trends in university summer sessions

Trends in University Summer SessionsAuthor(s): Raymond J. Young and William P. McDougallSource: The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1988), pp. 39-53Published by: Ohio State University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981870 .

Accessed: 09/12/2014 05:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 05:01:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ohiosup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981870?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Raymond J. Young William P. McDougall

Trends in University Summer Sessions

In an era when collegiate enrollments are declin- ing and increasing proportions of regular term students are continuing their education during the summer, the nature of university summer session operations takes on renewed interest. Since 1891, when Harper introduced the summer session as a higher education innova- tion at the University of Chicago, formally organized summer sessions have been an increasingly important part of total university operations. Although reasons for its importance and primary clientele served have varied over the last nine and a half decades, little attention has been devoted by higher education scholars to the development of information on a nation-wide basis about the nature and characteristics of summer sessions. That summer sessions can be used to attract and retain students and consequently become functionally part of the regular ongoing educational experience for degree-oriented students should be of concern and interest to university administrators.

This article contains information about university summer sessions obtained in a 1985 study of all public and nonpublic colleges and universities in the United States classified by Carnegie type as research, doctoral granting, or comprehensive. At the time of the classification, the research university type included one hundred and fifty universities receiving the largest amount of federal financial support in at least two of a designated three-year period. These institutions also awarded at least fifty Ph.D. degrees (plus M.D. degrees if a

Raymond J. Young is professor of higher education and William P. McDougall is professor of counseling psychology and director of summer sessions at Washington State University, Dept. of Educational Administration and Supervision, Pullman, Wash. 99164-2136.

Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 59, No. 1 (January/February 1988) Copyright?1988 by the Ohio State University Press



40 Journal of Higher Education

medical school was on the same campus) during the same three years. Doctoral granting universities awarded at least twenty Ph.D. degrees without regard to field or ten Ph.D. degrees in at least three fields. Most of the comprehensive universities and colleges offered no doctoral program, or they had an extremely limited doctoral program [1]. Although an updated classification would probably reveal some changes, it was assumed these changes would be minor, so the origi- nal classifications were used in this study.

The study reported here evolved from previous research based on a 33 percent sample of public universities holding membership in the North American Association of Summer Sessions (NAASS) or the Western Association of Summer Session Administrators (WASSA) [23]. In that study relationships were examined between patterns of university organizational structure and placement of responsibility for summer session and institutional size, type, and career patterns of summer school administrators, and between career patterns of summer school administrators and problems they experienced. Changes concerning selected aspects of summer sessions which had occurred during 1978-81 were detected. For example, there was an increase in number of credit hours offered, numbers of courses offered, numbers of students enrolled, and average number of students in classes. Summer session faculty was perceived to have decreased in most doctoral granting institutions and to have increased in most research universities.

Review of Salient Literature

Literature from the field of higher education is virtually devoid of information about and mention of summer sessions. A chapter devoted to the subject in 1932 seems to be the last substantial treatment in a book [16]. The single comprehensive treatment of the topic re- mains the work of Schoenfeld and Zillman in 1967 [18].

Few dissertations have been completed on the subject. Dickerman completed an historical study on the development of the summer session in United States higher education institutions to 1945 [7]. The educational, fiscal, and personnel policies of 125 institutions, including private universities and liberal arts colleges and public state universities and colleges, were examined by Cundiff [5]. Fallon investigated the influence of the summer school with special reference to the University of Michigan [8], and Courter analyzed selected aspects of the Syracuse University summer sessions [2]. Heidenreich identified the functions and powers of summer session directors in



Trends in University Summer Sessions 41

selected institutions of higher education in the United States [10]. Coyne studied jointly administered summer sessions and continuing education in ten universities [3]. An assessment of precollege summer session program effectiveness was made in doctoral studies at four institutions [4, 12, 20, 21].

Besides the Summer Sessions Associations' Joint Statistical Re- ports, previous studies have focused upon specific programs and program areas, academic calendars, academic performance, enrollment, promotion/marketing, students, planning, faculty remuneration, for- eign study, history, and administration [17]. Among other pertinent studies in administration, Nelson inventoried job titles and responsibilities of administrators [15], and Deal identified the major problems of summer session administration [6]. Hooten examined career patterns and competency needs of summer session administrators [11]. Thompson studied the nature of administration in summer schools [22]. George investigated characteristics of summer sessions in a limited number of institutions to assist in developing a local plan of action at St. Joseph's College [9]. McGill examined summer session programs in thirty-two state-supported institutions with memberships in NAASS [13].

Seagren and Randall (1979) developed a history covering a thirty year span of the North Central Conference on Summer Schools [19], and May's historical study of the Association of University Summer Sessions covered a span of fifty years [14]. Much of the information on summer sessions is contained in reports issued by summer session associations and in published journal articles. Since 1970, some literature, primarily conference presentation papers, has appeared in the ERIC collection. Many reports and articles are institution and program specific. The study reported here is the first attempt to focus nationally on characteristics and changes in salient features of summer sessions as they relate to institutional size, type, location, and organization.

Study Problem and Procedures

The major focus of the investigation was to discover how trends in the nature and characteristics of summer sessions in selected colleges and universities in the United States might be related to selected institutional characteristics. The study population included 62 public and 36 nonpublic research universities, 57 public and 28 nonpublic doctoral granting universities, and 294 public and 163 nonpublic comprehensive colleges and universities. A 33 percent stratified random




sample of these institutions was selected. The data-gathering instru- ment was properly validated using reactions from a jury of experts. After four follow-up contacts, a return of 92.5 percent was obtained with 86.4 percent usable questionnaires. Differences between or among categories of institutions were statistically tested with the 0.05 level of significance as the criterion.

Data were analyzed by regional accrediting association geographi- cal area, size (fall headcount-8,000 and over versus under 8,000), type of control (public or nonpublic), and institution type. Other anal- yses were by summer session organization (integral or separate entity), and whether institutions held membership in either the North American Association of Summer Sessions (NAASS) or the Western Association of Summer Session Administrators (WASSA), the spon- soring organizations. The study was endorsed by the National Univer- sity Continuing Education Association (NUCEA), and endorsement from that office contributed to the high rate of response.

Findings of the Investigation Selected findings are presented pertinent to the central issue of

whether the summer session has become a part of the higher education anatomy or whether it persists as an appendix to be distended, attenuated, or exorcised.

General Characteristics and Philosophical Foundations About 61 percent of all respondents represented institutions with

fewer than 8,000 fall headcount, and most larger institutions were located in the Western/Northwestern and North Central regions. Most nonpublic universities of the larger size were in the New England, Middle States, and Southern regions. Significantly more nonpublic (30 percent) than public (5 percent) institutions operated on a calendar different from the quarter or semester system such as a 4-1-4 calendar.

Guidelines for operation. Role and mission statements for the main campus were reported by 93 percent of all institutions, and they had been adopted by the governing board in 90 percent of the cases. Sig- nificantly more universities with over 8,000 headcount and more public than nonpublic institutions had a role and mission statement for the campus. Only 21 percent of the institutions had a mission and goals statement for the summer session, and just 9 percent had the statement approved by the institutional community, including the central administration. Such statements had been reviewed internally within




TABLE 1 Percentages of Institutions by Control and Summer-Session Purpose

Purpose for Summer Session Public Nonpublic Total N = 122 N= 62 N = 184

Provide courses for regular degree students 98 98 98

Provide courses for identifiable groups other than regular degree students 80 84 82

More fully utilize plant facilities 55 79* 63

Provide summer employment for faculty 54 63 57

Attract new admissions for the regular academic term 54 50 53

Provide income to the institution's general budget 42 79* 54

Encourage and provide a setting for experimental offerings 35 45 39

Offer special programs not regularly offered for selected groups such as alumni, senior citizens, and others. 41 39 40

Permit regular academic year students to make up deficiencies 82 89 84

Other purposes 4 7 5 *Denotes statistical difference at the 0.05 level between public and nonpublic institutions.

the past three years by 16 percent of the institutions. Significantly more public institutions in the West and Northwest regions than in other regions had written mission and goals statements for summer sessions.

The summer session operation is included in the bylaws of one- third of the universities. Of all institutions, significantly more in the New England-Middle States and Southern regions than those in other regions and significantly more nonpublic than public universities in those locations than elsewhere included reference to summer session operation in the bylaws. Significantly more universities with membership in NAASS or WASSA than nonmembers had a written statement of specific policies and operating procedures (rules and regulations) for the summer session. Of all universities, six out of ten reported the existence of such a written statement. The presence of a handbook (or other document) containing a mission and goals and/or policies and




TABLE 2

Percentages of Universities by Region and Size with Administrative Reorganization since 1982

Region Fall 1984 Headcount

Under 8,000 8,000 and over Total N = 113 N = 71 N= 184

North Central 21 35 26

New England/Middle States 17 11 15

Southern 7 13 9

Western/Northwestern 46 25 41

Total U.S.A. 19 20 19

procedures statements for the summer session was reported for 28 percent of all institutions.

Purposes. Shown in table 1 are the percentages of respondents by institutional control indicating which of several purposes were those of their summer session. The most important purposes of summer sessions in rank order for all universities were providing courses for regular degree students, for other identifiable groups, and for regular academic year students needing to make up deficiencies. A significantly (0.05) larger percentage of nonpublic than public universities had as purposes better plant facility utilization and the generation of income for the general institutional budget. Although one may ob- serve that larger percentages of public than nonpublic institutions were reported to have the purposes of providing summer employment for faculty, encouraging development of experimental (trial) offerings, and permitting regular academic year students to make up deficiencies, the differences were not statistically significant.

Organization and Leadership Organization. In two-thirds of all universities, summer sessions

were organized as an entity separate from the other terms, but in 26 percent, they were an integral part of a year-round operation; 7 percent did not reply. Since 1982 there had been changes which affected the organizational placement of summer session administration and responsibility in about one-fifth of all the universities, as shown by data in table 2.

Significantly more reorganization was reported in the North Cen- tral and West-Northwestern regions than in other areas. Some summer sessions had become a separate entity administratively (3




percent) or budgetarily (4 percent), whereas 5 percent had become a separate entity in both respects. In 10 percent of the institutions summer sessions had been combined with an outreach unit such as continuing education, extended learning, or extension public service. Administrative centralization for programming had increased since 1982 in 11 percent of all universities, decreased in 6 percent, and remained the same in 77 percent; 6 percent failed to respond.

Leadership. The summer session administrator was an ex-officio member of appropriate faculty senate committees, such as calendar, academic affairs, or budget, in about one-half of all universities. This practice occurred in significantly more comprehensive than research or doctoral granting institutions and in institutions with over 8,000 fall headcount enrollment more than in smaller ones. Thus, the summer session administrator is formally included in the institutional decision making process in only about one-half of the institutions. Summer session administrators in universities with membership in NAASS or WASSA devoted significantly more time to summer session management both during the regular year and during the summer session than did those in other universities. The median amount of time devoted during the regular year in all universities was 19 percent compared to 44 percent during the summer.

Mode of Operation. Inquiry was made about the fashion by which the summer session office carried out the responsibilities of the summer session program. Results are presented in table 3.

Summer session office personnel took primary responsibility for developing the academic program in 5 percent of the institutions, developed programs in cooperation with academic units in 26 percent, and coordinated programs developed by academic units in 25 percent. A combination of cooperation and coordination was used in 28 percent, some other approach was reported in 3 percent, and the practice was not reported by 13 percent. Significantly more research universities practiced coordination of programs developed by academic units, whereas significantly more comprehensive universities developed programs in cooperation with the units or used a combination of cooperation and coordination. The most prevalent practice in doctoral granting institutions was coordination of programs developed by instructional units.

Programs and Other Funded Activities Slightly under one-third (31 percent) of the universities were re-

ported to have summer session programs deemed to be experimental,




TABLE 3

Percentages of Institutions According to Mode of Summer Session Office Operation by Institutional Type

Mode of Office Operation Regarding Research Doctoral Comprehensive Total Program Development N = 27 N = 22 N= 135 N = 184

Takes primary responsibility for summer session academic program development 7 9 4 5

Develops academic program in cooperation with departments, schools, or colleges 11 18 29 26

Coordinates academic program which has been developed by departments, schools or colleges 41 32 20 25

Combination of cooperation and coordination 22 13 32 28

Other mode of operation - 14 2 3

No response 19 14 13 13

innovative, unique, or exemplary. A significantly larger number of these kinds of programs was reported in nonpublic institutions with over 8,000 fall headcount enrollment than in smaller ones, but there was no statistical difference between large and small public institutions or between public and nonpublic institutions.

Information was obtained about selected types of activities supported by a portion of the summer session budget other than the academic program, excluding indirect and/or overhead costs. Results are shown in table 4 by region and institutional size. A portion of the summer session operating budget funded cultural and social events (picnics, dances, lectures, tours, and drama) for students in 40 percent of all institutions, graduate assistantships in 23 percent, and public service noncredit activities in 18 percent.

Social and cultural events supported by the summer session budget were found in significantly more universities with over 8,000 headcount and in significantly more public than nonpublic institutions. In the North Central region they were found in significantly more of the larger universities in contrast to other regions where differences were not significant based on size. Such events were found in significantly more universities with summer sessions organized as an integral part of the year-round operation rather than as an entity separate from the




TABLE 4 Percentages of Institutions Financing Selected Student-Oriented Summer Activities Other Than Academic Program by Region and Size

Under Over All Type of Activities Financed From 8,000 8,000 Institutions Summer Session Budget by Region N = 113 N = 71 N = 184

Student Activities (cultural/social events-dances, lectures, tours, drama, etc.)

North Central 28 58 40 New England-Middle States 41 58 48 Southern 37 38 37 Western-Northwestern 31 75 41 All Regions 34 52 41

Graduate Assistantships North Central 10 42 22 New England-Middle States 10 16 13 Southern 33 42 37 Western-Northwestern 15 25 18 All Regions 17 34 24

Public Service Non-Credit Activities North Central 18 21 20 New England-Middle States 24 11 19 Southern 20 8 16 Western-Northwestern 8 50 18 All Regions 19 15 18

other school terms. Summer session budget expenditures for public service noncredit programs/activities were also most likely found in universities where summer sessions were an integral part of the year- round operation. Budget supported graduate assistantships were found in significantly more institutions with over 8,000 headcount, in public rather than nonpublic institutions in the North Central and Southern regions, in nonpublic Southern more than in nonpublic universities of other regions, and in institutions with summer sessions organized as an integral part of the year-round operation. Most institutions funding graduate assistantships or public service noncredit activities from the summer session operating budget devoted 5 percent or less for each purpose.

Not shown in tabular form were data indicating that faculty fellowships were funded from the summer session budget in 8 percent of all universities. They were found funded in significantly more universities with over 8,000 fall headcount and in significantly more public than nonpublic institutions. Faculty research was funded by the summer session operating budget in 14 percent of all institutions. Signifi- cantly more institutions in the North Central region and in those




where summer sessions were organized as an entity separate from the other terms funded such research. Institutions funding faculty research devoted 8 percent to 12 percent of the summer operating budget for the purpose.

Funding and Summer Session Status Although trends were detected since 1982 regarding admission re-

quirements, undergraduate upper and lower division enrollments, ratios of summer session credit enrollments to other term enrollments, summer enrollments of students from other universities, amounts and sources of funds, and selected productivity indices (credit hours generated and numbers of courses offered and taken), only selected factors related to funding seemed worthy of inclusion here. None of these factors was found related to the institutional characteristics being investigated.

Budgets for summer session operations were included in the total institutional budget just as for any other operational unit in 79 percent of all universities. This practice was significantly more prevalent in public universities in the North Central region and among universities not having membership in NAASS or WASSA. Slightly over one-fifth (21 percent) of the universities reported greater dependency on self- support monies for the 1984 summer session than previously. Signifi- cantly fewer universities with membership in one of the summer session associations than other institutions reported greater dependency than previously on self-support monies. Fewer member institutions also reported a decrease in the dollar amounts of support. Increased dependency on self-support monies for summer sessions was significantly greater in the Southern and Western-Northwestern regions than in other regions. Since 1982 a significantly larger percentage of nonpublic than public institutions had experienced no change in sources of funding support for summer sessions. Funding source decreases were found in a significantly larger number of universities with summer sessions as an integral part of year-round operation than where it was a separate entity. Since 1982 significantly more research universities than other types reported an increase in sources of financial support for summer sessions.

In two-thirds of the institutions, the chief summer session administrator had authority, within broad guidelines, to allocate budget to academic units. This authority existed in significantly more public than nonpublic institutions.




Since 1982 a change in the basis for determining summer session faculty salaries had occurred in about one-fourth of the institutions. Such change was found in significantly more public than nonpublic institutions, and it was found in significantly more public institutions with over 8,000 fall headcount than in others and in the New England-Middle States region more often than elsewhere. Contin- gency contracts were used in three-fourths of the institutions for summer session faculty. Their use was significantly more prevalent in institutions with fewer than 8,000 fall headcount and in the New England-Middle States and Southern regions.

A significantly larger percentage of universities holding membership in NAASS or WASSA than of nonmembers reported there had been an increase since 1982 in the status and/or prestige of the summer session operation.

Conclusions

Findings indicate that many institutions are operating summer session programs without a clear statement of role and purpose, and the degree to which summer sessions are integrated with the ongoing institution's program and represented in the institution's central purpose(s) cannot always be discerned. Considerable variation exists among institutions by type, size, and geographic location. The main purposes expressed for summer sessions often reflect the need for faculty employment, use of resources, and experimentation. Meeting the educational and program needs of students, in terms of institutional role and purposes of summer sessions, may not be receiving top priority in the perceptions of administrators.

Differences in characteristics of summer sessions are associated with headcount enrollment size, type of control, regional location, membership in a summer session association, and organizational placement of responsibility for the summer session. The nature of the summer term is clearly different from other academic terms in many institutions with many variations noted. Summer programs are not usually perceived as being an integral part of the total institution's program, often have different admission requirements, and are tai- lored to meet the interests of many and diverse audiences. Noticeable differences exist regarding the emphasis on innovative and experimental offerings, research and service activities, scheduling, management, and other operational features. There is diversity of pro-




gramming and management styles with need for greater emphasis on student needs and the development of more effective marketing strategies.

Leadership roles of summer session administrators are best charac- terized as either cooperating or coordinating, with primary emphasis on management responsibilities such as budget allocation, calendar, bulletin editing and publication, publicity, and decisions about course cancellations. Summer term administrators, in general, do not seem to be involved in major policy issues and decisions within the university or in setting the course of higher education.

Although administrators sometimes encourage and participate in creative and experimental programming, creative program development does not represent a major purpose, except in a minority of institutions and then among certain types. The practices of providing faculty fellowships and support of faculty research are not part of most summer programs, and then they are associated with certain institutional types.

There was a slight trend toward greater centralization of control and consolidation of summer session operations into other administrative units. Among institutions with summer sessions organized as a separate entity there appeared to be a trend toward greater reliance on self- support monies for operational purposes.

Association membership (WASSA or NAASS) is related to factors such as presence of role and mission statements, status and prestige of summer sessions, enrollment, budget support, and active involvement in the management of summer sessions both during the year and in the summer. Membership seems to be associated with a positive effect, although causation cannot be concluded. The possibility for continued leadership through the associations including productive communication networks is indeed apparent.

Productivity measures used as indices of success in this study (for example, credit hours generated, number of credit courses offered, ratios between summer and academic year headcount, and average number of courses taken per student) were possibly not the proper ones to discriminate among institutions. The degree of success deter- mined by productivity measures utilized in this study was not associated with regional location, type of control, calendar, size of institution, or association membership. The "winning combination" of productivity indices is still to be found. Because of the many diverse needs and goals of summer schools, each may have to evaluate




success with its own measures of productivity. Recommendations for the Future

Strategies should be developed for integrating summer session administration with the central university structure, including the shap- ing of institutional policy and the assumption of leadership functions.

Existing summer session associations should study and develop leadership strategies for the general improvement and management of summer programs. Special workshops and training programs should be encouraged in leadership development. Summer session pro- fessional organizations should consider the possibility of developing affiliations with other existing associations in higher education to magnify and communicate potential and existing opportunities of summer sessions.

Cooperative research projects should be encouraged with other significant existing agencies such as national or state-level continuing education associations and research associations in higher education, for example, NUCEA, AERA, ASHE.

Through long-term funding strategies, summer session organizations should encourage the development of informative papers, a monograph series, and/or a regularly published journal related to the field. They might focus on needed scholarship and include attention to the role and mission of summer sessions as related to (a) philosophical underpinnings, (b) heritage within the higher education system, (c) unique characteristics and potential for serving regular and special program needs, and (d) opportunities for development and meeting emerging educational goals in higher education. In-depth investiga- tions are needed of innovative, exemplary, experimental, and unique programs and ways for validating and sharing such practices. Summer sessions should be studied in other types of colleges (for example, liberal arts, and community colleges) not included in this study. The nature and characteristics of summer sessions in smaller institutions need exploring. Specific summer program dimensions, such as personnel practices, publicity strategies, and fiscal and management activities should be studied. The development of a more complete data base relating to summer sessions should be a goal using a variety of approaches, such as case history, causal comparative, experimental, and descriptive work. Periodic replication of the present study or selected aspects of it should be made to discern trends in the administration, status, and operation of summer sessions.




References 1. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. A Classification of

Institutions of Higher Education. Berkeley, California: The Council, 1976. 2. Courter, J. F. "An Analysis of Selected Aspects of The Syracuse University

Summer Sessions." Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1963. 3. Coyne, L. J. "An Analysis of Jointly Administered Summer Sessions and Con-

tinuing Education in Institutions of Higher Education." Ed.D. dissertation, Indi- ana University, 1978.

4. Crist, B. I. "A Study of the Summer Pre-College Programs for Nontraditional/ High Risk Students in the State Colleges of Pennsylvania." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1980.

5. Cundiff, E. W. "The University Summer Sessions." Ed.D. dissertation, Stan- ford University, 1952.

6. Deal, W. M. "Major Problems of Summer Session Administration." (A Study Conducted for the Research Committee of NAASS) Boone, North Carolina: Office of Summer Sessions, Appalachian State University, 1977.

7. Dickerman, W. B. "The Historical Development of the Summer Session in Higher Institutions in the United States." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chi- cago, 1945.

8. Fallon, J. A. "The Influence of the Summer School on the State of Michigan, 1874-1931 with Special Reference to the University of Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1960.

9. George, R. J. "Summer Sessions Survey." Rensselaer, Indiana: Department of Business, Saint Joseph's College, 1975.

10. Heidenreich, C. A. "A Study of the Functions and Powers of Summer Session Directors in Selected Institutions of Higher Education in the United States." Ed.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1965.

11. Hooten, D. E. "Career Patterns and Competency Needs of Summer Session Administrators." (Sponsored by NAASS and Rochester Institute of Technology.) New York: Rochester Institute of Technology, 1974.

12. Macleay, W. B. III. "An Analysis of the Impact of the Colorado State College Summer Program for Competency, 1963-1965." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1974.

13. McGill, E. D. "A Study of Summer Session Programs in State Supported Col- leges and Universities Which are Members of the North American Association of Summer Schools." Ashland, Oregon: Office of Summer Sessions, Oregon State College, 1979.

14. May, R. A. "A History of the Association of University Summer Sessions: Fifty Years of Progress." Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1971.

15. Nelson, M. U. "A Survey of Summer Session Administration." (A Research Report for the Research and Publications Committee, Association of University Summer Sessions) St. Louis: Association of University Summer Sessions, 1972.




16. Reeves, F. W., et al. "Summer Sessions." Chap. 35 in The Liberal Arts Col- lege. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1932.

17. Schoenfeld, C. A., et al. A Bibliography of Summer Sessions Literature in Higher Education. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison Summer Ses- sions Office, April, 1978.

18. Schoenfeld, C. A., and D. N. Zillman. The American University in Summer. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.

19. Seagren, A. T., and R. E. Randall. Thirty Years of Sharing, Summer Sessions Commitment to Students, Innovations and Quality. Rockford, Ill.: ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service, ED 181, 813, 1979.

20. Shrader, E. F. "A Descriptive Study of Students in the Pre-College Summer Session Program, The University of Maryland, 1964-65." Ed.D. dissertation, George Washington University, 1966.

21. Slate, J. H. "A Study of Students Not Meeting Admissions Requirements and a Summer Program to Prepare Them for Admission." Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- sity of Alabama, 1970.

22. Thompson, R. B. "A Survey of the Nature of the Administrative Organization of Summer Schools." Columbus: Ohio State University, 1973.

23. Young, R. J., and W. P. McDougall. Relationships of Selected Factors to Sum- mer Session Organizational Structure. Calgary: The University of Calgary Con- tinuing Education Faculty, 1982. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 235, 734, 1983.)



trends in university summer sessions

Documents