3m produce officers for the. written, there was the need to Qffioexs to meet the requir4m.ents of the re"uirnllents indicate gram, as, well ·on regular Amy. were reserve pro·" At the tim.e thb approximately 165 Ar.my leneral duty whQ received their commissions tbe AIlOTC program. This. gives some ,..ndioatiQQ of the vle of the training received through this prolram. The AROTC has the primary mission of producing young officers who have 'the potential of advancing to positio,ns of greater responsibility. To accomplish this, those 24 officers called to to serve as instructors in the program have provide the quality of 1nstr'ueUen which will t,o serve train the but at: the same men in their charge time present them with spiring educational program. which will opme,nt and usefulness beah as effective citlzens. as The in a specific skills, challenging, in­ further their devei­ eommissi-oned officers quality oaly not well as of the future o.fficers in the Army is determined primarily by the AROTC instructors at the universities of country. our III. SUMMARY The at best, selection of instructors for the AROTC pregram is a difficult cask competitive demands ment of the for top is made more In difficult by the quality officers from Army, Joint staff activities and requirements. the necessary able to function in their capa.city as the Depart­ current tactiazal spite of this, officers assigned AROIe program must have to It , the to qualifications to be instructors well as In fit into the academic environment of the university. this last category p on the ROTC program, on the academic A_OTe duty. due to the more and as Lncreased attention focused more emphasis b. being placed qualifications of the office.r assigned to 2.5 It has been the to intent of this identify those qualities wh1eh po,rtion ue of this study cemsi,dered by the Department of the Army in selecting officers for the program as well as to give some insight i.nto the It will be I:he pu.rpose of the program. subse,quent cbapters in this study to examine the results of this tr,ai1'ling when compared with the results of the instruction provided by ether members of tbe Univer'sity teaching staff. the CHAPTER III STUDENT COURSE EVALUAT'ION,S In in response to the 1967, members of the uation system to the University student body, was positi\1e expanded course initial a validity at the of means assignment was comparing the an the te aa en .. AROTC tnstruc· effort to determine the faculty through the re- students , The first book on lished in Due This ,proaram has spouse to his instruct:1:on b has received frem. the in his classe s eval- course dev_lo.ped which University. contemporaries in of his .trial spcnse to tbat tria.l system, evaluation p'rogram. ready made tor with his re a many Ynit'ersity of Utah. introduced at th.e compassed all classes proVided expressed desires of 1968,. wi.th classes conducted Faculty-Course Evaluat.iQQs the results of evaluations made during the Winter Quarter, pub- was on 1961'.68,11 This study contained evaluations of 601 classes out of app:roximately 2,000 to a be "major" classes of c Lasse s , This system computerized questionnaire l1AoS.U.U. which, 1400 'V-7hich Course Evaluation Evaluation, (Salt Lake City, Utah: are considered incorporated the was use of developed through the Committee; U. of U, Course Deseret News Press, 1968). 2" combined efforts of both students and faculty. in which the c l.ass was published, at In each case least 81% of the en­ rolled students returned tbe questionnaire. Since tions. during thatitime, there have been These have considered the the Autumn three other course publica­ evaluations made Quarter 1968-69, Winter Quarter 1968 69. ... and the Autumn Quarter 1969-70. The primary reason that these evaluations have no,t been conducted for each quarter is that they are completely financed by student funds. These funds do not course sufficient money to provide publish. a evaluatiQn each quarter. I. STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE A short questionnaire which would fit developed in 1967 through students and has been faculty at an the combined efforts of the the University of Utah. reproduced here with the perm.ission Evaluation Committee. IBM card was This card of the Course 28 a..e!'- tb e a re e t tu \\bicb: ".\1 'tit th", in .. :t"udor'>'ii"$ w('11 .. r ep e red 2 3 4 Poorly Prvpc r cd =.: 1 D I.stiurt...·r f'1I.pbinr-t! Poorly = I ,." (elt the In .. rurtv' .(' Inejtecn .. -e = t be D1;.t.trri..l1 2 .. pond,. d 2 1 (' treet i J e i.astrQctvr !ltirn\!l:.trd )'our Iu t e 2 J Yen' Llttle := 1 tle a.s::.il'roed rf':1Jin;.-.;:adt.l('d V.,y LIW. co 1 .. 0 3 e e c .. ve I) to nd c 7 st aden t (."uur t ndin( a n d • .. m a q t.e 7 u ev tio Ve r y = uf the' it v<:;' W'II r ,= 6 6 r s oc 7 6 5 u 6 5 4 3 ould 5 to lour undt"rs .. l 6 in th t d,l.) c 5 '" r e h S lOU Erre-..1.I ...'e i t.I .. \:o:!'ry cou es-e = n .. tuch m at e rial. Veri Muoh o o o o o o tmIVERSITY or tJTAH COURSE EVALUATION Your instructor would like to know so.nr-thing he has done especially well in teaching this course. Please be specific. YOUI' instructor would also like to know something he especially needs to improve. Again, be specific. Figre 1. Student Course result the Evaluation Questionnaire 1967-1968. As a initial course revised the the questions The experience gained evaluations, evaluation of 1969-70. of new on cou.rss the the Course in questi.onnaire is the Evaluation Committee questionnaire taught during producing to be used the Autumn shown in during Quarter Figure 2. 29 The foDo"ing questions requir-e a response based on on the end·poin!sisrlc.,;iplatroineachce.se, meaning rnldpoin t, Answer lfCurrating only seven-point scale, The Note that four (4) is the VNIVERSITr a 01 questions which apply to this particular class. Place (herillht of thequcs(ion. Please complete the reverse those iJ\ the bOI to UTAH sldeor this card. COURSZ Ulle ladnctor ,"xpl.h". tbt m.trL&t 2 3 Poorly = 1 .., )'0. 4 rae 5 Ubduataft4.! U. 6 o D o o o o o 7=V.ryW.1I yea.rffi th tD"tn('1or contrlbut tlmtand effort lotll ('oo...-..e'. 7 :;: Very Much 2 3 .. 5 6 Ven-- Little: = 1 u. l:nstnC'tor pnHldN you _Ub hlplllill 2 J " Very Fe-w = 1 t"rnmf'Dh on )'oar eoe e-se 5 eifl}rh. S '1 = Vuy l.Ich 6 7 = Very MlJC' tltJ.eo.I,a1'.hu.bleJl"nIElc,,:aP't'rir.«. N!)t At All = 2 1 3 .. 5 &.a.8ICD",a.dlb,[lI.ddta,..oora.ndt"tandlncdC!lreor..-..eln.tctlaJ. 2 3 .. 5 6 7 = Very Much Vry Little = 1 7e.ro.trlbbletimearadefl'ortLotberoane. . V.ry LIttle Ia &:tDIt!"&l •• 0_ we V.ry TIle scales = 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 = V.,,· Mud' atd JOD r-a.le.U of lb dan yoa ba'!"lt" t..k" at tile r .. Poor = 1 :z 4 7 = Vry GoO<! 3 5 6 on the change and what reverse to the card to comment keep on h'e-"It,.-! EVAl.UAl'ION PLEASE CO:.tPLET!: REVERSE SIDE _ PLEASE PUT YOUR RATINGS IN TH.t: BOX:;;S PLEASE WRITE LEGtBLY RATIl'GS OTHER THAN 1 THROUGH 7 ARE NOT TABULATED side of this card do root tell your instructor what to in his approach to teaching. Please use this side of the ratings you made on the reverse side. Your ecru­ ments"illhavetheir...,-eatestimpactiryouconfinethemtospecific;:oodalld bada5p€ct5oCtheinstructor'sapproach. Figure 2. Course Evaluation Questionnaire always contains 1969- 1970. The first section, and of line the instructor's numbe r the percentage of students who and the the are this number, second maj o r s in class The that third are line gives graduate, the upper, tells line pa r t Lcu l.a r class, this department, percentage of students taking this c12s Fail basis. in in course The name. students enrolled the the on a Pass- percentage of students or lower division 30 stu encs The fourth line is , grades given in tbis class th percentage of each of the 0 The graph which folltn-Js te uinformation of the class response to the questionnaire. summary numbers 1 7 at the t,op possible on responses is considered the excellent. is che The the' gz aph correspond. to' the f .... spcnse of re a Hl seven tV ft7U of A response questionnaire. The left side of the poor. line" is considered ixaph lists tbe seven questions in abbreviated foxm. right of To the an uI", ze mean on and ( bar a or spcnsa for this que acf.on the or , If the instructor HI" ie co _). The s$terisk question. (*) the asterisk (*) The "L" represents the "1" is to the is above average (---) is an Thus to determine whether University average below the average of his dents , right on the left of the asterisk The bar an the (*) represents particular instructor. pare the "I" to the is above question there is rating for all instructors of all classes this particular response ..... e ach on of the one mean com­ can the instructor particular any asterisk that que s t Len , (*), If the (*)" the instructor is fellow instructors. indication of how closely the stu- agreeo in responding to the question. suggests that the class gave a A long bar wide range of responses on i response than One by a or an mere iItl $rrow:tded, by questioQ$ tn tl:illQI1Q .«)., not answer that .. fhi,s ,tlnifiGs tbat more 1· .... ). pe(h,d.d. tha.n 25% of the question fI, :respOl\,e of 751 or oy. orcer fox the summaries to be equi.,ed in The averal6 return ute vaded univexdty 1093 bar (--- class report mey be a It should also be noted tbat was a but averages sl1abtly published £01: tbe t!fttire approximately 75%. E X A -11 L E MAHAUSHl QUllO MEDITATION 104-1 300 STWDTS 10% PASI·rAIL 301 _MAJOItS 5% LOWft; 601 9PPIR; lSI GlADUAT! GRADES 10 A; 25% I; 401 C; lOt. D; lOt, p. 51 I' 1 234 6 5 1 PREPARI ··1 F.X.P.LAN: lE,SroN: ·""'-1· STIMUL: -----------1*-EXAMIN: -----------*I--- TEXT: '* --1-" RECOMM: .. - -- ........ ...,· Figure 3. The Science evaluations for the Depal'Dnel.lt of illitaxy course appeared lications. It in each of the four course evaluat;ion pub should be noted, however, that the resp(n:ue varied with each publication. .... 32 One some mum difficulty which the autbor eases the responses student re$PQnse el1 result; the information a was that in below the desired mini­ required for publication which resulted in failure of the evaluation for that As expez Lencad ment was obtained from the evaluation tabulations. on course to be published. che }.\1i1itary Science Depart Hpt'int outs" resulting Thus, the .. from the the 7.5% return minimum estab- lished by the A. S. U. U. Course Evaluation Committee does net apply in each instance the fC)llowing flguru. to the results which apliear b. ALL VALID CLASSES 258" O'%. PASS-FAIL '0% MAJORS, CLASS LEVEL 64% LOWER, 35% UPPER. 0% GRADUATE GRADES- (%)- 24 At 281. 38 C, 6 D, 0 P, 1 E. 2 6 1 7 345 ·* -1""'..,.-- ..... POPAR.: * 1"",0;,""' EXPLA: BaroN: -*1 STnWL: ---",-EXAMIN: *1 "'·,,-- MIl. S ENaoLLMENT - .. .... -- • .. .,.,··.. ·• .. • .. -· ... .. .. TEXT: llECOMM: re Figure 4. Military Science Department sul, t.s, Winter Quarter 1967-1968. Course Evaluation 33 MIL S ALL VALID CLASSES 'ENROLLMENT" 286 J 0% MAJoaS 0% PASS-FAIL 67% UTURN ,CLASS LlV'EL- 66% 'LOWia, 33l. UPPEB., l GRADUATE 29% C, GRADES.. 41% B 10% D, 3% E. 0% U. 16% A, 4 3 5 2 1 6 7 PREPAl.r IXPLAN: P8PON: -------I*·---' STIMUL: ElAMIN: TEXT: -··---···*·I-----.. ........ *·t·-·· ·• -··--*·-I--··-­ * ,--1 _ .. --_ • REOOMMz .... ...... ... ..... • .. Figure S. Military Sct,n\ce Depa'r'tment Course E9a1uation res'ults, Winter Qutlt:'te:c 1967-1968. ALL VALID CLASSES MIL S .50% RETURN ENROLLMENT186. 0% MAJORS 0% PASS-FAIL CU..SS LEVEL- S2% LowER, 27% UPPER; 3% GI.ADUAT,E. 181 A,: 28% 13, 42% C 8% D. 0%1', 1% s, 0% U. GRADES1 3 '4 5 2 6 7 PREPAR: •• ... .. *1 IXlLAN: --- ...... RESPON: ----!-, ...... STIMUL: ----·-*t*---··- -----·I*·---EXAMIN: ---- .... • ... llBADtNG,: RECOMM: Figure 6. Military Science pBrtment Course Evalna.tion results, Winter Quarter 1968 1969. ... 34 MIL S ALL VALID CLAI,SES 47% RETURN 3% MAJORS, 112 0% PASS·FAIL CLASS LiVEL- 63% LOWER., 35% UPPER.. 3% GRADUATE GlADES15% A, 34% Ii, 40% c, 2% D, O<g, P, 4% El 0% U. 2 1 6 345 1 * --1 INST EXPLAN: : INi! EfFORT: -*-·1""·_" * COMMENTS: ·""'I LEARN EXPEl.: READING: ---------1--*--(STAND EFFIlT): ,-t(ALL ClaSSES): . ENROLLMENT- .. ....... -..,· .... _- .. .... _ .... • • .. Figure 7. Military Science Department results, Autumn Qua:r:ter 1969--1910. 'In the preeeding figures tion gf the HIH Military representing it may 'be the mea .. ... ... ··---. .... -_·-- Course Evaluati01l that the seen post,.; response for the Sc;:ience Department instructors was equal tc> 'or exceeded the rating for all il.utructors of all classes in the majo ity ·of cases. II. A. S. U. U. OPINION FOLL At tbe time when advance sent out to all U ah for xegistratlon materials pXQspective students registration fox at the were University of the Autlwn Quarter 1969-70 the Associated Stu.do nta pf the Univer sity of Utah enc.l.esed questionnaire concerning This questionnaire 12 as was the role of the ROTC a program.12 directed to all of the stude ts at The results of that questionnaire were also published HOC Committee Report and may be found in part of the AD Appendix 3. 3S the at University, both male and female, end was intended to ascertain the opin1Qn of the studetlts concerning the Qf the ROTC program Thu:e tvere 8,400, 60% or tbe University eampu. on sent out ; of 14,,000 questionnaires were status returnad. The results of the these, poll are shown in Table 10. TABLE 10. STUDENT ltBSPONSES TO THE ASUU OPINION POLL SUBJEct ITEM 1 S,tudeltlts I AUTUMN ,1969 MALE anlwerinl th. poll. Freslmlen • • • 1127 1298 1366 759 l870 • J.uni()rs •••••••• Seniors. • Graduate Students. • • • • Total 2 3 Are lOU an • • •••• No • • • • • 4 • should On-Campus but extra­ curricular? • • • 210 4523 • In your opinion, ROTC be: a. 2486 ROTC Cadet? Yes. • 186 723 621 691 246 210 • Sophomores • 1327 (27.2%) 643 (25.8%)* b. Given academic credit as c. d. 4 now? • • • Completely off No opini.on. • • • '. campus • .'. Should ROTC courses for credit be taught by: a. Civilian faculty. • b. Military personnel. c. No opinion ••••• 2607 (53.5%) 523 (10.7%) 355 ( 7.,3%) 661 (13.6%) 2977 966 (61.1%) (19.8%) 1256 ('0.9%) 184 ( 7.4%) 364 (14.7%) 181 1461 364 ( 7.3%) (58.8%) (14.6%) 36 TAILH 10 ITltM SUBJECT continued. - MALE FEMALE In yOUl." opinion. is ROTC in conflict with the tra­ dition,a! ideals 0'£ the university, $u<:h as academic fre,edom and freed-om of political s expression? a. Yes, b. No c. No ••••• • • opinion It should be noted, the the • poll only were a were • • • 368 • over It is potentially in favor of answer1na ROTC answeri¥\l ROTC classes tnteresting to note taught by that the could be mest affected having the military (71.6%) .. female) felt that havins the (12.S%) 35'4 (14 2cx,) ( 1.5%) SO of the students and 58.St. in favQr of students wh.o program 322 1780 $mall percentage of the students civilian instructors. male (19.84) 3501 (72.8<g,) that: poll (61.1%, male" she raas 968 ' •••• by the do the i,Qstruc- tinge It should also be noted, that in the opinion students the ROTC program shoukd be continued with the same academic status it on presently has. of the the campus 37 III. AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT­ ROTC AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH The of Utah University was the problems which beset the campuses of colleges and universities throughout the United States. sons this for administration to'tV'ard.s of the ROTC on the the many of these resolving It therefore problems be foze they 'occurred. logical step for University :rea- to assess potential seemed to be take to initiate to University campus surrounding it, and One of th& apparent attitude of the University the was many of relatively f:r:ee of to determine the attitude of the a a study the fa.cts students concerning it. In keeping with this policy, appointed to inve$tigate the administration the scope of this of that committ portion lady that has as BAD it lends on to findings.13 W'3S It is DiOt within review all of the variotJs aspects s work, but rather a bearing on valididity HOC Committee to with limited AD HOC Committee the ROTC program and to repQrt to their study an the -to to extract study the at from it that hand, partieu- findings of this study. study ROTC, (unpublished report distribution, University of Utah, 1970). 38 The repot submitt@d of their work opinio'n poll referred to incorporated to the committee ai; the a que stionna.ir$ lfhich was study. "of Letten and questi0nna.ire relate specifically he subject at hand. tbe AROTC Instructox. of that (The results portion of the questionnaire which pertains t:Q this study appear that It abo prepared and adminis­ supervision ef the College Portions of that completion the results of the student which appears earlier in this tered under the Sci.nee. by followi.ng table.) in the questiQnnaire that Items extracte.d from pertained specifically to this study were: 6. Compared t.he are: t.o all of the 'teacbers University t a. yeu.,.have had at do you think your ROTC instrtlctors below average, b. average. above c average? 7. Do you believe your ROTC instructors qualified a. Yes. and prepaxed b. No. to teach their are both subjects? 39 TABLE 11 ROTC QUESTIONNAIRE • AROTC Cade t s Re spense No. % Questions from. Questionnaire No.6. ROTC Instructors: Below Average. Average. Above Average. • •• To,tal No.7. ROTC Instructors Qualified... Not Qualified. 6.95 4.5.42 ... 7·99 100.00 271 97.84 2 .52 100.00 ._7 • __ 278 Total The 18 124 131 273 response of the AROTC students indicated that the AltOre instructor was well above average when instruotors at the response to the University. to other compared Their overwhelming questions concerning the positi"e qualifications their AROTC instructors to teach their various of subjects gives further indication of the successful results achieved through given in the M.ilitary Science the instxuction Department. IV. The assigned a question to of the adequacy of the military personnel the AROTC programs 8.t the university level has questions. SUMMARY Comparison been one University fraught to teach on with many unanswered of the results of their teaching with 40 that of the other 1nstr.uoti.•nal 0'£ Utah was course a University of Utah,. questt()Qnaht1il develop.ci fGr thi, ,tlrpo,se standard Mt of a U,niversity evaluatioQs oond ....oted ,by the A.ssociated StU.d4l'Qts of the up of at the frst made pos1be wlh .tbe introd:uetion o system of, student The personnel ctuesttOD.S Qour,s$ of il;ts.truction, and tbe made C:Qc.ernlnl the iadlvtdual Thi·s .valu,tion i..o.strueQl'. '. was is l1mited in the number of factor$ con,sidered and is t.ken only from tbe students point of view. The average lteturn rate for the evaluations wide W4\.S 75%. To had to meet; thi.s qualify f·ot: publication published AROTC frequent re­ original "print outs" rathex thea que.stionnal:r:es reflect that turnover in instructcn: Department, the positive their instruction, reuins at; This would. indioate that the by the evaltla­ publications. Tbe results of the of the. In this area, for the Army ROTC classes reflect the sults obtained from the hom the actual the class xe'$ponse Unfortunate 1y, not all of the requiJ:emeQt. MO'le classes met this cu:ite:ria. tiQD-S University. re spense a spite personnel in the of the student$ to consistently high level. quality the AIWTC instru,ct.ors remains in of instruetio,t\ relatively provided constant. 41 Gne a,rea in which there c that ,of the· fOE eet1s:islent lndlca.t:iolls that ,ef text mate:d.al deUelencr exist,s is a were pub·lished· repc.rts 'tbe levaluation liven teltt mated.ala used fQ'it· the ceq.rae's ev alllati eD' ,f.: all other ·'classe $ at the The :repo'rt l"eoo-r:ded a was 'new In three the to below the avera3e Un.iversity. publbbed fo·t: tb. Ac..tturan Qua;r1ter' -1:969· 70, at'EUt,., th.,t 0'£ student effe'J:t i is insufficient evidence· on which to base !lh,ew.gh there juds:emeat a at this Utile, this area, due ,to the nature of the pr,egram, eoukd indicate a need for close at·tentioR and revisions 1ft the program t'g line wi,th the avera.ge noted that the rating siYeR for all ckasse s S. U. U. was campus were it as respondbg poll. responding favorably to the the en the university poll, only 275 This repr.sents Significantly, to ... student attLt;ude to and w()uld have had little the outcome ef the dents te'tUlS of officer t1'aining prGlram Of the 4870 males only 5.71. the Univer­ at the. same. members ·0·£ tbe BOTe program. age of It should be Opinion Po11 produced certain interest ing result,s, particularly in tbe need for student effort in University requirements. sity and all AROTC clas,es The A. 'orins required possible or no III per'cent effect ... on the number of stu- questi'on of who should 42 teach the m.ilitary structors, women was classes, the military ox four t'o one for the' aen, and civilian in­ eight to one for 1ft favor Qf ,tbe military'. The AD HOC Op_ittee Repe;rt Q,(),l);cerning that p'Q1:'tion ef the ROTC progr.am f:eiated te tbis AI.OTC instructors t eompe,t,eat to sene whole study indicated that the both qualified and as a as i.ns,txuct,O');S at the Ui¥et's.:lt,. J were CHAPTER IV. THE ""IDEAl/" INSTlWCTOR. I tiThe only good teacb1ftS is by thee is a way of· of· the· pl'Gdllicts of the ·001,,1_.$ •.••• if means 'better way of )'iet. tQdiscover Judiina ·he quaUty of .call·ele evaiu_tina gecd t ••china we· it.u14 ably always wUl be. Tbe reas.n fO',J: this 19 tha't ·the sui·ts -af nev'er ta ba.e -teacbi.ng can be r·edueed "0 exa;ct an re· scienee·. the ·pol.nt where identifiable stimuli will preduoe 'the will alway·s be subje¢t it.' eritieism frcua beth fellow teach'" eu and students whG tecl1niq,ues que.stien the· validity ef th. teaohinl What works fO,1" used. depend upen the· interaction of dietable factors betwe.n two variable Despite the there are those pewson is QO' that "Tbe results of which will w&rk for anot:het'. efforts will ene obvious q'ualiUes a teache71's nUlllfu\,oUS unpre-­ personal1ties,uU intangibles involved in teaching, which have been ide:ntified - as > . 14 Fernandus Payne and Evelyn W. Spieth. An Open College Teachers, (Blo,om1ngton, Press, Inc., 1935), p., 2. t·o 15Ibid• p , 1·. Iod.: The Letter Principia 44 (;f)ntr1bating to the success of' a' tea,char. Army. recognizing this' fact, has set up of lnst'ruction for the express officers to possible. provide th purpose course a to. Methods preparing its of highest qu.ality of instruotion ',How successful it' has been is demonstrated quality' 0.£ the trainifl8 reed:v.ed by most The United States certainly by the man' in the the lresults ,Qf that ful dees not mean fQT the mea in the 'traiaing_ Army tis reports concerning the R(J',!!C program referred this study. 16 It was the purpose of if this situation still basic teaching exists, techniques by the or this if the Army Ar.fS11, in has been stlcoess" that it wauld be successful That thi all has 'be-en: the ea se si. ty campus. the Army, and That 'the program Qf instrueti'en foUowed by the pro·viding training by on the wd:ver- documented in to e8t'U.r in study to determine develepment ·of has resulted 1ft II noticeable improvement which Would produce positive. results on a'pax with those of,th4e professional teacher on the university campus. To dent accomplish ceur se this evaluation, the results'of the stu" evaluatiens have been obtained which appear in 16The ROTC Study C mmittee of Colgate Unive.rslty, liThe Impact of an ROTC Program on a Liberal A.rts College: A Case Study of Colgate ttniversity8f, Hamilton, New York, 1953. 4S the were preceed,ing chapter. confined to the just thos to ,the As neted .possible mentioned in the of success In his. study, i'.t, Pr.derick B0 however,. these evalut.iQ)ns responses questionnair·e whiel'l ntd.bure teache.r. a "Qualities ·Related Knight state s that been sensit:iv to the pr:ofeion b$$ danni'ned by tM Success in Te:aoh to ... hos.b, tt,le teachinl p,:oblem$ ;telated determif3.ing what cOQ.stit;utes IQd tea(lhing •. up with th e.xact formula tl;"alts as yet. 17 GO one, has come We do not know what present in superiQr instructoxs. must be to: Knight continued with his studies to .ttempt to defin what these traits Q,xe. I • DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRITERIA. In Maroh of 1968 stude.nts in the students The topic t proficiency upon which Most Memorable e:gamination Englisb DepartQnt The purpose University. the an they given was of the were use of the required t-o the Junior Brgham.Y()ung 9f the examination in the to was to demon"" English language. write. was, fMy Teacher". 17Fr:eder1c B. Knight, Qualities Related to Teaching, ew York: Teachers College Columbia University, 1922), p.4. 46 It 'should be noted that' the p"u'P'}SQ of the examination was ble not' to' d termine what goes int€> the 'teacher, but rather, hiS 'tlrit1ng skilL test" are perhaps Because of paper s't'udy such not was were effected asked to tbi,s.. as by the stu.dent· \ of use s that indteat:ton of, the factors student most in his hi,s teachers than 1.f he sponse the memora. s, this" the restllts of accurate mere a which effected the them for '4' to evaluate makeup of with relationships record speciUcslly In this instance, the anticipated grade on re­ the for what the student wrote but uther how he expressed hirose-l£ in writing. There are of the criteria questions specific questbns relating developed must be kept First, the general tion was how much given was wa.s a that of of the a the validity result of this study. 1n mind when nature the list as to These consi.dering the resukt s school where the examiaa· "church schaol" and therefore, f criteria effected by the image f Second. what is the background of the religion instructor? the students whg attend that school in terms of educational experience? Third, what effect did the the examination have upon the time limitation in completness Qf the results? , 47 ,Th echn1que of preparing used in list of the a developing descripUve adjectives usd in the completed examinations orable teacher. The the criteria list of to was or phrases describe the most descdptive terms that mem­ then pre· was sented to several members of the faculty in the Departme,nt of Education for their consideration and comments'. Theil: Bugge stions in the then were questionnaire. incorporated, In addition to the items naire many ch4racteristics handsome, sarcastic, or vague in 'where meaning 7arm were on mentioned hearted J which .... possible. such were be of value in this to the que st Lon-, petite, as too genez a I studyo II. THE QUESTIONNAIRE In order for questionnaire was there asked to instructors the as University a means of comparison. developed itl which the 18 mentioned characteristics were be to respond they to were the listed.iS most a frequently The AROTC questionnaire, rating students the AROTC compare with all. other instructors at of Utah. III. METHOD Following development directors for each phase laThe questionnaire of the questionnaire, the of the AROTC proiam were is shown 1. as Appendix course asked to 48 naire. The resul.t s and evaluated. llere To a,ssist Simplifi_d Statistics consulted..19 appear in the for Education and following tables compiled ev,aluat1on" Turrlley PsychQlogy The evaluat(!t\l results 1;)f the in the 198111y submitted to the author. B s was questionnaire .. Turney and G.eorge P. Robb, .simplified EducatiRJ) and P$tcbololY, (Scranton, Pa.: Internati:onal Textbook. Company, 1968), pp, 37-49. L. Statbtics for TABLE 12 QUESTIONNAIRE Rating scal.e t 1 Ver.y Below Average, 2 Very Above Average. - S FOR AROTC STUDENTS "'" _'_=-----_:__.-........::_:.___..........:.:_---=-.:._. CHARACTERISTIC __ ' .:.__....._____.,,_ 1. No. 13 Dre s sed 2. Appropriate 1y 10. 12 Demonstrates for others 3. % ND. concern 10 4. Ent-husiastic % 36 % No. % No. 5. 6. in 7. Has _:_- _._________:___ L:_-": -"-_:_: 2 2 - ... __ r __ "_;__ .. - Above ., 47 20,.08 131 55.98 4·5 19.23 10 .85 20 8.55 58 24.79 153 65.38 10 9 3.85 88 37.61 106 45.30, 29 12.,39 lO 3 45 19.23 120 51.28 68 2.06 10 91 3fL89 38 16.23 10 30 12.86 10 8 3.41 .85 . 4 4 2 .. __ iI 3 .85 - .. Average - ,2 1.29 5 TO -. Fair Has TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS Below Average, 3 1 FREQ. Able to consaunf.catie with the student ... -. 10 a genuine interest the student a sense 8. student No. 32 of humor Identifies with % 1 No. 32 the % N,o. 13 % 7 2.99 12 5.13 8,.) 36.32 3 9 81 113 1.29 3.85 3L .62 48.29 2 6 2.56 44 118 .85 18.80 50.43 27.78 10 5 2.14 8.55 82 34.62 100 42,,14 12.86 10 20 65 30 'fABLE 12 Rating scal.e j 1 5 - .. Very Below Average, 2 V_ey -9ve:r;ge. CHARACTElUSTIC '_ Below continued. Average, 2 1 FREQ. j .; A"er '3 ' 9.. Is dedicated i.e.-his Work 18 10. Is demanding in' his 12. Promotes 12 4 1 9 89 38.03 3 11 % 28 No. '%. .43 3.85 3 1.?9 17 1.26 41.03 4 4 17 1.26 92 39.32 3 11 4 70 104 44.44 4 2 68 29.06 4 .85 45 19.23 3 3 1.29 58 24.79 5 3 1.29 46 1.11 .3 1.29 No. 19 15. Subject kno:wledge 16. Takes students 11 18 spend time with che % No. 2 student % '1 .43 ,_ - No." extra 18 % •. .,85 % No. 17. well preparedto % No. 56 time for Willing % No. 14. Sincere 18. % No. appreciation 13. Shows concern for others 28 11.97 ,,% . 19 requirements 11. Is devoted to his students :3 1.29 ·No. .. 7 2.99 96 19.66 4 63 26.50 4 51 The :results of the ·questionnaire the· student Pntvious studies knowledge d'llcted. eval,*atious course _ntbnlad in teaeher, tl!"aits '()<'11 ranked number' point The result$ of the AI.OTC III. Chapt.er ,.ut that, su.bject surveys which :they i,a the one &upp<»rt the results of con­ questionnaire iadicate that 44.8% 'of the studellts rated their AlWTC instructors very above 'average in this second Ln this of the in study Enthusiasm regard. was ranked impe>rta.nce and itl thb regard SO .,34% students rated the AROTC instruotor above average. Third in 1n this Unpo'£tanee genuine interest in I,tudy student". the was ite'm No.6" "Has AROTC students t a response resulted in 61.15% indicating that their AROTC instructors are above average or bettex., IV. A questi.onnaire was SUMMARY developed which listed teristics of the "Ideal Instructor,'t. results of Junior a was The "My Most Memorable characteristics was compiled against which structor at the was rated on as topic of Teacher". was examination based the English Proficiency Examination adminis­ Brigham Young University. tered at the It the charac­ the A list of the AROTC in­ he compares with all other instructors University of Utah. 52 There were potentially 285 students questionnaire could sulted in returned. a be giVeth to whom, the H,OWeV81;" 0].4S,$ absence s reduction 16 the Bunlber of re­ questionnaires A total ·gf 23,7 were. ;retuxned whiah npreseets. 82!. .of the AlWTC students Eilrolled at the time the que stion'" na1t;e was completed. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECmmNDATIONS I SUMMARY The puzpo se of this inst-ructOl: at the study of Utah. Uni.ersity The specific objectives for this study review the criteria for the ass'lgnment of were, (1) selection. pr'eparation, illstruc-t.ors; (2) AROTC the AROTC ee examine was to to and e,llamiu the stu­ dents' response to (3) to cellparis.on of the his c'ontemporaries when e·onsidered in light of reeognbed. obtain a positive teaching the i.nstruction a,ad AROTC instructor with traits. student The results of the compiled provided by the AROTC; presented course evaluations were graphic form, which facilitated in the review of the results. The A. S. U. U. preted for ROTC the this identl'ty study. of the results of that retained on the status that it Opinion Poll Specific was note was respondents. poll reviewed and inter A made general .. of the non. COflsenSUi of indicates that the :kOTC should be University of Utah campus in the presently occupies. same 54 The recent report of the AD HOC COm.EJl.ittee to ROTC at the to University this study. Of of Utah included to lend was specific interet. were better when compared with their c·ontemporaries AaOTC instructors were A questionnaire qualified on or the Un.i" to teach at the University. developed using positive teacher wu Examinations writt,en Tea.cher" average (271 resp;ondinl) felt that tbeir characteristics extracted from 224 Junier ment a that 92% of the AB.oTC students felt that their AltOTC instructors Over 97% validity the results of was portion of that report which indicatd varsity faeulty. study the on of top,i.e English Achieve­ ''My 1:10,st Memorable • II CONCLUSIONS The basis of this 1. to be wa,rranted following conclu$iQns s;,eemed Tbe AlWTC instructor set of assigned sistent with the practical requirements a background. experience, t.o the University rigid criteria which on and demonstrated are of con­ for educational ability. Student evaluati0ns indicate that the AROTC in­ structor is above the sity :Q£ Utah in the the study; Utah is selected 2. on a.verage Qf the teachers at the Univer­ most areas, primary exception. texts or reading material being 55 3. tor',. When cOtupared with the the AROTC it\struoor of the image is ranked ulda,l Instrue'" consistently above his centemporaries. 4. this Based study. the on ,combined consideratiQlls breught the criticism. concerning the adequacy campus heard frequently on. the out in collegs of the AROTC instructor is unfounded. 5 The United States Army is cognizant 0·£ the need. to continually updace its ROTC pr'ogram as efforts tQ requests for more comply fied instructor 6. wit on aea,demicaUy quali­ personnel. The apparent instructor evidenc.d by its the re asens for the success Univexsity catnpus is of Instruction training in Methods of the AROTC due i,Q part to the they receive. III RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of this tions It is recommended that all teachers at the Univer sity be required methods ... proposed; are 1. study the follolV'ing recommeads or to attend a course of instruction on ... the techniques of instruction before assuming their duties. 2. Many of the problems associated rAith the AROTC hom the fact that most individuals are not stem familiar with 56 the acuual work done in the bein& fore r$c.G6llHRded that increased .ffort be made an the no·l\+IOTC stud'ant w1th gram as neither time seop.e in this study. on circumstances nor ·of this study. As recommended. that future studies on 4. year, of It is the AROTC consider the between the a body, student m,oti­ closer worki.ng rQlatioa­ Department of Military Sci@nce an.d other related departments in the a team ;of both acadesd.c and 5,. ,rest deal etc. ship be deve Loped gaining a 1ntructor/$tudent relationships It is recommended that could result in e'Rlarging of the AROTC. of the nature of the AROTC student vation,' eha,racteristies dent Unfortunately; result J there is area for research cQndusive to were a. of work yet to be done in the by class provide better Imale at the ROTC pro a A great deal of material was available Ln the areas touched areas t·Q sponsored by the faculty and administration. 3.. the It is there­ department. University. teaobing effort combining professional backgrounds This the best with the st.u­ the benefit. Finally. it is reeomtIlended that it be required of all AltOTC instructors to participate University thus exposing them to in the academic of the the world of the Ulvory 57 TowerH., as well -Yersity fac:ulty as enabli-ng the other members of the Un1 to benefit £,:001 associati.ng. with caliber- found among the AlOTC instructor staff (> .. n -of the BIBLIOGRAFHY Ad Hoc Committee University to of Study ROTC. Utah, 1970. Army Digest: Staff. uROTC 1969. pp. 10-17. Report submitted Under Fire.u F. uROTC at che the Army Digest. April, Associated Students of the University of Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah: Course Evaluation. Press, Winter Q.uarter, 1968-69. Cravens, Kenlleth to Faculty· Deseret News University of Utah.u of Utah, 1958. Unpublished Master's thesis, University Headquarters, Department of the Arm.y. Army Regulation. NQ. 61l'l'P50, Assisnment to Reserve COtnponnt. and Reserve Officer Training. Co.rps Dutv. Washington. D. c.: Government Printing Office, 1964. Headquarters, United States Continental Army Command. Fort Monroe. Va., "7th Annual ROTC Conference." Knight, Frederic Payne s B. Teachers York: Fe rnandus, Qualities College, and Press t Inc. J New Related to Teaching. Columbia University, 1922. Spieth,: Evelyn College Teachers. 1969. W. An Bloomington, Ind.: Open. Letter to The Principia 1935. Personal and Social Traits Requisite for Terre Haute, in Seconda;ry Schools. State Normal Press, 1927. Shannon, John R. High Grade Te.aching Ind.: uFa.ctual Analysis The Officex Education Advisory Committee. of Matters Relating to the. ROTC Program at: the Univer tv Seattle, Wash •• 1969. sity 0,£ Washington. .... uThe Impact The ROTC Study Committee of Colgate University. A Case of an R.OTC Program on a Liberal Arts College: H Hamilton, New York, 1953. Study of Colgate University. 59 TOEi1 nson , Kenneth Y. uROTC Under At.cack ," Digest, November, 1966, pp. Reader' s 2-6. Turney, Billy L., and Robb, George Pit Simplified Statistics Inter­ for Education and Fsyehd9il. Scranton, Pa.: national Textbook Company, 1968. U.. S. Department of -the Army. I'lL2l-6 T(lcha!su:Ul of Military Instruction. Washington, D. C. % Government t Printing,' Office I: 1967. APPENDIX 1 QUESnOlDL\-IU FOil A)lOTe STUDENTS INSTI.UCTIONS Do not write your naQle on this que stioonaire. When pleting the items below use the following scale: 5 Very abeve average. 4 Above average" com .... .. .. 3 2 1 Rate 4(10 Average" .. .. Below average. Very below averag•• the AROTC instructors on following factors as they (instructors) at the Uni- the cempare vl1th all other £eacben versity of Utah. Able < e,ommuRieata with the students to Appropriately Demonstrates _ .• -- dressed_. for others concern Eathu,sis.stic_. • " __ Fal'r Has a gen1ne interest in the stud.nt__,_. Has a good SIU!lSe of humor_ _.,. Ide1l.ti.fies with the student -. .•-. Is dedicated to his W&.:dt. Is demanding in his .• Is deV'$ted to hi.s stlldell,ts__._. .. ..._.'._ .. . '- " -. recp.d.rements_._. _ .. Prometes Shows appreeiatlou_. for othet's_. __ concern Sincere . __ " .• _._ " Subject knowh'!dge_._. _." _. Takes time for students Well prepared_ .• -- • ... Willing to __ spend extra time with the student _. .. __ APPIN IX 2 ROTC INSTRUCTOR TRAINING COUR.SE SAMPLE TBAIlUNG SCHEDULE HEADQUARTERS SIXTH US ARMY ROTC p Fort Lewis. Wa$hin&tou SUBJECT:, 23 July 1968 Trainiag Schedule, ROTC Instructor Orieatatif1>ll Course, 29 July .;.. 2 August 1968 TO: Se.e Distribution' OT 1. Attached is the ROTC lastr,uct()t: Orientati-oll CQu1:se 2 August 1968. Schedule fer 29 July 'P .tnstruction will be conducted 1n Bu1.lding 3203. 2d 2. Division Drive, at times indicated oa schedule .. 3. Uniform and equipment: Uniform: a. Fatil,ues with bOQts,. b. Equipment % Notebook and pene:t.L FOR THE DEPUTY CAMP COMMANDER: JOHN D. SHANNON Haj, lnf Adjutant Incl: Tug Sched Distribution: S4 (4), 53 (50) B eceptt CO eaeb Co (4) Cmdt of Cadets (2) Chaplain Plus: Post G3 Tng (L.t.), Post G4 (2) Each student (2) Each i.nstructor (1) (2). INSTRUCTOR ORIENTATION COURSE ROTC TRAINt:G nc 29JuI HOURS UNIFORM DAY6. I t- I DA7E I FP.Ct 1968 tl'\ TO =-roeOOQ0810 Jul! 29 S:.J8JF.C7 _!I.ACE Btde; 110) WelcoolE''! I I 0310.035'0 I I . 'I 1 1010-1100 1110-1200 I I And es Pr oc edur ea Do I V,r..Cl.l.bcrt I DCl> Cp Cmd c R_t'lllk Po l i HOTe c t i l!,r.d Proc edo l Duties nnd and Responsibilities Instructor Pcr90n_n_c_l __ 1 Co Ll e S. I He t h od utv, lJCSOPT, Hq A-:my Col nc!.stol and DCSlt-:"T, cIIl!::Yt, E. Cu r t l'lJ'-15, --'[--AlI-t.-l-!.-5--,)-,-f. .-Q,_ t!+S·)9, Af\ V.) 12 350, CON Reg i vs-« AI< J 1'45-6 -- I Il1r• Do RO l',S·S nnd I to;:;- I --f------,_=-_._I Snrn o AS for 0910-0950 I --l-. _ Do s __ _ O;ganlzlItion. d Du t Le s c onr of n r a t c a cn t e of I Intruction' ion of Do I "_ Pnnc l . IHJ Do Do o. I L. ! Hc:)hlne, UCLA I H DQ ---.- j' !FH n& Lesson Student t {0:10 i Pr pend.li I ge I Pr c p a Hote book 6. 'I " I-J-o-f-O-r-c-0-n--_ Lunch 1)140) I boots. On Irq "txth . a IS INSTP.UC'!OR !\FERF': Hone of Ai 8!lk" Hr. Ge nc r I I -------- I Do r es I I 1 & Pntig\les Frl'n-Do--'--'I'-AR" s co , I es r of S':-,n U &. EQUIPMENT I L1:c1J-;; tC:Y'OTC I +. Coffee Yf I 1605-1700 Col Sixth ::00-1315 1'.15-1605 IJ Po l Lc t ROTC ________ 0950-1010 INSTRUCTION -!)o----· ·-LTcS.E.A;'drC'.Js. Introduction t ROTC 10900-0950 I 19611 Le",l.s, Wa'lhington Fort: SCIIEDlfU: Hcthods of Bldg Instruction 3203 U 30Jul Tuts OGOO-09 so 0'150-1010 I Coffee 1010-1100 i ROTC Adrs t nt s t B'r c nJ 1. 1. Lynn Do Pool 1--6---- Do M 1'.5-95, A of A"lzon,q nl: r I at ion Do I Hr. Lt g Lc r , 145-12l. Forces '145-100 And Art 145-13 145-155, A 601-10 I 'I Reserve I 11110-1200 I ,1200-131!1 Army-sponBored cadets. ROTC Lunch CHS F1 ip.ht Pr cg and Pro;::, r ama Scho l am er for ROTC sh fp Programs. I :hAq Hr. Lf.g Lc r LTC B'r a l ey Do AR Annex AO to CO Reg 3 TRA IHNG 1 to 2 ."uS \968 Philosophy of Educftt1cQ 6E Tues JOul PLACE SUJ\JF.CT TO Ln the IFathar Bldg 3203 Sel,ttlc U .; Recruit : Do TfGII\l'd!II' Do Col W.O. ! ln3 Techniques Preps r at t on ! 1605-1700 ; Pre IGCOO-08S0 \.led 1 en t .1 t 31Ju iHthcr- .r r , Do iATP Do AT? 145-G and c 145-1 Ld ah o , I lIaJ P.Po. Ch al tne r s I Do ROTC Supply Pr oc edur e s Do ;CPT Capu r r o Supply 'Di VI DSCLOG. Hq ROTC Sunrne r Curap s Do iIj ROTC Curriculum - MS 'Snn ' .Jo s c St a , 145-1 And ROTCH t e , Do AR 14S::-.i;21 Sixth Arrw . : , ,1315-1600 Observe ROTC Cadet i'rnln1.ng Do 111l1111Ce, J. 11. Ariz. Lunch Ar en s 'Ar If.S-3(} 'to CO: and A::nx )r)O-l ReB Do Cnmp Trl1n-, 111r; • U' State ,' c Ilt' _.20:' As scmb l ,1600-1700 Student Lesson Presentations Bldg 320) LTC And 'l.TC Hart ..... Do r evrs -------- ! 1'11 21-6 }, Ph1.pps LC3son Present lit ions tudcr.t 0800-0850, ROTC Curriculum - Aug 1 , Thu 18JO-2230 I L;lbora to ry ROTC Cu r r Lcu l.ura Leadership Do 0o - 1'1S Do II ' E.? ,LTC e , ROTC Lou Procedures Advanced COUlI;(': . Lunch Ha r t Stl!.te , nn Do ArPl45-1 Do ATP 145-1 and R01'C U Do ;Coi. Dik Coburn Do M;jR:-?- :ont.::m,l t ec , of il Do LC(lk Lnf o rra a t Lon Activities Se l _ Eraend R.J. !llj 11 Ar I Coffee C9 ')1)-1010 : i ;_Cg Str.tc U 1200-131 S 120001315 : pencil: Do of Student Le s son ::IrOOn, 1110-1200 1110-1200 & INSTnUCTOR. REFP on s Curriculum ROTC '0900-09 SO 1010-1100 b,?_ok _ 1515" 160 5 0900-0950 Faticucs & boots, Note Robert 'Bt"l\dlcy. American Co l l eg e s and Universities I N HISTnUCTION' & irRS 1 131541505 \ '10l0ftllOO 1966 ROTC INSTRUCTOR ORIENTAT [ON COURSE Fort Levt s , 'ashinRton SCHEDULE tor the 'Scottle St U r Lanf , Cl.r 361J1,- con Do :DA AR 3()O- 5 pod "':I. %( Do AR 145350. p,-Z U F'e r lind CON Re g CO!i l.lI)-8 p ROTC SCHEDULE 1 to 2 AUI INSTRUCTOR ORIENTATION COURSE ING TRA Fort Ju FR(\'i29 1968 HOURS unr FORM 6. I DA'{b I DAT FRO1 1968 Lewis, Hl\shington TO SUBJF.CT 1315-1405 Educ e t t ona l Material hU Mllitary 1415-1605 +-I Ln 11100-1200 t ru c t o r ROTC Be t vc en ROTC EIENT ,__----_+_US Do Ln s t r uc t Lon boot , Am-, Int Seh Dr. .Jr.me s -{--iNSTRUCTOR Fllti;::e--:-:: I Anne-;;-: Dept of Norrrc s I> Group Personnel Lnn t Lt u t t & 1. n , RF.FERf CON Reg Pencil notebook Do Mueller, U of l:llshington onn l r. Student Lesson Pr c s cnt e t t ons Do I LTC" nd r LTC cv s l!."rt, 1 Ha1 Ph Lr'p Do FM '1-6 s Do - .X. Hon t 0900-0950 11010-1100 s Offic1nl 1605-1700 0950-1010 Rc La t Lon sh t p nn d Bldg 320) d en t \ _____ INSTRUCTION of the ROTC Support AuS 1 PLACE I I r ROTC Cu r Co f f e e Ex t r Lcu l um - HS IV r e cu r r t cu l Activities ar and Ccaxnun1.ty Dodd a Un l Do IBnJ U o ,v. Do v IHa_1 T.P. Storey vel Berkclc'l nrc,k Clc'lra:lce St Do Phipps, of UaRhinton Do I Do ATP AR 145-1 j[lO-61 nnd ROTCM APPENDIX 3 AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ... ROTC AT THE· UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MEMORANDUM UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Academic Vice Pl'Euident From: Jerry To: Deans R. Andersen Date: April 16, 1970 Subj@ct: lWTe Report Department Chairman Faculty Councf.L Members 1.3Ve received Ii report of the ad hoe comm.1ttee appointed last year to study the relatio'nshlp of ROTC 'to the Univer­ sity. This report will undQubt,edly be 9,0 the agenda of the I Faculty Council SOOJl. Because of the wide interest i.n the report and because of its implicati.ons to academic programmi.ng, I a. sendi.ng the report out now to all dean's. depattntent chairmen, and Faculty Council members so that there will be ample oppor­ tunity to consider its implications before any final de cisions to im.plement the repo:r.,t are made .. JRA Encl. .... THE UNIVERSITY Salt Lake The College OF UTAH City 'S4112 of Letters and Science Office of the Dean 6 June 1969 Dr. Thomas C. King Academic Vice President Park'20S Campus Dear Dr. King: At its ROTC Study meeting yesterday, S June 1969, the COl.'W.1llittee the followinl preli.inary report: The Committee wishes now to approved tv to present scope and aims Study ROTC has met four times and preliminary report definina the a of 1 ts de Ubera tions • We hope to investigatE!" the professional md academia aims of the three milita.ry departments on the campus, to assess the degree of success the cour se offerings of those departments enj oy in meeting pr'ofessioDQl and acadeto.ie aims; to investigat$ the IrQund on which credit is offered in all military clusest including credit offered for activity in auxiliary organizations such 88 Angel Flight, Army Sponsors and Naiads; to investigate the practice of giving credit for such activities as summer camp. We intend to explore to what degree students who affiliate with ROTC limit: their political expression because of military expectations regarding loyalty or conformity. ,tie also intend to examine the appointment procedures observed in military depa.rtments and the degree exercise quality control ments and retention in these departments. university is able to to over which the appoint­ 67 shall also ask whether the absence ·of cust.omary We tenure provisions in these departments has aay effect: the academic freedom which teBuxe is ,.lleged to on pr.otact .. If th above can be approaebed objectively end dis­ passionately, we .fe-el that the brier quastiQQ Clf wbethel' ROTC has a legitimate academic role Oil 8 university campus might then be raised with so_ hope of an sft$t,er be,sed Oil fast and reason .. James L. Cla,ytOG Edwin B. Fil'AUlle Albert L. Fbher Michael Mattuon Charles W. Smith. Jx. Banis L. Taps,cott Ro,'bet A. Wolbach James 1 Be .. er Bt:l.nton J.tlles A SteveR H. Gtma. Frank C. OVerfelt •• It. MV:pd ce , Jerry lit. Andersen FINAL REPOR.T OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO STUDY ROTC To l Jerry R. Andersoa Dater' 28 March 1970 The Ad Hoe Committee to Study ROTC submits the follow· ing reoommendations expressed as motions passed by the committee. Its report explai.ning 1.1,1'10 supporcing tbese actions is appeaded, alQO,S with the results of sea. ({lles· tlonna.1res prepared and. eo,ftduated by the. Gommittee. and its pre liminary report submitted €) June 1.969 .. 1. The comntittea recommends the retention of the University of Utah with sueh modifications as shall be specified·. ROTC programs at the 2. The eommittee rec·o1'll\1eods that ex.dlt be given .for academie work completed tn the ROTC curriculum as modified in Nth '1 below. 3. It is not morally objectionable, for st:\JdeQts to receive trai.n! .. at the University of Utah to become military offieer·s. 4. The ROTC demic 5. training programs have fA legitimate aca­ place on the University of Utah campus. It shall b,e the poUcy of the University that. wh.never ))ou1b1$,. eour se s re·qui.red within the ROTC cur:deultlm will be taught by regular chiliaa Special atten­ personnel vithin other departma,ftts tion will be paid to those courses of substantial p,olitiaal qOQteBt QJ! concerned brgely with U. S. nationsl policy I sueh as military history, etc , OJ .. but the Un.iversity polley extends to all courses 'Which eaa feasibly be taught in other de partments Implementation of this policy shall be left 11'1 the hands of tbe Ctlrriculum Revi·ew Committee· of the oollege to which the departments of military sct· The University will provide adminis· ence belong. trative help in negotiating with departments in other colleges for this purpose and will be • 69 AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT .. continued. p:rep.axed to provi;de budgetary assistanqe departments involved;. if necEuu,axY,!t 6. No the to the degree--S$tisfyina a.jon ahdl be offered by departments of militaty science, naval science and erQspace studies.; 7.. No aQademic ·credit. sball be liven f.or lasses, or activities eoneerned p"imarily 01: ex·lusiyely with naa"'aeadend.c military ori.eotatiou. e.&.,; lftdoetd,'" naUon, drill; drill team WQm4Ul'S auxiliary serv1ce aetlvities t training in military skills, summer 8.. camp, etc. At tbe hei1nnina of each eo_demle yeat'). eaeh e.adet .idshipuUUl will b. informed, in wl,7iUna. that his parUeipat.1Qa ift ROTC does tlot phce any res,tri.ctiQ;ll upon his partieipation. u an individual in lead aea.ciend.c or political activities of an.y kind. and. shall be in,foxm..ed ef the admi.nistrative channels Qf appeal all.. )i,.dress which alee Op911 to 811 He shall be apprised of those act1vlties st,udeflts or Ii t:x0wned upon or fQrbidden to him 8S .. repJ:esent:ll­ tive of the ud 11 tary (e.I"') while he is in ,uniform), and of the poss1.1e penalties for infra·atio-ns 41 9. Participants ira the various ROTC p:rolrams shall be thoroughly 1nformed of their cOBlBlitment to the: military at all stages of the prQlum. No contrae'" tual sareemant betweeft the student and the military shall oontain provisions such as to prevJe.nt bim I fr·om cQmpletina his bachelor s degree in the normal four-year period, should he decide not to complete the ROTC program, OOle shall such contra·etual agree­ provide for his being d'rafted or e.alled to active duty beeause his R.OTC enrollment 1s term!­ The committee recoloiaes that upon termina­ D.ated. tion of the ltOTC contract, the student becom.es sub jeet to normal draft preeedures ments .. , 70 10. The University Fac'Ulty8tudsnt a.lath·n.s Collftlittee shall serve as an appellate board fo,r .a,te:rs relating to the miUt:ary departments, es,<i'dally f$r' case s of a.'dt$olpltaary .dis.hsal. lL, The three ROTC departments shall be maintained within the College of Letters and Science, respon­ sible directly to the dean Qf the coll"e In the to the divided, these departments should become a part of the Colle,. of Social and Behavioral Science, with responsibili,ty to the dean of that college. event 12.. eolleie is The appointment of R.OTC faculty shall be oanied in the regular manner and according to ,aner­ ally accepted academic suanda rds ,bing due weight to' the importancQ, of military Qxperi.ence in teach iag the specializ4ed subjects of miliUry science. A minimal standard for all military faculty should be eligibility for admission to graduate seboe L, Whenever possible, potential appointees should be interviewed prior to their a ppoit'ltment Depart­ ments in areas related to those to be taught by tbe appointee should 'when appro r Latie, be invited to participate in the interview. out J ... ,. 13. The committee recomtllends the University administra tion proceed with all due hast to make the follow­ ing reco1l:l1.l\endation to the Department of Defense as a supplement to ROTC programs in the light of the military officer recruitment needs of the nation and the best interests of the University of Utah. .... The University of Utah encourage s the D@partment of Defense to establish a contractual arrange.ment which can be entered into by a student in good at the end of two years of 0011eg'6, with s t.and Lng , of the U. S. Army, Navy or Air This contract would provide: (1) that the student '00'111 serve in a ten-week summer ca.mp be­ tween his third and fourth years of c o Ll.ege ; (2) that he will enter military service f or a the concurrence Force. of two years as an officer in that axmed force upon grAdt.tatioft; and (3) that throughout the last tw,o years of co Ll.ege , in com.pensation fox this commitment, the student is to be gr3nt.d a mOQ,thly stipend by the Army t Navy or Air Force complu:able to the ROTC stipend being paid at that t:im&. period REPORT The Uiveuity CommittsG to Study ROTC,. appointed last sp:riQ.l,. hu ntet 22 timfHf. has heard testimony from faQulty; $tudnts, cadets and individuals frOtll Qff cS.mpus has con­ due ted. two e;xtendve polls of student: opinion bu' con'" ddered the academic role of the ROTC dpartment:s on this campus .. The comttlittee offQs th followl.nl report in ticl-n cf its recotmtendatioJls listed heretofore. .xplanaloo Th.a c'QWilittee examined the. arittments tha:t. mll1t.n:y are per S8 out of harmony with the academic ic\eals studies of meliQrative and Af,ter eKtensive discussiQn, the eormnittee recogni3ed that gll sQcleties have found it ftecessary to defend tbem$elves by The university, insofar as way of miUtary establishments. it has an obligation to meet the needs 0f sooiety. has a legitimate and appropl:l,ate role t·g play in the t_raining of college-educated military offic2U" Fu:w;thermot:e t e,olL@&e­ educated Qfficrs predtlced through ROTC prolUMS represent a leavening of w"Qt might, otherwise bcome a .tuu:r,t)l.dy tech nieal and pOlitically oppressive military estab1tshment. The aOmnlittee viewed with apprehension an officer corps wholly supplied by th$ military academies and officer candi­ date schools. university dedicated a Uberat,ing knowledge " not to the pursuit of science of kilUt1lo; the ... Currieula scrutiny of the ItOTC eurdeulat- the committee the sub satisfied that, with only very few e'xceptions In its was ... I: quaUty of instruction were such as to ject The 0\'Im1ttee wishes to dispEll a warrant academic credit. wi.despread notion that tZred1t is offered fcr such activities matter and When such aativiU.-s are en­ drill and commando t8cths in at all by cadets end midshipmen, they do not cnry The eoU'lttlittee reoommends, howeverfl that academio credit. auxiliary activities such as ArlflY Sponsors, Natads and Angel FUg.ht no longer carry academic credit and that Army ROTC SU1lllUer camp, fot which credit has been available on peti­ tion. no longer be granted credit. as ,aged 0 In 'other respects the (}G'mmitteQ was favcubly impressed with the substance of courses in the three ROTC, depart_nt s. The I'espoftses to a quest.ionnaire taken by c·adets $M ll1d­ shipmen made it abundantly cleer ths·t ROTC (llt1Uee aDd 1m.­ struction e,om.pared favorably \\t1th other tlni.'\tersity offeritl;s Indeed, the testim(lmy of ·cad.ts ,c,ollvb:u'Jed the Q:o_ittee th.,t the quality -of instruction was often superior, yi.eldina at times truly b\dependent and (u:eati'V'e study. Art the" ,same time •. che committee we loomed' a tendency evtdent in recent ROTC curriculum revisions 'csllbtg for dvilia·ft departmeats t,o teach those 8ub,ject matters which were clearly approprtate to the.. For instance, the li4VY, rather than'teach mlU.tary hist·ory aQd natioaal defense stratelY within the departtJ.\eD.t of 0.3,... 1 selence, prefe'rs ee have these courses tattlht by departments of histery and pol.itical scienoe. The eommittee accordi·D;lly x.eoends that e€i1ut'se$ rec;p ti.l:etd in 'the ROTC prQIUms be tau.,ht" 'i\fhenever possible, by the civilian faculty of the University.. When chi.s is not possible such courses may be taught by a qualified military office.r under the purview of a regular acaU'$tllic department. .. 8S the servic,es prefer aOTC ·cadets and midship­ .ajol: in other than military sttbjeet$,' and as the depa:rtnts ,of military scieQc. and aerospae:EI studies do not effer courses sufficleftt to constitute an academie major, ,the c'ommlttee recommends that the exisUna majors tn mU1tary scien.ee, nav.al science and aexoapaee studies be abolished. Inasmu'Ch mEU! to In its study, the commi.ttee was much concerned with the rights of students erutolbd in ROTC programs. For instance, the c6)Jwd.Uee w·ondered whether ROTC e,adets and midshipmen enJoyed the same academic freedom as other stud.ats1 ir Could. a cadet J for instance j pax-tid.pate in 8 ,lelll.1 and peaceful moratoX"1um without fear of repercussion? Many cadets and midshipmen (one·third) responding to the comndttee "s ,ques­ tions on this matter recolni,ze<i the very real possibility of being subje,et co questioning and disapproval from their superiors. The cOnmlittee has no completely satisfact?ry solution t'Q problems that taQy arile in this somewhat thorny R, j ec t Lng area where political considerations may enter. the idea of a special appellate committee which might settle eases of injustice or viola, _:L n of student academi.c freedom, It 74 the committee recommends rather that existing c(1lmaittees, sueh as Student-Faculty Relations and Academic Freedom, stand ready to review referred them involving termi.nation of ROTC conr rac t s or dismissal ftom the corps In this area, the committee further re.cDll'lt\lends that ell pzospeetivE! ROTC students have their rights i responsibUituu end. the specific consequences of neglecting ·re·sponsibilities cases to .. fully explained to the. at the beginning of their ,rognm and at such later stages as Bre necessary for them. to be aware of their continuing commitment to the ndl1tary. The aOtUmittee also recommends that no. aal'aement into a student enters with any of the armed forces shall p1:ov1de for hd s being draft·ed or called to aetive duty because his ROTC enrollment is terminated.. The committee recognizes that he would be subject to normal draft pro­ which cedures upon termination. regard to the appointment of ROTC faculty, the agreed that custotaary uni.versity app.ointlTlEHlt procedures using appropriate standards for ehe several i n the r anks should be carefully observed in all cases. appointment of the PMS, PNS and PAS, who h0id t:h r ank of professor and are the cha.irmen f,)·f their respective depart­ With committee 'VIas , ments, an on-campus interview with the candidate spo-.uld he arranged whenever possible. The comfftittee looked with dis favor on any separation or distinction of ROTC faculty from other faculty and encouraged their maximal integration into the university community through committee appointments and It was inclusion in all university activities and benefits" recognized. however, that appointments in the military In the event Univer­ departments were not tenure-producing. sity resulations aze silent on the non tenure-producing character of these appointments, the regulations ought to he The committee strongly favored the regularizing amended. of standards of appointment and appointment procedures in the military science departments. ... .... A minority of the committee dissented in pArt from the visitini appointments for the adjunct Such. appointments, it was felt, lllouid military faculty. of military appropriately reflect the divided allegiance above and favored or 75 between their m1U.taty and University commitments. as University faculty is , being customare not paid arily limited to three years. rhe1r by the University but by the Department of Defense. The maj arity of the cOmrtlittee however, opposed 'the disenfran'" chf sement; resulting from or visitiftl sp,*oin.tments and feared that such appointments might weakn the Lnregxa­ t.Lon of tuilitary faculty with the rest of the University. faculty Their stay The committee with the suggestion submits the above report of its recommendaof the Faculty Council be tions as meet with the approval initiated by autumn quarter 1970 al1d be implemented as soon thereafter as possible, but no later than autumn quarter 1972. James L. Bever James L. Clayton Edwin Firmage Steve GURU C. W. Smith, Jr. Robert Wolbach Jim Brinton Randolph L. Dryer Albert Fisher Michael Matteson B-$.HlgS Tapsc.ott l-tilton Voigt, Chairman ASUU OPINION POLL ROTC Topic: Autumn, 1969 1. Total Sample Responding: __ §I1l2. No. :& % No. 270 5.60 1127 23.38 1298 26.93 1366 28.34 Female lii§. 7.54 _7_23 29.31 621 25.17 691 28.01 6.26 l 25.39 1919 26.33 2:_05_2 28.23 Member of ROTC? .:L_. ll_9_·_. 1-. __ Male 275 573 No u: ROTC should be: _ l'lQz.._ _X__ No. 9&.27 4798 100.00 100.00 2486 100.00 'S16.22 l 100.60 4523 :J.78 Extra 1ar(! Be Credit No. Female Total % _l 26.23 27.'1.4 Hi§. 51.33 5')i .. No Off ---N I) _!.. ). __ '26'075'4-:-18 Hale Tot8_1 ____%__ __ Female 3. Senior Jun.i£!..__ No. Hale Total 2. Freshfll / li_O-!.... r," , L,L c '). .J,,-_) .1§.l Z_ 10.88 752 s 7 (_ r_ 0 p J_9Jl_ L 35.5 ]64 !.!. 7 .37 l,·. 87 • 9.90 l- 48 ROTC ASUU OPINION POLL Civilian should be Personnel taught by: % No - continued. Military Pe r s oriue 1 % No. No No. Opinion / Total % No. 100.00 100.00 t·1ale 661 14.36 2977 64·.66 966 20.98 4604 Ferna le 1(31 7.66 1/+61 61. 83 721 30.51 2363 Total JlJ 12.09 4L:f 63. 70 12 24.21 .§l flict 5c Is ROTC in w i.t con- the h of r s i.t y ? Lde a I.s uni.ve 100.00 a _. __ _:_ts No. __ll9__ __%___ Total li2__.Q2inion No. % Nap _ 968 20.01 ].')01 72.38 368 7.61 4837 100.00 Fem:sle _.:?_2.2 13" 11 l?80 72 .48 _l liL41 2Lj5fi 100.00 Total I}: 17,,69 81 72.41 722 9.90 I}:_ 100.00 Male COMMENTS ON THE ASUU OPINION POLL REGARDING THE ROTC Claude W. Grant A total of 4,,870 men and 2,486 women responded to the Ainu opinion pell. The dis,trihution of these 'I'En,p,ondents by class level.and by sex is shown 'under It •• 1. The .anal ysis of the .four questions asked is m.ade on the basis of sex; conceivably a similar analysis could be made on the basis- of class level and .akse en the basis ,of ntembe,tship vs nonmembership i.n ROTC Ii .... , Item 1. As obs,ervable in I.tam 1, ·oaly a small percent age of the respondents, are freshmen.. SephOtllf.n:es. juniors, and senior are ap'proximately equally represented in the total sample. The ,0 p i.nionna1:r:e was also seat to graduate students. Graduate students represent appr,oximately 14 percent cf the to,tal sample. , Item 2 notes that 94.26 percent £ tbe male Item 2. respondents are not members of ROTC; thu,s, 5.14 percent uf male respondents are members of R.OTC. Item 3. Interestingly. there are only minor differences between the responses of the two 'sexes to the subparts of this item. Twenty-seven percent Q·f the total sample believe that aOTC should be extra cuxieular. Fiftythree percent believe that ROTC should receive academic credit. Nearly 10 percent would remove ROTC from the campus and another 10 percent have no opinion. Item 4. a Regarding higher percentage of trast to centages who should teach in the ROTC program, than men (30 percent in con­ women percent) stated no opinion. About equal per­ (64 percent) believe military personnel shQuld 20 teach ROTC courses. Item 5. (72.4 percent) The majority of do not believe the respondents of each that there is a sex conflict 1n How ideals between the ROTC program and the Univ-ersity. 20 percent of the men and 13 percent of the w·omen belive such a conflict does exist. Among "ii'Omen, 14.4 per cent had no opinion and among men 7.6 percent had no oplnion. .... ever .. 79 The according responses to the ASUU opinion poll to the sex of the respondents. were analysed L In general there a,re on.ly minor differen,(!Gs. as measured by percentages, between men and. women in res'p..ase s to the questions. 2. Less than six percent of t.he m,de ROTC aadets. 3 re,p'oadea.t,$ are' over one half of the totat IXouP believe that should be offered fOl: credit.. Th1tty"'se.'V,en pet'cent believe the prograU\ sheukd be ex.txa curdQular or' off-campus. Ten pe:ccent ,v,entul:ed no opinion,. R.OTC Just ... courses The majority of responding students (72 .4, percent) a COll.fliet in ideals exist between aoTC and the Unive:rsi-ty., Heady 10 pe,reent were silent on tbis que a­ tion but 11.7 percent believe that a cQnfUct dQe sexist. 1...... do not believe COMMENTS ON THE ROTC QUESTIONNAIRE Claude . The following is a • Grant summary of the responses to the ROTC questionnaire. (I do not have information on the sampling prccedure s used nor the percentage of returns from each cadet group.) Cade'ts responded that Question 4, Course Difficulty: in general ROTC courses are similar in difficulty to other ceur ses About 22 percent found them easier and 8 percent found ·them harder.' Seventy I percent found them similar. Among the cadet groups" a hi8her' propcrticn of the Army cadets fg·und ROTC courses easier (26.54 p·ercent) and a greater proportion of Navy cadets found them similar (78.26 difficulty to other courses. , " percent).in Question " Academic Centent: The responses to' this question parall.eled the respons,es t,c Questio,n 4;.; A slightly higher perceucage of Air Force cade t s viewed their eoucse.s as mere difficult with of the other were two academic content than members The responses to eeach question more groups. distributed similarly. Question 6 and Questign 7, instructors fac.ulty as viewed whole. as are a ROTC Instructors: competent and as ROTC qualified as to Participation in Other Courses: that membership in the ROTC limited their Abf>ut 4 pe rcene freedom of participation. in other courses. of Army cadets and Navy cadets believe that their freedom of participation is limited. Question 8, Limits Few cadets believe Question 9, ROTC fracti,on of the does not belong College Campuses: (1.47 percent) college campuses. on total group on Only a believe small that ROTC Question 10, College Credit for ROTC Courses: Ninety­ that percent of the total group of cadets indicated More Air collage credit should be given for ROTC courses. Force cadets (8.11 percent) and Army cadets (6.23 percent) five 81 than Navy cadets (1.10 should not be granted. percent) believe tbat college credit Question 11, Restriction 'of Academic Freedom Related Fourteen percent of the total group believe that academic freedom is restricted by ROTC. Navy cadets express this view the most frequently (19 .-57 percent) aad the A.ir Force cadets least frequently (7.69 pe reenc) to ROTC: , ing. Question 12, Impact of ROTC Staff. Dll:ect1ves, Counsel on Academic Freedom: Only half of those cadets that indicated ROTC limits their academic freedo:m attribute this loss to specific pra,ctices of the ROTC staff. Apparently a broader more pervasive Lnf Lueaee related to the milita.ry that is experienced by some cadets as a limiting there is factor. Question 13 and Question 14. Restriction on Politi.cal A sizable proportion of Activities When Out of Uniform: cadets (34 percent) believe that ROTC membership restricts Thh their freedom to participate in political acUvitiEuh feeling is most predominant amon, Navy cadets (44,.51 percent). Of those who feel restricted the majority believe that po· litical involvement will result in sanctions which will show up on their military record. Question 15, ROTC Courses in Academic Departments: Nea.rly one-quarter of the total group be Lfeve that ROTC courses could be taught better in academic departments; three-quarters do not. there Question 16, Continue ROTC at the U: Ttl this question was virtually a 100 percent affirmative response. Summary Responses to this questionnaire indicate that: The ROTC program is not differentiated by cadets 1. from the regular academic program in terms of instructors' terms of ceur se con ccmpezence and qualifications, nor in .... tent. 2. With few exceptions, ROTC cadets believe that ROTC 82 programs belong cn university campuses .and courses offered within the programs should receive cfJllege credit. 30 Some cadets believe that membership in the ROTC some of their freedoms. program affects a 0 b. 3.64 percent feel limited in thei in other courses. participation 14 percent feel that their academic freedom in general is limited. a. 34 percent feel that their political freedom is limi,ted. The majority of those exprieneing political re­ 4. striction of freed.om believe that sanction might be taken against them for some political activities and that these sanctions will result in blemished :records. s. oourses About one quarter of the cadets responded that ROTC could be taught better in other departments; but .... threequarters thought not. ROTC QUESTIONNAIRE ----...,_""" _ . No. 4. No Difficulty of ROTC No.5 Academic content ROTC of No.6 Instruc- tors: 7.N08 tors No.8 Is ation course cadet a or Total No. 7 17.95 a 11. 96 91 72 _.1.§. _2 78.26 9.78 283 Harder. 69.23 12.82 Total 275 100.00 39 100.00 Lower. 9 92 100.00 32 406 - 1 63 22.58 6 15.38 7 7.69 76 192 68.82 26 73 80.22 Higher. ___§_:...§_Q .i 66.67 17.95 Total II 279 100.00 __ 39 100.00 91 12.09 100.00 291 42 409 1 Below Average. 18 124 Average Above Average.13l 2 222 39 :,5.13 69.23 25.64 100.00 8.05 81. 61 273 6.59 45.42 47.99 100.00 271 Qualified Qualified _]_ 97.48 39 100.00 __b_2l _Q. 278 100.00 39 11 393 96.07 39 100.00 100.00 39 100.00 . · 27 10 --- 10000 7 71 9 87 27 10.34 100.00 150 400 399 1 90 98.90 __l ___L1_Q 8 __ 91 100.00 408 1 4 89 4.30 95.70 397 93 100.00 412 limi- a freedom of Yes in No. related % 27 Total participation No. 26.54 · Not there Navy % 66.91 '. Total Instruc- No, 73 . . · ROTC % 184 Similar courses: ROTC Easier. Similar courses: in Air Army Questions other to being midshipman? . Total · 269 280 0 --- 15 1 ROTC QUESTIONNAIRE - continued. Air Army Questions No. 92 2.56 0 39 100.00 92 93.77 34 91.89 90 3 8.11 1 273 6.23 100.00 37 100.00 91 Yes. 36 13.00 3 7.69 18 freedom? No. .241 87.00 100.00 36 92.31 74 39 100.00 92 No taugh on Should Does ROTC academic .256 17 5 Yes. university credit be given for ROTC courses? 11. 277 98.19 1.81 lOOOO 272 Total college campuses? strict re- No Total -277 Total No. 12. Have ROTC No. 13. Does No vities out of 6.93 1 93.07 38 256 97.44 87 274 100.00 39 100.00 93 84 30.55 69.45 100.00 13 33.33 66.67 41 26 39 100.00 92 Total ROTC political 1 1 1 re­ acti­ uniform? Yes •••••• 191 No Total 6 19 .255 Yes" freedom? strict 1 staff orders, directives, or counseling restricted academic Na No. 9744 Yes be NOe % 1 Should ROTC courses 10.. No. 38 No.9. No. % 275 1 51 1 ROTC QUESTIONNAIRE No.14 If "ye s VI No. ex- 17 • in Rank. Cut Air 0 % 26.98 26.98 --- No. 1 1 a Tota Navy % No. 7.69 7.69 12 --- 8 0 28.57 19.05 --- No. 30 26 0 distin- No guished mili- student tary consideration. 8 12.70 7.94 2.38 2 23.08 15.38 1 5 0 --- ficer's record.13 20.64 5 38.47 8 19.05 1 7.69 13 30.95 Cut in Grade Noted on 3 12 7 of- 26 Disciplinary action in unit. Other ROTC could be Yes in other No. betr at . • Total Should ROTC be Yes U of U'l " No. Total 3 _0 . Total taught departments: No.15 17 . Dismissal. pect what 41=13 None to action do you ROTC to take? No"16 continued. Army Que s t i.on s contiued - 4.76 --- _Q 63 100.00 13 62 209 22.88 77 .12 271 100.00 274 2 276 --- 0 --- 17 _0 100.00 42 100.00 10 27.03 20 22.47 92 II ...l1..:J.]_ 69 77 .53 305 37 100.00 89 100.00 397 1 9928 .72 38 100.00 91 989l 403 I 100.00 38 1.09 100.00 406 0 --- 100.00 92 118 1 3 1 APPENDIX 4 ROTC QUESTIONNAIRE Majr :: c_-__-_c _ _ Fresbma,n _ _____ S-ophomore Junior Senior Circle one i·newer 1. Of which ROTC are you 2. M-ow many years of ROTC have you 3. Why did 4. at a. 5. at you become member? Ar.my Navy completed? Air Force 2 1 3 4 member of ROTC? a Compared to the average of all classes you'have taken University,. do you think your ROTC classes are: the- easier b. about the same c. more difficcult? Compared te the average of all classes you have taken University, do you think the academic content of the your ROTC classes is: c. a yhee 8RRrop:ria5e: a. lower b. about the same higher? 6. Compared to all teachers you have had at the University, a. below average do you think your ROTC instructors are: b. average c. above average? Do you believe your ROTC instructors are both qualified 7. No Yes B. b. and prepared to teach their subjects? Do you feel that being a cadet or midshipman limits your freedom of verbal or written participation in non-ROTC No Yes h. courses? a. Explain. 8. 9. Do you believe ROTC courses should be No Yes b. s. college campus? taught on a 87 10. Do yQU believe univ'ersity credit? that ROTC courses Yes M,o b. a. should be given If No" explai.n. 11. Do you believe your participation. in the ROTC program restricts your academic freedom in any way? N'o a. Yes b. .If Yes, state how. 12. Do you believe that any d1xectives. orders or counsel­ to you by me.mbers ,,·f the R.OTC staff have restrict­ ing given ed your academic freedom? a. Yes b. No If Yes. state specifics. 13. Are there political activi,t,ies which you feel y.ou could in publicly out of unifol'm? Yes a. No b. not engage Explain. to No. 13 is Yes, what sc·tion would you take: None Dismissal from prolram Reduction to inferior cadet rank Elimination from consid­ Reduction of Elxation as a Distinguhhed Military Student academic grade Notation on permanent Q-ffieer's record Other? Disciplinary action within the unit 14 • If the answer expect the ROTC to Could some of the courses presently taught by ROTC 15. departments be better taug,ht in other departments? a. Yes If Yes, specify courses. No b, Taking all things into consideration, do you believe the ROTC programs should be continued at the University of No b. Yes a. Utah? 16.