ON PURPOSE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PURPOSE AND EXTRACURRICULAR
ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION FOR FIRST YEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS
By
Zachary Mural

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Educational Psychology and Educational Technology
2011

ABSTRACT
ON PURPOSE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PURPOSE AND EXTRACURRICULAR
ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION FOR FIRST YEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS
By
Zachary Mural

This study examined the relationship between purpose and first-year college students’
participation in on-campus extracurricular activities. Specifically, the study focused on how
purpose influences students’ choice of activities and how students’ participation in different
types of activities develops their sense of purpose and identity.

Additionally, this project explored whether and how purpose and correlates such as identity
development predict how students choose between activities with a civic engagement component
and those that are individually or socially focused. Changes in purpose, identity exploration, and
identity commitment as a result of participation in different activities were also assessed.

Data consisted of surveys and interviews. The surveys assessed purpose, hope, identity, positive
relationships, initiative, and teamwork and social skills; the interviews focused on participants’
experiences, and reasons for participating in their chosen activities. The results raise additional
questions about the role of purpose and show some unanticipated differences between students
who participate in different types of activities.

ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Dr. Carol L. Macnee. Thank you
mom for giving me the time and space to find my own way, for your sacrifices, support, and for
all of your love.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank my very soon to be wife Megan, for being my rock through all
of life’s ups and downs throughout the dissertation process. Without her patience, support,
encouragement, and love, this dissertation would not have been possible.
I would also like to acknowledge my committee, Dr. Ralph Putnam, Dr. Francisco
Villarruel, Dr. David Wong, and Dr. Cary Roseth and thank them for all of their time, guidance,
and support. I appreciate each of their unique contributions and thank them for their patience
throughout the process.
I would also like to thank my family old and new, Dad, Jane, Rachel, G, Susan, Mary
Clare, Jerry, Patrick, aunts, uncles, and cousins. I appreciate all of your encouragement and
support along the way.
Finally I would like to thank my East Lansing friends and colleagues, Steve, Stacy,
Kenny, Andrea, Jeremy, Barbara, Kristen, and Tyler. Thank you all for your friendship and for
helping to make the past few years about more than just academic pursuits.

iii

PREFACE

Prior to embarking on doctoral study, I worked in a variety of out-of-school settings (e.g.,
as a YMCA program director, a camp director, and an adolescent employment youth advisor)
with youth ranging across cultural, socioeconomic, and age demographics. Across these
experiences I saw firsthand how out-of-school experiences influenced youth’s learning,
emotions, and success in other domains. In addition, these programs generally approached youth
in a manner consistent with the more recent youth development paradigm that views youth not as
problems or potential problems (i.e., a deficit model that equates successful youth to those who
do not exhibit problems), but rather as members of a group that can and do have a positive
impact on those around them. These firsthand experiences have led me to believe that older
adolescents, just starting their first year of college and faced with so many new possibilities, are
an important group to study. I can imagine numerous possible scenarios in which a first-year
student would choose and then become involved in an activity, and over the course of their
participation benefit from it personally (the positive outcomes mentioned previously), which
would ultimately help them to have a positive impact on others both in the present and years
down the road. My desire to explore these possibilities and to better understand the underlying
mechanisms that shape experiences and outcomes for students in these types of programs
provided much of the impetus for this study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 1
Overview of Relevant Research ............................................................................................... 3
Purpose and Adolescent Development ................................................................................ 3
Purpose, Identity, and Positive Youth Development........................................................... 5
Purpose and Out-of-School Time Learning......................................................................... 6
Purpose, Civic Engagement, Adolescent Development, and
Positive Youth Development and Out-of-School Time Learning ....................................... 8
The Role of Four-Year Institutions in Developing Purpose and
Fostering Civic Engagement................................................................................................ 9
Statement of Purpose ................................................................................................................ 9
Research Questions................................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER 2
METHOD .................................................................................................................................... 13
Survey Data ............................................................................................................................ 17
Interview Data ........................................................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 20
Descriptive Statistics and Measure Correlations .................................................................... 20
Initial Differences in Purpose, Hope, and Identity ................................................................. 21
Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 22
Hope................................................................................................................................... 22
Identity Exploration ........................................................................................................... 23
Identity Commitment......................................................................................................... 23
End of Semester Differences .................................................................................................. 24
Repeated Measures (Pre-Post)........................................................................................... 25
Single Measures (Post Test Y.E.S. Subscales) .................................................................. 25
Upper and Lower Quartile By Person Analysis ................................................................ 26
Participants’ Descriptions of Their Experiences .................................................................... 28
Reason to Participate ......................................................................................................... 34
Intentional ..................................................................................................................... 34
Disinterested ................................................................................................................. 36
Happenstance................................................................................................................ 37
Participation Commitment and Motivation to Continue ................................................... 38
Participants’ View of the Activity and Their Role in it..................................................... 38
Not Aligned .................................................................................................................. 39
Aligned ......................................................................................................................... 39
Not Applicable.............................................................................................................. 40

v

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSION ................... 41
Descriptive Statistics and Measure Correlations ................................................................... 42
Initial Differences in Purpose, Hope, and Identity ................................................................. 43
End of Semester Differences .................................................................................................. 47
Participants’ Descriptions of Their Experiences .................................................................... 49
Reason to Participate ......................................................................................................... 50
Participation Commitment and Motivation to Continue ................................................... 51
Participants’ View of the Activity and Their Role in it..................................................... 52
Limitations.............................................................................................................................. 54
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. .54
Timing of Data Collection and Sample Attrition .............................................................. 55
Categorization Strategy ..................................................................................................... 57
Use of Self-Report Categorization..................................................................................... 58
Researcher Inexperience and Bias ..................................................................................... 58
Future Directions .................................................................................................................... 60
Developing and Validating a New Purpose Measure ........................................................ 60
Longer Longitudinal Study................................................................................................ 61
Limiting the Number and Types of Groups....................................................................... 61
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 62
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 64
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 81

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Planned Participation............................................................................................... ..... 15
Table 2. Actual Participation ................................................................................................. ..... 16
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................... ..... 20
Table 4. Measure Correlations............................................................................................... ..... 21
Table 5. Upper and Lower Quartile Analysis By Activity Type................................................. 27
Table 6. Participants’ Background ........................................................................................ ..... 29
Table 7. Participants’ Categorization Summary.................................................................... ..... 30
Table 8. Participants’ Groups, Group Mission, and Rationale for Participation................... ..... 30

vii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
“What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a
worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost
but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him.” –Viktor E. Frankl (1959, p.
105)
“What is too often missing – not altogether absent but evident only in a minority of today’s youth
– is the kind of wholehearted dedication to an activity or interest that stems from a serious
purpose, a purpose that can give meaning and direction to life.” - William Damon (2008, p.7)
In any democracy, it is critical that adults become engaged members of society (Sherrod,
2005). Research suggests that youth are becoming less civically engaged than in previous
generations (Ginwright & James, 2002; Mahoney, Eccles, Larson, & Lord, 2005; Sherrod,
Flanagan, & Youniss, 2002). This decline in participation is concerning given that in long-term
studies of Americans, youth who participate in extracurricular programs (e.g., both school-based
and community-based programs) during high school remain more civically engaged than those
youth who do not participate (Verba, Scholzman, & Brady, 1995; Youniss, McClellan, & Yates,
1997). Additionally, little is known about the relationship between high school extracurricular
participation and purpose, and how purpose may shape or be shaped by collegiate extracurricular
participation. This dissertation is a first step in exploring those possible connections.
Every fall hundreds of thousands young people across the United States attend orientation
at their first four-year institution of higher education. At this orientation they will hear all about
living on campus, course offerings, university email and computer rules, and how important it is
to “get involved” in activities outside of classes. When the students finally arrive on campus to
start the fall semester, many of them will go with their fellow first-year floor mates to some sort
of extracurricular activity fair with up to several hundred different groups all trying to recruit

1

new like-minded members. With so many choices and the need to balance school, friends, and
sometimes work, remarkably many of the students will still choose to participate in several
different campus activities.
Keeping the scenario described in the previous paragraph in mind, several key questions
emerge. What leads certain students to choose to participate in one specific activity over
another? What do the students hope to get out of participating in one activity over another?
What do students get out of participating in different types of extracurricular activities? What is
the role of institutions of higher learning in promoting civic engagement? Do students have too
many choices?
Research has linked adolescents’ participation in out-of-school time (OST) high-school
extracurricular activities with positive outcomes such as greater connection to school, increased
academic achievement, fewer high-risk behaviors, (Eccles & Barber, 1999) and increased selfawareness and identity development (e.g., Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Hansen, Larson, &
Dworkin, 2003). What is missing from this literature, however, is a systematic account of why
and how participating in these programs yields such positive results (e.g., Feldman & Matjasko,
2005; Eccles & Barber, 1999). Given Sherrod’s (2005) claim that young adults becoming
engaged citizens is crucial for our democracy, then beginning to understand the role institutions
of higher education play in encouraging engagement is of paramount importance.
The goal of this exploratory and descriptive dissertation is to investigate how one
construct, purpose, and several related correlates such as identity development and hope, may
play a role both as a predictor of activity selection as well as an attained benefit as a result of
activity participation. This dissertation uses Damon, Menon, and Bronk’s (2003) definition of
purpose as a relatively stable, accomplishable goal to make a difference in the world. By giving

2

specific attention to the role of purpose, identity, and hope as both predictors and outcomes
associated with extracurricular participation, this dissertation will add to our understanding of the
adolescent’s transition into early adulthood (Schwartz, Côté, & Arnett, 2005) while also building
on Lerner, Almerigi, and Anderson’s (2005) work introducing contribution – defined as civic
engagement involving both an ideological and behavioral component – as the sixth “C” of
1

positive youth development .
Overview of Relevant Literature
This dissertation draws on research literature in multiple related areas of study: purpose,
civic engagement, adolescent development, positive youth development, and out-of-school time
learning. Because this work draws on an array of literatures, the following overview will be
broken down into subsections. A final subsection will make explicit the connections between the
different bodies of literature and will establish the need for this work.
Purpose and Adolescent Development
This dissertation uses the definition of purpose proposed in Damon et al.’s (2003) review
of empirical work on the development of adolescent purpose:
1. A goal of sorts, but it is more stable and far-reaching than low-level goals such as “to
get to the movie on time” or “to find a parking place in town today.”
2. A part of one’s personal search for meaning, but it also has an external component, the
desire to make a difference in the world, to contribute to matters larger than the self.
3. Always directed at an accomplishment towards which one can make progress. (p. 121)

1

The first five Cs; competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring, are necessary for
the sixth, contribution.

3

In the same review, Damon et al. (2003) discuss the work of Erikson (1968) and other identity
theorists who have identified adolescence as the period in life when individuals “begin to
dedicate themselves to systems of belief that reflect compelling purposes” (p. 120). Damon et al.
go on to point to a variety of literature that suggests that when individuals do not find something
to dedicate their self to during this period that it becomes increasingly difficult later in life.
Damon et al. also paraphrase Erickson’s notion that purpose can be “an effective means of
helping to resolve a young person’s identity ‘crisis’” (p. 123). Finally, Damon et al. cite
empirical work showing that the absence of purpose is associated with a variety of negative
outcomes (e.g., depression, deviant behavior, and lack of productivity), and they theorize that the
presence of purpose may lead to more positive outcomes (e.g., pro-social behavior, achievement,
and high self-esteem).
Damon et al.’s (2003) work relates to an established conception of adolescent
development, which historically many people considered complete by the time an individual
graduated from high school and moved on to college or the workforce. Recently, however,
scholars have conceptualized and studied a period that has been termed emerging early
adulthood during which many of the classic developmental challenges (e.g., identity
development) continue (Arnett, 2000). Schwartz, Coté, and Arnett (2005), for instance, have
explored how in western societies many young people (well into their 20’s) are slow to embrace
permanent identity decisions (career, marriage, etc.), concluding that for emerging adults
“agency utilized is directly related to the coherence of the emerging adults’ identity” (p.201). To
put it another way, having and acting on purpose is related to healthy identity development.

4

Purpose, Identity, and Positive Youth Development
While Erickson (1968) is widely credited as the person who “laid the foundation for
research regarding identity through the development of his age-linked, stage model of identity
development” (Moran, 2003), many scholars have built upon and extended his work. Marcia
(1964) is credited with operationalizing the ego identity construct as comprising exploration and
commitment dimensions
(Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, & Geisinger, 1995). Given first-year
college students’ presumed flexible identity development status and the multiple opportunities to
become active and engaged at a large four-year university with minimal support of proximal
supportive families, it follows that there would be a relationship between activity participation,
identity development, and establishing a purpose. 

The idea that purpose and identity are both important and intertwined is echoed by
Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, (2005), who state:
An integrated moral and civic identity and a commitment to society beyond the limits of
one’s own existence enable thriving youth to be agents both in their own, healthy
development and in the positive enhancement of other people and society. (p.172)
Data from the first wave of the 4-H youth development study found a relationship
between purpose and developmental outcomes by illustrating a connection between low purpose
and depression, and between high purpose and contribution (Lerner, Almerigi, & Anderson,
2005).
These findings fit well with the youth development literature and recent findings that
identify six “Cs” of positive youth development. According to Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, &
Lerner, (2005), the first five Cs—competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring—
are necessary for the sixth: contribution. Lerner et al. conceptualize contribution as having both

5

behavioral and ideological components rooted in a developed identity that values contribution
and leads to individuals who contribute to society and themselves.
Drawing on this work in its entirety, several questions begin to emerge that were
addressed in this exploratory study. First, how developed is first-year college students’ purpose,
hope, and identity when they begin school, and how do those differences in development
influence their choice of extracurricular activities? Second, how does participation in activities
that would appear to be logical vehicles to support purpose(s) and civic engagement differ from
participation in individually focused activities in strengthening or weakening purpose, hope, and
identity development?
Purpose and Out-of-School Time Learning
Given the importance of developed and stable purpose(s) during adolescence and
emerging adulthood, it is critical to consider when, where, and how to support its development.
Research has shown that although schools, parents, and social networks all offer key
opportunities for youth to develop, out-of-school time (OST) extracurricular activities offer
another powerful option (NIOST, 2005). Numerous studies have associated organized highschool extracurricular participation with positive developmental outcomes such as a greater
connection to school, increased academic performance, fewer risk behaviors, better impulse
control, and increased self-esteem (Eccles & Barber, 1999; Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Hansen,
Larson, & Dworkin, 2003). Research has explored which activities are most likely to promote
which outcomes (e.g., high-school band members were more likely to improve grades than
athletes), but thus far this work has focused primarily on the difference in outcomes (at the
secondary school level), and not on the underlying mechanisms or features specific to each
activity (Eccles & Barber, 1999). Although no empirical work addressing the differences in

6

outcomes between college activities was found, based on Eccles and Barber’s (1999) findings of
significant variation between outcomes in high school (e.g., some athletes were more likely to
experiment with substances than students who participated in other activities), differences
between college extracurricular activity outcomes are likely as well. Returning to Schwartz et
al’s (2005) notion of emerging adulthood and the “increasingly prolonged” (p. 201) transition
into adulthood, a reduced influence of parents, and the lack of established social networks, it is
possible that college extracurricular activities (and the differences between types of activities)
might exert an even greater impact on this group. Given that research has shown that individuals
who graduate from college are more likely to be civically engaged than individuals with only a
high-school diploma (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1998), extracurricular activity
participation could be one factor that promotes engagement.
Given the potential benefits of extracurricular college participation, it is important to
consider which, why, and how many students participate. While numbers of participants vary
from school to school, according to the “Future of the First Amendment” project at Ball State
University, 73% of high-school students report participating in extracurricular activities during
the school year, and 56% said that on average they spend between 1-15 hours per week engaged
in extracurricular activities (J-Ideas.org, 2007). While collegiate participation numbers are not
known, students who participated in activities in high school are likely to participate in college as
well (Clydesdale, 2007).
Given such a likely high level of participation, the fact that emerging adults are
increasingly less dependent on parents and teachers for direction, and the outcomes associated
with OST extracurricular participation, it may be that these types of activities are ideal settings to
support and encourage the development of purpose. Sherrod, Flanagan, and Youniss (2002)

7

make a similar case when they point out that, while schools play an important role, they cannot
be expected to do everything, and OST programs (specifically community service activities) are
likely important developmental contexts to encourage youth to become part of an active
citizenry.
Purpose, Civic Engagement, Adolescent Development, Positive Youth Development, and
Out-of-School Time Learning
Another scholar who has written extensively about the development of civic engagement
(arguably the byproduct of purpose) in young people is Connie Flanagan who in 2003 stated,
“Identity is focal during the adolescent and young adult years and the development of an
ideology is part and parcel of this process” (p. 260). In another article, Flanagan and Faison
(2001) explicitly point out that, “the civic identities, political views and values of young people
are rooted in their social relations and in the opportunities they have for civic practice” (p.4).
Finally, Rowan-Kenyon, Soldner, and Inkelas (2007), summarize that there is research
connecting participation in student organizations with development of civic engagement.
First-year college students are the focus of this dissertation because, having just exited
high school, they present an opportunity to explore how and if purpose affects extracurricular
activity choices at the university level. According to Flanagan (2008), the fact that students are
in college increases the likelihood that they will be recruited to participate in a civic activity.
That said, it is important to know whether previous civic engagement (and associated purpose) is
a factor in determining if and to what extent students become engaged in university sponsored
civic activities.

8

The Role of Four-Year Institutions in Developing Purpose and Fostering Civic Engagement
Generally speaking, students can and do graduate from colleges and universities without
ever taking a class that specifically prepares them to find a purpose or become engaged. That
said, The Institute for Higher Education Policy (1998) reported that college graduates are more
likely to be civically engaged than their peers with only a high-school diploma. It follows that
something about the college experience promotes civic engagement.
At present little is known about if, how, or why purpose influences college students’
choice of activity or how their participation impacts their development of purpose. Although
2

differences in campus cultures may make it impossible to generalize across schools ,
understanding on the individual level if, how, and why students become active is critical. With
tuition continually increasing and financial support shrinking, understanding what it takes to get
students involved in and committed to activities that foster the development of purpose will be
important in creating and maintaining an engaged citizenry.
Statement of Purpose
This dissertation focuses on first-year college students, their extracurricular participation,
and their developing sense of purpose. Part of Michigan State University’s mission statement
(where the study was conducted) reads,
As a public, research-intensive, land-grant university funded in part by the State of
Michigan, our mission is to advance knowledge and transform lives by: providing
outstanding undergraduate, graduate, and professional education to promising, qualified

2

For instance Penn State’s IFC/Panhellenic Council’s “Thon” involved over 700 dancers in
front of a capacity filled arena who raised $9,563,016 in 2010 to combat childhood cancers,
while there is nothing similar at MSU that is so successful or involves so many students
supporting one cause.

9

students in order to prepare them to contribute fully to society as globally engaged citizen
leaders. (MSU, 2009)
Accomplishing that mission (specifically helping students to “contribute fully to society
as globally engaged citizen leaders”) falls, in addition to academic course work, to over 550
registered student organizations. Specifically, this dissertation focused on students who chose to
participate in a wide range of these activities to examine if and how purpose shapes and is
shaped as a result of extracurricular participation during the first semester of college. The need
for this type of work is echoed by Eccles and Gootman (cited in Fredricks & Eccles, 2006) who
state, “qualitative and quantitative research that explores the contextual features of different
activity contexts is critical for understanding which features of the experience matter and why
some extracurricular contexts are related to more favorable patterns of development than others”
(p. 143).
With so many activity choices, developing a better understanding of why some college
students choose certain types of activities (e.g., civic engagement versus individually or socially
focused), and how the different types of activities shape purpose and identity, is a crucial step in
helping to guide and suggest activities for future students. Little is known about the relationship
among activity choice, participation, and the development of stable purpose, hope, or identities.
It may be that students who would benefit the most from participation in civic engagement
activities are choosing individually or socially focused activities precisely because they are
struggling with identity and purpose development. Conversely, it is also possible that students
with a developed sense of purpose and identity may choose individually or socially focused
activities because they feel they can pursue their purposes later or in other settings and they are
comfortable with their identity. (This is in line with Clydesdale, 2007, who found that first-year

10

students frequently choose not to become politically or civically active and actually avoid
situations that challenge their goals and beliefs.) This dissertation is a first step in furthering our
understanding of these questions.
Research Questions
Specifically, this exploratory dissertation sought to address the following questions:
1. What are the initial differences in purpose, hope, and identity development
between first-year college students who choose to participate in activities defined
as having a civic engagement component as opposed to students who participated
in individually or socially focused activities?
2. How are students’ attained purpose, hope, and identity development altered as a
result of their participation in civic engagement and individually focused
activities?
3. In what ways do students describe their experiences in extracurricular
activities and what do they hope to gain as a result of their participation?
The first two research questions reflect the need for empirical support of the hypothesized
link between the development of adolescent purpose (e.g., Damon et al., 2003), service-oriented
youth extracurricular programs, and positive youth outcomes such as increased identity
development, stronger interpersonal relationships, and improved social skills. Specifically,
Question 1 is intended to increase our understanding of purpose and identity development as
independent variables that may influence activity selection.
Research Question 2 examines purpose, hope, and identity development as dependent
variables that are hypothesized to be shaped through participation in either civic engagement
oriented or individually or socially focused extracurricular activities. While it is also possible

11

that purpose may play a mediating role in relationship to other outcomes associated with
extracurricular participation, an exploration of that possibility is not a focus of this study.
The third research question builds on the first two questions by using qualitative
techniques to provide a window into the lived experiences of the participants, including their
thoughts, emotions, and actions related to their activity selection and participation. Such
information is useful for contextualizing the evidence for Questions 1 and 2, as well as
suggesting potential directions for future research.

12

CHAPTER 2
METHOD
The data for this study were collected during the fall semester (2008) at Michigan State
University. Participants were recruited by sending a bulk email from the University Registrar’s
office two times during the first three weeks of the fall semester to all of the approximately 7,000
first-year Michigan State University students. In all, 526 students completed at least some
portion of the initial survey. Students were asked on the survey to list the names of the
organizations they were involved in as well as to categorize all of the types of activities they
were participating in. During analysis, participants were placed in seven groups based on their
self-categorization of the types of activities in which they planned on participating: (a) civic
engagement-only, (b) individual focused only, (c) socially focused only, (d) civic engagement
and individually focused, (e) civic engagement and socially focused, (f) individually and socially
focused, and (g) all three. I chose these types of categories because the primary focus of the
study is on civic engagement activities and because no similar studies were located.
Additionally, unlike studies of high-school extracurricular activities in which participants were
grouped by social group participation (e.g., Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003, who grouped
students by band, athlete, etc.), because there was such a wide range of activity choices and
many participants were active in multiple groups, creating the seven groups made the data
manageable while still allowing for multiple comparisons. The sample of participants in
activities that do not have a civic engagement component, and therefore may not be as likely to
promote or attract students with more developed purpose (i.e., yoga club, ceramics club, and
various martial art groups) were included to allow for a greater range of comparisons.

13

Participants who participated only in the survey portion of the data collection were not
compensated in any way.
For the follow-up survey, all 526 participants who completed at least some portion of the
initial survey were contacted using the Survey Monkey email tool. Students were thanked for
their initial participation and asked to complete the follow up survey. Students were contacted a
th

th

total of five times during the 13 – 16 weeks of the semester (recruitment stopped and contact
was completed with a thank-you email when participants completed the follow-up survey). In
total 264 students completed at least some portion of the follow-up survey, with 171 (39% of
initial total) completing the categorization questions that allowed them to be included in at least
some portion of the final data analysis.
Because comparison between students participating in civic engagement activities and
those who are not is a primary focus of this dissertation, it is important to define clearly how the
activities were categorized. Initially, to be considered a civic engagement activity the group had
to have a stated goal or mission to improve the lives of groups or individuals outside of its own
membership. In addition to the stated mission to work for the betterment of others, a civic
engagement group was not to have a stated organizational goal or aim to help its members better
their own standing. Following data collection, however, it was determined that operationally
employing this categorization technique was both cumbersome and inadequate. (Many
organizations do not have accessible or easily interpreted mission statements.)
In the absence of the first grouping strategy, a second categorization strategy was
adopted, which used individual self-reports to categorize participants. Both the initial and
follow-up survey asked what types of activities students had participated in and listed 12
categories: music, athletics, religious groups, theater, academic club, service groups, political

14

groups, debate, student government, occupation related club, social club, and other. For
categorization purposes the 12 activity types were grouped into 3 activity types. The civic
engagement category consisted of service groups, political groups, religious groups, and student
government. The socially focused category comprised students who participated in music,
athletics, theater, debate, and social clubs. Finally, the individually focused category consisted of
participants in academic clubs and occupation related clubs. The other group did not influence
categorization.
As an example of this process, a student who reported participating in athletics and a
political group would be categorized in the civic engagement and social activity group. SPSS
was used to create seven groups based on the participants planned (Question 1) and actual
(Question 2) participation. The total numbers of participants in each activity group are reported
in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Table 1. Planned Participation
Activity Group

Number of Participants

Civic engagement only

30

Socially focused only

70

Individually focused only

33

Civic engagement and socially focused

74

Civic engagement and individually focused

65

All three activity types

81

Socially focused and individually focused

41

15

Table 2. Actual Participation
Activity Group
Civic engagement only

Number of Participants
38

Socially focused only

43

Individually focused only

20

Civic engagement and socially focused

26

Civic engagement and individually focused

19

All three activity types

11

Socially focused and individually focused

14

A purposive subsample (e.g., high/low purpose and identity pretests) from the total pool
of participants was selected to participate in the interview portion of the study (Question 3). I
sent the selected participants an email offering a $15 gift card incentive if they would be willing
to sit down for a 30-minute interview. Participants were selected two at a time and were again
recruited by email. Sixteen students were recruited for interviews, with 10 agreeing to meet and
participate. After one of the 10 participants failed to arrive at the scheduled interview time and
location (and subsequently did not respond to follow up emails) a total of nine interviews were
conducted during the middle portion of the fall semester (Weeks 4 – 12). The interviews were
conducted in a range of campus locations including the College of Education, a dorm, and the
International Center. All of the interviews were recorded with the participant’s consent.
Interviews generally lasted between 15 and 30 minutes (the shorter interviews with students who
were not active in campus activities). Following each interview I transcribed the conversation, in
several cases adding brief field notes and questions to consider in analysis.

16

Survey Data
Data collected to address Research Questions 1 and 2 included several quantitative
measures to explore the relationship among activity participation, purpose, and associated
positive outcomes. Purpose was assessed using a combination of two items used by Lerner et al.
(2005) to assess contribution and three items used by Almerigi and colleagues to assess civic
beliefs, attitudes, and engagement (unpublished) the combined five-item measure had a
Cronbach’s alpha of .629. Because the purpose measure had not been pretested for reliability,
the six-item Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1997), which seeks to “reflect relatively
enduring goal directed thinking” (pp. 414) in children between the ages of 8-16, was also
administered.
To assess the benefits resulting from participation in civic engagement activities, two
different measures were employed. During the pretest phase, participants completed the Ego
Identity Questionnaire (Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, & Geisinger, 1995) to assess identity
commitment and exploration. The final component of the pretest survey (Appendix 1) asked
several questions about previous (high-school) activity participation along with collecting basic
demographic information (age, gender, etc.). During the posttest (Appendix 2) phase in addition
to the purpose, hope, and ego identity measures used during the pretest, participants also
completed four subsections (identity, initiative, positive relationships, team work, and social
skills) of the Youth Experience Survey (Y.E.S.; Hansen & Larson, 2002). The YES is a selfreport instrument that covers a range of developmental outcomes linked to the first five “C’s”
which have been associated with extracurricular activity participation.
All participants were recruited via email and the quantitative data was collected using the
online survey tool Survey Monkey. Following each wave of data collection the survey results

17

were exported in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Finally, all descriptive and inferential statistical
analysis was conducted using PASWstatistics17 (formerly SPSS).
Interview Data
For Research Question 3, semi-structured interviews were used. Because the third
research question is exploratory in nature, and little was known about how individuals think
about or experience purpose as it relates to their activity participation, beginning the interviews
with a standardized set of questions was not appropriate (Creswell, 2007). A single interview
question such as, “What activities are you currently involved with outside of class and why did
you choose those activities?” was used with each participant. Prompts and reflective questioning
followed the initial question about why the participants chose the activities they did, how the
activities matched up with their expectations, goals, and previous experiences. Interviews also
generally included questions related to previous activity participation (high school) and current
(or planned) collegiate participation such as, “tell me about the activities you were involved in
during high school and what other activities you might try out here?” Again, based on the
participant’s initial responses follow-up questions were asked to explore how the participant felt
about their experiences as well as how they conceptualized their development (purpose, identity,
etc.) as a result of participating in particular activities.
All of the participants who participated in the interview portion of the study were
interviewed on campus and all interviews were audio recorded. Following each interview the
recordings were transcribed and on several occasions preliminary field notes were added. After
all nine interviews were completed, an inductive approach was used to analyze the data with the
primary goal of identifying and describing repetitive themes. This analysis process included
repeated listening to the audio recordings, highlighting and taking notes on transcripts, creating,

18

defining, and editing various themes as the process unfolded. In the end, three themes emerged
that were addressed by a majority of the interview participants and that helped to describe
students’ thoughts about and reasons for participating in specific activities.

19

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Reporting of results begins with descriptive statistics for survey data and correlations
among the various measures, followed by analyses addressing Research Questions 1 and 2 by
examining differences among the seven activity-based groups. As an alternative to this groupbased analysis, I then report on differences between individuals scoring high and low on the
various measures. Finally, I turn to the interview data to report on how participants described
their experiences in extracurricular activities (Research Question 3).
Descriptive Statistics and Measure Correlations
Table 3 summarizes the N, mean, and standard deviation for the measures used in both
the pre and post survey. Overall, there was little or no change across the semester in means and
standard deviations in any of the measures.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics
Purpose
5 item
pre
N
Mean
Std.
Dev.

Purpose
5 item
post

Total
hope
pre

Total
hope
post

ID
explore
pre

ID
explore
post

418
10.00
2.58

244
10.28
2.56

404
25.51
4.66

241
24.99
4.53

323
41.36
6.67

218
41.42
7.08

ID com ID com
pre
post
335
42.50
7.57

220
43.11
7.35

Because the purpose measure was newly developed, I included the Children’s Hope Scale
in both the pre and post surveys as an additional measure of aspects of purpose: agency and
pathways towards a goal. Given the similarities between the purpose measure and Hope Scale, I
predicted that scores would be positively correlated. I also predicted that there would be
negative correlations between identity commitment and exploration given that once an individual

20

commits to an identity they are less likely to explore alternatives. Table 4 summarizes the
correlations between the measures. There were two moderate correlations. First was an
unexpected negativecorrelation (-.53) between the Children’s Hope scale and the purpose
measure. Second, as predicted, there was a negative correlation(-.42) between the identity
commitment and identity exploration scales. Additional discussion of these correlations is
included in the next chapter.
Table 4. Measure Correlations
ID Explore post

ID Com post

ID Explore post
Pearson
1
-.424**
Correlation
.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
218
203
N
ID Com post
Pearson
-.424**
1
Correlation
.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
203
220
N
Purpose 5 item
post
.219**
.322**
Pearson
.001
.000
Correlation
213
216
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Total hope post
Pearson
-.137*
-.305**
Correlation
.045
.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
215
215
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Purpose 5 item
post

Total hope post

.219**
.001
213

-.137*
.045
215

.322**
.000
216

-.305*
.000
215

1

-.533**
.000
234

244

-.533
.000
234

1
241

Initial Differences in Purpose, Hope, and Identity
Analysis of the survey data addressed the first research question: “What are the initial
differences in purpose, hope, and identity development between first-year college students who

21

choose to participate in activities defined as having a civic engagement component as opposed to
those participating in individually or socially focused activities?”
Purpose
To test for initial differences in purpose (using the combined five-item pretest purpose
measure with a Cronbach’s alpha of .629), students were categorized by their planned activity
participation into seven groups: engagement, social, individual, engagement/social,
engagement/individual, engagement/social/individual, and social/individual. An initial
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed no significant difference between the
engagement-only group and the other six groups. However, because during the SPSS
MANOVA analysis, participants were automatically removed if they had even one missing
response (even if it was not related to the group or scale) the overall sample size was
significantly reduced. To include all of the participants with complete grouping and scale data,
univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences between the
engagement group (students planning on participating only in engagement activities) and each of
the other six groups. Only two significant differences were found: Students in the engagementonly group had a higher purpose score (10.5) than students in the engagement/social group (9.44)
F(1, 97) = 3.95, p = .05, η2 = 0.04.; students in the engagement-only group also had a
significantly higher purpose score (10.5 ) than participants in engagement/social/individual
activity group (9.14) F(1, 105) = 5.62, p = .02, η2 = 0.05). There were no significant differences
between the engagement-only group and the social, individual, or engagement/individual groups.
Hope
To test for initial differences in hope (using the six-item hope scale, Cronbach’s alpha of
.823) between students with different planned activity participation, univariate ANOVA was

22

used to examine differences between the engagement group and each of the other six groups.
There were no significant differences between students planning to participate in engagement
activities when compared to all of the six other groups.
Identity Exploration
To test for initial differences in identity exploration (using the 16-item identity scale,
Cronbach’s alpha of .683) between students with different planned activity participation
univariate ANOVA was conducted along with descriptive statistics and Levene’s test of equality
of error variances. Students were again categorized by their planned activity participation into
the previously listed seven groups. Participants who only planned to participate in engagement
activities were compared based on the identity exploration subscale (Ballesteri, et al.,1995) to
students in the remaining six groups. The social-activity-only group scored higher (44.52) than
the engagement-only group (39.65) F(1, 71) = 8.90, p = .004, η2 = 0.11). No significant (p<.05)
differences were found between students planning to participate in engagement activities when
compared to five of the other groups.
Identity Commitment
To test for initial differences in identity commitment (using the 16-item identity scale,
Cronbach’s alpha of .762) between students with different planned activity participation,
univariate ANOVA was conducted along with descriptive statistics and Levene’s test of equality
of error variances. Students were again categorized by their planned activity participation into
the seven groups previously discussed. Participants who only planned on participating in
engagement activities were compared based on the identity commitment subscale (Ballesteri et
al., 1995) to students in the remaining six groups. No significant (p<.05) differences were found

23

between students planning to participate in engagement activities when compared to all six of the
other groups.
In sum, the univariate ANOVAs showed three significant differences between the
engagement-only group and the other six groups. The first two differences were that the
engagement-only group had significantly higher total purpose (10.5) than the engagement/social
activity group (9.44) and the engagement/social/individually focused (9.14) groups.
Additionally, the engagement-only group was significantly lower on the identity exploration
measure (39.65) than the social only activity group (44.52). A discussion of all of the significant
differences follows in the next chapter.
End of Semester Differences
The analysis of the data related to the second research question—“How is students’
attained purpose, hope, and identity development altered as a result of their participation in civic
engagement and individually focused activities?”—was conducted to look for change over time
in purpose, hope, identity commitment, and identity exploration as a result of actual activity
participation. Additionally, overall differences between the engagement-only (students who
actually participated in the those groups) and other six activity groups (again grouped based on
actual participation) were examined to look for differences in purpose, hope, identity
commitment, and identity exploration. Finally, differences between the engagement-only and six
other groups were examined using data from the four subsections (identity, initiative, positive
relationships, and team work and social skills) of the Youth Experience Survey (Y.E.S.; Hansen
& Larson, 2002).

24

Repeated Measures (Pre-Post)
Students who actually participated in engagement activities were compared to students
from the remaining six groups using repeated measures multiple analysis of variance (RMMANOVA) based on their pre and post scores for identity commitment (IC), identity exploration
(IE), total hope (H), and total purpose (P). As with other analyses, the Bonferroni correction to
control for type 1 error was employed. There were no significant differences from the beginning
to the end of the semester for any of the groups. There were, however, several significant
findings related to actual participation based on their post measures. Students who participated
only in engagement activities did have a lower level (38.5) of identity exploration F(6,96) =
2.26, p = .04, η2 = 0.12) than students in the social-activity-only (43.08) group (as was the case
for Question 1 based on planned participation). Additionally, the engagement-only group F(6,
96) = 2.34, p = .04, η2 = 0.13) had a higher total purpose score (10.0) than participants in the
engagement/social/individual group (7.55).
No other significant differences were found between participants who participated in
engagement activities when compared to participants in any of the other six activity group
combinations. One other significant differences between groups were that participants the
social-activity-only group F(6, 96) = 2.34, p = .04, η2 = 0.13) also had a higher total purpose
score (10.0) than participants in the engagement/social/individual group (7.55).
Single Measure (Post Test Y.E.S. Subscales)
Finally, participants who participated only in engagement activities were compared to
participants in the other six activity groups, revealing no significant (p< .05) differences.
However, participants in the social-activity-only group had a significantly F(6, 115) = 2.14, p =
.05, η2 = 0.10) higher YESi (initiative) total (14.38) than participants in the engagement/social

25

activity group (10.35). Additionally, participants in the individual focused activity group had a
significantly higher F(6, 115) = 2.51, p = .03, η2 = 0.12) YESpr (positive relationships) (22.36)
than participants in the engagement and social activity group (15.29).
In summary, there were no significant (p<.05) differences between the seven groups
(grouped by actual participation) between the initial and follow up surveys. There were,
however, several significant finding between the groups. First, students who participated in only
engagement activities had a lower (38.5) identity exploration score than the social-activity-only
group (43.08). Students in both the engagement activities only group (10.0) and the socialactivity-only group (10.0) had a higher total purpose score than the students in the
engagement/social/individual group (7.55). Finally, while there were no differences between the
engagement-only group and the other six groups on the four YES sub-scales, the social only
group had a higher initiative score (14.38) than the engagement/social activity group (10.35), and
the individually focused group had higher positive relationship score (22.36) than the
engagement/social activity group (10.35). These results will be discussed in the next chapter.
Upper and Lower Quartile By Person Analysis
In addition to looking for statistically significant differences between the engagementonly and other six groups, I also examined group participation by individuals who scored high
and low on the various measures. Table 5 presents the total percentage of participation for the
individuals in the upper and lower quartiles based on the posttest for purpose, hope, identity
development, and identity commitment. Because some individuals participated in multiple
activities the total percentage is greater than 100. (See Appendix x for a histogram showing
group participation for the upper and lower quartiles on each measure.)

26

Table 5. Upper and Lower Quartile Analysis By Activity Type
Purpose
No Participation
Engagement
Social
Individual

Top 25%
44.8
23.9
25.4
19.4

Bottom 25%
23.9
53.3
42.5
27.2

Top 25%
31.7
47.6
36.5
26.9

Bottom 25%
43.2
31.2
27.2
19.1

Top 25%
40.4
19.4
38.6
24.6

Bottom 25%
24.1
55.6
29.7
24.1

Top 25%
30.8
41.5
33.8
26.1

Bottom 25%
32.8
39.1
42.2
23.4

Hope
No Participation
Engagement
Social
Individual
Identity Exploration
No Participation
Engagement
Social
Individual
Identity Commitment
No Participation
Engagement
Social
Individual

Four interesting trends emerged. Unexpectedly, participants in the lower quartile on the
purpose measure were more likely to participate in both engagement and social activities than
those who were in the upper quartile (23.9% vs. 53.3% in engagement and 25.4% and 42.5% in
social). A second unexpected trend was that students in the lower quartile on the purpose
measure were more likely to participate in activities than the high purpose individuals (23.9%
not participating for the lower vs. 44.8% for the upper). A third trend that was evident is that
participants who were in the upper quartile on the Hope scale were less likely to not participate
in activities and more likely to choose engagement activities than the lower quartile (31.7% vs.

27

43.2% not participating and 47.6% vs. 31.2% in engagement activities). The forth and final
trend that was evident was that individuals in the upper quartile on the identity exploration scale
were more likely not to participate in any activities and less likely to choose engagement
activities than participants in the lower quartile (40.4% vs. 24.1% not participating and 19.4% vs.
55.6% in engagement activities.
Participants’ Descriptions of Their Experiences
To explore Research Question 3, focusing on how students describe their experiences in
extracurricular activities and what they hope to gain as a result of their participation, I took an
emergent and inductive analysis approach based on the tenants of phenomenology (Creswell,
2007). Given the large differences in participation, personalities, and motivations of individual
students, rather than attempting to develop a complete grounded theory, I chose instead to look
for common elements (themes) that emerged from my interviews with the nine participants.
Three different themes emerged: (a) intent to participate (why individuals chose a certain
activity), (b) commitment level to the activity and motivation to continue participating in
activity, and (c) how the participants viewed their participation in the activity.
I first listened to each interview to get an overall sense of activity choices and rationale
for participating and staying or leaving a given activity. Following this initial screening, I
transcribed each interview (paraphrasing or removing some discussion not related to the
questions). I then used the edited transcript to analyze the interviews. (On several occasions I
returned to the actual recording to clarify if something paraphrased was related or to listen for
tone/inflection.) I started the analysis by looking for evidence related to how participants chose
the activities with which they were involved (or planned to be involved) and then moved on to
conversation related to what they thought about the activity as a participant. During the analysis,

28

differences in the participants’ responses led me to recognizing differences in intent, individual
view of activities and reasons for continuing participation. Table 6 provides a brief background
summary of the participants

3

, Table 7 provides a summary of the participants and their

individual categorization by theme, and Table 8 provides a summary of the activities, group
goals, and individual motivation for choosing to try and remain (or leave) each activity. An
analysis of these three emergent themes and the categories that emerged will be the focus of the
remainder of this chapter.
Table 6. Participants’ Background
Participant
Becca
Sara
Brad

Steve
Annie
Shelly

High-School Activities
Student Council,
Renaissance Club, School
Board
Cross country, lacrosse,
horseback competitions
Quizbowl, Science
Olympiad, math team,
Match Bowl, church
volunteer
Varsity Club, football,
basketball
Student Government, dance,
volunteered outside of
school
Book Club, ACTION, NHS

Barb

Cross country, theatre, Girl
Scouts, band, choir, church
group

Julie

Swimming, basketball,
water polo, NHS

3

All names used are pseudonyms

29

College Activities
Campaign for Change,
Freshman Class Council
Holmes Excursion Learning
Program (H.E.L.P), polo
Quizbowl, Mock UN,
History Association,
IM football, human biology
club
Pre-med club, Pagan Club
(briefly tried but left both)
MRULE (multi-racial
diversity club)
Students for Peace and
Justice, Wessley
Foundation (campus
ministry), Theatre
Bio-systems Engineering
Club, Society for Women
Engineers (infrequent
attendance for both)

Table 6. Participants’ Background Contd.
Jon

Four Corners diversity
program

Freshman Year Experience,
Helping other People
Everywhere), (Brody
United in Leadership
Development), crew

Table 7. Participants’ Categorization Summary
Participant
Becca
Sara

Intent to
participate
intentional
intentional

Commitment
level
Committed
Committed

Brad

intentional

Committed

Steve

intentional

Committed

Annie

disinterested

Shelly

happenstance

Not
committed
Committed

Barb
Julie
Jon

intentional
disinterested
happenstance

Committed
Committed
Committed

Participant’s
view
Aligned
Not aligned
with group
Not aligned
with group
Not aligned
with group
N/A
Not aligned
with group
Aligned
N/A
Not aligned
with group

Table 8. Participants’ Groups, Group Mission, and Rationale for Participation
Participant

Activities

Activities’
mission

Becca

Freshmen Class
Council (FCC),
Obama
Campaign for
Change

FCC – “serves
as the voice of
the freshman
class at MSU”,
Obama
Campaign – to
get Obama
elected
President

30

Participant’s
reason for
joining
FCC – “To get
freshmen
involved; really
help freshmen”
Obama –
“personal issues
in election;
believes in
Obama”

Participant’s
reasons for
continuing
FCC –
surveying
freshmen to see
what they want,
Obamapassionate
about
change/believes
in Obama

Table 8. Participants’ Groups, Group Mission, and Rationale for Participation Contd.
Sara

Brad

Steve

Holmes
Excursions
Learning
Program
(HELP), Polo

HELP –
provides
volunteer
opportunities,
Polo –
opportunity to
learn the game
and to ride
Quizbowl,
Quizbowl –
Mock U.N.,
academic
History
competition,
Association,
Mock U.N. –
conducts
conference for
high-school
delegates,
History
Association –
foster
interest/discuss
history
IM football,
IM sports – safe
Pre-med club,
and supportive
Human bio club sports
experience,
Pre-med –
provide
undergraduates
with guidance
and support to
become
successful med
school
applicants,
Human Bio –
meetings about
topics of
interest to
members

31

HELP – likes to
volunteer, Polo
– likes horses,
cheaper than
equestrian

HELP – left
after 6 weeks
due to
scheduling
Polo – likes that
it is new and
she is making
friends
All three –
Quizbowl – laid
meeting people, back and really
academics a
cool people
minor reason,
Mock U.N. –
wanted to get
left because too
integrated
big and did not
feel welcomed
History – feels
welcome,
random fun
activities like
movies and
grad panels
IM – likes sport IM – season
and wanted to
ended, Pre-med
interact with
– interacting
“the guys”, Pre- with people and
med – resume
knowing he’s
builder and to
helping, Human
interact with
bio – N/A (no
people, Human reason given
Bio – Likes
during
science and
interview)
helping people

Table 8. Participants’ Groups, Group Mission, and Rationale for Participation Contd.
Annie

Pre-med club
(several
meetings),
Pagan Club
(one meeting)

Shelly

MRULE
(Multiracial
Unity Living
experience)

Pre-med –
provide
undergraduates
with guidance
and support to
become
successful med
school
applicants,
Pagan club –
Green Spiral
exists to
provide a
organization for
Pagans at
Michigan State
University and
in the
surrounding
communities.
MRULEW –
offers students
in Residence
Halls and
beyond
opportunities to
increase
knowledge and
understanding
of what they
can do to
contribute to
positive race
relations in
their lives and
their
communities.

32

Pre-med – “to
meet people
who want to go
to the same
place”, Pagan –
wanted to see
what it was like

Left Pre-med
because “she
already
volunteers”, left
Pagan club
because
“people thought
she was weird”

Club leaders
recruited at
orientation,
thought “it
would be good
to meet
people”.

Enjoying it,
“really
interesting to
hear what other
people think”

Table 8. Participants’ Groups, Group Mission, and Rationale for Participation Contd.
Barb

Students for
Peace and
Justice, multicultural society,
Wesley
foundation,
Justice theatre
group, Allies
caucus for
LGBT social
action

Julie

Bio-systems
engineering
club, Society
for Women
Engineers

Students for
Peace and
Justice –
activism for
non-violence,
Multicultural
Society –
understanding
other cultures,
Wesley
Foundation –
committed to
finding new
ways to
discover the
love of God in
Jesus Christ in
new and
exciting ways,
Allies –
bringing LGBT
and straight
students
together
Bio-systems
engineering
club –
socialization
and support of
academic
interest, Society
for Women
Engineers –
educational
service
organization for
students and
engineers

33

Students for
Peace and
Justice –
referred by
advisor, “very
much a peace
and justice
person”,
Multicultural
Society –
“obsessed with
Arabic culture”,
Wesley
Foundation –
goes for
Wednesday
worship,
Theatre – “just
for her”,
enjoyment,
LGBT caucus –
build friends in
complex

Students for
Peace and
Justice –
ongoing
projects and
connection to
major,
Multicultural
Society –
continued
interest in
Arabic culture,
Wesley
Foundation –
worship and
service
projects,
Theatre – for
enjoyment and
socialization,
LGBT (N/A)
did not discuss

Bio-systems
engineering –
chance to get to
know people in
small program,
Society of
Women
Engineers –
possible
scholarships

Bio-systems –
paid for
membership,
free pizza,
sometimes
interesting
speakers,
Society for
Women
Engineers –
same reasons
(paid, pizza,
speakers)

Table 8. Participants’ Groups, Group Mission, and Rationale for Participation Contd.
Jon

Crew, HOPE
(Helping other
people
everywhere),
Build (Brody
United and
Leadership
Development),
Advantage

Crew – push
limits and
compete for
national
championship,
HOPE – as
name implies, a
service group,
Build – help
students
develop
leadership
skills,
Advantage –
academic
support and
transition to
college support

For all four –
wanted to
become more
involved than
in high school,
Crew – flyer in
area so went to
informational
meeting, HOPE
– community
service, Build –
become a better
leader and learn
about “self”,
Advantage –
help with
academics

Crew – exercise
and “really
loves it”, HOPE
– didn’t do
much yet, Build
– leadership
and helping
him become
comfortable
with public
speaking,
Advantage –
N/A did not
discuss

Reason to Participate
The first theme that emerged was the intentionality reported by the participants choosing
whether and what activities in which to become involved. Of the nine participants interviewed,
five clearly sought out the specific activities or groups with which they were involved. Two
were not actively involved in many campus groups or organizations and their choices were based
more on chance and apathy than specific goals or desires. Finally, two participants ended up in
activities based almost entirely on happenstance after learning about a meeting or event from a
flyer or reading sidewalk chalk. A discussion of these three groups of participants and the
characteristics of the individuals in each group will be the focus of the remainder of this section.
Intentional. The first and largest group of interviewed participants were intentional and
goal oriented in choosing what groups to become involved in. For example, Becca had been

34

involved with school and local government during high school. When asked why she chose to
get involved with the freshman class council and the Obama Campaign for Change she spoke
about helping others, getting students involved, and the personal issues that the election had for
her. Becca stated that she “thinks it is important for students to vote regardless of who they vote
for” and that she had been canvassing for students to vote, not just for Obama, but to just vote.
Becca credited her previous involvement in student government along with her personal stake in
the election and desire to shape her community as the reasons that led her to seek out
opportunities to become civically engaged.
Not all of the students categorized as highly intentional shared Becca’s altruistic motives.
Sara, who was also intentional, chose to become involved in two groups as well. In contrast to
Becca, Sara selected activities because they either allowed her to socialize or to pursue
individual interests. When asked why she chose to participate on the MSU polo team she
referred to her past experience showing horses, her trainer’s recommendation, and that it was
new and more convenient than equestrian. When asked about her participation in Holmes
Excursion Learning Program (HELP) and other volunteer engagement activities, she responded
that her reasons for joining were that participating in the activities “makes her feel good and
productive” and “it makes her get out of bed.”
Brad was also highly intentional in his activity selection but differed from both Becca
and Sara by choosing to participate in a broad spectrum of activities. When asked about whether
he planned on becoming involved in extracurricular activities at MSU Brad did not hesitate to
say “absolutely” because he wanted to meet “nerds” like himself. Brad chose to participate in
several activities such as the quiz bowl simply to meet other students he perceived as similar.
However, Brad also chose to sign up to volunteer with a tutoring program that serves

35

disadvantaged children because he said it was really fun to help and that the student (a firstgrader) reminded him of himself at that age.
While it was expected that the largest number of students interviewed were intentional in
their activity selection and that social, civic, and individual factors played a role, at times
participants’ reasons for choosing an activity did not align with what might be expected based on
the type of activity selected. For example, Sara’s decision to get involved in civic engagement
activities because they “make her feel good and productive, and it makes her get out of bed” is
not the same as having a desire to help out or make a difference in her community. Steve
expressed another example of misalignment of group objectives and the assumed intent of
participants. One of the activities that Steve was involved with was volunteering at the campus
health service building to give food to “poor” people because “it will help my resume.” Rather
than choosing this activity to help others or to fight hunger, Steve chose the activity because it
would benefit him in the long run and it afforded him the opportunity to socialize.
Disinterested. A second group of students who emerged were identified as being either
apathetic or disinterested in extracurricular activity participation (at least at the on campus level).
Of the nine students interviewed, only two fit this category. Annie stated that she attended
several pre-med club meetings but that the group, “is a lot of it is volunteering which I still do”
referring to what she does in her hometown (close to MSU so her participation continued even
though she was in school). Julie, who on the surface appeared to have been intentional in
choosing activities (e.g., stating that she chose one activity because there was a possibility to
earn scholarships) ended up being included in this group despite her almost total disinterest in
the goals of the organization and the limited amount of time she participated. During her
interview, Julie reported that she mostly hangs out with high-school friends and will likely stay

36

with one of her groups because she already paid for her membership and that they receive free
pizza at meetings.
Happenstance. The third group of students that emerged was labeled as unintentional
but highly interested activity participants. The two members of this group both ended up
participating in groups almost entirely by chance. Jon ended up involved with a number of civic
engagement/service organizations all because of a flyer he saw and a required psychology
experiment that had him in the area. His unplanned involvement with that group led him to seek
out other related civic engagement organizations and ultimately led to a paid position working to
better the freshman year experience. The second student in this group, Shelly, grew up near
MSU and said that she had not really given any thought to whether she wanted to get involved in
extracurricular activities at MSU. During her freshman academic orientation program, a
representative from MRULE (a multiracial diversity club) was present. When Shelly started
school in the fall she saw a flyer for MRULE and remembering her academic orientation
program chose to attend. Shelly said that she chose to attend because she recognized that it
“would be good to meet people” and as a result has made new friends and thought about a
number of issues from new perspectives.
While the distinctions between members of the second and third groups from the first
group may not be entirely clear (e.g., Shelly had some intent in deciding to attend because she
wanted to meet people but did not consider attending until her orientation), the emergence of
these categories was nonetheless unexpected. I assumed prior to beginning this study that most
individuals choose to become active (or at least test out) some activities and that there is at
minimum some degree of explicit intent. The fact that two of the nine participants interviewed

37

stumbled into their activities and another two were basically not actively participating in any sort
of on campus organization challenges this assumption and will be a focus of later discussion.
Participation Commitment and Motivation to Continue
A second theme that emerged was that despite the varying degree of intentionality in
choosing which (if any) activities to become involved in, eight of the nine students interviewed
responded that they were committed to continuing their participation through the school year and
beyond (see Table 4). While it is not surprising that the five students who sought out a certain
activity reported that they were committed, it was somewhat surprising that students like Shelly
and Jon who ended up in activities almost by accident reported being committed to continuing
their participation. The only student who reported having tried participating and had stopped
was Annie. As mentioned previously, Annie tried the pre-med club and stopped going after two
meetings because she perceived the focus to be on volunteering, which she does on her own.
Annie also said that she tried the Pagan club but stopped attending because she thought that the
members of the club viewed her as weird and she only went to “check it out.”
Participants’ View of the Activity and Their Role in it
Perhaps the most unexpected of the three emergent themes was the discrepancy in the
way some of the participants viewed the activities they chose and what I assumed would be their
rationale for participation based on the type of activity selected. To put it simply, of the seven
interviewed participants who were participating in activities categorized as “civic engagement”
activities, five were participating for very personal or socially based reasons. Only two talked
about helping or making a difference. Two additional interviewed participants interviewed were
not participating in any sort of civic engagement activities. The following paragraphs serve as
evidence to exemplify this theme.

38

Not Aligned. One illustration of the disconnect between participating in civic
engagement activities and possessing a desire to make a difference can be seen in the interview
with Steve. Steve was participating in IM sports, the human bio club, and the pre-med club.
While the pre-med and human bio clubs would be classified as individually focused groups,
several of the activities offered by the clubs afford participants the opportunity to become
civically engaged. In Steve’s case, he had spent time volunteering at the campus health services
to “give food to poor people and also to talk to them if they need comfort.” When asked why he
chose to do this, he replied that his primary reason was to build his resume and to interact with
people (individually and socially focused, respectively) and it was not until pressed in the
interview that he any mentioned helping others (civic engagement).
Another illustration of this theme can be found in Jon’s interview. Jon was involved with
multiple service clubs and actually ended up finding employment with the Freshman Year
Experience (FYE) program that focuses on improving the experiences and well being of firstyear students. My assumptions were challenged when I asked Jon why he got involved and what
kept him involved: At no point in his answer did he mention helping his fellow students or
making a positive change. On the contrary, Jon talked about joining the group to become a
better leader, learn about himself, and be prepared for leadership. Despite the fact that Jon never
mentioned helping, when discussing the low turnout for one of the groups he was involved with
(helping other people everywhere) he said that turnout was low because, “I guess maybe people
don’t want to help.”
Aligned. Two of the nine interviewed students interviewed did mention altruistic
motives for participating in civic engagement activities. Perhaps the best illustration of this
minority was Barb, the daughter of a minister who is involved in a wide range of activities,

39

including multiple service groups. When asked about her reason for choosing those activities
Barb described herself as a “service person” that has and always will seek out opportunities to
make a difference. As I conceptualized and planned this study, I assumed that most, if not all,
students who participated in civic engagement activities would be more like Barb when it came
to making decisions about participation.
Not Applicable. Annie and Julie were not participating in any sort of civic engagement
activity. Given that they were both not participating in any activities with a stated intent they
were categorized as not applicable for this theme.

40

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, FUTURE DIRECTIONS, AND CONCLUSION
Overall there were several significant findings when comparing students who planned to
participate only in civic engagement activities to their peers who participated or planned to
participate in the other activity combinations. Students who planned on participating in only
civic engagement activities had significantly higher total purpose (10.5) than the
engagement/social activity group (9.44) and the engagement/social/individually focused (9.14)
groups. Additionally, the engagement-only group was significantly lower on the identity
exploration measure (39.65) than the social only activity group (44.52).
There were also several significant findings when comparing students who actually
participated in engagement-only activities to their peers in the other six activity groups. Students
who participated in only engagement activities had a lower (38.5) identity exploration score than
the social-activity-only group (43.08). Students in both the engagement-activities-only group
(10.0) and the social-activity-only group (10.0) had a higher total purpose score than the students
in the engagement/social/individual group (7.55). Finally, while there were no differences
between the engagement-only group and the other six groups on the four YES sub-scales, the
social only group had a higher initiative score (14.38) than the engagement/social activity group
(10.35), and the individually focused group had higher positive relationship score (22.36) than
the engagement/social activity group (10.35).
Finally, differences in the participants’ interview responses led me to recognizing
differences in intent, individual view of activities, and reasons for continuing participation. The
following discussion is broken into three subsections corresponding to the three research
questions.

41

Descriptive Statistics and Measure Correlations
As was noted in the results section, there was no change in means and standard deviations
for any of the four measures between the pre and post surveys. When looking at the correlation
table there were multiple significant correlations between the measures.
One correlation that was completely unexpected based on the similarities between
questions and measure goals was a sizable (-.533) correlation between the purpose measure and
the Hope Scale. The Children’s Hope Scale was included in the study because it was
hypothesized that it would be a good proxy measure for purpose because it measures agency and
pathways towards a goal. Given the definition of purpose includes having a stable goal it was
theorized that the Hope Scale would measure at least one component of purpose. The sizable
negative correlation raises serious questions about both measures and their use in measuring
purpose for emerging adults (the Hope Scale is designed for children ages 8-16). There are two
plausible reasons for the negative correlation. The first is that one (or both) measures have
serious validity issues and they do not measure what they were intended to measure. A second
plausible explanation is that the differences in the way emerging adults who have established
abstract thinking skills and metacognitive abilities respond differently than 8 to 16 year-old
children and therefore the Hope Scale is not appropriate for that age group. In either case, it is
clear that the two instruments measure very different things.
The one other sizable correlation (-.424) was between the identity commitment and
identity exploration measures. As was expected the two are negatively correlated because it
follows that once an individual stops exploring they commit to an identity and once committed
they are less likely to actively explore.

42

Initial Differences in Purpose, Hope, and Identity
The first question that this study posed was: “What are the initial differences in purpose,
hope, and identity development between first-year college students who choose to participate in
activities defined as having a civic engagement component as opposed to in individually or
socially focused activities?” It was hypothesized that students who participated in activities that
focused on civic engagement would have higher purpose and identity development scores
(driven to make a difference and committed to their cause) even though no literature was located
that explicitly predicted these differences.
As hypothesized, the students who reported that they were going to participate in civic
engagement activities did have a significantly higher purpose score than did students planning to
participate in social and individually focused groups. Unexpectedly, however, both of the groups
that were significantly different than the civic engagement-only group included a civic
engagement activity (engagement/social group (.05) and the engagement/social/individual
activity group (.02)). Also, there were no significant differences in purpose between the students
who were choosing to participate in only civic engagement activities when compared to students
who were only interested in participating in social or individually focused groups. The only
other significant finding when comparing the students who were only going to participate in
civic engagement activities versus those in the remaining six groups was that the social-activityonly group measured significantly higher on the identity exploration scale (.004).
There are several possible explanations for the differences between the engagement-only
group and the two other groups. The first possible explanation is that the students with a more
developed sense of purpose were more attracted to service oriented groups and had less interest
in pursuing other types of activities. This may be the most plausible explanation because a

43

student with a strong sense of purpose would theoretically be more likely to forgo participation
in other activities to reserve their time and energies to serve others. This explanation is in line
with Borden and Serido’s (2009) process model of achieving civic engagement through program
participation, which concludes with an expansion phase. Borden and Serido assert that
individuals seek out greater connections to their community after they form strong relationships
with other people with similar interests inside of a given program.
A second possible explanation for the differences between the groups is that the students who
chose to participate in multiple types of activities were still developing their identities (including
developing purpose) and were trying multiple activities to further their identity development.
While previous work by identity researchers as far back as Erickson (1968) show that emerging
adults try multiple activities and roles before beginning to settle on a more permanent view of
who they are, this explanation seems less plausible given that there were no significant
differences between the three groups on either the identity exploration or identity commitment
scales.
The other significant difference, that students in the social-activity-only group were
significantly higher in their identity exploration than those in the engagement-only group, was
also unanticipated. On the surface, it is plausible that students who were interested only in social
activities had a less developed identity (meaning that they did not have strong civic engagement
or personal interests developed) and were participating in social activities in part to continue
exploring their identity (which is in line with what Damon, 2003, and Erickson, 1968,
discussed). While this may well be the case, it is does not explain why the students in the
multiple activity type categories did not fit this profile.

44

The lack of significant differences between the students who planned to participate in
multiple activities and those who planned to participate only in civic engagement activities raises
a new question: Why was there a difference in identity exploration between the social-activityonly group (when compared to engagement only) and not differences between the blended
(social and individually focused, social and engagement, social/individually/engagement)
groups? Based on the work of the identity theorists cited in the previous paragraph (Damon,
2003, and Erickson, 1968) it would have been expected that while some students who were still
exploring their identity would seek social activities, others might try on “multiple hats” and
participate in a range of activities. The fact that this was not the case in this study could be the
result of a methodological limitation such as the small sample size or instrumentation validity, or
it could be that there is something else going on that can inform our understanding of how and
why emerging adults choose extracurricular activities during their first semester of school.
Given all of the changes that first-year college students experience in distance from
established support systems and networks of friends, increased responsibilities, and new
freedoms, many students may not be prepared to seek activities that actively challenge their
identity development. It is possible that the reason that the only significant difference between
groups in relation to identity exploration was between the social only and engagement-only
groups is because these groups represent two extremes. It may be the case that the majority of
first semester students are not fully willing or able to invest the emotional, intellectual, or
physical resources necessary to engage in (and possibly commit to) intense identity exploration
which is in line with Clydesdale (2007), who found that students entering college were likely to
avoid activities and relationships that challenged their current thinking.

45

A second possible explanation for the lack of significant differences between the groups in
relation to identity exploration could be a matter of limited interest or lack of resources. During
the interviews conducted for this study two students revealed that they just happened into their
activities and two others were apathetic in regards to their choices and participation in general. It
might be the case that with all of the “newness” of starting school that many students choose to
invest their intellectual and physical (particularly time and money) resources in other areas, and
therefore their initial thoughts about what activities to participate in were not reflective of what
was really important to them. If this were the case then there would have been bias in the
grouping process, which could potentially limit the significant results. If lack of resources is the
explanation, then future work should examine how emerging adults who are just starting school
make choices about where and how to expend their resources.
In summary, the data collected to answer the first research question support the
hypothesis that students with a more developed sense of purpose are more likely to plan to
participate in civic engagement activities (possibly at the expense of participating in other
activities). There were also several instances where expected differences were not evident as
well as several unanticipated findings. The fact that there were not differences between the civic
engagement-only group and the social or individually focused only groups warrants further
exploration. Additionally, the fact that the only significant difference on the identity exploration
scale was between the social only group and the engagement-only group raised questions about
whether the social only group was seeking social groups to continue exploring their identity or if
students in the engagement-only group had more fully developed identities (given no other
differences between groups on the exploration measure).

46

End of Semester Differences
The second question that this study posed was: “How is students’ attained purpose, hope,
and identity development altered as a result of their participation in civic engagement and
individually focused activities?” The first result, that students in the engagement-only activity
only group were significantly lower (.048) than the students in the social-activity-only group in
their identity exploration scores provides additional support for the explanation that students in
the civic engagement-only activities have firmly chosen to pursue their sense of purpose and
have a more fixed identity than students who chose to only focus on social activities. This result
again fits nicely with the identity research of Erickson (1968) and Arnett (2000) that have shown
that identities become more stable in late adolescence and emerging adulthood. It was not
expected, however, that there would be no significant differences in the identity (exploration or
commitment) scores between any of the other activity groups. According to the work of Erickson
and Arnett, significant differences would have been predicted between the engagement-only
group and the individual only and individual/social activity group.
The second finding related to the second research question is that the students that
participated exclusively in engagement activities or exclusively in social activities had
significantly higher (.023 and .013 respectively) purpose scores than the students who
participated in all three types of activities (engagement/social/individual). While the first part of
the finding, that students who only participated in engagement activities have a more developed
sense of purpose and therefore may be likely to focus their time and energy pursuing engagement
opportunities fits nicely with both identity (Erickson, 1968) and civic engagement (Borden &
Serido, 2009) literature, the fact that the social-activity-only group also had a higher total
purpose raises several questions.

47

Initially, it seems contradictory to the explanations provided previously that students in
the social-activity-only group would have a more developed sense of purpose than students who
participate in all three types of activities. The possible explanation discussed previously that
students who were only planning to participate in engagement activities had a higher total
purpose score because they knew what they wanted to do and were willing to sacrifice other
activity participation in order to meet their goals would not seem to apply to this group. It may
be that members of this group are participating in engagement activities outside of school and
only have time for social activities at school. While this might be the case, no data regarding out
of school participation were collected and this could be an interesting question for future
research.
As part of the effort to better explain how and why activities impact purpose and identity
development students completed portions of the YES 2.0 to highlight specific yet related benefits
of activity participation. Unfortunately, no significant differences were found on any of the YES
2.0 subscales between the groups discussed previously in this section. The significantly higher
(.029) level of initiative between the social-activity-only group when compared to students in the
engagement/social group and the significantly higher (.019) positive relationship scores of the
individual focused activity group members when compared to the students in the
engagement/social activity group were found but at this time those groups are not the focus of
this research. That said, despite not being the primary focus of this work, exploring why the
differences exist (perhaps social activities and their interpersonal nature provide more
motivation, or the lack of common goals and limited interactions of individually focused groups
reduces tension and leads to better feelings about relationships) could be very interesting
questions to explore in future research or a separate research review.

48

Given the few statistically significant differences between the different activity groups,
questions emerge regarding the role extracurricular participation and institutions of higher
learning. Michigan State University’s mission includes preparing students to “contribute fully to
society as globally engaged citizen leaders.” Given the tremendous number of choices, ever
growing tuition coupled with shrinking financial resources, and all of the pressure of academics
when and how is this mission met? Based on the Arnett’s (2000) theory of emerging adulthood
and the need for individuals between 18 and 25 need to continue exploring their identities, and
the Institute for Higher Education Policy’s (1998) findings that college graduates are more
civically engaged than individuals with only a high-school diploma, it follows that something
about the college experience does in fact promote engagement. Perhaps there are extracurricular
activities that would foster that type of engagement and many students simply choose to or are
not able participate due to limited resources or conflicts with other more pressing obligations. It
is also possible that by offering so many activities to choose from that there is a “watering down”
effect and many students end up participating in activities that do not foster engagement or
personal growth. Regardless, the fact that so few differences were found between students who
participated in engagement related activities and their peers suggests that MSU (and possibly
other similar institutions) may be underutilizing a potential asset that could help them to fully
meet their mission for a greater number of students.
Participants’ Descriptions of Their Experiences
The last question that this study posed was: “In what ways do students’ describe their
experiences in extracurricular activities and what do they hope to gain as a result of their
participation?” Three different themes emerged from the data collected related to the third
research question: (a) intent to participate (why individuals chose particular activities), (b)

49

commitment level to the activity and motivation to continue participating in activity, and (c) how
the participants viewed their participation in the activity. Possible implications of these themes,
as their possible causes will be the focus of the remaining discussion.
Reason to Participate
The first theme was the difference in intentionality reported by the participants in
choosing whether and what activities to become involved in. As previously reported, five of the
nine interviewed participants clearly sought out the specific activities or groups with which they
were involved; the other four were either not participating in any campus activities or they ended
up participating in activities primarily by chance.
What is particularly salient here is that nearly half of the interviewed participants either
were not involved in any of the over 550 campus organizations or they ended up in activities
with little or no initial interest in the groups in which they were actively involved. At the
beginning of the study, I expected that, given the pressure to become actively involved in
campus extracurricular activities from resident assistants in dorms and the large number of
activities and events scheduled to promote various campus groups (Sparticipation, advertising),
most if not all students would choose to at least try a few activities. This expectation is also
supported by the literature (e.g., Eccles, et al., 2003), which reports findings related to
extracurricular participation being voluntary and common among successful adolescents (e.g.,
university freshman).
Of the four students who were not classified as intentional in seeking out and trying
specific activities, two were not participating at all and two ended up in activities almost entirely
by chance. The two students who were not participating cited conflicts with classes or a desire to
socialize with friends in a more casual environment. While a desire to focus on academics or to

50

have time with friends is plausible, it may be that these students might have chosen to become
involved later or that they might not ultimately be as successful as their counterparts who chose
to participate in extracurricular activities.
The two students who were actively participating in groups that they seemingly stumbled
into are examples that run counter to some of the fundamental assumptions made in designing
this study. Previously cited research (e.g., Eccles et al., 2003) along with my personal
experience led me to assume that students would at a minimum seek out groups based on
established interests and likely gravitate towards activities that resembled groups with which
they were involved during high school. The fact that the students tried something new is not
surprising (given that many students are still very much in the identity exploration stage
(Erickson, 1968), but the fact that sidewalk chalk advertising and proximity rather than interests
drove activity choice for some was unexpected.
Participation Commitment and Motivation to Continue
The second emergent theme was that despite the varying degree of intentionality
in choosing which (if any) activities to become involved in, eight of the nine students
interviewed responded that they were committed to continuing their participation through
the school year and beyond. As with the previous theme, it was not unexpected that the
five students who sought out a certain activities remained committed to those activities.
It was, however, not anticipated that the students who were less involved or intentional in
their activity selection were so committed. Again, based on my personal experience and
the identity theorists mentioned previously (i.e., Erickson, 1968, and Arnett, 2000), I
hypothesized that students who stumbled into activities would be more likely to consider
trying new activities and/or stopping their participation. It could be that the power of the

51

status quo is considerable for first-year students dealing with establishing themselves on
campus, and that they do as Clydesdale (2007) reported and intentionally avoid settings
that challenge their beliefs or expectations. It is also possible that the students who were
not intentional in choosing which groups to become involved with (if any) made a choice
that was a good fit with their current stage of identity development and the group they
ended up in (or out of) was a good fit. Again, additional longitudinal data would have
been helpful in determining where these students were in Borden and Serido’s (2009)
process model of achieving civic engagement through program participation.
Participants’ View of the Activity and Their Role in it
The least expected of the three themes was the discrepancy in the way some of the
participants viewed the activities they chose and what might have been assumed would be their
rationale for participation based on the type of activity selected. This theme raises important
questions when interpreting the results of the study overall as well as possible future research
questions.
One of the most basic premises of this study was that students were aware of and
committed to the overall goals or benefits of participating in certain groups and, more
importantly, that their reasons for participating would match the goals and aims of the group.
What was so unexpected was that in several instances students reported reasons for participating
in a given activity that were very different from the primary objective of the group. This is not to
say that having multiple reasons for participating in a certain activity is not to be expected, but
rather that not sharing any of the groups underlying mission (e.g., Steve and his involvement
with health services and Jon with his leadership roles) was unanticipated. This theme raises
important questions about the applicability of the findings and also has implications for future

52

research. Both the potential limitations and the implications for future research will be discussed
in the next chapter.
Finally, if students are in fact not aware of, or do not subscribe to the underlying
goals/missions of the groups with which they associate, additional questions about whether and
how institutions of higher learning prepare emerging adults to become engaged citizens emerge.
4

Although examples like the Thon at Penn State show that it is possible to have large scale buyin and participation in activities based on a charitable mission, there are still questions about
motive and access that need to be explored. Undoubtedly, some of the participants/donors
involved in successful activities such as Thon are there for some sort of personal gain (i.e.,
relationships, resume enhancement, etc.). At the same time, Thon’s tremendous success and
growth also would seem to serve as evidence of massive commitment to the group’s mission and
goals. How and why are so many students choosing to become involved in and passionate about
activities like Thon at a school similar to MSU in size and mission (PSU is another Land Grant
University), while nothing close exists at MSU? Given the relative geographic closeness, tuition,
and typical student population it seems unlikely that there is something about students from
Pennsylvania that makes them more prone to be able to choose to become active with
extracurricular groups or to become civically engaged. That said, there must be something that
limits students at some schools from participating in engagement activities or promotes their
participation at others. Gaining a better understanding of these differences would be extremely
valuable as institutions (and students) make choices about how to best spend their limited
resources and ultimately fulfill their missions (or personal goals).

4

Penn State’s IFC/Panhellenic Council’s “Thon” involved over 700 dancers in front of a
capacity filled arena who raised $9,563,016 in 2010 to combat childhood cancers.

53

Limitations
Despite the best intentions, planning, and advice from more knowledgeable and
experienced mentors, several issues arose that limit the generalizability of this study. This
section will address four of the most significant limitations of the current study as well as suggest
three ideas for future research to help overcome or address the limitations. The four primary
limitations that this chapter will focus on are (a) limitations of the measures used, (b) sample
attrition and timing of the data collection, (c) use of self-report for group categorization, and (d)
researcher bias and inexperience.
Instrumentation
The first limitation of the current study lies in the choice of instruments. The primary
purpose measure was constructed from a combination of 2-items used by Lerner et al. (2005) to
assess contribution, 3-items used by Almerigi and colleagues to assess civic beliefs, attitudes,
and engagement (unpublished) (Appendix 1). At the time the study was being planned there
were not any publically available established measures of youth purpose that did not specifically
focus on political or civic engagement activities. (Measures such as Flanagan, Stout, Syvertsen,
2007) were available but focused specifically on civic engagement activities.) Given that the
measure was not pilot tested prior to the study combined with a Cronbach’s alpha of .629 it may
be that the new measure did not have sufficient reliability to accurately measure purpose.
Because the purpose measure had not been pretested and validated, the theoretically
correlated Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1997) (Appendix 2) was used as a correlate
measure. Although The Children’s Hope Scale was designed to measure constructs that are
theoretically related to the studies working definition of purpose (e.g., measures agency and
pathways) it was designed and tested for use on children ages 8-16. It is possible that the

54

instrument did not accurately measure these two constructs for the study participants who ranged
in age from 18-25. As was reported previously the correlational analysis found that the purpose
measure was actually negatively correlated to the Hope Scale. This negative correlation calls in
to question the validity of purpose measure.
Timing of Data Collection and Sample Attrition
The second limitation of the study is the timing of the data collection. Participants
completed the quantitative measures during the first and final four weeks of the fall semester
(T1, T2). Interviews were conducted between the fifth and twelfth weeks of the semester. These
data collection points could limit the validity of the results for all three research questions. For
Research Question 1, concerning initial differences in purpose, hope, and identity development
between students who choose to participate in civic engagement activities and those who
participated in individually or socially focused activities, the main issue with collecting the initial
data during the first four weeks of the semester is related to the participants’ focus during the
beginning of their college careers. Because participants were recruited via email from the
university registrar it is entirely possible that many perspective participants chose to ignore the
request to participate once they realized that the email did not concern their enrollment status. A
second set of perspective participants may not have checked (and therefore read) the emails until
after the data collection window closed. The most likely limitation of this data collection
strategy is that because students are in the process of adapting to a significant life change during
the first month of their college career their answers to questions about their goals, purpose, and
identity development may not be representative of their actual development or typical thinking.
This limitation cannot be overstated because there may well be differences in purpose and

55

identity development (which is the focus of the first research question) that were not reflected in
the data.
Possibly the most significant limitation of the study and a possible explanation for so few
significant results is related to the timing of data collection for Research Question 2: How is
students’ attained purpose and identity development altered as a result of their participation in
civic engagement and individually focused activities? This question addresses the development
of purpose as it relates to activity selection. Given that participants were in any given activity for
only one semester (and their participation was frequently confounded with participation in other
activities), it is possible that the activity would (does) exert a significant impact over a greater
period of time. It is also possible that the converse occurs and that the changes that emerged in
the data would have diminished or even vanished as participants spent more time in a given
activity.
Although this is a potentially significant limitation, in many ways it could not be avoided.
Given the lack of existing research about the development of purpose as it relates to collegiate
extracurricular activities and the limitations of the dissertation process, choosing a one-semester
window was both practical logistically, and given that developmental changes frequently emerge
quickly as a result of a new setting the choice was also logical theoretically. Based on the data
collected for Research Question 2, a year-long data collection window might have been
preferable.
Finally, the timing of data collection may also have had a limiting factor as it relates to
the third research question: In what ways do students’ experiences in extracurricular activities
differ based on their initial sense of purpose and identity development and the type of activity
selected? The primary issue as it relates to this question is that, especially for students who were

56

interviewed early in the semester, the participants may have spent little time in the chosen
activities. Given that the question focused on the student’s experience in their chosen activities
and how this experience was both shaping and shaped by purpose, the limited experience could
have provided an insufficient base to answer the questions that were asked.
One other limitation related to data collection timing is sample attrition. While attrition
is a potential issue for all repeated measure studies, despite the relatively short amount of time
between pre and post measures it was a problem in this study. One possible explanation for the
high attrition is that the participants were recruited via an email from the University Registrar’s
Office, which can feel impersonal. Without a personal connection, some sort of academic,
social, or financial incentive (there were no monies available to offer compensation) there was a
lack of extrinsic motivation to return the follow-up survey (or to respond to interview requests).
Fortunately, despite the high number of participants who did not participate in the follow up
survey there were a sufficient number of participants to conduct the planned statistical analyses.
Categorization Strategy
A third likely limitation is the nature of the categorization strategy that labels participants
as either participating or not in particular activities. Recent work by Bohnert, Fredricks, and
Randall (2010) raised questions about out-of-school time studies that categorize participant in
this manner. They suggest that researchers should assess breadth, intensity, duration, and
engagement for individuals before coming to conclusions. Given that these data were not
collected, it may be that differences exist that were not found or that some of the differences
reported may only hold true for a subsample of the larger category.
A second possible limitation to the categorization strategy relates to the group dynamics
in each different activity. Because the participants were all first semester students none of them

57

had any existing relationships with the campus organizations. It may have been the case that
some participants wanted to become involved with an organization but after attending a meeting
or event they did not feel welcomed given the social make up of the more established
participants.
Use of Self-Report Categorization
Another potential limitation was the use of self-categorization for group assignment.
This process was chosen because there are over 550 registered student organizations and many of
them do not have a published goals or mission statements. It could be the case that a number of
students chose to try activities based on an assumption that the group had a certain mission or
goal, and later found out that they were incorrect. Also, with such a large number of groups, the
limited published information about them, and the impossibility of visiting and observing them
all, it was determined that self categorization was the best option available. Although necessary,
every participant might have different conceptualizations of terms like service or social and
therefore categorization was not standardized which can lead to both validity and reliability
problems when comparing groups.
Researcher Inexperience and Bias
As is the case with sample attrition, interviewer bias and inexperience can always be
considered a limitation in qualitative data collection and analyses. In this study, although I tried
to maintain objectivity (or at the very least, be aware of my biases), it is not possible to remove
the human element in a semi-structured interview format. In reviewing the recordings, it is clear
that in certain instances the interviewers tone and choice of follow up questions were influenced
by the interviewee’s responses. As the interviews progressed there were fewer of these
instances. While even the most experienced interviewers may never be able to completely

58

remove or acknowledge all of their biases, more experience would prove valuable in minimizing
the effect.
In addition to the limitations regarding the interviews, assumptions were made in the
design of the project that might have been inaccurate and therefore must be considered as well.
In designing this study it was taken for granted that students who participate in civic engagement
activities would have been at least somewhat invested in and therefore talked about helping (the
groups primary mission, and a key to purpose and true civic engagement), and that other factors
such as personal satisfaction (individual focus), resume building (individual focus), or social
interactions (social focus) might also be considerations. The fact that several students only
mentioned individual or social reasons for being involved in engagement activities was
unexpected.
Borden and Serido’s (2009) process model of achieving civic engagement through
program participation may help explain this result. According to their research as well as the
work of others (e.g., Hart, 1992; Watts & Flanagan, 2007), it might be that the participants were
drawn to the activities because of caring adults (or older students) who allowed the individuals
the opportunity to express themselves and try out different roles. It is also possible that some
students chose activities because they were “legacies” whose parents or older siblings attended
MSU. In either case, according to Borden and Serido’s model it would be expected that the
participants who remain in the civic engagement groups would begin to establish a relationship
with the group and eventually become involved with the community.
A second possible explanation for this outcome might also be a result of the small
number of participants interviewed or the questions that were asked. It might be that the
majority of students are aware and committed to the underlying purposes and missions of the

59

groups with which they choose to become involved and the students interviewed in this study
were “outliers.” Regardless of the explanation it is important to keep this finding in mind when
designing future studies on extracurricular participation where intent is inferred.
Future Directions
It is important to reflect and think about what could have been done differently over the
course of every research endeavor—to critically evaluate what was done, what the data suggest,
and, most importantly, what next steps can and should be taken. There are three directions that
future research should address to help increase our understanding purpose and first-year college
extracurricular participation: (a) developing and validating a robust measure of emerging adult
purpose for use in extracurricular programs, (b) expanding the longitudinal window of data
collection, and (c) increasing the qualitative data component while limiting the number of groups
that participants have to choose from. The remainder of this chapter will explore these three
directions.
Developing and Validating a New Purpose Measure
Since this study was conceived and conducted, several additional studies and reviews of
adolescent purpose have been published (e.g., Borden & Serido, 2009; Damon, 2008). None of
the newer literature, however, focuses specifically on emerging adults in extracurricular settings.
Taking the time to develop and test a measure similar to the Y.E.S. that targets purpose as it
relates to extracurricular activity participation for late adolescents would allow for a more
accurate picture of the role that purpose plays as a predictor and outcome of extracurricular
participation. This process could be undertaken either by creating an instrument from existing
validated measures and then testing and revising items after administering it to different groups,
or by starting with focus groups and building a completely new measure based on participant

60

feedback. Ideally, some combination of both approaches might be the best hope to develop a
measure that more completely assesses late adolescent purpose as it relates to extracurricular
participation.
Longer Longitudinal Study
The second direction researchers should consider is expanding the longitudinal data
collection window. As discussed in the limitations section, it is possible that differences were
developing that were not reflected in the data or differences were magnified because they were
just appearing. Additionally, collecting background and past participation data as students are
just starting their college career could be misleading as the participants are in the midst of a
major life transition.
Future studies could be designed that recruit participants during their senior year of high
school. This would allow for information related to current purpose and activity participation to
be collected at a minimum of three time points. In addition to starting data collection prior to
participant’s arrival on campus it would be desirable to extend the final data collection to the end
of the first year. By extending the time between the pre and post measures the participants
would have greater exposure to the activities and as a result the data should provide a more
accurate picture of the impact of extracurricular participation.
Limiting the Number and Types of Groups
The final possible future direction is to consider studies that reduce the variety and
improve the categorization of groups. Given that a primary goal of this line of inquiry is to
understand if and how purpose predicts participation in certain types of activities and how
specific activities impact the development of purpose it is crucial that group categorization be as
accurate as possible. As previously discussed, the large number of programs that participants

61

had to choose from limited my ability to develop a standardized categorization procedure.
Future studies could limit this issue by selecting a purposive sub-sample of organizations that fit
a particular categorization and recruit members from these groups. This approach would also
allow the researcher to try and focus on participants who were in activities that directly promote
engagement, which ultimately could help to alleviate the “watering down” effect mentioned
previously.

5

It is important to note that while this approach would help to address the issue of
categorization, it was the preferred strategy in this study and access, group size, and participant
recruitment necessitated abandoning the approach in order to recruit an appropriate sample. In
addition, this approach would be difficult to combine with the previous suggestion of beginning
data collection during participants’ senior year of high school. The only way to combine the two
approaches would be to oversample students at large “feeder” high schools during their senior
year and then target those students if/when they choose to participate in the target organizations.
Conclusion
To paraphrase the famous sociologist C.W. Mills, research is a challenging and arduous
task, which should be conducted only if there is not an already accepted and accessible answer
(Mills, 1959). In the case of this study it was also necessary not only for the researcher to
complete the requirements for a degree but to begin to increase our understanding of purpose as
it relates to extracurricular participation.
Given the present findings and the relative newness of the study of purpose during
emerging adulthood, coupled with the role of extracurricular activities there are an infinite
number of questions and issues that emerge. Exploring these questions will provide many
5

In designing the present study this was considered but because of access limitations, potential
bias, and possible validity threats it was decided not to adopt this approach.

62

scholars both job security and opportunities for creative study designs in the attempt to better
understand the relationship between purpose, civic engagement, and extracurricular participation
before and during emerging adulthood.

63

APPENDICES

64

Appendix 1
Understanding First Year College Student Extracurricular Participation

Email address: ____________________________________________
(will be kept confidential and only used to communicate with you regarding this study)
Background information:
1) What was your High school GPA? _____________
2) What is your current age?_____________
3) What is your gender?_______________
4) What is your current major?_____________
5) Did you participate in extracurricular activities in high school?_____________
6) If you answered yes to number 5 please circle all of the activity types that apply.
Music

athletics

religious groups

theatre

academic club

service groups

political groups

debate

student government

occupation related club

social club

other_______________________
7) Do you plan to participate in extracurricular activities at MSU?_____________
8) If you answered yes to number 7 please circle all of the activity types that apply.
Music

athletics

religious groups

academic club service groups political groups
student government

theatre

debate

occupation related club

other______________________

65

social club

Participant views:
Please read each of the following sentences carefully. For each sentence, please think about how
you are most of the time and rate each of the following statements from 1=strongly agree to
5=strongly disagree.
1) “I often think about doing things so that people in my future can have things better”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

2) “It is important to me to contribute to my community and society”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

3) “In achieving life goals I have made no progress whatsoever”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4) “I feel like I have a purpose in my life”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

5) “In thinking about my life I wonder why I exist”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

Please read each of the following sentences carefully. For each sentence, please think about how
you are in most situations. Circle the answer that describes YOU the best. There are no right or
wrong answers.
6) I think I am doing pretty well.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

7) I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

66

Most of
the time

All of
the time

8) I am doing just as well as other people my age.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

9) When I have a problem, I can come up with lots of ways to solve it.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

10) I think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

11) Even when other want to quit, I know that I can find ways to solve the problem.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

Please read each of the following sentences carefully. For each sentence, please think about how
you are most of the time and rate each of the following statements from 1=strongly agree to
5=strongly disagree.
12) I have definitely decided on the occupation I want to pursue.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

13) I don’t expect to change my political principles and ideals.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

14) I have considered adopting different kinds of religious beliefs.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

15) There has never been a need to question my values.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

67

16) I am very confident about what kinds of friends are best for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

17) My ideas about men’s and women’s roles have never changed as I became older.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

18) I will always vote for the same political party.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

19) I have firmly held views concerning my role in my family.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

20) I have engaged in several discussions concerning behaviors involved in dating relationships.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

21) I have considered different political views thoughtfully.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

22) I have never questioned my views concerning what kind of friend is best for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

23) My values are likely to change in the future.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

24) When I talk to people about religion, I make sure to voice my opinion.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

25) I am not sure about what type of dating relationship is best for me.

68

1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

26) I have not felt the need to reflect upon the importance I place on my family.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

27) Regarding religion, my beliefs are likely to change in the near future.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

28) I have definite views regarding the ways in which men and women should behave.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

29) I have tried to learn about different occupational fields to find the best one for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

30) I have undergone several experiences that made me change my views on men’s and women’s
roles.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

31) I have consistently re-examined many different values in order to find the ones which are
best for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

32) I think what I look for in a friend could change in the future.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

69

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

33) I have questioned what kind of date is right for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

34) I am unlikely to alter my vocational goals.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

35) I have evaluated many ways in which I fit into my family structure.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

36) My ideas about men’s and women’s roles will never change.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

37) I have never questioned my political beliefs.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

38) I have had many experiences that led me to review the qualities that I would like my friends
to have.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

39) I have discussed religious matters with a number of people who believe differently than I do.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

40) I am not sure that the values I hold are right for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

41) I have never questioned my occupational aspirations.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

70

42) The extent to which I value my family is likely to change in the future.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

43) My beliefs about dating are firmly held.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

71

Appendix 2
Understanding First Year College Student Extracurricular Participation
1) Email address: ____________________________________________
(will be kept confidential and only used to communicate with you regarding this study)
2) Have you participate in extracurricular activities at MSU?_____________
3) If you answered yes to number 2 please circle all of the activity types that apply.
Music

athletics

religious groups

theatre

academic club

service groups

political groups

debate

student government

occupation related club

social club

other______________________
4) If you will not be participating in any extracurricular activities please tell us why.
Academic commitments

work

financial reasons

other_____________________

72

not interested

Participant views:
Please read each of the following sentences carefully. For each sentence, please think about how
you are most of the time and rate each of the following statements from 1=strongly agree to
5=strongly disagree.
1) “I often think about doing things so that people in my future can have things better”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

2) “It is important to me to contribute to my community and society”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

3) “In achieving life goals I have made no progress whatsoever”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4) “I feel like I have a purpose in my life”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

5) “In thinking about my life I wonder why I exist”
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

Please read each of the following sentences carefully. For each sentence, please think about how
you are in most situations. Circle the answer that describes YOU the best. There are no right or
wrong answers.
6) I think I am doing pretty well.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

7) I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

73

Most of
the time

All of
the time

8) I am doing just as well as other people my age.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

9) When I have a problem, I can come up with lots of ways to solve it.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

10) I think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

11) Even when other want to quit, I know that I can find ways to solve the problem.
None of
the time

A little of
the time

Some of
the time

A lot of
the time

Most of
the time

All of
the time

Please read each of the following sentences carefully. For each sentence, please think about how
you are most of the time and rate each of the following statements from 1=strongly agree to
5=strongly disagree.
12) I have definitely decided on the occupation I want to pursue.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

13) I don’t expect to change my political principles and ideals.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

14) I have considered adopting different kinds of religious beliefs.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

15) There has never been a need to question my values.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

74

16) I am very confident about what kinds of friends are best for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

17) My ideas about men’s and women’s roles have never changed as I became older.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

18) I will always vote for the same political party.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

19) I have firmly held views concerning my role in my family.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

20) I have engaged in several discussions concerning behaviors involved in dating relationships.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

21) I have considered different political views thoughtfully.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

22) I have never questioned my views concerning what kind of friend is best for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

23) My values are likely to change in the future.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

24) When I talk to people about religion, I make sure to voice my opinion.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

25) I am not sure about what type of dating relationship is best for me.

75

1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

26) I have not felt the need to reflect upon the importance I place on my family.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

27) Regarding religion, my beliefs are likely to change in the near future.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

28) I have definite views regarding the ways in which men and women should behave.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

29) I have tried to learn about different occupational fields to find the best one for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

30) I have undergone several experiences that made me change my views on men’s and women’s
roles.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

31) I have consistently re-examined many different values in order to find the ones which are
best for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

32) I think what I look for in a friend could change in the future.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

76

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

33) I have questioned what kind of date is right for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

34) I am unlikely to alter my vocational goals.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

35) I have evaluated many ways in which I fit into my family structure.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

36) My ideas about men’s and women’s roles will never change.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

37) I have never questioned my political beliefs.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

38) I have had many experiences that led me to review the qualities that I would like my friends
to have.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

39) I have discussed religious matters with a number of people who believe differently than I do.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

40) I am not sure that the values I hold are right for me.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

41) I have never questioned my occupational aspirations.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

77

42) The extent to which I value my family is likely to change in the future.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

4
disagree

5
strongly disagree

43) My beliefs about dating are firmly held.
1
strongly agree

2
agree

3
neutral

End of Semester Reflection (Last set of Questions)
Instructions: Based on your current or recent involvement in the TARGET ACTIVITY, please
rate whether you have had the following experiences.
1 = Yes,
2 = Quite a Bit
3 = A Little Bit
4 = Not at All
1. I consider the activity I am choosing to focus on to be an example of which type of activity
(choose only one).
Music

athletics

religious groups

academic club service groups political groups
student government

theatre

debate

occupation related club

social club

other______________________
2. I am rating whether or not I have had the following experiences in (choose one activity you
have participated in this semester at MSU)
______________________
3. Tried doing new things 1 2 3 4
4. Tried a new way of acting around people 1 2 3 4
5. I do things here I don’t get to do anywhere else 1 2 3 4
6. Started thinking more about my future because of this activity 1 2 3 4
7. This activity got me thinking about who I am 1 2 3 4

78

8. This activity has been a positive turning point in my life 1 2 3 4
9. I set goals for myself in this activity 1 2 3 4
10. Learned to find ways to achieve my goals 1 2 3 4
11. Learned to consider possible obstacles when making plans 1 2 3 4
12. I put all my energy into this activity 1 2 3 4
13. Learned to push myself 1 2 3 4
14. Learned to focus my attention 1 2 3 4
15. Observed how others solved problems and learned from them 1 2 3 4
16. Learned about developing plans for solving a problem 1 2 3 4
17. Used my imagination to solve a problem 1 2 3 4
18. Learned about organizing time and not procrastinating (not
putting things off) 1 2 3 4
19. Learned about setting priorities 1 2 3 4
20. Practiced self discipline 1 2 3 4
21. Made friends with someone of the opposite gender 1 2 3 4
22. Learned I had a lot in common with people from different backgrounds
1234
23. Got to know someone from a different ethnic group 1 2 3 4
24. Mad friends with someone from a different social class (someone richer or poorer 1 2 3 4
25. Learned about helping others 1 2 3 4
26. I was able to change my school or community for the better 1 2 3 4
27. Learned to stand up for something that I believe was morally right 1 2 3 4
28. We discussed morals and values 1 2 3 4
29. Learned that working together require some compromising 1 2 3 4

79

30. Became better at sharing responsibility 1 2 3 4
31. Learned to be patient with other group members 1 2 3 4
32. Learned how my emotions and attitude affect others in the group 1 2 3 4
33. Learned that it is not necessary to like people in order to work with them
1234
34. I became better at giving feedback 1 2 3 4
35. I became better at taking feedback 1 2 3 4
36. Learned about the challenges of being a leader 1 2 3 4
37. Others in this activity counted on me 1 2 3 4
38. Had an opportunity to be in charge of a group of peers 1 2 3 4

80

REFERENCES

81

References
Balistreri, E., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Geisinger, K. F. (1995). Development and preliminary
validation of the ego identity process questionnaire. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 179-192.
Bohnert, A., Fredricks, J., & Randall, E. (2010). Capturing unique dimensions of youth
organized activity involvement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Review
of Educational Research, 80, 576-610.
Borden, L., & Serido, J. (2009). From program participant to engaged citizen: A developmental
journey. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 423-438.
Clydesdale, T. (2007). The first year out: Understanding American teens after high school.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2
nd

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design (2

nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence.
Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119-128.
Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose. New York: Freepress.
Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching
band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent
Research, 14(1), 10-43.
Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and
adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865-889.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Feldman, A., & Matjasko, J. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in
adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of
Educational Research, 75, 159-210.
Flanagan, C. (2003). Developmental Roots of Political Engagement. PS: Political Science and
Politics, 36, 257-261.
Flanagan, C. & Faison, N. (2001). Youth Civic Development: Implications of Research for
Social Policy and Programs. Social Policy Report, 15(1), 3-14.
Flanagan, C., Syversten, A., Stout, M. (2007). Civic measurement models: Tapping adolescents’
civic engagement. CIRCLE Working Paper 55.

82

Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man's Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon.
Fredricks, J., & Eccles, J. (2006). Extracurricular Involvement and Adolescent Adjustment:
Impact of Duration, Number of Activities, and Breadth of Participation. Applied
Developmental Science, 10(3), 132-146.
Ginwrlght, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents: social justice, organizing, and youth
development. New Directions for Youth Development, 96, 27-46.
Goldman-Segall, R. (1998). Points of viewing, children's thinking: A digital ethnographer's
journey. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hansen, D., & Larson, R. W. (2002). The youth experience survey 1.0: instrument
development and testing. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
Hansen, D., Larson, R., & Dworkin, J. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth
activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 13(1), 25-55.
Hart, R.A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Innocenti Essay, 4,
Florence. Italy: UNICEF ICDC.
J-ideas. (2007). From the “Future of The First Amendment” project at Ball State University.
Retrieved 4/5/07 from: http://firstamendment.jideas.org/about/profileofactivities.php
Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., & Anderson, P. M. (2005). The 4-H study of positive youth
development: The relationship between purpose in development: Tufts University.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al.
(2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development
programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: findings from the first
wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early Adolescence,
25(1), 17-71.
Mahoney, J. L., Eccles, J. S., Larson, R., & Lord, H. (2005). Organized activities as
developmental contexts for children and adolescents. In J. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J.
Eccles, (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular
activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 3–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
MSU. (2008). From the "Department of Student Life" at Michigan State University. Retrieved
5/22/08 from http:// www.studentlife.msu.edu/current_students/rso/orgs_a_e.htm
NIOST. (2005). Making the case: Fact sheet on children and youth in out-of-school time.
National Institute on Out-of-School Time.

83

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Rowan-Kenyon, H., Soldner, M., & Inkelas, K. (2007). The Contributions of Living-Learning
Programs on Developing Sense of Civic Engagement in Undergraduate Students. NASPA
Journal, 44, 750-778.
Schwartz, S. J., Côté, J. E., & Arnett, J. J. (2005). Identity and agency in emerging adulthood:
two developmental routes in the individualization process. Youth and Society, 37, 201229.
Sherrod, L. R., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities
for youth development: The what, why, when, where, and who of citizenship
development. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 262-272.
Sherrod, L.R. (2005). Ensuring liberty by promoting youth development. Human Development,
48, 376–381.
Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., et al. (1997). The
development and validation of the children's hope scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
22, 399-421.
Survey Monkey [Computer Software]. Palo Alto, CA.
Verba, S., Scholzman, L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in
American life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. A. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A
developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology.
35(6), 779-792.
Youniss, J., McClellan, J.A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering
civic identity. American Behavioral Scientists, 40, 620–631.

84