.im$

5. tluvxi. Tl)

.‘ II.
..I>5.x!-9LI.T:I . t
Il‘églvaht i
but; 3.». o.zil|t
$113.22”:

 

- 1. . .
.2 V! 3......) .5:
$31.13... I...

i.‘ . =2.

 

 

.3&\

u. Pub-o...

 

:2

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Universrty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

STUDENTS' PERSPECTIVES ON THE UNDERGRADUATE
EDUCATION IN THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Doctoral

 

presented by

Krishna Mohan Shrestha

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the
degree in Community, Agriculture,
Recreation and Resource
Studies

 

/Z((£W Quake;

 

Major Professor’s Signature
75:19 2 7 , 2 6" 6’ 7
I ,

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Aoc&Pres/ClRC/DateDuo.hdd

STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN THE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY

By

Krishna Mohan Shrestha

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2009

ABSTRACT
STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN
THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Krishna Mohan Shrestha

The general purpose of this study was to assess students’ perspectives on the
undergraduate education in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) at
Michigan State University (MSU). The study population was undergraduate students in
the CANR at MSU from 2004 to 2008. This study utilized mixed methods: online
surveys and focus group interviews.

This dissertation is a compilation of four individual papers (Chapter Two to
Chapter Five). Findings of the first paper revealed that a high majority of the respondents
were White-Caucasians females from suburban or urban communities, and residents of
the state of Michigan. The transfer students from other universities/colleges and from
within the MSU accounted for nearly two-thirds (63.8%) of the CANR students. Family
and friends were the most influential sources of information, followed by
university/college websites and printed materials used by respondents to learn about the
CANR programs. Academic program/curriculum, reputation of the College, and
opportunity for internships were the top three important factors influencing students’
decision to enter the CANR programs. Other important factors influencing respondents’

decision to enter CAN R majors were academic advising; recommendations of friends,

alumni, and family members; and opportunity for study abroad.

Findings of the second paper showed a weekly time use profile of students in
various academic and extracurricular activities as follows: preparing for class (15.2
hours), working on-campus (13.5 hours), working off-campus (16.9 hours), participating
in co-curricular activities (6.1 hours), relaxing and socializing (16.2 hours), providing
care for dependents (11.6 hours), and commuting to class (5.0 hours). The results showed
that respondents spent more time working and socializing than preparing for class.

Findings of the third paper indicated that respondents felt that most required
courses were offered every year, courses were taught by experienced faculty members
who were approachable and accessible outside of classrooms, and academic advising was
highly satisfactory. Study results indicated that the curricula in the CANR are not very
highly internationalized.

Findings of the fourth paper showed that the Dean’s Office provided such services
as study abroad information and scholarships, undergraduate research grants, career
advising services, and administrative support to change and/or declare academic majors.
Results indicated that the majority of participants were satisfied with the assistance they
received from both the Dean’s Office and the academic departments/schools. With regard
to employable skills, the majority of participants spoke highly about the technical skills
and competencies they developed through hands-on learning activities. But only a few
participants indicated that they had developed diversity skills, computer technology and
database skills, research skills, business skills, and leadership Skills. Therefore, the

CANR program should be geared towards developing these employable skills in students.

DEDICATION

Dedicated to my late grandparents: Buddhi Man Shrestha and Ratna Kumari Shrestha.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my major advisor, Dr. Murari Suvedi,
who has been instrumental in accomplishing my graduate studies at Michigan State
University. I would also like to thank to my advisory committee members, Dr. Rick
Paulsen, Dr. Linda Kalof, Dr. Kelley Millenbah, and Dr. Eunice Foster, for their valuable
suggestions to improve my dissertation papers. I am indebted to Dr. Eunice Foster,
Associate Dean for Academic Programs in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources at Michigan State University, for providing me Graduate Assistantships and
Summer Retention Fellowships.

I would like to express my deepest love to my wife Kalpana Shrestha and
children: Ashish Shrestha, Amrit Shrestha, and Anuj Shrestha, for their moral support
during my entire doctoral study period. It would have been very difficult for me to
complete my doctoral degree without my family’s support. I also truly appreciate my
elderly parents’ dedication and blessings for my advanced degree.

A number of friends and families have been a great help during the research and
writing phase of my dissertation. I extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Dan Hudson for
helping me conduct focus group interviews by taking notes. My family received a great
support from Dr. Dan Hudson and his family during my difficult time at Michigan State
University.

Thanks are due to Dr. Raju Tarnot, for his support in making an IRB application
for my dissertation research, and Evan Like, Kristina Quynn, and Benjamin Bryant for

their editorial help in my dissertation. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to

my graduate colleagues Rohit J indal, Mamta Vardhan, Taylor Reid, Eric Bailey, John
Coombs, Luis Flores, and Eunseong Jeong for their continuous moral and intellectual

support.

Last but not least, I would like to thank Dr. Robert M. Gonyea, Associate
Director, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, for sharing the findings

of time use data for the 2008 NSSE Survey.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 1
Research Objectives ...................................................................................................... 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 5
i. Online survey .................................................................................................... 6
ii. Focus group interview ....................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................................. 12
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 13
' REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER II ..................................................................................................................... 17
WHO ARE THE STUDENTS OF THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY? ........................... 17
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 7
Objectives ................................................................................................................... 24
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 25
Results and Discussions .............................................................................................. 27
Demographic characteristics of respondents ........................................................ 27
Sources of students in the CAN R ......................................................................... 33
Sources of information used by the respondents .................................................. 38
Factors in deciding the CANR majors .................................................................. 43
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 52
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 58
CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................... 62

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ USE OF TIME IN THE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY ................................................................................................................... 62
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 62
Objectives ................................................................................................................... 63
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 64
Results and Discussions .............................................................................................. 66

Description of the respondents .............................................................................. 66

Use of time by respondents ................................................................................... 67
Comparison of time use between the CANR and NS SE study ............................. 72

Time use and demographic characteristics ........................................................... 75
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 88
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 94

vii

CHAPTER TV ................................................................................................................... 96
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT ACADEMIC PROGRAMS IN THE COLLEGE
OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY ................................................................................................................... 96
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 96
Objectives ................................................................................................................. 101
Methodology ............................................................................................................. 101
Results and Discussions ............................................................................................ 104

Description of respondents ................................................................................. 104
Perceptions about academic advising ................................................................. 108
Internationalization of the CAN R curricula ........................................................ 113
Demographic profile of study abroad participants in the CANR ....................... 118
Strengths of the CANR programs ....................................................................... 124
Weaknesses Of the CANR programs ................................................................... 128
Suggestions to improve the CAN R programs ..................................................... 136
Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................... 143
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 148
CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................. 155

WHAT GRADUATTNG SENIORS SAY ABOUT THEIR COLLEGE EXPERIENCE:
A CASESTUDY OF THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL

RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ............................................... 155
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 55
Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1 57
Methodology ............................................................................................................. 158

i. Online survey ................................................................................................ 158
ii. Focus group interview ................................................................................... 159
Results and Discussions ............................................................................................ 163
Online survey results ........................................................................................... 164
Characteristics of online survey participants ...................................................... 164
Perceptions of services or assistance provided by the CANR Dean’s Office ..... 164
Perceptions of departmental services .................................................................. 167
Contribution of academic major to development of skills .................................. 172
Focus group interview results ............................................................................. 174
Characteristics of focus group participants ......................................................... 174
Perceptions of services or assistance provided by the CANR Dean’s Office ..... 175
Suggestions to improve services provided by the CANR Dean’s Office ........... 177
Perceptions of departmental services .................................................................. 181
Contributions of academic major to development of skills ................................ 193
Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................... 209

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 215

CHAPTER VI ................................................................................................................. 222

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 222
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 225
Conclusions and Recommendations .................. ‘ ....................................................... 232

viii

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 237

Appendix A. Current Student Survey Instrument .................................................... 237
Appendix B. Senior Exit Survey Instrument ........................................................... 244
Appendix C. Sample Invitation Letter to Focus Group Participants ....................... 249
Appendix D. Script for Conducting the Focus Group Interview ............................. 250
Appendix E. Trend of Fall Enrollment in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources at Michigan State University (Fall 1994-Fall 2008) ................................ 253
Appendix F. Literature Review: Influential Factors and Sources of Information for
Choosing Agriculture College Major ........................................................................ 254
Appendix G. Literature Review: Influential Factors for Choosing Agriculture College
Major ......................................................................................................................... 256
Appendix H. Ranking of Factors Deciding the CANR Major for FFA/4-H
Respondents .............................................................................................................. 257
Appendix I. Results of Post Hoc (Tukey) Test for Multiple Comparisons by
Academic Levels of Respondents ............................................................................. 258
Appendix J. Difference between Participants and Non-Participants of 4-H/FFA for
Time Use on Various Activities (hours/week) .......................................................... 260
Appendix K. Difference between Members and Non-Members of National Honor
Society for Time Use on Various Activities (hours/week) ....................................... 261
Appendix L. Demographic Characteristics of Current Students ............................. 262
Appendix M. Perceptions about Major Courses and Faculty Help by Selected
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents .......................................................... 264
Appendix N. Perceptions about Major Courses and Faculty Help by Academic Status
and Residency of Respondents ................................................................................. 265
Appendix 0. Perceptions about Academic Advising by Selected Demographic
Characteristics of Respondents ................................................................................. 266
Appendix P. Perceptions about Academic Advising by Selected Demographic
Characteristics of Respondents (continued) .............................................................. 267
Appendix Q. Chi-square Test for Association between Selected Demographic
Characteristics and Courses taken at MSU Focusing on International Issues .......... 268

Appendix R. Chi-square Test for Association between Respondents’ Academic
Status and Frequency of International Issues and/or Case Studies Shared by Faculty

Member in the Classrooms ....................................................................................... 269
Appendix S. Chi-square Test for Association between Selected Demographic
Characteristics and Involvement in International Research/Outreach Project ......... 270
Appendix T. Chi-square Test for Association between Selected Demographic
Characteristics and Participation in Study Abroad ................................................... 271
Appendix U. Recommendations to Improve CANR Programs by
Departments/Schools ................................................................................................ 272
Appendix V. Literature Review: Employers’ Ratings of Important Employable
Skills/Characteristics ................................................................................................. 273
Appendix W. Literature Review: Alumni Ratings of Important Employable
Skills/Characteristics ................................................................................................. 275
Appendix X. Demographic Characteristics of Graduating Seniors .......................... 276
Appendix Y. Primary Major of Respondents (Spring 2004-Spring 2008) .............. 278

ix

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.

Table 21.

LIST OF TABLES

Demographic characteristics of respondents ..................................................... 28
Demographic characteristics of respondents (continued) .................................. 30
Respondents’ primary majors in the CANR ...................................................... 32
Respondents’ entrance to the CANR programs ................................................. 34
Respondents’ entrance to the CANR programs by major .................................. 37
Sources of information used by respondents to learn about the CANR majors 40

Factors in deciding the CANR majors ............................................................... 45
Respondents’ weekly time use by survey year (hours/week) ............................ 68
Time use in the CANR study at MSU and the NSSE 2008 study ..................... 74
Time use (hour/week) by academic level of respondents in the CANR .......... 77
Time use (hours/week) by gender of respondents ........................................... 81
Time use (hours/week) by ethnicity of respondents ........................................ 83
Time use (hours/week) by residence types of respondents .............................. 85
Respondents’ perceptions of course offering and faculty help ...................... 106
Respondents’ perceptions of academic advising ........................................... 110
Internationalization of the CANR curricula ................................................... 114
Profile of study abroad participants in the CANR ......................................... 120
Strengths of the CANR programs .................................................................. 124
Weaknesses of the CANR programs ............................................................. 129
Suggestions to improve the CANR programs ................................................ 137
Perceptions of College services .................................................................... 166

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Perceptions of departmental services ............................................................. 169

Perceptions of departmental services (continued) ......................................... 171
Development of employable skills ................................................................ 173
Support and services available in academic departments/schools ................. 182
Skills developed by students in the CANR .................................................... 193

xi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement

Colleges of Agriculture in higher education institutions in the United States are
challenged by several factors, most importantly changes in agriculture and food systems,
changing student demography, declining federal and state financial support, increasing
tuition and college education costs, and the globalization of the economy.

American agriculture went through tremendous transformation following World
War 11. Farm mechanization, increased availability of chemical inputs, and advances in
plant and animal breeding enhanced growth in agricultural productivity of the US. farms
(Dimitri et al., 2005). Contemporary American agriculture is characterized by a small
number of big, mechanized, and specialized farms concentrated in rural areas. Along
with the changes in agricultural systems came changes in consumer preferences for
agricultural products. More and more people became food and health literate which
dictated production of certain agricultural produce (Gilmore et al., 2006). These changes
in agriculture and food systems have both posed challenges and offered opportunities to
colleges of agriculture to reform their academic programs.

Another challenge to agriculture academic programs involves demographic
changes in the composition of college students. Findings of the Higher Education
Research Institute (2007) indicate that the entering full-time freshmen Asian American
students’ population has nearly doubled each decade increasing from 0.6% in 1971 to
8.6% in 2006. The grth in the Hispanic student population is very similar to that of

the Asian American students. In addition, the number of baccalaureate degree recipients

of Hispanic graduates has recently surpassed the number of African-American and Asian
or Pacific Islanders (Gilmore et al., 2006).

Additionally, from 1966 to 2006 there has been a shift in the gender composition
of college freshmen towards more female representation (55%) (Higher Education
Research Institute, 2007). According to the National Center for Educational Statistics
(2005), women have increasingly represented the majority of undergraduates, from 52
percent in 1980 to 56% in 2001 (Peter and Horn, 2005). Women also surpassed men in
the number of awards received in associate’s and bachelor’s degrees over the same
period.

Traditionally, students in colleges of agriculture were from farm or rural
backgrounds. But some studies have indicated that more agriculture freshmen are
coming from urban backgrounds with no prior experience or knowledge in agriculture
(Dyer et al., 1999; Dyer et al., 1996; Scofield, 1995). Russel (1993) argues that the lack
of agricultural background could jeopardize the long-term future of the agricultural
industry.

Shrinking federal and state funding has consequently compelled public
universities to raise tuition, which has a direct impact on student enrollment, especially
the low income student population. According to McPherson and Shulenburger (2008),
over the last 20 years, real per student state spending to support public higher education
has declined, forcing universities to increase tuition to offset dwindling state support.
The increase in tuition has raised the issues of access to and affordability of higher
education, particularly for minority students. Access to and affordability of higher

education is primarily associated with increasing college tuition and fees on the one hand,

and declining state financial support to higher education on the other hand (Rosenstone,
2004). Increased tuition and fees have a direct impact on college enrollments among
students of lower income in their first college choice. According to the American
Freshman Survey (2006), nearly one-third of college freshmen did not attend their top
choice of schools for financial reasons (Higher Education Research Institute, 2007).

The technological revolution in communication and information technology,
especially the intemet, has made knowledge highly portable (Carnoy, 2005). How does
globalization affect higher education? It has a profound impact on higher education,
especially the colleges of agriculture in land-grant universities because global markets are
increasingly important to US. farmers. Land-grant institutions have the responsibility of
creating and disseminating knowledge and transforming lives of not only US. citizens
but also the global society because effects of globalization transcend national boundaries
(Hudzik, 2004). To enhance the global competitiveness of US. agriculture through
human resource development, the National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges (NASULGC) has urged institutions to globalize undergraduate and
graduate curricula, provide leadership development in a global context, encourage pursuit
of related scholarly objectives and knowledge creation, and create cross-cultural
competency and understanding (NASULGC, 1997). Recognizing the roles of its
institutions in the context of globalization, NASULGC developed a vision statement and
action plan for intemationalizing the universities in 2000. “Internationalization of
curriculum” was one of the seven goals of the vision statement and action plan suggested

by NASULGC to its member institutions when intemationalizing their universities and

campuses. In 2004, NASULGC stated, “internationalization helps them [students] to
develop the global critical thinking essential to contributing as citizens of the world and
competing in the international marketplace” (N ASULGC, Executive Summary, page
viii), as one of the four good reasons to intemationalize university in a call for leadership
(NASULGC, 2004).

In the changing context of US. agriculture and food systems, demography of
student population, shrinking financial support from government, increasing tuition and
college education costs, and globalization of economy, it is imperative that an institution
assess its academic programs by getting feedback from its students. Thus, this study
investigates how the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CAN R) at Michigan
State University (MSU) is meeting the educational needs of its students by addressing the
following research questions:

1. Who are the undergraduate students in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources? What are their demographic characteristics?

2. What motivated students join the CAN R program?

3. What is the weekly time use profile of students in various academic and extra-
curricular activities?

4. How do students perceive course offerings, academic advising, and
internationalization of curricula in the CAN R?

5. What do graduating seniors say about their college experience?

Research Objectives

The general objective of this study is to analyze and describe the perspectives of
undergraduate students regarding their experiences in the CANR at MSU. The specific
objectives are to:

1. describe the demographic profile of students, identify how they learn about the

CANR majors, and what made them enter the CANR programs.

2. determine students’ weekly time use in various academic and extracurricular
activities.
3. assess students’ perceptions about course offerings, academic advising, and

internationalization of curricula in the CAN R.

4. describe graduating seniors’ perceptions about college and departmental
services and employability upon graduation.

5. analyze students’ comments about strengths and weaknesses of the
undergraduate programs within the CANR and solicit their suggestions to

improve the undergraduate education.

Methodology

This study utilized mix-methods for data collection. Online surveys were used to
collect quantitative data from undergraduate students between 2004 and 2008. Focus
group interviews were conducted to solicit opinions and feedback from the CANR

graduating seniors of 2008. The methods and procedures followed are described below:

i. Online survey

Two online surveys—one for the current undergraduate students and another for
the graduating seniors only—were conducted between 2004 and 2008. The current
undergraduate students included all students except graduating seniors. The survey
instruments were developed by Dr. Murari Suvedi, Professor in the Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies (CARRS) at MSU and Dr.
Eunice Foster, Associate Dean for the Undergraduate Program in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources at MSU. The instrument was developed after a
careful review of literature on students’ assessment of undergraduate programs. The
draft instrument was shared with the CAN R assessment committee members,
undergraduate advisors, and coordinators to ensure the face and content validity. The
final survey instrument was prepared by incorporating the comments and suggestions
received from CANR assessment committee members, undergraduate advisors, and
coordinators.

The online survey instrument for the current student had five parts (Appendix A).
Part A was designed to solicit students’ academic information: academic status, primary
major, dual major, second degree; entrance to CANR, sources of information used to
learn about the college majors in CANR, and important factors that contributed to the
decision to enter their current CANR majors. Part B was aimed at getting feedback on
major courses, faculty, academic advising, and internationalization of CANR curricula.
Part C was designed to measure students’ time use, the approximate hours spent per week

on various activities. Part D sought students’ demographic information. Part E was

intended to get some additional comments through open-ended questions on strengths,
weaknesses, and recommendations.

Similarly, the survey instrument for the graduating seniors had four parts
(Appendix B). Part A sought students’ academic information. Part B assessed college
and departmental services, academic preparation, and skills development. Part C sought
students’ demographic information, and Part D contained three open-ended questions on
strengths, and weaknesses of the undergraduate programs and recommendations to
enhance programs. The reliability of each scale in both online surveys was established
using Chronbach’s alpha procedure.

The electronic mail addresses of the current undergraduate students and the
graduating seniors were obtained from the Office of the Dean in the CANR. Online web-
based surveys were created and administered by the Center for Evaluative Studies in the
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies (CARRS) at
MSU. Online surveys were sent to all the current and graduating senior undergraduate
students through e-mail in a personalized “cover letter” along with the web-address or
hyperlink of the survey. Students were asked to “click” on the hyperlink in the e-mail
text to display or access the web-based survey. Once the student completed the survey
and hit the “submit” buttOn, data were automatically collected in web-based database.
The survey of the current undergraduate students was administered once a year during
March and April from 2004 to 2008. The graduating seniors’ surveys were administered
fall and spring semester (i.e. twice a year) when the senior students applied for

graduation.

The response rate for the current undergraduate student survey varied from 9.5%
to 34.4%. The response rates were 30.8%, 9.5%, 25.4%, 22.2%, and 34.4% in 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively. The overall response rates for the five-year
study was 24.5%. For the graduating senior survey, response rates varied from 22.6% to
44.4%. Response rates were 44.4%, 31.3%, 23.9%, 22.6%, and 41.0% for each academic
year from 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 respectively. The overall
response rate for the graduating senior surveys for five-year study was 32.6%.

To increase the survey response rate, participants were informed in the e-mail
cover letter that a free two-scoop ice-cream coupon would be provided, as a token of
appreciation, to each participant who completed the survey. Survey participants were
informed to pick up a coupon from the MSU Dairy store located in Anthony Hall.
Additionally, survey reminders were sent after one week and again a week before the ice-
crearn event to enhance the survey response rate.

The data analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS
15) for Windows. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency, mean and
standard deviation), test of difference, and test of association. The detailed method of

data analysis is described in each paper.

ii. Focus group interview

This study also used focus group approach to collect data fi'om the graduating
seniors. The primary purpose of the focus group interview was the need for exploring
indepth information on the perspectives of graduating seniors about their academic
experiences in the CANR. Various authors (Alreck and Settle, 2004; Larson et al., 2004;

Krueger and Casey, 2000) suggest that focus groups be conducted with a clear plan in a

carefully designed and controlled process and environment. In this study, focus groups
were conducted by adopting the following procedure:

An easily accessible focus group venue was reserved. Participants were identified
with the help of the Associate Dean and Coordinator of the Undergraduate Program, by
contacting the undergraduate advisors and coordinators in each academic department
and/or school within the CAN R. Upon receiving the list of potential participants from
their respective advisors, the researcher sent e-mail letters inviting them to participate in
focus group interviews (Appendix C). Twenty-three participants, representing both
gender and students of color, were selected for three focus group sessions.

A focus group discussion guide (interview protocol) was developed to help
moderator lead the discussions (Appendix D). A short and clear script helped moderator
keep discussion on track, and finish the interview within the stipulated time. The script
also contained some ground rules which helped moderator control environment and keep
the discussion on track. I

The researcher moderated the focus group interview sessions by following the
discussion guide or interview protocol. One assistant moderator helped the principal
moderator by taking notes. All three focus group discussions were audio-taped to
transcribe and analyze the data later.

Focus group interviews demand several logistical managements such as a meeting
room equipped with necessary audio and visual aids, light, room temperature, space,
arrangement of tables and chairs, stationary (writing pad, pencils, name cards),
refreshments, and incentives to participants. Since interview sessions were organized for

an hour, participants were provided drinks and pizza in the beginning. At the end of

focus groups, each participant received $20.00 in cash as an incentive to compensate
travel expenses and time.

Analysis of the data started with reviewing notes and transcribing audio tapes. A
debriefing session with an assistant moderator was scheduled immediately after the focus
group interview. The audio tapes were transcribed verbatim and key themes were
identified that emerged from the discussions for each session. Opinions and ideas were
compared and contrasted between the focus groups. A few quotations were used to

illustrate the key points as appropriate.

Definition of Terms

The researcher has defined the following terms for the purpose and context of this

research as:

Academic advising
Any advice or guidance provided by an instructor or faculty member to his or her
advisee through formal or informal interaction to help accomplish an academic
goal in his or her major.

Assessment
Erwin (1991) has defined assessment as “...the process of defining, selecting,
designing, collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and using information to increase
students’ learning and development.” (Erwin, 1991, p. 15)

College services
Assistance provided to students by the College of Agriculture and Natural

Resources at Michigan State University.

10

Departmental/School services
Departmental/ School services refer to the services provided to students through
faculty, departmental chairs, and secretaries to facilitate students’ learning goals
in their majors.

Graduating senior
Student who has successfully completed his or her academic program and filed
for the graduation; he or she might be still on campus or may have left campus
already.

Internationalization of curricula
The extent to which the content of the curricula includes international issues in
agriculture and natural resources or any research and educational program such as
study abroad program in the CANR.

Skills
Competencies related to academic program goals developed by students by going
through the experiential learning process.

Sources of information
Any means or media that will help students to be aware of the program.

Time use
Students’ allocation of time. or amount of time (hours per week) spent in various
activities, such as class preparation, work, extracurricular activities, providing

care for dependents, and commuting to class.

11

Traditional and Non-traditional students
Students from 18 to 24 years old were considered traditional undergraduate

students, and those 25 years and older were regarded as non-traditional.

Organization of the Dissertation

This dissertation is composed of six chapters. The first chapter is an introduction
to the dissertation. It introduces the subject matter and sets the stage for the issues
covered in this study. It defines the research problem, including research questions, study
objectives, methodologies, and definition of terms.

The second chapter is the first individual paper entitled “Who are the Students of
the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University?” The
general objective of this paper is to document the comprehensive demographic profile of
students and identify the reasons for their decision to join the CANR programs.
Specifically, the paper attempts to identify and analyze where students came from to the
CANR and how they learned about its programs. Study findings are discussed with
implications for recruitment and recommendations are made. Findings may be helpful to
the college administrators and recruiting officers who plan strategies for recruiting high
quality students.

The third chapter is the second paper on “Undergraduate Students’ Use of Time in
the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University”. This
paper attempts to investigate weekly time use profiles and their relationships with
selected demographic characteristics of students. Findings may be usefiil to college
administrators, academic advisors, and parents to help students effectively manage their

time.

12

The fourth chapter is the third paper on “Students’ Perceptions about Academic
Programs in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State
University”. This paper focuses on how students perceive courses in their major,
academic advising services they received, and internationalization of curricula in the
CAN R. The students’ feedback on courses, academic advising, and internationalization
of curricula may help faculty members, academic advisors, and college administrators
improve the program.

The fifth chapter is the fourth and the final paper entitled “What Graduating
Seniors Say About Their College Experiences: A Case Study of the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University”. This study utilized
three focus group interviews of 23 graduating seniors to solicit information about their
overall experiences regarding college services, departmental services, and contribution of
their academic program towards development of employable skills. Feedback from the
graduating seniors may be useful to identify strengths and weaknesses of the program and
helpful to improve services, course curricula, and the overall program within the CANR.

The final chapter presents the summary, conclusions and recommendations of this

study.

Limitations of the Study

This study did not follow any sampling method. Online surveys were sent to all
the current undergraduate students and the graduating seniors. Respondents were self-
selected, and thus, not a random sample. However, the final respondents were compared
with the total population, and they resembled the population well. Another limitation of

this study could be multiple participation of the survey respondents in different academic

13

years because online surveys were sent to all the current students who were registered in
that semester. For example, participant ‘X’ might have participated in online survey in
more than one academic year. Thus, there could be repetition of the views from the same
respondent in the study.

In Chapter 11, participants were asked to report the approximate number of hours
they spent on various activities. The time respondents indicated was self-reported time
based on their memory recall. Thus, the time use indicated by the respondents in various
activities may differ to some extent if the same participants were requested to record time
using daily time diary method.

With regard to survey participants, there was more participation from certain
academic majors, such as Animal Science, Packaging, and Construction Management
including others. There could be variability in terms of departmental services, such as
academic advising, provided to students within different academic majors. Thus,
responses from the participants of these large departments may not necessarily represent

the departmental services offered by the other smaller departments within the CANR.

14

REFERENCES

Alreck, P. L. & Settle, R. B. (2004). The Survey Research Handbook, New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Carnoy, M. (2005). Globalization, education trends and the open society. Paper presented
at Conference on Education and Open Society: A Critical Look at New
Perspectives and Demands, Budapest, Hungary.

Dimitri, C., Effland, A. & Conklin, N. (2005). The 20th Century Transformation of US.
Agriculture and Farm Policy. Economic Information Bulletin Number 3. United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Retrieved January 10, 2009, from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB3/eib3.pdf.

Dyer, J. E., Breja, L. M. & Andreasen, R. J. (1999). Attitudes of College of Agriculture
Freshmen Toward Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education 40(2): 1-10.

Dyer, J. E., Lacey, R. & Osborne, E. W. (1996). Attitudes of University of Illinois
College of Agriculture freshmen toward agriculture. Journal of Agricultural
Education 3 7(3): 33-42.

Erwin, T. D. (1991). Assessing student learning and development, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Gilmore, J. L., Goecker, A. D., Smith, E. & Smith, P. G. (2006). Shifts in the Production
and Employment of Baccalaureate Degree Graduates from US. Colleges of
Agriculture and Natural Resources: 1990-2005. Paper presented at A Leadership
Summit to Effect Change in Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC.

Higher Education Research Institute (2007). The American Freshman National Norms for
Fall 2006. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los
Angeles.

Hudzik, J. (2004). Why Internationalize NASULGC Institutions: Challenge and
Opportunity. A background paper for “A Call to Leadership: The Presidential

Role in Intemationalizing the University”. The National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC).

Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

15

Larson, K., Grudens-Schuck, N. & Allen, B. L. (2004). Can You Call It a Focus Group?
Methodology Brief. Iowa State University Extension. Retrieved February 22,
2008 Iowa State University Extension, from
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/publications/pm1969a.pdf.

McPherson, P. & Shulenburger, D. (2008). University Tuition, Consumer Choice and
College Aflordability. Strategies for Addressing a Higher Education Affordability
Challenge. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

NASULGC (1997). Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Programs for
America. National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges,
Washington, DC.

NASULGC (2004). A Call to Leadership: The Presidential Role in Intemationalizing the
University. National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
(NASULGC).

Peter, K. & Horn, L. (2005). Gender Difi‘erences in Participation and Completion of
Undergraduate Education and How They Have Changed Over Time. (N CES
2005-169). US. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office.

Rosenstone, S. J. (2004). Challenges Facing Higher Education in America: Lessons and
Opportunities. Paper presented at Paper presented to the University of Toronto
Conference on Taking Public Universities Seriously, Toronto.

Russell, E. B. (1993). Attracting Youth to Agriculture: How Colleges of Agriculture Can
Expand Their Role. Journal of Extension [Online] 31(4).

Scofield, G. G. (1995). College of Agriculture New Student Profile. Paper presented at
the Central Region 49th Annual Research Conference, St. Louis, MO.

16

CHAPTER II

WHO ARE THE STUDENTS OF THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY?

Introduction

Colleges of Agriculture have been facing a serious challenge of unstable student
enrollment during the last 20 years (Robinson et al., 2007; Dyer et al., 1996). As a result
of the farm crisis in the United States in the late 19703 and early 19805, the enrollment in
colleges of agriculture dipped significantly in the late 19805 (Peiter et al., 2004; Dyer et
al., 2002; Dyer et al., 1999). Enrollment in agricultural colleges in Land Grant
Universities declined by 24% from 1978-1988, whereas it decreased by 13% in non-land
grant programs over the same period (Manderscheid, 1988). To respond to the national
crisis of declining agricultural enrollment, curricula were modernized as suggested by the
National Research Council in 1988; as a result, the enrollment rebounded at agricultural
colleges and high schools in the early 19903. According to United States Department of
Education, 1992 enrollments in colleges of agriculture increased by 18.9% over the 1981
enrollment nationwide (United States Department of Education, 1996).

The number of agronomy or crop science degree recipients fell from 764 in 1984-
85 to 523 in 2002-03 (McCallister et al., 2005). According to a recent national survey of
all the 1862 Land Grant Universities, the undergraduate enrollment in all Crop and Soil
Science related majors averaged 90 students per university (Hansen et al., 2007).
Similarly, the average undergraduate enrollment for Agricultural Economics decreased

by 17% from academic year 1984-85 to 1995-96 (Blank, 1998).

17

The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) at Michigan State
University (MSU) faced a challenge of declining undergraduate enrollment from 1994 to
mid 2000. The trend of fall enrollment for the undergraduate program in the CANR at
MSU indicated that the average percentage change was negative (-0.5%) for a decade,
fiom fall 1994 to fall 2004 (Appendix E). The undergraduate enrollment in the CANR at
MSU increased significantly in fall 2005 and it has been positive and encouraging to
date. The increase in enrollment in the CANR at MSU was largely the result of
administrative changes. For example, the Dietetics major, which used to fall under the
College of Human Ecology, was annexed to the CANR. In fall 2005, the enrollment in
the Dietetics major increased by 688.9% over the fall 2004 enrollment (Michigan State
University, 2009). However, the fall enrollment data for other several agriculture majors
within the CANR at MSU indicate that the undergraduate enrollment trend is not stable.

The demographic composition of today’s college of agriculture students has
changed in several respects from that of the 1980S (Peiter et al., 2004; Scofield, 1995).
Dyer et al. (1996) reported that 66.4% of freshmen in the College of Agriculture at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were from urban backgrounds. Dyer et al.
(1999) reported that the majority of students that were from rural or farm backgrounds at
the Iowa State University College of Agriculture has been replaced by freshmen from
urban backgrounds who have no knowledge of, or prior experience in, agriculture.
National statistics on undergraduate enrollment show that the demography has shifted for
ethnic minorities and gender, as well. Enrollment of ethnic minorities is increasing.
Female students have surpassed their male peers in college enrollment (United States

Department of Education, 2007). The USDE’s projections of educational statistics

18

between 2005 and 2016 indicate that the increase in female enrollment will be 22% (12.2
million) as compared to 10% (6.2 million) of male students in degree granting
institutions. Similarly, enrollment is projected to increase for ethnic minorities, with a
45% change expected for Hispanic students, a 34% change expected for American
Indians or Alaska Natives, and a 32% change expected for students who are Asian or
Pacific Islanders. Enrollment is expected to increase 29% and 8% for African American
and Caucasian students, respectively, between 2005 and 2016 OJnited States Department
of Education, 2007).

In today’s changing context of an ailing US. economy, shrinking federal and
state support to higher education, rising costs of college education, and changing student
demography have posed challenges to the colleges of agriculture to seek innovative ways
to appeal to prospective students. It is more critical than ever before that the colleges of
agriculture employ effective recruitment methods to attract the best and brightest
students. In this endeavor, there is a lack of reliable information about the students’
characteristics, sources of information they use, and other important factors that influence
their decision to enroll in the CANR at MSU. A study is needed to fill the
aforementioned information gap. Therefore, this paper is aimed at understanding the
demographic profile of the undergraduate students in the CANR at MSU, identifying the
routes by which they entered into the college programs, identifying the sources 'of
information used to learn about college programs, and identifying the factors that
influenced their decision to choose college majors within the CAN R at MSU. Findings
from this study may help college administrators and recruiting officers devise more

effective strategies to recruit high quality students and enhance college enrollment.

19

Literature on students’ college enrollment decisions and selection of college
majors indicate that students are influenced by a myriad of diverse factors. This study
adapted the Chapman’s model of student college choice as the theoretical basis.
Chapman suggested that college choice decision is influenced by the combination of two
broad factors: i) student’s characteristics, and ii) external factors, which include the
influence of significant persons, college characteristics, and college efforts to
communicate with prospective students (Chapman, 1981). Chapman concluded that the
choice of which college to attend is first influenced by the background characteristics of
the student and student’s family. Second, a series of other external influences, such as
the cost of attending the college, availability of financial aid, availability of student’s
choice of academic major, geographical location of an institution, and the communication
efforts of an institution play a vital role in the students’ college choice process. Chapman
suggests that these multiple influencing factors be considered by the college
administrators while charting student recruitment strategies.

A review of literature was conducted to understand the latest trends about sources
of information and important factors influencing prospective students’ choice of college
of agriculture. A summary of selected literature review of factors influencing students’
college choice specific to the colleges of agriculture is presented in Appendix F and
Appendix G. A brief narrative of the literature review is presented under the
subheadings: i) influential sources of information (individuals and media), ii) institutional

characteristics, and iii) academic program characteristics as influential factors.

20

i) Influential sources of information (individuals and media)

Studies have shown that prospective students utilize a wide range of sources of
information when making the decision to choose a college of agriculture. The most
influential individuals as sources of information for students were parents and family
members, relatives, friends, alumni, high school agriculture teachers, and college faculty
members (Williams et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2007; Rocca and Washburn, 2007;
Bobbitt, 2006; Rocca and Washburn, 2005; Peiter et al., 2004; Segler-Conrad et al., 2004;
Washburn et al., 2002; Lynch, 2001; Sivapirunthep, 2000).

Mixed results have been found with regard to high school agricultural teachers as
a source of information and their influence on prospective students when making the
decision to study agriculture. Segler-Conrad et al. (2004) and Washburn et al. (2002)
found that high school agricultural education teachers were the most influential people
for freshmen selecting the Agricultural Education major. Williams et al. (2008) and
Pieter et al. (2004) reported that high school agricultural teachers were the fourth most
influential individuals for students deciding to attend a college of agriculture. Similarly,
Robinson et al. (2007) found the first—time enrollees ranked high school agriculture
teacher as the fifth most influential individuals in the college choice process. Rocca and
Washburn (2005) reported that high school agriculture teachers had the least influence on
high school matriculants’ and transfer matriculants’ selection of an agriculture college.
However, Rocca and Washburn (2007) found that high school agriculture teachers were
the most influential people for college students who were former members of Future

Farmers of America (FF A).

21

With increasing access to intemet facilities, websites are one of the most
important sources of information about educational institutions. Rocca and Washburn
(2005) found that websites were the most used and most useful source of information for
both high school matriculants and transfer matriculants of the University of Florida.
However, Robinson et al. (2007) and Pieter et a1. (2004) found university websites to be
the fourth most helpful source of information for university freshmen. Washburn et a1.
(2002) studied factors influencing college choice of first-time enrollees in the College of
Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at the University of Missouri and found that
although the websites (university and college) were used by less than 50% of the
respondents, the respondents perceived them as useful sources of information.

Printed materials, such as university and college brochures, were useful sources of
information for prospective students when selecting a college of agriculture (Robinson et
al., 2007; Rocca and Washburn, 2005; Peiter et al., 2004; Washburn etal., 2002; Cole
and Thompson, 1999). Cole and Thompson (1999) found that nearly 70% of the
respondents at Oregon State University used pamphlets or literature to learn about the
college of agriculture. Robinson et al. (2007) found that first-time enrollees ranked
printed university publications as the second most used source of information when
choosing a college of agriculture. Washburn et al. (2002) reported that university
publications were used by 7-8 out of 10 matriculants and non-matriculants, respectively,
in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at the University of Missouri.
Pieter et al. (2004) found that brochures were the third most used source of information
by freshmen majoring in agriculture at the University of Kentucky. In their study, Rocca

and Washburn (2005) found that more than 50% of high school matriculants and transfer

22

matriculants used printed university publications in the College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences at the University of Florida.

Campus visits were the most important source of information for the first-time
enrollees in colleges of agriculture (Robinson et al., 2007; Pieter et al., 2004). Robinson
et al. (2007) and Washburn et al. (2005) reported that nearly three-quarter of the first-
time enrollees in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at the
University of Missouri used campus visits as the most important source of information
when deciding to attend in the agriculture college. Pieter et al. (2004) found that
university freshmen ranked campus visits as the most helpful source of information
influencing their decision to attend colleges of agriculture in one land grant and three
non-land grant universities in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Rocca and Washburn
(2005) and Cole and Thompson (1999) reported that more than 50% of the respondents
used campus visits as a source of information and found them useful in making the
decision to join colleges of agriculture.

ii) Institutional characteristics

The major institutional characteristics influencing prospective students’ decision
to choose a college of agriculture were the reputation of the university or college,
preparation for employment, opportunities after graduation, faculty quality and
reputation, and quality of the facilities (Robinson et al., 2007; Rocca and Washburn,
2005; Washburn et al., 2002). Rocca and Washburn (2007) reported that opportunities
after graduation and preparation for employment were the two most influential
institutional characteristics for respondents who were former FFA members. Availability

of scholarships ranked below the middle half in a long list of 17 institutional

23

characteristics (Rocca and Washburn, 2007). Class size was the least influential
institutional characteristics in all three studies mentioned above.

iii) Academic program characteristics

Studies have revealed that career opportunities available for graduates were the
most influential academic program characteristic for students choosing an agriculture
college (Robinson etal., 2007; Rocca and Washburn, 2007; Peiter et al., 2004; Washburn
et al., 2002). Quality and reputation of courses was ranked the second most influential
academic program characteristic in both studies by Robinson et al. (2007) and Rocca and
Washburn (2005). In their studies, Rocca and Washburn (2007) and Peiter et al. (2004)
found that respondents ranked reputation of faculty members as the second most
influential factor. The least influential academic program characteristic was the number

of students in a major.

Objectives

The specific objectives of this paper are to:

1. document a demographic profile of undergraduate students currently enrolled in
the CANR at MSU,

2. identify how did students first entered the CANR,

3. identify sources of information used by the CANR students to learn about college
majors, and

4. identify and rank the factors influencing students’ decisions to enroll in the
CANR majors.

24

Methodology

The population for this five-year study was the current undergraduate students
enrolled in the CAN R at MSU, from spring 2004-2008. The study utilized an online
survey for simplicity and cost effectiveness. The survey instrument was developed by Dr.
Murari Suvedi, Professor in the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and
Resource Studies (CARRS) and Dr. Eunice Foster, Associate Dean for the Undergraduate
Program in the CAN R at MSU. The survey instrument was developed based on
extensive literature reviews relevant to students’ assessments of undergraduate programs.
The draft instrument was shared with the CANR assessment committee members,
undergraduate advisors, and coordinators to ensure the face and content validity. The
final survey instrument incorporated the comments and suggestions received from the
CANR assessment committee members, undergraduate advisors, and coordinators.

The survey instrument for the current undergraduate students had five parts
(Appendix A). This chapter utilized the information obtained from the first and fourth
parts of the survey questionnaire. Part one of the questionnaire was designed to solicit
student’s academic information: academic status, primary major, dual major, second
degree, entrance to CAN R, sources of information used to learn about college majors in
the CAN R, and important factors when making the decision to enter to their current
CANR majors. The questionnaire had five response items for entrance to the CANR.
The sources of information used had nine response items, including “other”. The factors
for deciding to enter the CAN R major were measured by 16 items, which were measured
on a scale of 4 (1= “Not Important” to 4= “Extremely Important”). Part four of the

questionnaire sought the following demographic information of respondents: gender, age,

25

ethnicity, residence, residency status, participation in 4-H/FFA, and membership in the
National Honor Society.

The electronic mail addresses of the current undergraduate students were obtained
from the Office of the Dean in the CANR. The online surveys were created and
administered by the Center for Evaluative Studies in the Department of Community,
Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies (CARRS) at MSU. The online surveys
were sent to all the current undergraduate students through university e-mail in a
personalized “cover letter”, along with a hyperlink to the survey. Students were asked to
“click” on the hyperlink in the e-mail text to access the web-based survey. Once the
student completed the survey and clicked “submit” button, data were automatically
collected in the web-based database. The survey was administered in the spring
semester, from mid March to April, of each year from 2004 to 2008.

To increase the survey response, a free two-scoop ice-cream coupon was
provided as a token incentive to each participant who completed the survey.
Additionally, survey reminders were sent after one week and again a week before the ice-
cream event to enhance the survey response rate. The response rates were 30.8%, 9.5%,
25.4%, 22.2%, and 34.4% in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively. The overall
survey response rate for the five-year survey was 24.5%.

The data were analyzed by using computer software Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS 15) for Windows. The data were summarized by using descriptive
statistics: frequency, mean, and standard deviation. Cross tabulation was done between
majors and entrance to the CANR to identify sources of students to each major within the

CANR. The factors for deciding to enter the CANR program were identified by

26

calculating the mean and standard deviation for each factor and, then ranked in
descending order based on mean. The reliability of each factor was determined by
Cronbach’s alpha procedure. The overall reliability for factors for deciding to enter the

CANR program was 0.867.

Results and Discussions

This section presents the results and discussions of the five-year study. The results
are summarized in descriptive statistics for demographic characteristics of survey
respondents, their responses to entrance to the CANR, use of sources of information to
learn about the CAN R major, and important factors for making their decisions to enter
the current major. A total of 2,803 undergraduate students within the CANR at MSU

participated in the five-year study.

Demographic characteristics of respondents

Of 2,798 respondents who indicated their academic status in the survey, 384
(13.7%) were freshmen, 689 (24.6%), were sophomores, 1,117 (39.9%) were juniors and
608 (21.7%) were seniors (Table 1). Of the total respondents, 184 (6.6%) indicated that
they had second major. Similarly, 249 (12.3%) respondents reported a second degree.
The number of female and male respondents was 1,782 (63.8%) and 1,009 (36.2%),
respectively. For the entire five-year study, female students participated more than male
students. The age of respondents ranged from 18 to 58 years. The mean age of

respondents was 21 years.

27

Sufism 3cm E too—mm 8oz *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8 : 888 8.8: $8 8.8: 888 8.8: 88 8.8: 888 8.8: 88 .88
2 .3 888 8.3 82 8.3 3 8.3 8 8.3 88 8.3 888 5% Ba 28 88
8.3 888 8.3 88 8.3 5 8.3 m: 8.3 S 8.3 82 c8 8
8.3 888 2.3 88 8.3 3 8.8: 8_ 8.3 8 8.8: 5 a; 8
8.3 88 8.3 88 8.3 o: 8.3 82 8.3 8 :8: 82 8888 Ba .28 2
%<
8.8: 88.8 8.8 : 88 8.8 : 888 8.8 : 8.8 8.8: 888 8.8 : 88 .88
8.8: 88: 8.8: 888 8.8: 88 8.8: 88 c . 8: 3 8.8: :8 use:
8.3 82 8.3 88 8.8: 82 8.3 3 8.3 8 8.8: 88. 282
80250
8.8 : 88 8.8 : 88 8.8 : 888 8.8: 88 8.8 : 88 :88
8.3 88: 8.3 98 8.3 3.8 8.3 :a. 8. 3 88 2 oz
8.8: 88 8.8: § 8.3 8 8.8: 8 88: M: 88>
88qu vacuum
8.8: 888 8.8: 888 8.8: 888 8.8: 88 8.8: 888 8.8: 88 :88
8.3 :88 8.3 888 8.3 38 8.3 8.. 8.3 88 8.3 8 _ 8 oz
8.8 3: 8.8: 8 8.8: 8 8.: 8 8.8 2 8.8: mm a>
8.82 958m
8.8: 888 8.8: 88 8.8: 888 8.8l: 8% 8.8: 88 a8: 88 .88
8.3 88 88 : 8: 8.3 3 8.3 2 2 .3 8 8.8: 88 Beam
8.3 8: _ 88: $8 8.3 88 8.3 88 8.8: a: 8.3 88 Les:
8.3 88 8.3 x: 8.3 3 8.3 82 8.3 88 8.3 88. 205888
88: 38 8.3 E 8.8: 8 8.8: 8 8.3 mm 8.3 m8 5585
38% 283338
8.8.: .82... A3 .828 83 .828 8.8% .mE A3 .82.: 83 .82.: 35:38.38
:88 88 888 88 88 88 28.3088
30> >o>5m .

 

 

 

  

3525 8.. mo 88:28.35 2: 088 ._ 03$.

28

Caucasian students constituted the highest proportion (87.1%) of respondents,
followed by Hispanic students (3.9%) (Table 2). Participation of Asian-American
students (2.5%) was slightly higher than the participation of African-American students
(2.1%). Less than one percent (0.6%) of students were Native-American.

Nearly one-fifth (19.3%) of respondents were from rural areas and had farm
experience. A little more than a quarter (26.1%) of the respondents were from rural areas
but had no farm experience. The majority of respondents (43.8%) were from suburban
communities, and 10.8% of the respondents were from urban communities. The
proportion of students from suburban communities was the highest during the entire five-
year study. When combined, urban and suburban respondents constituted a majority
(54.6%) of the respondents. A high majority (91.7%) of respondents were in-state
students. Participation of out-of-state students and international students was 5.7% and
2.6%, respectively. Nearly one quarter (24.4%) of respondents had participated in youth
development programs such as 4-H and F FA activities. More than half (55.3%) of the
respondents indicated membership in the National Honor Society while they were in high

school.

29

Il‘l‘Ilv ~

.858 888 a 8888 “oz ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.85 888 8.8: 38 8.85 888 8.85 88 8.85 888 .88.
8.35 888 8.88 888 8.85 88 8.85 E N 8.88 NS . oz
8.5 2 : 8.85 888 8.85 :8 8.85 88 8.85 85 88>
8068 8:2. 3:28: Mo 59802
48.85 88 d8: 88 8.85 888 8.85 88 8.85 88 8.83 888 :88
8.85 2 8 8.85 888 2 .85 o: 8.5 888 8.885 88. 888 88 oz
8.5 88 885 E 8.5 8: 8.85 N: 8._ 5 88 8.85 88 88>
<88: 5 8:822:88
8‘88 5 888 8.85 58 8.85 888 8.85 888 $85 88 52
8.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 2 8.5 8 8.5 8 85838 888.8535
8.5 8_ _ 8.5 88 8.5 8 8.5 88 8.5 2 .. 85838 35:8 so
8.5 on: 8. 5 88 8.5 88 885 888 8.85 888 888% as“ 5
833m zoaoEmoM
8.8 5 88 8.8: 888 8.85 888 8485 888 8.8 5 8mm 8.85 888 888
8.85 am 8.5 x: 8._ 5 .8 :5 8. 8.8 : 8._ 5 88 8.5858 :85 =8 5
8.88 85 885 888 8.85 888 8.85 88 8.85 88 885 888 8.5888 58583 8 5
2.85 88 2.5 88_ 8.5 m: 8.5 82 8.85 E. e .5 888 .588 8 no 6: :5 .88 EE 8 5
885 888 8.85 85 8.85 88 885 M8 8.5 88 8.85 N: :58 8 so .828 EE 8 5
@5281
go 5 888 8.85 88 8.85 88 8.85 88 8.85 88 8.85 888 .508
8.5 82 8.5 88 8.5 88 8.5 8 8.5 8 8.8 8 550
8.8 M: 8.8 8 8.8 m 8.8 8 8.8 _ 8.8 8 =8§E< ”>882
8.5 E 8.5 8 8.5 5 8.5 2 2.5 8 8.8 8 =855<$a<
2 .5 88 2.5 mm A 5 : 8.5 : 8.5 m 2 .8 _ §EE<$28<
8.5 82 8.5 S 8.5 8 8. 5 8 8. 5 8 8.5 E ”€8ng
2 .5 58 8.85 88 8.85 888 8.85 38 8.85 888 8.5 888 323
82588
g .828 5 #5 95 828 8.5 .828 $5 .828 $5 .828
38 888 88.8. 888 888 38 88882835 02828828
30> >025

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 38883835 02

0:50 .N 03$.

3O

- The number of respondents in each major for the entire five-year study is
presented in Table 3. The CANR at MSU offers 23 academic majors in the
undergraduate program through various academic departments and schools. Participants
from almost all the academic majors responded to the online survey. The highest number
of students, 500 (17.9%), participated from the Animal Science major, followed by
Packaging major, 375 (13.5%), and the Dietetics major, 291 (10.5%). These three majors
are the largest majors in terms of size of students enrollment within the CAN R at MSU.
The students majoring in Dietetics, Interior Design, and Landscape Architecture did not
participate in the 2004 and 2005 surveys. Participants from Biosystems Engineering
participated only in the 2004 survey. Similarly, participants majoring in Technology
Systems Management, Entomology, and Plant Pathology participated only in the 2008
survey. It is important to note that Department of Entomology and Department of Plant
Pathology are the two smallest departments by size of undergraduate enrollment in the

CANR at MSU.

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

885 8888 885 888 880 888 885 83. 885 888 880 888 8888
$0.8 _ 82 .8 _ 80.00 0 80.8 0 80.8 0 80.8 0 Awe—0585 E83
Iawa 0 68.0% 0 a 0 80.8 0 80.00 0 80.00 0 8wo_oEoEm
ANNE 0 A058 0 80.8 0 80.8 0 80.8 0 80.8 0 EoEqu—mz 85383 Awe—0:580.
88.8 88 88.8 o 88.8 o 88.8 o 88.8 o 88.5 88 8888285853885
88.: 3. 88.0 8 818.5 8 88.5 8 88.5 8 88.5 5 85288
Q0. C 3 An _ . C 0 A0 9 . 5 0 90.3 2 98$ 09 88.8 8 80:08— Ea 82:8:on _S=oE=oh>=m
88.5 88 a0 8. 88d 8 88.85: 88.5 8 88.5 88 8885568 82¢.
dev 00 94.3 8N im|m0.mv 2 90$ 0N 80.00 0 80.8 0 0583303. 8588055
$5 88 88$ 5 85 : 88.5 8 88.5 8 88.5 88 8:28:88.
988.9 00 93.3 mm 90.0 S SYNM 3 980.8 0 80$ 08. 835083— 588:8. 0:8 corner—com Juan—
Aowdv 00— Amodv mm 90.8 E 90.8 m _ ENS E 80.0 3 88:80:85.8 0:8 80:55 ~S=oEcoh>cm
and 009 AON.$ mm 90.3 mm 90.0 09 30.3 m 88.8 .N oocflow 08.,—
$N$ M: 9 380$ 00 98$ mm 90.3 S 90.8 0 850 vm 85:53:82 5:05 coon—
888 8: 88.5 88 08.8 8 08.5 88 88.5 5 88.5 .8 85628885880
9v.$ m9 880$ G 90.9 0v 9 v.8 NM €0.00 0 80.8 0 nmfiun 8:85
988$ VS 80.8 om 30.0 0m 9 NO 0N A868 3 89$ 0m EoEowmqu mmofimzntmd.
90$ 8m _ 9ND :8 $0.8 3 45$ «N 38.3 2 98:3 0v EoEomwadz nouosbmaoo
88.5 _8_ 85 88 88.5 88 08.80 88 835 88 88.80 88 858388:
80.80 02 98.9 08 98.00 0m 90.3 mm 80.8 mm 30.8 v0 obs—0:3 Ea 828225
88.85 88 88.85 85 88.85 88 83.5 88 88.8 o 88.8 8 88285
88.85 888 88.5 88 88.5 a. 88.85 8 88.85 88 88.85 82 8588.88
88.80 88 08.85 85 88.85 88 88.85 88 88.85 88 88.8: 5 8888.85
8.5 8 Q5 8 85 a 8.5 a 8.5 a 05 a 5.82 ESE
.33. noon 800m 000m 000m 30m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MZ<U 05 E 8388 SEE..— .3covcoq8om .m 033.

32

Sources of students in the CANR

The CANR at MSU receives students from various sources. Table 4 presents the
sources of students in the CANR program at MSU. Of the 2, 782 respondents, 1,008
(36.2%) indicated that they entered into the CANR directly from high school. In each of
the five years of the study, more than 30% of the respondents indicated that they entered
the CANR program directly from high school. Thirteen percent (13.3%) of the
respondents were transfer students from community colleges. Less than ten percent
(8.2%) of the respondents were transfer students from other colleges or universities.
About one percent (1.3%) respondents were transfer students from MSU’s Agricultural
Technology program. Forty-one percent of the respondents were transfer students from
other MSU programs. Overall, nearly two-thirds (64.8%) of the survey respondents were
transfer students either from other colleges/universities or from other MSU programs.

Table 4 shows that there are four major sources of students to the CANR at MSU.
Transfer-students within MSU are the primary source of students, followed by students
directly from high school, transfer students from community colleges, and transfer
students from other colleges/universities. Besides transfer students from within MSU,
high school graduates are the second most important source of students, accounting for
more than one third of the students in the CANR. According to the National Center for
Higher Education Management System (NCHEMS, 2007), the percentage of public high
school graduates going directly to college is 65.2 in Michigan in 2006, which indicates
that the CANR at MSU has received a little more than half of the college going

population directly from public high schools.

33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

   

 

 

 

   

 

    

883on M720 2: 9 858.55 .mfiocaoamom .v 038,—.

 

8880 888.8 888: 888 888: 888 880 888 A88: 888 880 888 38.8
a. E 883 8.888 888 88.888 888 88.888 888 88.880 82 88.3.8 88 888828 :82 $5888 888 88:88:88
88.: 88 88.80 8 88.: 8 88.0 8 88.80 8 88. s 8 88.888. 8.282 888 8858888
88.80 888 88.88 88 :88 88 88.88 88 88.88 88 88.88 88 888838888888 8288 888 88588888
8.80 888 88.80 88 88.80 88 88.80 88 88.8: 88 88.8: § 888:8 8888888 888 88588.28
8.888 888; 88.880 :8 88.888 88: 88.888 88_ 8.888 88 88.880 888 8888 883 88.8
8.80 .828 8.80 .828 8.80 .828 880 .828 8.88 .828 880 .828 8888888
8888 8888 8888 8888 8888 8888

 

 

34

It indicates that it may be possible for the CANR at MSU to increase its enrollment of
students directly from high schools by improving its recruiting strategies.

Community colleges have provided 13% of the total students in the CANR, which
is less than half of the current transfer rate of 28.9% from community colleges to four-
year programs nationally (Eddy et al., 2006). According to a national study conducted
for the National Center for Educational Statistics, 68% of beginning community college
students enrolled in an academic program, and 71% indicated that they anticipate earning
a bachelor’s degree or higher (Bradburn et al., 2001). A study of Michigan community
college students indicated that 61% intended to transfer to other institutions and 79% of
those indicated that they intended to transfer to public four-year schools in Michigan
(Monroe and Richtig, 2002). These statistics indicate that from a recruitment point of
view, community colleges are the best potential source of students for four-year public
colleges in Michigan, including the CANR at MSU.

Several factors affect community college students’ decision to transfer to a four-
year college. Monroe and Richtig (2002) studied the factors affecting transfer decisions
of community college students in Michigan and found that academic program offerings
were the most important factor influencing the decision of students who intend to
transfer. Other important factors were student services, affordability with financial aid,
ease of degree completion, and friends and family members who attended the four-year
institution (Monroe and Richtig, 2002).

Although transfer students from other MSU programs constituted the highest
proportion of the CAN R students, the percentage of transfer students decreased by one

percent per year during the last three years (2006 to 2008).

35

Table 5 shows the entrance of respondents by academic major in the CANR at
MSU. The results show that some of the majors, such as Bio-systems Engineering,
Interior Design, Agriculture and Natural Resource Communication, Agribusiness
Management and Agriscience, have more than 50% of their students directly from high
schools. It seems that these majors may have gained popularity among high school
students. Nearly 50% of the respondents in the Crop and Soil Science major entered
directly from high school. More than one-third of the respondents entered directly from
high schools to some majors like Landscape Architecture, Animal Science, Horticulture
and Environmental Science.

More than one quarter of respondents transferred from community colleges to the
Fisheries and Wildlife major, and nearly one quarter joined the Horticulture and Crop and
Soil Science majors. One in five students in the Environmental Studies and Applications,
Forestry, and Landscape Architecture majors is a transfer student from a community
college.

Transfer students from other colleges/universities preferred the Crop and Soil
Science major, followed by Landscape Architecture, and Horticulture. A small
percentage (1.3%) of the Agricultural Technology students transferred to Animal
Science, Agribusiness Management, Crop and Soil Science, Agriscience, and
Horticulture majors within the CANR.

Transfer students from other programs within MSU constituted the highest
proportion of the CANR students. The highest percentage (83.1%) of transfer students
from other MSU programs entered the Food Industry Management major and the second

highest percentage entered the Environmental Economics and Policy majors.

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8888 88: 88 888 888 882 .8888
8.88.88: _ 8.88.88: _ 8.88.8 8 8.88.0 8 888.88 8 8.88.88 8 88285888885
88888: 8 8.88.88 8 8.88.80 8 8.88.80 8 888.88 8 8.88.80 8 88285288.
8.88.88: 8 888.888 8 888.88 8 888.88 8 8.88.8 8 8.88.880 8 28588852852888 88288888
888.880 88 8.88.88 8 8.88.88 8 888.80 _ 888.80 _ 8.88880 8_ 8585888 85388828.
8.88.88: 88 888.888 8_ 888.88 8 8.88.5 8 888.888 8 8.88.880 88 888288
8.8888: 88 8.88.88 88 888.88 8 8888.80 8 8.88.88 _ 888.880 88 88:88 88882888on EEEEEE
888.88: 88 888.80 8_ 888.88 8 8.8880 8 8.88.8: : 888.880 88 888825588 82.8
888.88: 88 888888 8. 888.88 8 8.88.8: 8 888.80 8_ 8.88.880 88 88888882 8888883
888.880 88 888.80 8_ 988.80 8 888.80 8 8.88.80 8_ 8.88.888 88 88288588
8.8888: 88 888.880 88 888.88 8 888.80 8 8.88.5 : 8.88.80 8_ 885888 88:88.8 888 8888288 8:88
888.88: 88. 8.88.880 88 8.8880 8 8.88.5 88 888.5 8_ 888.888 88 88288 888
8888.88: 82 888.888 _8 8.88.80 8 8.8880 8 8.88.888 88 8.88.880 88 888888888. 88882838 5882888388
88888: 8: 888.88 8. 8.88.88 8 8.88.80 8_ 8.88.880 88 8.88.88 88 88288 :88 888 885
888.88: 8: @188 88 8.8888 8 8.88.80 8 888.80 8 888.80 8_ 8828888882 .8885 888
8.8888: 88_ 8.88.80 88 888.80 8 888.80 8_ $1.88 88 8.88880 88 88:83:35
8.88.88: 88_ 888.80 8_ 88:88 8_ 888.80 8 8.8880 88 8.88.880 88 85588888288588.8388
8.88.88: 82 8.88888 88 8.8888 8 888.80 8_ 8.88.80 88 31.880 88 8888888882 828.5880
8.88.88: 88_ 888.880 88 8.88.80 8 8.88.80 88 8.88.880 88 8.88.880 8 288835:
8.8888: 88_ 888.888 88 8.88.8 8 8.88.88 8_ 8.88.880 88 8.88.88 88 888883 8582.28;
8.8888: 888 888.888 88_ 8.88.80 8 8.888: 88 8.88.80 88 888.880 88 8:385
888.88: 888 888.888 888 8.8888 8 888.88 : 8.88.88 88 8.88.880 88 88889.88
8.88.88: 888 88% 88_ 8.88.88 s 8.88.80 88 8.88.80 88 888.880 888 882888285
58 e an.
a: 3...... a“; fiwfifih . 8.88.. __ .wmfiawfiw 88mm“... .58... SE
026.885.? Eat 3.5.885; .

 

 

 

 

ll

 

ho NE

 

N0 gob MZ<U 2: 8 8:885 .3528 mom .0 038,—.

 

 

 

 

37

It seems that Agricultural Economics studies are more appealing to transfer
students within MSU. Six out of ten students in Packaging; Park, Recreation and
Tourism Resources; and Entomology majors are transfer students from other MSU
programs.

It is interesting to note that no respondents transferred from community colleges,
other colleges or universities, or MSU’s Agricultural Technology program to the
Technology Systems Management, Entomology, or Plant Pathology majors in the CAN R.
The reason could be that these are small and little-known majors in the CANR. Several
factors influence students’ decisions to select or transfer college majors. The important
influencing factors are presented in Table 7 and discussed with citations to the relevant

literature.

Sources of information used by the respondents

Prospective students use various sources of information when selecting a college.
Table 6 presents the frequency count and percentage for sources of information used by
respondents to learn about the CANR majors at MSU. Respondents were asked to
indicate various sources of information they had used. The results indicated that the
primary source of information used by the respondents to learn about the CAN R majors
was family and friends (31.8%). The second important source of information was the
college or university web site (27.1%). The third most important source of information
was printed materials (college brochures). More than ten percent (12.2%) of the
respondents utilized college brochure as their source of information about the CAN R
program. The fourth most important source of information utilized by the respondents

was personnel from the University Undergraduate Division (UUD) at MSU. The fifth

38

sources of information were high school counselors/ teachers and the CANR faculty
members at MSU. Five percent of the respondents received information about the CANR
program from high school counselors, teachers, and the CANR faculty members. Other
sources of information were campus visits; high school career days; recruitment meetings
and other professional meetings organized by 4—H, FFA, and Career Center; and events
such as Agriculture Expo, and AN R Week organized by the CANR.

Prospective students use many sources of information including parents,
guardians, and friends in the process of making the decision to choose a particular college
or major. This study shows that family and friends were the principal source of
information to learn about the CANR majors; this is consistent with the findings of Cole
and Thopmson (1999) and Peiter et al. (2004).

A number of other research findings indicate that parents (family) and friends
(peers) were the individuals who most influence students’ college choice (Williams et al.,
2008; Robinson et al., 2007; Rocca and Washburn, 2005; Segler-Conrad et al., 2004;
Washburn et al., 2002; Lynch, 2001; Powers, 2000; Sivapirunthep, 2000; Scofield, 1995;
Litten, 1982; Chapman, 1981). A study of college freshmen at the University of
Minnesota showed that parents, friends (peers), and current college students were the
individuals who influenced freshmen to select the Agricultural Education major (Segler-
Conrad et al., 2004). Another attitudinal research study at Iowa State University (ISU)
found that parents, university students, and other family members were influential on a

student’s decision to attend ISU (Scofield, 1995).

39

$98.58 moon 2: E 80288 88>» So: 83% I.
833:8 coon 2: E 3288 88>» So: 888:. 8

.3338 meow 05 E @8888 «on 883 8828825 83,—. .m
.8898 33:8 :88 E Z :38 2: 8888 88:58 8852388 :33 85 .85: 1.. doumosc 8888988 28538: 8 88B 83,—. ._

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

682

88: 888.8 88 a 888.8 88: 888 88: 888 88: 888.8 8888

8.88 888 8.88 88 88.88 88 88.88 88 8.88 88 8886 .%%..m8wm«wwvww%m
A8,: 88 88.: 88 88.: : 88.: 8_ 8.8V 88 882888882 \888 8888 sommomwwoh
88.88 888 A888 888 I 88> 888.880
88.88 888 88.88 88 88.88 88 88.88 88 88.88 88 9883888 88888888
88.88 888 88.88 88 88.88 88 A888 88 88.88 88 8888838288888 68888 885
88.88 888 88.8: 88_ A88: 8: 88.8: 88 .. 8288888 8888888588: 88.8828:
88.8 s 888 :88 888 88.8: 88 88.8: 88 88.8: 88_ 88288888 888888 88888888 82888
2.888 888.8 88888 888 88.888 888 88.888 888 2.888 888 88888; 8888898888838:
8. 8 88 888; 88.888 888 8.888 _88 88.888 888 8.888 888 88888888588

8.88 8 888 8 8.88 8 888 8 8.88 8
J8_8.8uzv A888uzv 888uzv A888nzv :88uzv 888888
8888 8888 8888 8888 8888

 

 

 

 

 

 

880.885 MZ<U 05 538 E82 9 88:86:88.2 3 pow: 883888588: mo wooBom .o 058,—.

40

University and college websites are important sources of information for today’s
technologically savvy students. Respondents in this study indicated that the MSU and
CANR websites were their second most important source of information. Studies show
that the university/college website is one of the most important sources of information for
college students (Hoyt and Brown, 2003) and college-bound high school students (Butler
et al., 2004). Rocca and Washburn (2005) found that 70 percent of high school and
transfer matriculants used websites to learn about degree programs at the University of
Florida. However, a study of first-time enrollees in the College of Agriculture at the
University of Missouri (Robinson et al., 2007) ranked the university website as the fourth
most important source of information. A similar result was found in a study of freshmen
students in the agriculture program at the University of Kentucky, in which respondents
ranked the website as the fourth most useful source of information (Peiter etal., 2004).

Printed materials, such as college brochures and university publications, are
useful sources of information for prospective college students. The findings of this study
revealed that printed materials were the third most useful source of information in
selecting the CAN R programs at MSU. This result is in agreement with the findings of
other studies (Rocca and Washburn, 2005; Peiter et al., 2004; Hoyt and Brown, 2003) in
which printed materials were ranked as the third most important source of information
used by students while selecting a college of agriculture. However, Cole and Thompson
(1999) and Segler-Conrad et al. (2004) found that university pamphlets and brochures
rated as highest in importance, and Robinson et al. (2007) found that they were the
second most important source of information used by the respondents when selecting a

college of agriculture.

41

University representatives have been found to be a very important source of
information for prospective students while making the decision to choose a college
major. The University Undergraduate Division (UUD) was used by slightly less than ten
percent of the respondents in this survey. Washburn et al. (2002) found that personal
conversation with and letters/information mailed from a university admission
representative were usefiil sources of information used in the process of choosing the
college of agriculture at the University of Missouri. Letters from admission staff were
the sixth most useful source of information for freshmen at the University of Kentucky
(Peiter et al., 2004). Similar results were found by Robinson et al. (2007) in their study
of influential factors used by first year, first-time enrollees at the University of Kentucky,
who ranked conversations with admissions representatives, letters and/or information
from college representatives, and personal conversations with college representatives as
the 7th, 8th, and 9th most important sources of information, respectively.

High school counselors, teachers, and college professors, which collectively
ranked as the fifth most important source of information, were consulted by five percent
of the respondents in this study. However, in other research studies personal contact or
conversations with professors has been found to be a more important and more frequently
used source of information (Peiter et al. 2004; Segler-Conard et al. 2004; Washburn et al.
2002). High school teachers were consulted by more than a quarter of students while
choosing the college of agriculture sciences at Oregon State University (Cole and
Thompson, 1999). However, Robinson et al. (2007) found that personal conversations
with professors ranked the 10th most important source of information used by first year,

first-time enrollees. A recent study by Williams et al. (2008) revealed that high school

42

Agriscience teachers and high school counselors ranked as the 4th and 12th most
influential persons as perceived by first time agriculture students at Texas Tech
University.

The importance of campus visits as a source of information for prospective
students was asked only in the 2008 survey. Campus visits were considered the fourth
most usefiil source of information and used by eight percent of the respondents.
Although campus visits were an infrequently used source of information in this study,
they have been found to be a widely used and very useful source of information for
college students when choosing a college of agriculture (Robinson et al., 2007; Rocca
and Washburn, 2005; Peiter et al., 2004; Hoyt and Brown, 2003; Washburn et al., 2002;
Cole and F anno, 1999).

In summary, family and friends, university and college websites, and printed
materials are the most used sources of information utilized by prospective students while

choosing the CANR majors at MSU.

Factors in deciding the CANR majors

The final objective of this study was to identify the important factors for the
decision to enter into the CANR majors and to rank them for different groups of
respondents in the order of importance, from high to low. To accomplish this objective,
respondents were asked the question “how important was each of the following factors to
your decision to enter your current CANR major?” The question contained sixteen
response items on a scale of 1 indicating “not important” to 4 being “extremely

important”.

43

Table 7 presents the important factors based on the mean for each of the factors,
and their rankings in descending order for overall respondents and for each group of
respondents. The description, comparisons, and discussions follow for each factor by
type of respondent in the columns in Table 7.

Academic program or curriculum in the CAN R was found to be a very important
factor, and it ranked first across the different groups of respondents. However, the
transfer students from within the MSU had the highest mean score (Mean=3.36) among
the four groups. Respondents who joined the CANR directly from high school and
transfers from other colleges/university perceived the CANR’s academic program or
curriculum to be equally important.

Reputation of the CANR at MSU was ranked the second important factor by
respondents in three groups: students entering directly from high school, transfer students
from community college, and transfer students from other colleges/universities. It is
important to note that respondents who transferred from other colleges/universities
' perceived the institutional reputation of the CAN R highest, with a mean score of 2.87.
Overall, the reputation of the CANR ranked as the second important factor for

respondents entering the CANR.

44

  

 

   

  

 

88.88.8888. befiobfimuv v8.8 48.8.8288. bo>nm 4888.838. 88:3288mnm £52095 802 H. so @883 88:98.8 8. 8882 .8

 

      

     
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8888 88.. .8888 88.. 8. ..8.88 88.. 8. .8888 88.. 8. .8888 88.. 8. .8 8.888 8888.28 .8. 8.8.8....wfl
.88. .8 88.. 8. .8888 88.. 8. ..8.88 88.. 8. .8888 88.. 8. E: 88.. 8. 888888.888 E8888
.88..8 88.8 .. .8888 88.8 8. ..8. .8 88.8 8. .88. .8 88.. 8. .88. .8 88.8 8. .2888 888.828 88.888...
.8888 8..8 8. .8888 8. .8 .. .8888 8. .8 8. .88..8 8. .8 8 .8888 8..8 : 88.888. 8.288 .88 888888880
.8888 8..8 8. ..8. .8 88.8 8. .8888 .88 : .8888 88.8 8. .8888 8. .8 . . 88.8 888.0
.88. .8 8..8 8 .88..8 8. .8 8 .88. .8 88.8 8 .2: .88 8 .8888 88.. 8. 88.888... 888 8888.83 8820
..8. .8 8. .8 8 .8888 8. .8 8 .88. .8 88.8 8 .88. .8 8. .8 8 .88..8 88.8 8. ..8.88. .58 888888880
.8888 8..8 8 .8888 . ..8 8. ..8. .8 88.8 8 .88. .8 8..8 8 .8888 88.8 8 8888. 888.888.888.88.
..8.88 88.8 8 .8888 8..8 8 .8888 8. .8 8. .8888 88.8 . . .8888 .88 8 888.888 88.888.88.888 .88 8.8.0
.8...8 88.8 8 .88..8 88.8 8. .828 88.8 8 .8...8 88.8 8 .2: 88.8 8 8.8 8.888888888886888
.88. .8 88.8 8 .88. .8 8 . .8 8 .88. .8 88.8 8. .88..8 88.8 . . .88. .8 88.8 8 888.8 888.8 .88 888888880
.8888 88.8 8 .8888 88.8 8 .8888 .88 8 .8888 88.8 8 .8888 88.8 8 Mmfiwhfimhhfim
..8..8 88.8 8 .5: 88.8 8 .88. .8 88.8 8 .88..8 88.8 8 .8888 88.8 8 88.8868 8.85888.
.88. .8 88.8 8 .88. .8 .88 8 .88..8 88.8 8 .88..8 88.8 8 .88. .8 88.8 8 88.88828. 88. 888888880
.8888 88.8 8 .8888 88.8 8 .8888 88.8 8 .8888 88.8 8 ..8.88 88.8 8 .88.). .8 8.25 .8 8888.883.
.8888 .88 . .8888 88.8 . .8888 .88 . .8888 8. .8 . .8888 .88 . emwmwfiomwwhhwfinmwwm
.988 .8882 8.888. .988 .8882 8.888 888 .8882 8.888. .988 .882 8.83. 888 .8882 8.888.
.88. .8888 .888-88.u88
AaohNéSNHE GomécNHE Goo—-mnhuav 8.588...

88.80.880.883. =888>O .ofiowwmmz b_8.o>“.nbu\hwo_.ou owe—.00 b.5500 .oonom ..wE

 

 

 

 

 

[llllll
88.88. 87.5 2.. 8.8.8.8 8. .8988 .8 8.888

 

45

The results of this study showed that the academic program characteristics and
institutional reputation of the CAN R at MSU are the two most important factors in
prospective students’ decision to choose a CANR major. These findings are consistent
with the findings of other studies (Robinson et al., 2007; Rocca and Washburn, 2005;
Hoyt and Brown, 2003; Hodges and Barbuto Jr., 2002; Pratt and Evans, 2002; Washburn
et al., 2002; Chapman, 1981) that investigated the factors influencing college choice
decisions. Hoyt and Brown (2003) did a comprehensive review of studies identifying
college choice factors and found that the availability of academic programs that suit the
applicant’s interest and academic reputation were placed in the number one category
across several studies. Pratt and Evans (2002) found that the availability of programs
was the most important reason selected by new college freshmen while making their
college decision. Quality of specific academic programs and academic reputation were
the most influencing factor for rural and urban high school students choosing
postsecondary institutions (Hodges and Barbuto Jr., 2002). Robinson et al. (2007) and
Washburn et al. (2002) studied factors that first-time enrollees utilized when choosing a
college of agriculture and found that quality, reputation of the courses, and academic
reputation of the university were the most influential factors. Rocca and Washburn
(2005) also reported similar results in their study of high school matriculants and transfer
matriculants. Monroe and Richtig (2002) found that academic program offerings was the
number one factor for transfer decision among community colleges students to four-year
public institutions in Michigan.

Opportunity for internships was ranked the third important factor by the

respondents who were directly from high school and transfer students from other

46

colleges/universities. It is important to note that transfer students from other programs
within MSU ranked internship opportunities in the CANR as the second most important
factor. The reason for their ranking this factor as the second important factor could be
that the transfer students within MSU had already been at MSU campus for some time
and may have gotten a chance to compare the internship opportunities available in their
former major department with those available in the CANR. Thus, availability of more
internship opportunities for students in the CAN R might have influenced the students
from other MSU programs. Studies show that career opportunities after graduation is one
of the most important criteria for selection of college major for students (Robinson et al.,
2007; Rocca and Washburn, 2005; Hoyt and Brown, 2003; Pope and Fermin, 2003;
Hodges and Barbuto Jr., 2002; Washburn et al., 2002). Internships are associated with
job opportunities after graduation. Thus, opportunity for internships is a particularly
important factor for those students who would like to join the workforce after graduation.
In the current ailing economy and shrinking job pool, it is important that college
graduates develop certain employable skills; this is possible through internship programs.
It is also believed that internship opportunities may lead to a full-time job offer. A recent
study of Michigan State University indicates that graduates who stacked up as many
internships as possible have a high chance of getting a job (Gardner, 2008).

Academic advising was ranked the sixth important factor by respondents from
community colleges and transfer students from other colleges/universities. It was ranked
seventh by the respondents who entered the CANR directly from high school. However,
respondents who transferred from other MSU programs ranked academic advising as the

fourth most important factor. Overall, academic advising was ranked the fourth

47

important factor for respondents’ decision to enter the CANR program. Again, the same
reason for judging the opportunity for internships may apply here for the transfer students

from within MSU because they might have heard about the better quality of academic

advising from their peers in the CAN R compared to their former major departments.

Findings of the third and fourth paper in this dissertation also indicate that respondents

were very satisfied with academic advising services in the CANR at MSU. The fourth
paper in this dissertation indicates that the focus group participants who were transfer
students were more satisfied with academic services in the CANR than they were with

those they received in their former academic departments.

Recommendations of friends, alumni and family members appeared as the fifth
mo st important factors. Respondents from other colleges/universities and MSU’s other
programs rated recommendations of friends, alumni, and family equally as the fifth
important factor influencing their decision to join the CANR program. However, the
respondents who entered to the CANR program directly from high school ranked them as
the fourth important factor, which suggests that first time applicants were much more
influenced by their parents, peers, and alumni than were the respondents who were not
first -time enrollees. The results for the respondents who entered directly from high
School are similar to the findings of Robinson et al. (2007). In their study, parent or
g“al‘dian and friend in college were ranked the third and fourth most influential people in
the College choice decision for first-time enrollees. Similar results were obtained by
Esters and Bowen (2005) and Reis and Kahler (1997) about factors influencing

agricultural education students when making their career decisions.

48

.
sir-K'-
Ul .b-W

.

m“

ans--
.

«tn-a“
n

v. .18....

-x) 7‘

,
r-
l

Opportunity for study abroad was perceived very differently by different groups
of respondents. Respondents directly from high school ranked it as the fifth most
important factor, whereas the respondents from other colleges/universities and
community colleges ranked it as the tenth and eleventh most important factor in their
decision to join a CANR program. Respondents from MSU’s other programs ranked it as
the seventh most important factor. Overall, opportunity for study abroad was ranked as
the sixth most important factor for respondents’ decision to enter into a CANR program.

Scholarship/financial aid was also ranked the sixth most important factor overall.
Respondents directly from high schools and community colleges perceived
scholarship/financial aid to be a more important factor than did respondents from other
col leges/universities and transfer students from within MSU. For transfer students from
other programs at MSU, scholarship/financial aid was one of the least important factors
in their decision to join a CANR program. A similar result was found by Rocca and
Washburn (2005) that high school matriculants were more influenced by scholarships
awarded than were transfer matriculants in their agriculture college choice decisions at
the University of Florida. A study of factors affecting transfer decisions of community
college students in Michigan revealed that of the students who were planning to transfer,
3 80/0 were expecting financial aid from four-year colleges (Monroe and Richtig, 2002).
Iiovvever, Hodges and Barbuto Jr. (2002) found that financial aid was one of the most
influential factors for recruiting rural and urban high school students.
Clubs and extracurricular options were ranked the eighth most important factor by
the respondents who entered directly from high schools and transfer students from within

MSU. This was perceived to be a more important factor by respondents who transferred

49

from community colleges than by the respondents who transferred from other
colleges/universities. Overall, clubs and extracurricular activities ranked seventh of the
sixteen factors. The focus group study of graduating seniors in the CANR at MSU (the
fourth paper in this dissertation) found that extracurricular activities conducted by the
student clubs, such as Forestry Club, Park and Recreation Club, Fisheries and Wildlife
Club, and Horticulture Club, were very important for hands-on learning and developing
employable skills in the CANR students at MSU.

Personal/family reasons and opportunity to get involved in research activities

were equally ranked as the eighth most important factor overall. Respondents within the
groups and between the groups perceived these factors almost equally.

Credit evaluation and transfer were ranked the third most important factor by the
respondents who entered from community colleges and the fourth most important factor
by respondents who transferred from other colleges/universities. Transfer students from
Within MSU ranked credit evaluation and transfer as the sixth most important factor.
However, it was one of the least important factors for respondents who entered the
CAN R programs directly from high school; this is likely the case because not many high
School students join the college with transfer credits. Although it was ranked as the ninth
tn0 st important factor overall, it was among the top four most important factors for
tral'lsfer students. A focus group study of the graduating seniors in the CANR at MSU
re"(tailed that transfer students were very satisfied with. the academic advisors because
they helped them transfer all the credits they had earned in their former colleges or
departments. This indicates that easy credit evaluation and transfer is one of the most

1111I>0rtant factors for transfer students deciding to enter a CANR major. It was one of the

50

 

0‘.

u.

 

'I‘

 

 

.4;

Mg

themes raised by the respondents in Monroe and Richtig’s (2002) study of factors
affecting transfer decisions of community college students in Michigan that four-year
colleges should accept credits earned in community colleges and make the credit transfer
process easy.

Class size and opportunity for service learning ranked the tenth most important

factor for respondents in their decision to enter a CANR program. Both factors were
almost equally ranked by respondents within and across the groups. Other studies also
found that class size was one of the least important factors for prospective students
choosing an agriculture college major (Robinson et al., 2007; Rocca and Washburn,
2005; Washburn et al., 2002). However, Rocca and Washburn (2005) found that class
size was a more important factor for students entering the University of Florida directly
from high school than it was for transfer matriculants.

Faculty member contact, 4-H/F F A background, and ineligibility for their
Preferred major at M SU were the least important factors in deciding CAN R major.
Results indicate that the 4-H and FFA background of respondents was the least important
factor for making the decision to choose an agriculture major. However, it is important
to note that the percentage of respondents who had a 4-H and FFA background in the
total response was nearly a quarter (24.4%), compared to more than three quarters of
re S'DOndents who did not have a 4-H and FFA background; thus, the mean ranking was
SI(evved to the least important factors. A separate analysis was run only for the
re SIDOndents with a 4-H and F FA background for important factors in deciding the CAN R

maj 0r (Appendix H). The results revealed that having a 4-H and FFA background was a

v . . . . . .
er)? Important factor; thus, it ranked as the second most important factor in decrdrng a

51

CANR major by the respondents who had a 4-H and F FA background. A recent study by
Williams et al. (2008) found that related clubs or organizations were rated as the five
highest rated influencing factors for agriculture students choosing an academic major at
Texas Tech University.

Overall, three factors: academic program or curriculum, institutional reputation of
the CAN R, and opportunity for internships were the top three important factors for

respondents in deciding to enter into a CAN R program.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Colleges of Agriculture have been competing with one another to recruit and
retain high quality students to meet the increased demand of trained labor force in the
agricultural and natural resource management marketplace. Because of competition
among higher education institutions for students and increasing costs of college
education, prospective students have alternative choices for selecting the appropriate
educational institutions of their best match based on their personal academic aspiration
and ability, financial condition, and other factors. A myriad of factors—student’s
Personal and family characteristics, institutional characteristics and academic program
chEu‘acteristics——influence the decisions of prospective students when selecting a college.
T171118, it is important to understand student characteristics, sources of information they
utiliZe, and important factors that influence their decision to select a college.
Understanding these factors helps colleges of agriculture develop better strategies for
rfi’cl‘uiting new students.
This paper is aimed at understanding the demographic profile of the

undergraduate students in the CANR at MSU and identifying the routes by which they

52

entered into the college programs, sources of information used to learn about the
programs, and factors influencing their decisions to choose college majors within the
CAN R at MSU. Study findings may help college administrators and recruiting officers
devise more effective strategies for recruiting high quality students.

Analysis of the demographic data showed that a high majority of the respondents
in this study were females, white-Caucasians, from suburban or urban communities, and
residents of the state of Michigan. Less than a quarter of the respondents had participated

in 4-H and FFA activities, which indicated that large majority of respondents did not
have a background working in agriculture related clubs and organizations or prior
experience in agriculture. The demographic characteristics of respondents in this study
are similar to other study findings in terms of ethnicity and gender (Peiter et al., 2004;
Dyer et al., 2002; Dyer et al., 1996). Dyer et al. (1996) reported that respondents with
membership in 4-H and FF A were 27.3% and 13.8%, respectively, in their study in the
College of Agriculture at University of Illinois. However, the residential background and
membership in 4-H and FFA revealed in this study are dissimilar with those found in the
Study of Peiter et al. (2004), who reported that majority of freshmen students majoring in
agriculture in the University of Kentucky had a farm background with prior agricultural
Work experience, completed high school agricultural education, and were members of 4-
H and FFA.
The research studies have shown that students’ demographic characteristics are
related to retention and subsequent completion of degrees in agriculture. Dyer et al.,
(2002) predicted that students who had prior experience in agriculture, completed high

Scheol agriculture courses, were members of 4-H and/or FFA, and lived in rural

53

communities were more likely to complete a degree in agriculture than were freshmen
who did not have those characteristics. Dyer et a1. (1999) reported that 97% of the
agriculture freshmen at Iowa State University who had completed high school courses
intended to graduate with agriculture major. Similarly, Dyer et a1. (1996) found that of
students who had completed some high school agriculture courses, 95% intended to
graduate with a major in agriculture, and that of the respondents who were members of
F F A, 98% intended to graduate with a major in agriculture. Similarly, 86% of the
respondents who were members of 4-H indicated that they intended to graduate with a
degree in agriculture. Cole and F anno (1999) found that students with lower involvement
with agricultural clubs and activities had higher dropout rate from the College of
Agricultural Sciences at Oregon State University. Cole and Fanno recommend that
colleges of agriculture recruit a higher percentage of students with 4-H and/or FF A
backgrounds for better retention and completion of degrees in agriculture.
Therefore, given the demographic characteristics of respondents in the CAN R at
MSU and based on the previous research findings, it is recommended that the CANR
develop strategies to promote Agriscience studies in high schools and recruit more
Students who have prior experience in agriculture, have taken agriculture courses in high
SChools, and were members of 4-H and F FA.
There are four major sources of students for the CAN R: transfer students from
Within MSU (41%), students entering the CANR directly from high schools (36.2%),
Students from community colleges (13.3%), and transfer students from other colleges and
uIliversities (8.2%). Among these entrants, it is easier to identify and target students from

high schools and community colleges than transfer students from other

54

colleges/universities and from within MSU. Thus, recruitment officers in the CAN R
should target high school students and community college students by working with high
school teachers/counselors and community college transfer counselors.

Family and fiiends were the most influential individuals as sources of information
for prospective students in the CANR at MSU, followed by websites, and printed
materials. These findings are consistent with the findings of other studies (Williams et
al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2007; Bobbit, 2006; Rocca and Washburn, 2005; Peiter et al.,

2004; Washburn et al., 2002; Cole and Thompson, 1999). Campus visits ranked the
fourth most frequently used source of information, and it was asked for the first time in
the 2008 survey year. Studies showed that the campus visit is one of the most important

and widely used sources of information for first time enrollees (Robinson et al., 2007;
Bobbit, 2006; Rocca and Washburn, 2005; Peiter et al., 2004; Washburn et al., 2002;
Cole and Thompson, 1999). Thus, it is recommended from a recruitment point of view
that the CANR at MSU:

i) work with parents and guardians of prospective students to provide accurate
information about college majors,

ii) work with the college alumni network,

ii i) Update college websites regularly and make them more interactive and informative,

iv) distribute college brochures to high school and community college students, and

V) promote campus visits for the prospective students and their parents and guardians.
Academic program/curriculum, reputation of the CANR at MSU, and opportunity

f or internships were the top three important factors influencing students’ decision to enter

me CANR majors at MSU. Other important factors influencing respondents’ decisions to

55

'98

enter CAN R majors were academic advising; recommendations of fiiends, alumni, and
family members; opportunity for study abroad; scholarships and financial aid; and clubs
and extracurricular activities. Recommendations of fiiends, alumni and family members
were more influential to respondents who entered the CANR directly from high school
than they were for other entrants. Credit evaluation and transfer and scholarships and
finarlcial aid were more important factors for respondents who transferred from
community colleges than they were for other entrants. The 4-H/FF A background was
Very important factor for deciding the CANR major for respondents who were former
members of 4-H and FFA.
Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are made:
i) The CAN R should continue offering the current academic programs, update curricula
and develop new programs that may attract students from various fields of study.
i i) Maintain the institutional reputation of the CANR at MSU through quality teaching,
ac ademic advising, and innovative research and community services.
i i i) The CANR should work closely with potential employers and find more

O13130rtunities for student internships.

fir

i i) The CANR should work with transfer counselors and advising officials at community
college transfer centers to inform community college students about the transfer process,
reclIJirements, programs, and prospects of higher education in agriculture. Transfer
Students need help in credit transfer and applying for scholarships and financial aid.
i") The CANR recruiting officer should work closely with key persons, such as

\griscience teachers, the State Supervisor for the Agriscience Program, the local FFA

56

chapters, and different levels of 4-H agents and club leaders, to facilitate college

application process, especially for 4-H and F FA members.

57

I l
.WHJ

REFERENCES

Blank, S. C. (1998). A Decade of Decline and Evolution in Agricultural Economics
Enrollments and Programs, 1985-96. Review of Agricultural Economics 20(1):

155-167.

Bobbitt, R. K. (2006). Factors influencing recruitment, retention, and job placement in
the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech
University. Agricultural Education and Commrmications, Unpublished master’s
thesis, Texas Tech University-Lubbock.

Bradburn, E. M., Hurst, D. G. & Peng, S. (2001). Community College Transfer Rates to
4-year Institutions Using Alternative Definitions of Transfer. National Center for
Education Statistics, US. Department of Education.

BUtler, E. S., Aasheim, C. & Williams, S. R. (2004). Internet Access and Usage Patterns
of College-Bound High School Students in Southeast Georgia. Issues in
Information System 5(1): 49-55.

Chapman, D. W. (1981). A Model of Student College Choice. The Journal of Higher
Education 52(5): 490-505.

Cole, L. & Thompson, G. W. (1999). Survey of Current Students: Implications for
Recruitment and Retention. NA CT A Journal 43(3): 15-20.

Co1e, R. L. & Fanno, W. (1999). Survey of Early Leavers: Implications for Recruitment
and Retention. NACTA Journal 43(1): 53-56.

lDB’er, J. E., Breja, L. M. & Andreasen, R. J. (1999). Attitudes of College of Agriculture
Freshmen Toward Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education 40(2): 1-10.

ID3’er, J. E., Breja, L. M. & Wittler, P. S. H. (2002). Predictors of Student Retention in
Colleges of Agriculture. In G. Miller (Ed), 21st Century Research for
Agricultural Education: Vol. 27. 27th Annual National Agricultural Education
Research Conference (pp. 490-500). Ames: Iowa State University Press.

bYer, J. E., Lacey, R. & Osborne, E. W. (1996). Attitudes of University of Illinois
College of Agriculture freshmen toward agriculture. Journal of Agricultural
Education 37(3): 33—42.

58

Eddy, P. L., Christie, R. & Rao, M. (2006). Factors affecting transfer of “traditional”
community college students. The Community College Enterprise: 73-92.

Esters, L. T. & Bowen, B. E. (2005). Factors Influencing Career Choices of Urban
Agricultural Education Students. Journal of Agricultural Education 46(2): 24-35.

Gardner, P. (2008). Recruiting Trends 2008-2009. The Collegiate Employment Research
Institute and the MSU Career Services Network at Michigan State University,
East Lansing.

Hansen, N., Ward, 8., Khosla, R., Fenwick, J. & Moore, B. (2007). What Does
Undergraduate Enrollment in Soil and Crop Sciences Mean for the Future of
Agronomy? Agronomy Journal 99(4): 1 169-1 174.

Hodges, T. D. & Barbuto Jr., J. E. (2002). Recruiting Urban and Rural Students: Factors
Influencing the Postsecondary Education Institution Choices of Rural Versus
Urban High School Students. College & University Journal: 3-10.

Hoyt, J. E. & Brown, A. B. (2003). Identifying College Choice Factors to Successfully
Market Your Institution. College & University Journal 78(4): 3-10.

Litten, L. H. (1982). Different Strokes in the Applicant Pool: Some Refinements in a
Model of Student College Choice. Journal of Higher Education 53(4): 383-402.

Lynch, T. L. (2001). Factors influencing the enrollment of minority students in
agricultural science programs at Virginia Tech. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 62 (02), 488A. (UMI No. AAT 3006097)

Manderscheid, L. V. (1988). Undergraduate Educational Opportunities in the Face of
Declining Enrollments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(5): 985 -
993.

MeCallister, D. L., Lee, D. J. & Mason, S. C. (2005). Student Numbers in Agronomy and
Crop Science in the United States: History, Current Status, and Possible Actions.
NACTA Journal 49(3): 24-29.

1\’Iichigan State University. (2009). Students Enrolled - Percentages of Change - UN, GR,
AT, EL - by College. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from

59

http://www.reg.msu.edu/reportserver7/ROReports/CE-
StuEanctChngUN&term_seq_id= 1 054.

Monroe, A. M. & Richtig, R. E. (2002). Factors affecting transfer decisions. The
Community College Enterprise: 19-39.

NCI—IEMS. (2007). College-Going Rates of High School Graduates - Directly fi'om High
School. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. The
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Retrieved August
13, 2008, from
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=63&year=2004&l
evel=nation&mode=data&state=0.

Peiter, R. L., Coffey, D., Morgan, J. A. & Kantrovich, A. (2004). University Freshmen
Attitudes Regarding Decisions to Attend University Programs of Agriculture in
Kentucky. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research 54(1): 207-218.

Pope, M. L. & F ermin, B. (2003). The Perceptions of College Students Regarding the
Factors Most Influential in Their Decision to Attend Postsecondary Education.
College & University: 19-25.

I)Ovvers, M. N. (2000). Factors in Choosing Landscape Architecture as a Major: A
National Student Survey. Unpublished master’s thesis, Faculty of the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute & State University-Blacksburg.

Pratt, P. & Evans, D. (2002). Assessment of the Utility of Parents as Sources of

Information About the College Decisions of Their Children. College & University
Journal: 9-12.

lKeis, R. & Kahler, A. A. (1997). Factors influencing enrollment in agricultural education
programs as expressed by Iowa secondary Agricultural Education Students.
Journal of Agricultural Education 38(2): 38-48.

Robinson, J. S., Garton, B. L. & Washburn, S. G. (2007). The Influential Factors F irst-
time Enrollees Utilize When Choosing a College of Agriculture. NACTA Journal
51(2): 27-33.

1{00cm S. J. & Washburn, S. G. (2005). Factors Influencing College Choice of High

School and Transfer Matriculants into a College of Agriculture. NA CT A Journal
49(1): 32-38.

60

Rocca, S. J. & Washburn, S. G. (2007). Comparison of Factors Influencing the College
Choice of FFA and Non-FFA Members into a College of Agriculture. In G. E.

Briers and T. G. Roberts (Ed.), Vol. 34. 2007 AAAE Research Conference (pp.
402-414). College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Scofield, G. G. (1995). College of Agriculture New Student Profile. Paper presented at
the Central Region 49th Annual Research Conference, St. Louis, MO.

Se g1 er-Conrad, E., Joerger, R. M. & Leske, G. (2004). Forms of Communication and
Individuals that Influenced Freshmen Students when Selecting an Agricultural
Education Major and A College of Agriculture. Paper presented at the 3 1 st
National Agricultural Education Research conference, St. Louis, MO.

S ivapirunthep, P. (2000). A study of selected characteristics and attitudes toward

agriculture of undergraduate agriculture majors at Mississippi State University in

1999. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (O4), 1322A. (UMI No. AAT
9970339)

United States Department of Education (1996). Digest of Education Statistics. United

States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Washington, DC.

United States Department of Education (2007). Projections of Education Statistics to

2016. (NCES 2008-060). United States Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.

Washburn, S. G., Garton, B. L. & Vaughn, P. R. (2002). Factors Influencing College
Choice of Agriculture Students College- Wide Compared with Students Majoring

in Agricultural Education. Paper presented at the 29th National Agricultural
Education Research, Las Vegas, NV.

Williams, K., Fraze, S., Burris, S., Akers, C. & Green, C. (2008). External Factors
Influencing Choice of Academic Major: A Comparison of Agricultural and Non-
Agricultural Students. In B. K. Warnick and R. S. Tarpley (Ed), Agricultural
Education at a Higher Elevation: Vol. 27. 2008 Western Region AAAE Research
Conference (pp. 115-127). Logan: Utah State University Press.

61

CHAPTER III

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ USE OF TIME IN THE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY

Introduction

College students’ time use has been a concern of administrators, professors,

academic advisors, and parents or guardians alike. Time is an important resource for all,
but it is considered a critical resource for students’ successful performance. Meredeen
( 1 9 8 8) indicated that the secret of survival and success at college can be largely defined
in terms of how well student organizes his or her time. Managing time is a challenge for
mall)’ college students. Unlike high school students, college students have less in-class
time and more outside-of-class work. Many college students may find their academic life
Very stressful (Macan et al., 1990).

College students’ time management is directly correlated with academic
performance and stress. There is a universal assumption that college grades are affected
by the amount of time spent on study; however, the relationship between college grades
a-tld quantity of time spent on study has not been fully established yet. Schuman et al.

( 1 985) found a very small relation between college grades and amount of study. Britton
and Tesser (1991) found that two time management components—short-range planning
a‘tld time attitudes—were significant predictors of cumulative grade point average and
c0lrcluded that time management practices may have an positive effect on college grades.
Time management is a skill, and it can be taught to students to make them more
e1‘Tective learners (Trueman and Hartley, 1996; Macan, 1994). Macan et al. (1990) found

t1‘lzcrt students who perceived control of their time reported greater evaluations of their

62

performance, greater work and life satisfaction, less role ambiguity, less role overload,
and fewer job-induced and somatic tensions. Research has shown that time management
is a better predictor than Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores to predict college
performance, i.e. grade point average (Britton and Tesser, 1991).
Since time management and college performance have a causal relationship,
understanding undergraduate students’ time use is essential for college administrators,
academic advisors, and parents to make sure that students are making balanced use of
time and progressing toward accomplishing their personal and professional goals.
Research in students’ time use is especially limited in the colleges of agriculture, except a
study done by Gortner and Zulauf (2000), who studied undergraduate students’ use of
time in agricultural economics courses at Ohio State University. In an effort to better
understand this under-developed field, this study focuses on the undergraduate students’
1little use in the CANR at MSU. Findings of this study may be useful to college
administrators, academic advisors, and parents, as well as assisting students become

el’lgaged learners and facilitate comprehensive development.
Obj ectives

The general objective of this study was to seek information on how current

lmdergraduate students in the CANR utilize their time on various academic and
el-(tracurricular activities, and to analyze differences in time use patterns by selected

demographic characteristics. The specific objectives of this study were to:
1

determine weekly time use profiles of CANR students in academic and nonacademic

activities,

63

2, compare time use of the CANR students at MSU with the National Survey of Student.
Engagement (N SSE) study,
3 , determine similarities and differences in time use patterns by selected demographic
characteristics of respondents such as academic level, sex, ethnicity, residence, and

participation in 4-H/FFA and the member status in National Honor Society during high

school.

Methodology

College students’ time use has been studied by several researchers. Researchers
have ofien recommended and used the time diary method to measure use of time (Gortner
811d Zulauf, 2000; Robinson and Godbey, 1997). Robinson and his colleagues consider
the time diary to be the gold standard of time management, but (Jacobs, 1998) maintains
1illzit self-reported measure of working time is an alternative to the time diary measure
because it is simple and as accurate as time diary measure. He found no patterned
di Screpancies between the two measures, but unlike self-reported measures, time diary
measures are an extremely data-intensive research strategy for measuring use of time.
Tllis study utilized the self-reported time use (hours per week) of the undergraduate
Students in the CANR at MSU.

This was a descriptive study using an online survey. Online surveys have been
g'eiim'ng popularity in social survey and educational research for their cost effectiveness in
data collection and data entry, speed of data access, and ease in processing and managing
data received in electronic form (Kaplowitz et al., 2004; Sax et al., 2003; Couper, 2000;
Duffy, 2000). However, online surveying has its own limitations and shortcomings, such

as generalizability, low response rate, sampling, and handling non-response bias (Sax et

64

a 1 , , 2003; Couper, 2000). To address these limitations, some researchers have suggested
employing mixed-mode strategies to minimize non-response issues (Kaplowitz et al.,
2004; Sax et al., 2003; Dilman, 2000).

This survey adopted the “time use” section of the survey instrument used in the
National Survey of Student Engagement (N S SE), developed by Indiana University,
(N S SE, 2004). For the purpose of this survey, the response item scales of the NSSE
survey instrument were modified with self-reported approximate hours used per week
instead of scales of time use. Respondents were asked to indicate the approximate
number of hours they spend per week in seven major activities: preparing for class,
W0 rl<ing for pay on-campus and off-campus, participating in co-curricular activities,
relaxing and socializing, providing care for dependents, and commuting to class.

Preparing for class included activities such as studying, reading, writing, doing
homework or lab work, analyzing data, researching and other academic activities. Co-
c‘-1l‘ricular activities included student organizations activities, campus publications, social
fraternities or sororities, and intercollegiate or intramural sports. Providing care for
dependents was defined as taking care of parents, children, or a spouse. The modified
S‘~~"~1‘\Iey instrument was circulated to the CANR Assessment Committee members to
aSCertain its content and face validity.

The population of this study consisted of all undergraduate college students in the

Q4ANR during 2004 to 2008. Data were collected using an on-line survey during March-
April of each study year. An e-mail list maintained by the Office of the Dean served as
the sampling frame for this study. The online survey was sent to 2,565 students in 2004;

2 3439 students in 2005; and 1,997 students in 2006; 2,406 students in 2007, and 2,311

65

students in 2008. Two reminder e-mails were sent to the survey population to increase
survey response rates.

A total of 2,803 usable responses (i.e., 764 students in 2004; 228 students in 2005;
and 500 students in 2006; 525 in 2007; and 786 in 2008) were received. The average
five-year survey response rate was 24.5 percent. In 2004, free ice cream coupons were
provided as an incentive to complete and submit the survey. No such incentive was

provided in 2005. Response rates dropped significantly in 2005, so the ice cream
incentive was again offered to survey respondents in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Data were accessed from a Web-based database and exported into SPSS for
Windows 15.0 for analysis. Descriptive statistics—including frequency counts,
percentage, mean, and standard deviation—were used to present findings. One-way
anal ysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-tests were used to determine
Whether the weekly time use in various activities differed significantly by students’

demographic characteristics. The level of alpha for significance was set at 0.05.
Results and Discussions

I)€28cription of the respondents

Of the 2,803 respondents, about 15% were freshmen, 25% were sophomores, 40%
were juniors and 22% were seniors. About seven percent of the respondents indicated
that they had a second major, and little more than ten percent had second degrees. By

Sex, 64% of the respondents were female. The age of respondents ranged from 18 to 58
years. The mean age of respondents was 21 years. When segregating the respondents by
8‘88, traditional age undergraduates (18 to 24 years old) constituted 93.3% of the total

reSpondents. Nearly ninety percent (87.1%) of respondents were white and the rest were

66

Hispanic followed by African-American, Asian-American, Native-American and others.
More than half (54.6%) of the respondents indicated that they came to the CANR from

sub-urban or urban communities. In-state respondents comprised little more than ninety

percent (91.7%) of the total respondents. About a quarter (24.4%) of the respondents had
participated in 4-H and FFA. Over half of the respondents (55.3%) indicated that they

were members of the National Honor Society in high school.

Use of time by respondents

i) Time spent on preparing for class
Preparing for class included studying, reading, writing, doing home work or lab
Work, analyzing data, researching, and other academic activities. Analysis of the data
indicated that almost all of the respondents (99.99%) spent some time preparing for class.
Respondents spent an average of 15.2 hours/week on preparing for class (Table 8). Time
“Se patterns over the five-year period indicated that time spent on preparing for class has
been increasing. The time used for preparing for class in this study is similar to that of
United State Department of Labor (2007) study for full-time university and college
Students’ time use (16 hours per week) for educational activities from 2003 to 2006. The
fillcling of this survey for time use for academic activities is also close to a time
111Eluagement study of students of the Literature, Science and Arts College at the
University of Michigan conducted by Schuman et al. (1985), who found that the median
S1illdy time was 14.5 hours/week (2.9 hours per weekday). But time use in preparing for
class in this study is far less than the undergraduate students’ time use (21.3 hours/week)

1“ three agricultural economics courses at Ohio State University as studied by Gortner

and Zulauf (2000).

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@598 EN WW 9; Wm 89 WW «8. mm :m Wm E was 933888
8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5
a w
0.: 8v 2 E 2: 2 v: 8 Q: X we 3 3:85 038 28 5235
9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5
w m
«.8 EN q8 E 98 39 2: a? _.2 2 0.8 8; 255893 .533
9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 8.8 9.8 $825“ 33850-8
3 $2 3 99 E 02 99 NR 3 e8 3 N99 538925..
9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9; 5 9.8
mag - a a w
8.8 32 N8 SN 5: m8 e: 08 be a 0.: N: 888° a E 55.53
9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
25 - a a w
9.2 m: 3; 8m 9.: 8m «.8 SN 9.: a «.8 ”mm ES 8 a 5 £53
9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 9.8
23.5 wanna
N: 98 98 9: 4.: 89 4.2 88. a: NNN ”.2 on. _ e . as
68 a 88 a 88 a 88 s 88 a 88 a
502 532 532 522 :82 502 8555
EB woo“ 38 88 88 38 .. . <
30> c335

 

 

 

agegéeieieg855$ sesame .23

68

In conclusion, the amount of time spent in academic activities by the respondents
in the CANR is substantially less than the amount of time spent on educational activities
by students in other studies. However, the required amount of time to be spent in
academic preparation may vary by nature of subjects or college majors. For example,
students of medical science and engineering may require spending more time on study
compared to the students of agriculture science or liberal arts.
ii) Time spent on working for pay
Respondents were asked to indicate the approximate number of hours per week
they spent on working for pay on and off-campus. Over half (57%) of the respondents
indicated that they did not work on—campus. Similarly, 62.2% of the respondents
indicated that they did not work off—campus. Of those students working, they spent 13.5
ho urs/week working for pay on—campus and 16.9 hours/week working for pay off-campus
(Table 8). With regard to time use on work, respondents’ combined (on-campus and off-
ca-Ihpus) work hours was 17 hours per week, which is more than the undergraduate
Students’ time use (12.3 hours/week) in Gortner and Zulaufs (2000) study. Similarly, the
Work hours (on-campus and off-campus combined) in this study are higher than the
nalienal statistics on college students’ work hours which are 14 hours/week, according to
file US. college students time use report 2003-2006 (United State Department of Labor,
2007). Respondents’ use of time (17 hours/week) on both types of work is little less than
half the amount of time spent by the employed part-time workers (37.5 hours/week) in
USA (United State Department of Labor, 2008). It is important to note that respondents
SI>ent more time working (1 7 hours/week) than they did for academic activities (15.2

hours/week). The reason respondents spent more time on work could be due to the rising

69

cost of tuition and other living expenses in the recent years. Today’s college students are
working more than before, and this rise in work follows a trend of increasing tuition
costs. According to a recent national survey of American freshman, nearly 50% of
respondents plan to work to meet their college expenses (Higher Education Research
Institute, 2009).
iii) Time spent on participate in co-curricular activities
Participation in co-curricular activities included involvement in student
organizations, campus publications, student government, social fraternity or sorority,
intercollegiate or intramural sports. Analysis of the data indicated that little more than a
quarter (27.2%) of respondents did not participate in co-curricular activities. Nearly
tI'll‘ee-quarter (73.8%) of respondents participated in co-curricular activities spending
about six hours per week on these activities.
iv) Time spent on relaxing and socializing
Relaxing and socializing included watching TV, exercising and other social
acti Vities such as partying. Almost all of the respondents indicated that they spent some
time on relaxing and socializing. On average, respondents spent 16.2 hours/week
relaxing and socializing (Table 8). Another notable finding of this study is that
respondents spent more time relaxing and socializing (16.2 hours/week) than they spent
academic activities (15.2 hours/week).
The US. full-time university and college students’ time use on leisure and sports
was 19.5 hours/week (United State Department of Labor, 2007). Gortner and Zulauf
(2000) reported 19 hours/week in planned leisure and recreation activities and 10.3

hours/week in watching TV for undergraduate students in agricultural economics in the

70

Ohio State University. The average annual time use on leisure and sports for an
American was 38.5 hours/week in 2007 (United State Department of Labor, 2008).
Although it seems that respondents in this study spent more time on relaxing and
socializing than they did spend time on preparing for class, respondents of the CANR at
M S U spent less time relaxing and socializing compared to other US. college students.
v) Time spent on providing care for dependents
Respondents were asked to indicate the approximate hours/week they spent on
taking care of dependents living with them. Out of 2,709 respondents who replied to this
activity, 2,306 (85.1%) indicated that they did not spent anytime providing care for
dependents. Only 15% of the respondents indicated that they spent an average of 11.6
1'10 urs/per week providing care for dependents living with them (Table 8). Respondents’
time use in providing care for dependents had the largest variation as indicated by the
hi ghest standard deviation of 16.0.

According to the National Survey of Student Engagement (N S SE) 2008 study, the
time use statistics for providing care for dependents for agricultural and natural resources
re Spondents was 1 to 5 hours per week (personal communication with NSSE staff,
August 28, 2008). The respondents in this study spent more than twice the amount of
ti the spent providing care for dependents as compared to the respondents of agricultural
and natural resources of NSSE 2008 study.

In 2007, an average time use caring for household members in US. was 14.6

l-‘()l1rs/week (United State Department of Labor, 2008). Being students, respondents of
this study had spent little less time caring household members than the survey

respondents of the American Time Use survey in 2007. It is interesting to note that

71

respondents spent two times as much time on dependent care as compared to co-
curricular activities.

vi) Time spent on commuting to class

The high majority of respondents (98.5%) indicated that they commute to class.
The average commuting time for five-year study period is 5 hours/week. The finding of
thi 3 study is consistent with the NSSE study 2008, which indicated an average
commuting time as 1 to 5 hours per week for agriculture and natural resources
respondents (personal communication with NSSE staff, August 28, 2008). According to
the college students and time use, 2003-2006 report, full-time university and college
Students travelled for 7.5 hours/week during the weekdays (United State Department of
Labor, 2008). The finding of this study on average commuting time indicated that the
CANR students spent less time commuting than did the average university and college
St1—1C1ents in the US.

In summary, the aggregate time use statistics indicated that the respondents spent
r1'1()re time working for pay off-campus (16.9 hrs/week) and relaxing and socializing (16.2

hrS/ week) than they did spend time for preparing for class (15.2 hrs/week).

Comparison of time use between the CANR and NSSE study

The second objective of this study was to compare the findings on time use
betWeen the CANR study at MSU and the NSSE study. To accomplish this objective,
me Associate Director, Research and Data Analysis at Indiana University Center for

1)Ostsecondary Research was requested for special analysis of time use data for the
agriculture and natural resources (ANR) respondents and respondents from other

academic majors. It is important to note that the scale of the time use measurement was

72

di fferent between the CAN R study at MSU and the NSSE study. The time use data for
the CAN R study at MSU was gathered in a ratio scale (approximate number of hours per
week) whereas the NSSE study collected data on time use in 8-point scales (1= 0
how/week, 2= 1-5 hrs/wk, 3= 6-10 hrs/wk, 4= 11-15 hrs/wk, 5= 16-20 hrs/wk, 6= 21-25
hrs/wk, 7= 26-30 hrs/wk, and 8=more than 30 hrs/week). To make the findings more
comparable, the CANR data at MSU were recoded adopting the same scale used in the
N S SE study.

The statistics for time use profile for these two studies are presented in Table 9.

The CANR respondents spent more time (mean=4.2) preparing for class than did ANR
re Spondents (mean= 3.8) in NSSE survey. Although both means for CANR, MSU and
ANR, NSSE fall under the same class interval (4= 11 to 15 hours/week), CANR, MSU
rIlean of 4.2 indicates that its respondents spent more time in academic activities than did
ANR, NSSE respondents. MSU’s CANR respondents and NSSE’s other respondents
than ANR spent the same amount of time on preparing for class.

Similarly, CAN R, MSU respondents spent more time (mean=2.2) working for pay
on—campus than did both categories of NSSE’s respondents (means: ANR=1.9, and
Otller=1 .7). It could be possible that MSU has provided more on-campus work
O13130rtunities for its students than do other Colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources
in US. Unlike on-campus work, MSU’s CANR students spent less amount of time
(mean=2.6) working off-campus than did both ANR (mean=2.6) and Other (mean=2.6)

re spondents of NSSE study. It implies that either there are not many off-campus working
O13portunities for CAN R students in East Lansing as compared to the surroundings of

ether Colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources in US, or MSU has better on-

73

campus housing facilities and host more students at campus dormitories than do other
colleges. It is important to note here that MSU is one of the top colleges in US in terms
of its on-campus university housing capacity.
Table 9. Time use in the CANR study at MSU and the NSSE 2008 study

. Time Use (hours/week)

 

 

 

 

 

. . . MSU (CANR)I NSSE (ANR)2 NSSE (Other)3
Actrvrties 4 4 4
n Mean 11 Mean 11 Mean
(SD) (SD) (SD)
Preparing for class 780 4.2 (1.8) 5496 3.8 (1.5) 315876 4.2 (1.7)
Working for pay on-campus 767 2.2 (1.6) 5498 1.9 (1.5) 315666 1.7 (1.4)
Working for pay off-campus 751 2.2 (1.9) 5490 2.6 (2.3) 315480 2.9 (2.6)

 

Participating in co-curricular activities 765 2.1 (1.2) 5498 2.7 (1.7) 315960 2.3 (1.6)

 

 

Relaxing and socializing 772 4.3 (1.8) 5501 3.9 (1 .6) 315836 3.6 (1.6)

 

 

PTOViding care for dependents 754 1.3 (1.0) 5493 1.6 (1.4) 315411 2.0 (2.0)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commuting to class 774 2.4 (0.7) 5501 2.3 (0.9) 316185 2.2 (1.0)
\——————u———t——_—\—F_—
F001 Notes:

1 - Undergraduate Student Survey 2008, College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources (CANR), Michigan State University, East Lansing.

‘ National Survey of Student Engagement (N SSE) 2008, Agricultural and Natural
Resources respondents only. Indiana University, Bloomington.

‘ National Survey of Student Engagement (N SSE) 2008, Other respondents
excluding Agricultural and Natural Resources. Indiana University, Bloomington.

‘ Scale: 1= 0 hrs/wk, 2: 1-5 hrs/wk, 3= 6-10 hrs/wk, 4= 11-15 hrs/wk,
5= 16-20 hrs/wk, 6= 21-25 hrs/wk, 7= 26-30 hrs/wk, 8= more than 30 hrs/wk.

1» N

A

Similarly, with regard to time use in co-curricular activities, the CANR
1T‘eSpondents at MSU spent less time (mean-=21) than did respondents of ANR
(Inean=2.7) and Other (mean=2.3) groups of NSSE study. It seems that students in other
eolleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources were more motivated to participate in

extracurricular activities than the students in the CANR at MSU.

74

With regard to time spent on relaxing and socializing, MSU’s CANR respondents
spent more time (mean=4.3) than did respondents of ANR (mean=3.9) and Others
(mean=3.6) of NSSE study. Both the CANR at MSU and NSSE study results showed

that agriculture students spent more time relaxing and socializing than they did spend on
academic activities. Contrary to this, respondents in other academic majors spent more
time (mean=4.2) preparing for class than relaxing and socializing (mean=3.6). This
finding indicates that students in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources spend

more time partying, watching TV, and some other forms of socialization than do students

in other academic majors.
' Time use in providing care for dependents showed that CANR respondents at

MSU spent less time (mean=1.3) than those of ANR (mean=] .6) and Other (mean=2.0)
re spondents of NSSE study. It may be possible that proportion of the CAN R students

living with their family could be smaller at MSU as compared to the respondents of the

N S SE study.
In terms of commuting behavior, respondent in both studies spent almost the same

mount of time, although the mean commuting time for CANR respondents at MSU is a

little higher (mean=2.4) compared to the NSSE respondents: ANR (mean=2.3) and Other
(mean=2.2).

Time use and demographic characteristics
The third objective of this study was to determine similarities or differences in
time use profile by selected demographic characteristics of respondents. The results of
One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for time spent (hours/week) on various activities

by academic level of respondents are presented in Table 10. The ANOVA results for

75

'11

n.
,

’Kd‘L'Ui

time spent on each activity by academic levels of respondents are briefly described and

discussed below.
i) Time spent on preparing for class.

Findings show that Freshman, Sophomore, and Junior spent almost the same
amount of time preparing for class. However, Seniors spent an hour less than did other
academic levels of respondents. No differences were observed for amount of time spent
on academic activities among different academic levels of respondents. The result of this
study is dissimilar with the NSSE 2008 survey result in which freshmen spent more
amount of time in preparing for class than did seniors (N SSE, 2008).

ii) Time spent on working for pay on-campus.

Analysis revealed that respondents were significantly (F=9.158, p< 0.001)
different for spending time on working for pay on—campus by their academic levels. The
Tllkey’s post hoc test was conducted for multiple comparisons to identify differences
among the academic levels of respondents. The results of Tukey’s multiple comparisons
are presented in Appendix I. The Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons
itlelicated that Seniors spent significantly (F =9. 1 58, p<0.05) more time (15.0 hrs/week)
than did Freshman (12.7 hrs/week) for pay on-campus. This result is consistent with the

N S SE 2008 results in which Seniors spent more amount of time on working for pay on-
QEImpus than did Freshmen. Similarly, Juniors spent more time (13.8 hrs/week) working
er pay on-campus than did Sophomores (12.3 hrs/week). Post hoc test also revealed that

Seniors spent more time (15.0 hrs/week) than did Sophomores (12.3 hrs/week) on on-

Qampus employment.

76

 

Table 10. Time use (hour/week) by academic level of respondents in the CANR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities n 1:22;:ng F value p value
Preparing for class
Freshman 379 15.7 ( 12.4)
Sophomore 677 15.4 (11.0) 2.436 0.063
Junior 1091 15.5 (11.3)
Senior 600 14.1 (10.3)
Working for pay on-campus
Freshman 142 12.7 (6.8)
Sophomore 300 12.3 (5.9) 9.158 0001*"
Junior 475 13.8 (6.0)
Senior 256 15.0 (7.8)
Working for pay off-campus
Freshman 97 13.9 (8.2)
Sophomore 184 15.7 (8.6) 6.464 0.001 ***
Junior 450 17.4 (9.2)
Senior 270 18.1 (10.1)
Participating in co-curricular activities
Freshman 247 5.8 (5.6)
Sophomore 502 6.4 (6.9) 0.550 0.648
Junior 796 6.2 (6.7)
Senior 440 6.0 (6.4)
Relaxing and socializing
Freshman 374 17.6 (14.3)
Sophomore 667 16.7 (14.1) 3.153 0024*
Junior 1078 15.4 (11.9) '
Senior 593 16.2 (11.6)
Providing care for dependents
Freshman 45 9.8 (14.4)
Sophomore 82 7.8 (9.2) 3.614 0.013“
Junior 171 11.7 (15.3)
Senior 105 15.2 (20.6)
Commuting to class
Freshman 372 5.3 (4.3)
Sophomore 654 4.9 (4.5) 1.360 0.253
Junior 1082 5.0 (3.7)
Senior 598 4.7 (3.7)

* Significant at 0.05 level, ** Significant at 0.01 level, *** Significant at 0.001 level

77

iii) Time spent on working for pay off-campus.

Respondents were significantly (F=6.464, p<0.001) different from each other by
their academic levels for their time use on working for pay off-campus. Post hoc

multiple comparisons revealed difference between Freshman and Junior, Freshman and
Senior, and Sophomore and Senior in terms of time spent on working for pay off-campus.
Seniors spent more time (18.1 hrs/week) than did Freshmen (13.9 hrs/week) in working
for pay off-campus. Similarly, Seniors spent more time than Sophomores (15.7 hrs/week)
in working off-campus. Juniors spent more time (17.4 hrs/week) than Freshmen (13.9
hrs/week) in off-campus employment.

iv) Time spent on co-curricular activities.

An AN OVA result revealed no differences between the academic levels of

respondents in time use on participating in co-curricular activities.

v) Time spent on relaxing and socializing.

An AN OVA result indicated a significant (F=3.153, p< 0.05) relationship
between respondents’ academic level and time spent on relaxing and socializing.
Tukey’s post hoc multiple comparisons showed difference between Freshman and Juniors
for their time use on relaxing and socializing. Freshman spent (17.6 hrs/week) more time
than did Junior (15.4 hrs/week) on entertainment.

vi) Time spent on providing care for dependents.

An AN OVA result showed a significant (F=3.614, p<0.05) difference between
academic level of respondents and time spent on providing care for dependents. Tukey’s
post hoc test for multiple comparisons indicated that Seniors spent more time (15.2

hrs/week) than did Sophomores (7.8 hrs/week) taking care of their dependents.

78

vii) Time spent on commuting to class.

An AN OVA result gave no difference between the variables academic level of
respondents and commuting to class.

Overall, findings indicated that seniors spent more time on both employment:
working on-campus and off-campus than did other participants. Also, Seniors spent more
time on taking care of dependents than did other groups of respondents. It seems logical
that seniors would be with their families, which demand more time for providing care for
dependents as compared to freshmen. Also, being with family means more financial
needs, thus, seniors have to spend substantially more amount of time on work to meet
their family living expenses and so forth, which may have bearing on the availability of

time for seniors for academic activities.

Freshmen spent more time than did other groups in relaxing and socializing
activities. The result also indicates that freshmen spent more time on commuting than
did other respondents. It may be possible that freshmen are staying with their parents or
guardians, thus, they spent more time on commuting to class than did others. Seniors
were more engaged in work and family responsibilities than did other groups of
respondents.

One of the final objectives of this study was to determine if time use pattern
varies by students’ sex. There were significant differences between male and female
respondents for time use for six out of seven activities (Table 11). Males were
significantly different from females in time use in four out of seven activities. Whereas
females were significantly different from males in spending time in two out of seven

activities. Females respondents spent significantly (t =7.361, p < 0.001) more time (16.4

79

hours/week) on class preparation than did their male counterparts (13.1 hrs/week).

Similarly, females spent significantly (t =2.800, p < 0.01) more time (5.1 hrs/week) on

commuting to class than did males (4.7 hrs/week).

Male respondents spent significantly (t=2.683, p < 0.01) more amount of time

(14.3 hrs/week) working for pay on-campus than did female respondents (13.2 hrs/week).
Similarly, males spent significantly (t=3.877, p < 0.001) more time (18.3 hrs/week) on
working off-campus than did females (16.0 hrs/week). With regard to participation in co-
curricular activities, males spent significantly (t=3.492, p < 0.001) more time (6.8
hrs/week) than did females (5.8 hrs/week). Additionally, male respondent spent
significantly (t=5.620, p < 0.001) more time (18.1 hrs/week) in relaxing and socializing
than did female respondents (15.2 hrs/week). The results on time use by male and female

on academic activities in this study is consistent with the findings of NSSE 2008 survey

for ANR respondents (N SSE, 2008).

80

Table 11. Time use (hours/week) by gender of respondents

 

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Hours/Week
Act1v1t1es n Mean (SD) tvalue p value
Preparing for class
Mal 990 13.1 10.7
e ( ) 7.361 0.001***
Female 1755 16.4 (11.3)
Working for pay on-campus
Male 359 14.3 (6.9)
2.683 0.007”
Female 813 13.2 (6.4)
Working for pay off-campus
Male 398 18.3 (10.3)
3.877 0001*"
Female 603 16.0 (8.5)
Participating in co-curricular activities
Male 674 6.8 (7.6)
3.492 0001*"
Female 1307 5.8 (5.9)
Relaxing and socializing
Male 975 18.1(14.7)
5.620 0.001***
Female 1735 15.2 (11.5)
Providing care for dependents
Male 141 12.2 (16.4)
0.525 0.600
Female 261 11.3 (15.8)
Commuting to class
Male 981 4.7 (3.5)
2.800 0.005"
Female 1723 5.1 (4.3)
L_.___

 

 

”Significant at 0.01 level, *** Significant at 0.001 level

Results of this study indicated that male students were significantly more
involved in various activities than did female students, which shows that males had better
time management skills than did female students. This finding is dissimilar with the
findings of Trueman and Hartley (1996) who concluded that female students had
significantly greater time management skills than male students. The findings of this

study are also consistent with Agriculture and Natural Resources respondents of NSSE

81

2008 survey. It was interesting to note that male students reported spending more time
(12.2 hours/week) in providing care for dependents than did female students (11.3
hours/week). The male respondents’ time use in relaxing and socializing is also
consistent with the findings of both studies Gortner and Zulauf (2000) and NSSE (2008).
The American Time Use Survey 2007 results showed that men spent 39.9 hours per week
compared to 35 hours per week for women in leisure activities such as watching TV,
Socializing or exercising (United State Department of Labor, 2008). The findings of
Robinson and Godbey (1997) on time use by employed Americans, however, indicate
that there was no difference in time use between men and women in watching TV for
those between the ages of 18 to 24 years old.

Time use may differ by the sociocultural background of the student. To determine
this difference, if it exists, respondents were grouped into two groups on the basis of
ethnicity: white and Students of Color. In this study, “Students of Color” refers to all
minorities including African American, Hispanic, Asian American, and Native American
respondents. Student’s t-test was used to determine differences in weekly time use by
ethnicity. Findings indicate that no significant differences were observed between these
two groups for time use in preparing for class; working for pay off-campus; participating
in co-curricular activities; and providing care for dependents (Table 12).

There were significant differences between these two ethnic groups for weekly
time use for working for pay on-campus (t=2.848, p < 0.01), relaxing and socializing
(t=4.579, p < 0.001), and commuting to class (t=1.979, p < 0.05). Students of Color
respondents spent significantly more amount of time (14.8 hrs/week) on working for pay

on—campus than did their white counterparts (13.3 hrs/week). Whereas white respondents

82

spent significantly more amount of time (16.6 hrs/week) in relaxing and socializing as
compared to Students of Color (13.3 hrs/week). Unlike white respondents, Students of
Color significantly spent more time (5.4 hrs/week) on commuting to class.

Table 12. Time use (hours/week) by ethnicity of respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Hours/Week
Act1v1t1es 11 Mean (SD) tvalue p value
Preparing for class
White 2388 15.1 (11.0)
1.105 0.269
Students of Color 352 15.8 (12.3)
Working for pay on-campus
White 990 13.3 (6.5)
2.848 0.004"
Students of Color 175 14.8 (6.9)
Working for pay off-campus
White 910 16.8 (9.3)
1.436 0.151
Students of Color 92 18.3 (9.8)
Participating in co-curricular activities
White 1723 6.2 (6.7)
1.336 0.182
Students of Color 254 5.6 (5.0)
Relaxing and socializing
White 2356 16.6 (13.1)
4.579 0.001***
Students of Color 350 13.3 (10.6)
Providing care for dependents
White 331 11.9 (16.6)
1.010 0.313
Students of Color 70 9.8 (12.7)
Commuting to class
White 2357 4.9 (3.8)
1.979 0048*
Students of Color 343 5.4 (5.1)

 

* Significant at 0.05 level, "Significant at 0.01 level, *** Significant at 0.001 level

83

Although not statistically significant, Students of Color spent more time (15.8 hrs/week)
on preparing for class than did white respondents. Findings in this study are consistent
with the NSSE 2008 survey findings for ANR respondents (N SSE, 2008). According to
the American Time Use Survey 2007 reports, the statistics for time use on educational
activities for the civilian population aged 15 years and above reported: 2.8 hours/week for
White and 3.7 hours/week for Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, (United State Department of
Labor, 2008).

The American Time Use Survey 2007 reported time spent on working and work
related activities for the civilian population by ethnicity as: 26.9 hours/week for White;
24.7 hours/week for African American; and 29.2 hours/week for Hispanic or Latino
(United State Department of Labor, 2008). Similarly, time spent on leisure and sports for
different ethnic groups were: 35.4 hours/week for White; 40.2 hours/week for African
American; and 32.6 hours/week for Hispanic or Latino. According to the American Time
Use Survey 2007, there was no consistent pattern of difference between white and
Students of Color for time use for various activities.

This study also attempted to find out if time spent on various activities differed by
residence (rural vs. urban), where they were brought up, of respondents. Student t-tests
were used to determine the difference between these two groups. Findings indicated
significant differences between the rural and urban respondents for time use in class
preparation; relaxing and socializing; and commuting to class (Table 13). Respondents
from urban community significantly (t= 2.034, p < 0.05) spent more time (15.6 hrs/week)
on preparing for class than did respondents from rural community (14.7 hrs/week).

Similarly, respondents from urban background spent significantly (t= 4.022, p < 0.001)

84

more time (17.1 hrs/week) on relaxing and socializing than did respondent from rural
residence (15.2 hrs/week). Whereas~respondents from rural communities spent
significantly (t=2.722, p <0.01) more time (5.2 hrs/week) in commuting to class than did
students from urban communities (4.8 hrs/week).

No statistically significant differences were found between rural and urban
respondents in time use for working for pay on-campus and off-campus; participating in

co-curricular activities; and providing care for dependents.

Table 13. Time use (hours/week) by residence types of respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities 11 Mean (SD) t p value
Preparing for class
Rural 1242 14.7 (10.8)
2.034 0042*
Urban 1501 15.6 (11.5)
Working for pay on-campus
Rural 578 13.7 (6.7)
0.674 0.501
Urban 591 13.4 (6.4)
Working for pay off-campus
Rural 524 16.6 (9.4)
1.330 0.184
Urban 478 17.3 (9.3)
Participating in co-curricular activities
Rural 916 6.0 (6.2)
0.645 0.519
Urban 1063 6.2 (6.8)
Relaxing and socializing
Rural 1232 15.2 (12.3)
4.022 0001*“
Urban 1477 17.1 (13.2)
Providing care for dependents
Rural 198 11.1(15.6)
0.728 0.468
Urban 202 12.2 (16.4)
Commuting to class
Rural 1226 5.2 (4.1)
2.722 001”
Urban 1476 4.8 (3.9)

 

 

 

 

* Significant at 0.05 Alpha level, ** Significant at 0.01 Alpha level,
*** Significant at 0.001 Alpha level.

85

A significant difference was observed between rural and urban respondents for
spending time on relaxing and socializing. Urban respondents spent more time on
relaxing and socializing, and participating in co-curricular activities than their rural
colleagues. It seems logical that urban respondents grew up in urban environment where
they might have availability and access to all kinds of services for sports, entertainment,
and social clubs. Thus, students from urban areas might be more habituated with
exercising, watching TV, partying, and participating in social organizations which made
them likely to spend more time in relaxing and socializing, and extra-curricular activities
than the students from rural background.

With regard to commuting time difference between rural and urban respondents, it
was revealed from the first paper of this dissertation that rural students were much more
influenced by their parents and guardians for their decision to select college major. Thus,
it is possible that rural students are staying with their parents and commuting to class,
which makes them spend significantly more time in commuting to class than their urban
colleagues.

Overall, findings show that urban students were engaged in more activities and
spent more time on academic and non-academic activities than did their rural colleagues.

For most students, college choice and academic major selection usually start
during high school. Traditionally, many students enrolled in CANR programs come from
4-H and/or F FA backgrounds. It could be possible that students who participated in 4-
H/FFA activities while attending school may spend time differently than those who did
not have 4-H/FF A backgrounds. Thus, one of the objectives of this study was to

determine differences in time use by participants or non-participants of 4-H/FFA during

86

high school. Independent sample t tests (Appendix J )showed that there was no
significant difference between the participants and non-participants of 4-H/F FA on
weekly time use patterns on various activities except the time spent in relaxing and
socializing. Statistical analysis revealed that non-participants of 4-H/FFA spent
significantly (t=4.821, p < 0.001) more time (16.9 hrs/week) in relaxing and socializing
than did participants of 4-l-I/F FA (14.2 hrs/week). However, participants of 4-H/FFA
spent more time, though not statistically significant, in co-curricular activities than did
non-participants. It might be possible that for those who were involved in organizations
such as 4-H and F FA in high schools, were likely to participate more in student
organizations, student government, and campus publications during college rather than
spending time on relaxing and socializing.

Similarly, weekly time use patterns were compared between respondents who
indicated membership in the National Honor Society (N HS) during high school and those
who did not. Findings revealed that no significant differences were found for time spent
on various activities except working for pay on-campus. Respondents who were not
members of the NHS in high school spent significantly (t = 2.323, p < 0.05) more time
(14.1 hrs/week) in working for pay on-campus than did members (13.0 hrs/week) of NHS
(Appendix K). It could be possible that members of NHS had better high school GPA and
possible higher Scholastic Aptitude Test score, which help them receive fellowships in
college and they did not have to spend more time in working for pay. Whereas the
relationship could be just reverse in case of non-member respondents; thus, they had to

spend more hours in work.

87

Conclusions and Recommendations
Five-year data of 2,803 undergraduate students in the CANR at MSU on weekly

time use for various activities showed an average of 15.2 hours/week preparing for class,
13.5 hours/week working on-campus, 16.9 hours/week working off-campus, 6.1
hours/week participating in co-curricular activities, 16.2 hours/week relaxing and
socializing, 11.6 hours/week providing care for dependents, and 5 .0 hours/week
commuting to class. As indicated by the high standard deviation, time use variation was
the highest for providing care for dependents. It is interesting to note that respondents
spent more time relaxing and socializing than they did spend in educational activities.

Respondents indicated that they enroll, in general, for 14 credits each semester
which means they spend at least 14 hours per week in class. A commonly quoted rule is
that college students are expected to spend two hours in class preparation for each hour
spent in class (Gortner and Zulauf, 2000). If one accepts this general standard, students in
this study should have spent at least 28 hours/week preparing for class. Findings of this
study indicate, however, that CANR students spent fifteen hours a week in class
preparation, almost half the recommended time for college students. The numbers of
hours devoted to class preparation by CAN R students is substantially low in comparison
of hours spent by undergraduate students of agricultural economics at Ohio State
University (Gortner and Zulauf, 2000). However, the average time spent on class
preparation in this study is about the same as the median study time (14.5 hours/week)
spent by students in the College of Literature, Science and Arts at the University of
Michigan (Schuman et al.,1985).

Comparison of time use profile (hours/week) between the CANR respondents at

MSU and ANR respondents of NS SE 2008 survey indicates that respondents in this study

88

spent more amount of time in academic activities than the respondents in the latter.
Similarly, respondents in the CAN R at MSU spent more time on employment at campus
than did the ANR respondents of NSSE survey 2008. The ANR respondents of NSSE
survey 2008 spent more time on both working for pay off-campus and participating in
extra-curricular activities than did respondents in the CANR at MSU. Respondents in the
CANR at MSU spent more time on relaxing and socializing, and commuting to class than
did the ANR respondents of NSSE 2008 survey whereas the AN R respondents of NSSE
(2008) survey spent more time for providing care for dependents than did the CANR
respondents at MSU. Overall, respondents in both studies spent most of their time on
relaxing and socializing followed by academic activities.

Students’ time use patterns on various activities also varied by demographic
characteristics such as academic level of education, sex, ethnicity, residency,
participation in 4-H/FFA activities while in high school, and National Honor Society
membership. Results of an ANOVA test revealed that there were significant differences
between academic levels of respondents for working for pay on-campus and off-campus
jobs, relaxing and socializing, and providing care for dependents. The possible reason for
juniors and seniors spending more time (hours/week) at on—campus and off-campus work
could be increased financial necessity. Gortner and Zulauf (2000) argue that the reason
seniors spend more hours at work is fewer scholarship opportunities for upperclassmen.
Disproportionately more fellowships are directed at freshmen and sophomores as
recruitment incentives. Levels of parental support also decrease as students grow older.

Freshmen spent more hours per week relaxing and socializing than did juniors. The

89

probable reasons for less time spent by juniors and seniors in relaxing and socializing
may be their financial need to meet family expenses and tuition costs.

This study found that there were significant differences between students’ sex and
time use patterns. Female students spent significantly more hours per week preparing for
classes and commuting to class than did male students. Male students, on the other hand,
spent significantly more hours working on-campus and off-campus jobs, participating in
co-curricular activities, and relaxing and socializing than did female students. The fact
that female students spent less time in working on-campus and in relaxing and socializing
may have helped them devote more time to class preparation than for the male students.
Finding on time spent on relaxing and socializing is consistent with the finding of
Gortner and Zulauf (2000) and NSSE (2008). However, the study of employed
Americans by (Robinson and Godbey, 1997) indicated no difference in time spent
watching television between males and females in the age group of 18 to 24 years. In
conclusion, males were more involved in work, participation in extracurricular activities
and socialization whereas females were more involved in academic activities.

Findings also reveal significant differences in time use by ethnicity of the
respondents. Respondents of this study were predominantly (87.1 percent) white, and
they spent significantly more time in relaxing and socializing than did Students of Color.
Students of Color spent significantly more time working at on-campus jobs, and
commuting to class than did white students. In conclusion, compared to whites, Students
of Color were more engaged in academic activities and employment work.

Significant differences were observed between rural and urban respondents for

time use in preparing for class, relaxing and socializing, and commuting to class.

90

Respondents from urban community spent significantly more time preparing for class and
relaxing and socializing than did respondents from rural community background.
However, respondents from rural communities spent significantly more time on
commuting to class than did respondents from urban communities. In commuting
behavior, it may be possible that students who grew up in rural areas have a tendency to
live either with their parents or live farther from the university. This might be the reason
for spending significantly more time commuting to class than students from urban
communities. Overall, respondents from urban communities were more engaged in
academic activities, off-campus work, and extra-curricular activities than the respondents
from rural community background.

Analysis showed no significant differences between participants and non-
participants of 4-H and F F A for time use except in relaxing and socializing. Non-
participants of 4-H and F FA significantly spent more time in this activity than did
participants. Although not significant, respondents who participated in 4-H and F FA
during high schools, spent more time participating in co-curricular activities.

Similarly, analysis was carried out to identify whether member of the National
Honor Society (NHS) differs from non-member in time use for various activities.
Analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups (member and non-
member) for time use except working for pay on-campus. Non-member respondents
spent significantly more time working on-campus than did member respondents. Overall,
non-members of NHS were more involved in employment work, both on-carnpus and
off-campus, socializations, taking care of. their dependents, and commuting to class than

member respondents.

91

Time management is a real challenge for many college students; many of them
find college life very stressful. Time management is a skill that can be taught to students
making them more effective learners. Past studies on time management indicate that
students who are poor in time management suffer from stress, resulting in poor academic
performance. Conversely, students who manage their time better showed higher levels of
performance. Students who manage their time better will experience greater satisfaction
with their academic programs as well as work and other aspects of their lives.

The conclusions of this study help make the following recommendations:

Respondents tend to spend more time in relaxing and socializing than in academic
matters. It seems that the CANR students need counseling about how much time they
should devote to preparing for class including reading, doing homework or lab work,
researching, analyzing data, and writing reports and/or papers. The college and academic
departments could counsel students on how best to manage their time during their studies.
Seminars, workshops and counseling sessions could be organized during orientations,
annual events such as CANR Student Senate meetings and through meetings with
academic advisors.

Results of this study indicate a great variation in time use patterns by
demographic characteristics. Results showed that academic level, sex, ethnicity, and
residence are associated with time use. It was found that senior male students were more
involved in various activities. Therefore, it can be recommended that senior level
students can be used as mentors for their junior colleagues on how to best manage time in

various activities.

92

Academic advising or counseling should focus more on Freshmen, male, white
students with urban background because they significantly spent more time on relaxing
and socializing. The focus of this study is to document time use profile of the CANR
students at MSU and to analyze time use patterns against the selected demographic
characteristics of respondents. In this study, seniors and males were significantly
different from others in time use. Thus, based on the differences in time use for selected
demographic characteristics of respondents, it would be imperative to conduct detailed
time-management research studies in the following topics in the future:

i) Gender differences in time management and its impact on students’ college
performance in terms of grade point average (GPA),

ii) Relationship between time use profile and degree completion time, and

iii) Comparison between self-reported online survey and weekly time dairy method of

time use measurement.

93

REFERENCES

Britton, B. K. & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of Time-Management Practices on College
Grades. Journal of Education Psychology 83(3): 405-410.

Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion
Quarterly 64(4): 464-494.

Dilman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New
York: Wiley.

Duffy, M. E. (2000). Methodological issues in web-based research. Journal of Nursing
' Scholarship 34(1): 83-88.

Gortner, A. K. & Zulauf, C. R. (2000). The Use of Time by Undergraduate Students.
Journal of North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture 44(1): 22-28.

Higher Education Research Institute (2009). The American Freshman: National Norms
for Fall 2008. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los
Angeles.

Jacobs, J. A. (1998). Measuring time at work: Are self-reports accurate? Monthly Labor
Review. Washington 121(12): 42-53.

Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D. & Levine, R. (2004). A Comparison of Web and Mail
Survey Response Rates. Public Opinion Quarterly 68(1): 94-101.

Macan, T. H. (1994). Time Management: Test of a Process Model. Journal of Applied
Psychology 79(3): 3 81 -3 91 .

Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L. & Phillips, A. P. (1990). College Students’
Time Management: Correlations with Academic Performance and Stress. Journal
of Educational Psychology 82(4): 760-768.

Meredeen, S. (1988). Study for Survival and Success. London: Paul Chapman Cited by
M. Trueman, and J. Hartley. (1996). A comparison between the time-management

skills and academic performance of mature and traditional-entry university
students. Higher Education 32(2): 199-215.

94

NSSE. (2004). National Survey of Student Engagement WSSE) Instrument, The College
Student Report. Indiana University, Bloomington. Retrieved January 15, 2004,
from http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE2008_US_English_Paper.pdf.

NSSE (2008). Special Analysis of Agricultural and Natural Resources Respondents of
NSSE 2008 Survey. Indiana University Bloomington.

Robinson, J . P. & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for Life. The Surprising Ways Americans Use
Their Time. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Sax, L. J ., Gilmartin, S. K. & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing Response Rates and
Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper Surveys. Research in Higher Education
44(4): 409-432.

Schuman, H., Walsh, E., Olson, C. & Etheridge, B. (1985). Effort and Reward: The
Assumption that College Grades Are Affected by Quantity of Study. Social
Forces 63(4): 945-966.

Trueman, M. & Hartley, J. (1996). A comparison between the time-management skills
and academic performance of mature and traditional-entry university students.
Higher Education 32(2): 199—215.

United State Department of Labor. (2007). College students and time use, 2003-2006.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington D. C.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington DC
Available at http://stats.bls.gov/tus/charts/ch6.pdf. Retrieved September 1, 2008,
from http://stats.bls.gov/tus/charts/ch6.pdf.

United State Department of Labor (2008). American Time Use Survey 2007 Results.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington DC.
Available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf.

95

CHAPTER IV

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT ACADEMIC PROGRAMS IN THE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY

Introduction

As primary stakeholders in educational institutions, students are reliable sources
of information in the assessment of higher education. College students are conscientious
consumers who generally report their activities accurately and express their opinions and
experiences forthrightly; thus, their judgments are consistent, reliable, and valid (Higgins,
Hartley, & Skelton, 2002; Spencer, 1994; Pace, 1985). Administrators and academic
department heads consider students’ perceptions of, and satisfaction with, their
educational experiences as possible indicators of departmental excellence (Braskamp et
al., 1979). Twombly (1992) advocates that students are in the best position to describe
the curriculum, as they have experienced the curriculum in classrooms. Hearn (1985)
argues that understanding student satisfaction is fundamental to a better understanding of
educational process and quality.

Student assessment as a means of evaluating different aspects of academic
programs in higher education has been extensively used in many countries. Student
ratings have been found the most influential measure of teaching effectiveness, academic
advising, and overall program improvement (Chen and Hoshower, 2003; Corts et al.,
2000; Spencer, 1994; Astin, 1991; Hearn, 1985; Stumpf, 1979). Despite questions of
reliability and validity of students’ ratings of instruction (James, 2001; Armstrong, 1998;

Greenwald, 1997; Arubayi, 1987; Frey, 1976; Rodin and Rodin, 1972), student

96

evaluations of teaching have been found effective to improve both instruction and courses
(Corts etal., 2000; Donald and Denison, 1996; Worley and Casavant, 1995).

Studies show relationships between students’ satisfaction with academic advising
and their persistence (retention) within an academic program. Effective academic
advising has been found positively correlated to students’ satisfaction with their college
experience (Priest & McPhee, 2000 cited in Grewe 2007). Students’ academic
satisfaction is a critical mediating factor for their college persistence (Endo and Harpel,
1982; Bean, 1982).

A student’s social interaction with other students and faculty members and
resulting level of satisfaction is related to his or her decision to stay in or depart from the
program. Students who connect with at least one adult on campus experience higher
levels of satisfaction and higher retention rates than students who do not (Astin, 1993;
Tinto, 1987). The more contact between students and faculty, both inside and outside the
classroom, the greater the student development and satisfaction (Astin, 1993). According
to Tinto (1987), the number and quality of contacts between faculty and students have a
major influence on students’ commitment to remain in college.

Studies indicate that many university and departmental assessments focus on
outcomes from an institutional perspective rather than student perspectives (Corts et al.,
2000; Sanders and Burton, 1996). Corts et at. note that departmental level assessment is
often limited to class-by-class analysis of instructor and course quality, and less
frequently these assessments include issues such as academic advising and mentoring,
which make a significant contribution to students’ academic and personal development.

A recent national study of advising needs indicated that 75 percent of responding higher

97

education institutions view academic advising as important to retention (N oel-Levitz Inc.,
2006).

Several studies show that the majority of students are not satisfied with academic
advising and career counseling (Kotler and Fox, 1995), or that academic advising is a
frequent source of dissatisfaction among students (McAnulty et al., 1987; Guinn and
Mitchell, 1986). The national survey of college students findings (2005) indicated
academic advising was one of the least satisfactory activities of academic life (Saenz and
Barrera, 2007). In the same study, students were least satisfied with career counseling,
advising, and job placement services.

Internationalization of curricula in higher education

Internationalization of curricula is an integral component in the process of
internationalization of higher education. In response to the fast changing globalization of
a knowledge-based economy, which has stimulated intense international competition for
college-educated and trained workers, the higher education institutions in many
developed nations have strived to intemationalize their educational programs.

A study of internationalization in US. Higher Education concludes that

less than seven percent of all higher education students meet even basic standards

of global preparedness; international courses constitute only a small part of

college and university curricula; study abroad remains an undervalued and
underutilized means of instruction; internationalization as an institutional concept
worthy of campus-wide integration is rare; and most graduates are ill-prepared to

face the global marketplace of employment and ideas (Hayward, 2000, page 4).

Another report entitled A Call to Leadership: The Presidential Role in

Intemationalizing the University, documented America’s failing grade by stating that

“The United States falls short on virtually all indicators of international knowledge,

98

awareness, and competence” (Task Force Report on International Education,
NASULGC, 2004, page 3). The same report further states, “the sad truth is that American
campuses have failed to intemationalize at the very time it is essential to serving our
students, our communities and the world” (Executive Summary, page viii). Mason et al.
(1994) found in their study of agriculture students’ interest and knowledge of
international agriculture that more than fifty percent of students lack knowledge about the
international dimensions of agriculture. This indicates a real need to increase the
international knowledge base of students. Acker and Scanes (1998) argue that all
learning for agriculture students should include global dimensions as a key element in a
quality education to prepare for global careers and to enhance appreciation for diversity.
Acker (1999) states that agribusinesses operate in a global market and require a
workforce prepared accordingly. Thus, global skills, global perspectives, and global
citizenship are now a fundamental prerequisite for success in agribusiness careers.
Michigan State University (MSU) has been striving for internationalization of its
colleges and programs to become world-grant university. Enhancing the student
experience and expanding international reach are two of the five strategic imperatives of
Boldness by Design strategic positioning of MSU to be recognized worldwide as the
leading land-grant research university in the United States by 2012 (Michigan State
University, 2009). MSU has been showing its international presence and
intemationalizing its programs through international studies and programs, study abroad,
international development, thematic international institutes, language studies, and area
studies centers to name a few. According to Open Doors (2008) MSU has become the

leading institution in the US. for study abroad participation among public universities in

99

the United States for the fourth year in a row. The CANR at MSU hosts the largest
undergraduate study abroad program among the colleges of agriculture in the US.
(CANR Homepage, 2009). Additionally, faculty members in the CANR are involved in
international research and outreach programs through Institute of International
Agriculture (11A). Since faculty members are the drivers of internationalization of the
program in higher education, they are expected to develop course curricula with
international content and share international issues or case studies with students in
classrooms.

It is important that the colleges of agriculture and academic departments conduct
periodic studies to get feedback from students about their academic experiences.
Students’ feedback on academic programs will help college administrators, department
heads, and faculty members design new courses, improve existing course curricula, and
implement academic programs in effective ways. In this context, there is a lack of
information on students’ academic experiences about course offerings, faculty support,
academic advising and career services, and internationalization of curricula in the CANR
at MSU. Thus, this study was conducted to fill these information gaps in the CANR at
MSU.

This comprehensive assessment of students’ perspectives ranging from student
level Freshmen to Senior during the last four years of study provides a broad picture of
overall satisfaction with course offerings, faculty interaction, academic advising, and
strengths and weaknesses of academic majors. The findings of this study may be utilized
by college administrators, department heads and faculty members to bring improvements

in the undergraduate programs, especially in course offerings and scheduling, academic

100

advising, and internationalization of curricula. This will help college graduates be better
equipped to serve in the ever changing context of agriculture and food industries in both
the domestic and the international marketplaces. The subsequent improvement in
academic programs may enhance the satisfaction of the current undergraduate students in
the CAN R, which may ultimately help not only in retention of current students but also in

recruitment of new students in the future through word-of-mouth promotion.

Objectives
The overall purpose of this study is to assess students’ perceptions about
academic programs in the CANR. The specific objectives are to:
I. ascertain students’ perceptions about course offerings and faculty support.
2. assess students’ perceptions about academic advising.
3. explore students’ perceptions about internationalization of curricula.
4. analyze students’ feedback about strengths and weaknesses of the
undergraduate program within CANR and solicit suggestions to enhance the

undergraduate education.

Methodology

The undergraduate students in the CANR at MSU were the population of interest
for this study. An online survey was initiated in 2004 to assess students’ perceptions of
academic programs within CANR. Survey questions pertaining to course offerings and
faculty support, academic advising, and internationalization of curricula were added to

the online survey beginning in spring 2005. The survey was conducted each year toward

101

the end of spring semester. This study utilized survey data from spring 2005 to spring
2008.

The survey instrument for this study was developed by Dr. Murari Suvedi,
Professor in the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource
Studies (CARRS), and Dr. Eunice F. Foster, Associate Dean, Office of the Dean, CANR
at MSU. It was reviewed by the academic advisors within CAN R. The survey
instrument consisted of questions about the perceptions of students regarding assessment
of major courses, faculty support, academic advising, and internationalization of
curriculum in CAN R. Students’ perceptions regarding assessment of college majors and
faculty support were assessed by five statements measured in a Likert type scale rating, 1
= “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “neither agree nor disagree”, 4 = “agree” and 5
= “strongly agree”. Similarly, students’ perceptions on academic advising were assessed
by ten statements measured in the same Likert type scale rating as academic majors and
faculty support. The statements for measuring academic advising covered the different
aspects of academic advising such as approachable advisor, knowledgeable and helpful
advisor, encourage students in academic and professional growth, and providing timely
information for the successful education of students. The academic advising scales
included most items of the student evaluation of advising survey developed by the North
American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture (N ACTA) conference 2002 (Zimmerman
and Mokma, 2004). Students’ perceptions on internationalization of curriculum in the
CANR were measured by four questions. These questions included students taking
courses that focus on international issues, participation in the study abroad program,

frequency of sharing international issues or case studies by faculty members in their

102

classes, and students’ involvement in international research or outreach programs. All
the questions were asked in a nominal scale (yes or no) except for faculty sharing
international issues in classrooms, which was asked in five point scales with 1 = “not at
all”, 2 = “rarely”, 3 = “occasionally”, 4 = “frequently” and 5 = “regularly”. Finally, the
last section of the instrument contained three open ended questions. Respondents were
asked to write about: i) the strengths of their academic major, ii) the weaknesses of the
program, and iii) suggestions for improving programs.

The online survey was sent to all the undergraduate students who registered for
spring semester during the last week of March and remained active by the end of April.
Three follow-up reminders were sent by e-mail along with a link to the survey two weeks
after the fist survey was sent. As an incentive, survey participants were provided with a
two-scoop ice-cream coupon. The survey yielded an aggregate response rate of 24.5%.

Various statistical procedures—quantitative and qualitative—were employed to
analyze and summarize the data. Descriptive statistics: frequency, mean, and standard
deviation were used to analyze perceptions about course offerings, faculty support,
academic advising, and internalization of curriculum. An independent t-test and analysis
of variance, and an one way ANOVA (F test) were used to determine differences
between groups. Cross-tabulations were done and the Chi-square value was used to
identify whether the groups differed in their perceptions.

The open-ended responses for each question: strength, weakness, and
recommendation were analyzed by using a qualitative approach. Statements for each
open-ended question were carefully read and broad thematic areas were identified. Each

statement was then coded by assigning the unique number for each thematic area and put

103

into the respective thematic group. Finally, a frequency count was done for each
thematic area and presented in a tabular form. To reflect students’ feelings and
impressions, selected quotations are presented verbatim. Analysis was conducted at three
stages. At first, data were analyzed using the aforementioned procedures by i) academic
majors, ii) department, and iii) college level. The final aggregate results for the overall
college are presented in the main text, and the departmental summary is placed in
appendices.

As part of the data analysis, a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for the
reliability of the survey instrument pertaining to items for course offerings and faculty
help, and academic advising. The reliability score for course offerings and faculty help
was 0.70, and for academic advising it was 0.92. These coefficients indicate that the

scales consistently and uniformly measure perceptions.

Results and Discussions

The findings of students’ assessment of course offerings and faculty support,
academic advising, and internationalization of curricula are presented and described in

this section.

Description of respondents

A total of 2,037 CANR undergraduate students, freshman (15.2%), sophomore
(25.5%), junior (44.6%), and senior (14.7%), participated in the online study between
2005 and 2008. Among them, males and females accounted 33.9% and 66.1%,
respectively. For the purpose of this study, respondents were categorized into two age

groups: i) traditional undergraduate (18 to 24 years old), and ii) non-traditional

104

undergraduate (25 years and older). The representation of traditional and non-traditional
respondents was 93.6% and 6.4% respectively. A vast majority of the respondents were
white (86.9%), but students of color represented 13.1%. More than half (56.3%) of the
respondents were from suburban or urban areas and 43.7% of the respondents were from
rural areas. By residential status, nine out of ten respondents were in-state (state of
Michigan), and only 8.3 % respondents were out-of-state and international students.
Respondents were also characterized by their membership in the national honor society
and participation in 4H/FFA organizations during high school. More than half (55.3%) of
respondents were members of the national honor society and 22.1% respondents
participated in 4H and FFA activities while they were in high school. A detailed
distribution of respondents by survey year from 2005 to 2008 is given in Appendix L.
Respondents’ perceptions of course offering and faculty help

The descriptive statistics on perceptions about course offerings and faculty support are
presented in Table 14. The results indicate that three out of five respondents either agreed
or strongly agreed that most required courses were offered every year. But a little more
than half (54.7%) of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that courses were

scheduled at convenient times.

105

.oocw< Ewaobmnm new .oon/wuv .oo&< SZ oocwmflm 556an .oocwmmmmnm .08?“me bwcobml no women @8388 mm 582 ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.8 mm as a? a2 3 3 38 223628 =85
98 3. 3... 5% 6.2 3 no $8 63288926 26 23a @5585
. . . . . . . was
Q 8 o v w E a R o 3 a N v o 88 .3 6238 633686 26 535 ESSEQB
. . . . . . . page @5588
a e o .4 H mm o z N 2 4 4 m _ Rom 38886 3 page as 82:8
8. 3 mm 2 at. a. a 2: 3. 88 see 862628 a 833%... ea 8260
8.8 3 ”.2 3m ”.2 3 3 new as» to; 86:6 6a $88 @2362 3.62
.x. x as as .x.
89 Base
.15on oon< oocw< .8: came Bowman 083me Z mEoEBSm
bwcobm . bwcobm
6562

 

 

Eon 538m 23 meioto 838 MO meosmoocoa .macoucommom .3 053.

106

About four out of five (79.1%) respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that
courses were taught by experienced faculty members. Likewise, four out of five
respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that departmental faculty members were
accessible outside of class. Nearly nine (86.5%) out of ten respondents either agreed or
strongly agreed that departmental faculty were approachable. The overall mean score of
3.9 on a 1 to 5 scale with l= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree indicates that
respondents agreed on most of the statements except scheduling of courses at convenient
times. In sum, the majority of respondents felt positive about course offerings and
accessibility and approachability of faculty members.

The t test results (Appendix M) revealed that there were no statistically significant
differences between male and female, traditional (1 8 to 24 years old) and non-traditional
(25 years and older), white and Students of Color, in-state and out-of-state, and
participants and nonparticipants of 4H/FFA with respect to course offerings and faculty
support. The AN OVA results (Appendix N) also indicated that there were no differences
by academic status and residency of students on their perception about course offerings
and faculty support. In other words, irrespective of their gender, age, ethnicity, residency
status, academic status, and residence, students had a very positive perception about
course offerings and faculty support. These findings are in agreement with study findings
of Braskarnp et al., (1979). However, the results of this study are different from those of
Hearn (1985), who found significant gender differences in satisfaction with availability
and interactions with professors. The findings of this study revealed that students’ ratings
of course offerings and faculty support at MSU-CANR are far better than the national

average. For example, a recent national study of college student revealed that less than

107

half (48.2%) of students were successful in getting to know faculty (Saenz and Barrera,
2007)

Respondents who indicated their membership in the National Honor Society
during high school were found to have different perceptions than the non-members about
course offerings and faculty support (Appendix M). Respondents who were members of
the National Honor Society had significantly a higher (t = 1.980, p = 0.05) mean with
respect to perceptions of course offerings and faculty support than non-members.
Students who are members of national honor societies are considered academically
talented, and they carry internal pressure to continuously perform at a higher level
because they have been designated as high achievers (Freeman, 1999). Thus, students
who were members of the national honor society may contact faculty members more than
their non-member colleagues, which might have helped them perceive faculty support

more positively.

Perceptions about academic advising

Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions about different aspects of
academic advising. As shown in Table 15, four out of five respondents indicated (either
agreed or strongly agreed) that the major advisor was easily accessible (82.2%) and
provided accurate information about degree requirements (83.5%). Nearly three-quarters
of respondents. either agreed or strongly agreed that the major advisor helped solve
academic problems (73.7%), and referred to helpful resources as per students’ need
(74.5%). A little more than two-thirds of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed
that the major advisor provided timely information on internship opportunities (67.7%)

and encouraged them to participate in internships (68.6%). More than half (55.2%) of

108

respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the major advisor encouraged them to
participate in study abroad. It is important to note that a little more than one-third
(34.8%) of respondents were neutral (neither disagree nor agree) on this statement. Less
than half (47.2%) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the major advisor
encouraged them to participate in volunteer programs. Two out of five respondents were
neutral (neither disagree nor agree) to the statement that the major advisor encouraged
them to participate in volunteer programs. Seven out of ten respondents either agreed or
strongly agreed that the major advisor shared information on career opportunities. Lowest
agreements were found for statements pertaining to encouraging students to volunteer
and participate in study abroad. Overall, eight out of ten respondents agreed with
statements pertaining to academic advising services. The overall mean of 4.1 indicates

that respondents were satisfied with the academic advising services in the CANR.

109

.02wa bwcobmum was 689?.” 6on< NoZ oocwmma NofimoZHm .oonameHN .oocwmma bwcobmufi no woman 339:8 mm 982 __.

 

 

 

ll
F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3382
8. 3 SN mdm adv m.m_ ad Wm emom 0%: _ 823% we??? 2:523“
2: .EB 3538 En _ .=Eo>O
. . . . . . . .moEgtoNEo .583 :0
8 8 a N _ N N. 3 a. _N a N c N VNON gasses 83% .832 5.65 N:
. . . . . . . .252on 58:29» E BeEoEam
8 8 N N N Na o N a NN N : a. N NNON e 2: 68585 SEE awe N2
. . . . . . . . «0.. a » EN 5 0833.38
8 3 N m o mm m mm m em a N _ m Gem 8 DE mowwsomco ”8833 SEE x2

. . . . . . . .NWENESE E oEEoEwdl
a 8 N N a NN N N N NN N v N a NNON 2 6:. 88585 Saga 5?: N2
.moEcstommo
8.8 ad 93 .Em Yon :4 w; New 9558.: so NSSE—:85
30:5 $255 8835 8qu >2
. . . . . . . .82: cocoa: _ :23, 88:82
a 8 o a. 4 NN _ G N 8 a v N _ NNON 526: 9 65 nee saga 6.3.: N:
. . . . . . . .25an 28238
a 8 o v N NN o 3 N N: N 4 N _ NNON as, as as; 5.6.53 8.35 N:
. . . . . . . .NEoEoE—wo. oocwoc Scam cotactoui
a 8 N a. N 8. N N4 6 : N N 4 _ NNCN 2838 6.: new .833 5.35 N:
8.8 S. 98. N.N_V N.: 3. 1 EN 65:68“ £86 a 52>? 8.65 N:

.x. o\o X. X. .x.
Emv 02w“ .8:
.4532 oon< oo._w< gamma“. oocwmma 02935 Z mEoEBSm
Ewe—ohm 355? bweobm

 

 

a??? 38038 mo meow 3..

 

.8595 mom .2 038.

 

110

Past studies have indicated that students’ perception of academic advising varies
with their demographic characteristics such as sex, race, age, year in college, grade point
average, number of semesters with advisor, and motivation, etc. (Smith, 2002; Harmer,
2000; Broadbridge, 1996; Hemdon et al., 1996; Milburn, 1994; Fielstein et al., 1992;
Seppanen, 1981). In this study, additional analysis was conducted to find out whether
MSU-CAN R students differ in their perceptions by their demographic characteristics.
Independent t-test results (Appendix 0) revealed that respondents’ perception about
academic advising did not differ by gender, ethnicity, residency status, and membership
in the national honor society. Similarly, one way ANOVA (Appendix P) showed no
differences in the perceptions of academic advising services among respondents from
different academic year and residence (rural, suburban and urban).

However, the results of the independent t-test results showed that respondents’
perceptions about academic advising significantly differed by age and participation in 4H
and FF A activities. The non-traditional respondents aged 25 years and older perceived
academic advising services significantly better (t = 2.094, p < 0.05) than did the younger
students, 18 to 24 years old. It is possible that since non-traditional students are more
mature and goal-oriented than traditional undergraduate students in general, they may
make more contacts with their academic advisors and seek advice more frequently than
younger students. A study on academic advising at Michigan State University showed
that seniors reported more contacts than students in the other classes. In fact, 40% of
respondents who had not seen an advisor at all were freshmen (Hembroff and Clark,

2001).

111

Respondents who participated in 4H/FFA activities perceived academic advising
services significantly better (t = 3.484, p < 0.001) than those who did not participate in
4H and F FA activities while they were in high school. It could be possible that students
who were involved in 4H and F FA activities during high school study may have
developed personal relations and communication skills that made them feel comfortable
meeting with their academic advisors. Literature supports the notion that the higher the
frequency of contacts with faculty members and advisors, the higher the satisfaction with
academic experience or advising.

Findings from this study are different from the findings of Russel and Russel
(2008), who found a significant difference for student’s gender with the academic
advising process. Similarly, Afshar and Dhiman (2008) found that male students rated
academic advising higher than their female colleagues. A national study of student
engagement also showed that female students rated the overall quality of academic
advising higher than did male students (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2007).

In regard to the relationship between class level and perceived satisfaction with
academic advising, the findings of this study are consistent with those of Russel and
Russel (2008). They did not find any difference among the students in different class
levels for their perceived satisfaction with academic advising. Afshar and Dhiman
(2008), on the other hand, found in their study that freshmen rated academic advising
higher than did sophomores, juniors and seniors. A study by Hester (2008) found that as
a student’s class level increased from freshman to senior, the rating of the advisor’s
knowledge decreased. A national study of student engagement showed that more first

year students (76%) reported their advising experience as good or excellent than the

112

senior students (69%). Further, senior students rated their advisors significantly lower
than first year students did in the quality of career support and information about
educational support services.

With regard to ethnicity, no differences were observed between white and
Students of Color respondents for perceived satisfaction with academic advising.
Previous studies in academic advising and its relationship with ethnicity or race have
shown differential perceptions by students’ race. Strayhom (2008) found that African
American high achievers were more satisfied with academic advising experiences than
their White counterparts. Afshar and Dhiman (2008) reported that Asian and White
American students rated academic advising higher than did Hispanic and African
American students. An academic advising survey at MSU found that African American
students reported more contacts with their advisor, whereas Asian/Pacific Islander

students reported fewer contacts (Hembroff and Clark, 2001).

Internationalization of the CANR curricula

Internationalization of curricula was assessed by the extent to which students
were taking courses focusing on international issues, involving themselves in
international research and outreach programs, participating in study abroad programs, and
faculty members incorporating international content in classroom teaching and
discussions. Results indicated that nearly four out of ten (38.6%) respondents took
courses focusing in international issues in CAN R during the four-year period of this
study (Table 16). Among respondents who did not take international courses, four out of

ten (41.2%) would like to take one.

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 68 6.63 6NN 6N3 EN 633 2N A33 2: oz
6.3.3 o; 6.93 3N 6N3 N2 623 NNN 6.2.3 2: a;
8835 305m 35% a 5 22:03am 8 55
6.33 Na: 2N3 N6 6.63 43. 6N3 N3. 663 NON oz
6.5 NNN 6N: :: 6N: _N 6.3 9. ANN: NN New
~52on 38% 35% a E cocafiousm
6.2.3 Na: 6+3 NNN NNNe we. 6N3 N3. 6+3 8N oz
6.3 N: 6.3 2. 6.3 NN 6.3 4N 6.3 N_ a...»
$835
cowobzoEoEome 3:222:85 E vo>_o>=_
6.3 E 6.3 NN 2.3 NN 63 NN 6.3 N_ Ntssmom
6de E. 6.23 9; ANN: :: 6.5 NS 6N3 NN ragga
6.3 N: 663 N6N 93 _NN A33 NNN 6.03 2: b32380
6.83 NNN 2N3 :: 2.5 o: ANN: 6... 6.6: NN 322
6.3 N: 6.3 NN 6.3 NN 6.3 NN 6.3 2 E322
515$ MZ<U .3 3:2? 3:53
030 Mohan mosmmm EEOSNEBE .«o hocozcoum
6.3 E 663 NNN 663 NM: AN.N3 NM: 663 3: 02
3:3 E 6.93 NM: 6.3 NN_ 6N3 6: 623 a. New
mozmmm .35 :0 macaw r23 09500 913 OH 53
6.63 oNN2 :N3 NS. 63 SN 63.3 NNN 6N3 N3 oz
6.3 NNN 6.3.3 _NN 6.3 3N 6.63 e: 663 6 New
.m03mm—
3:222:85 :o wEmsoo.“ DmE a coo—S 02on
£3 .3; £3 .35 63 .3; 33 Si 63 .3; 8:3:2235250 303$
65 EN 88 88 NOON . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

«32:3 MZ<U 2: no =2E~=m=ot~fio~5 .2 033.

114

Overall, less than half of the respondents indicated that they were either taking
courses focusing on international issues or planned to take such a course during their
study at MSU.

A Chi-square test was conducted to examine whether students’ demographic
characteristics (academic status, gender, age, ethnicity, residence, residency status,
participation in 4-H/FFA, and membership in national honor society) are associated with
taking courses that focus on international issues. The results showed that there was
significant association (x2 = 57.592, p < 0.001) between respondents’ academic status and
courses taken with a focus in an international issue (Appendix Q). More juniors took
international courses than others. Similarly, a significant association (x2 = 6.885, p <
0.01) was observed between respondents’ gender and courses taken in international
dimensions. A significantly higher proportion of female students took international
courses than did their male counterparts. Significantly more of the non-participants of 4-
H/FFA took courses focusing on international issues ()8 = 3.711, p < 0.05). No
associations were observed for other demographic variables (age, ethnicity, residence,
residency status, and membership in the national honor society) and courses dealing with
international issues taken by respondents.

With regard to faculty members sharing international issues or case studies in
classroom teaching, a little more than a quarter (26.5%) of respondents indicated that
either faculty did not share at all or did so rarely. Little less than half (47.7%) of
respondents indicated that faculty shared international cases occasionally. One in five
respondents indicated that faculty did share international issues and case studies in class

frequently. Six percent of the respondents indicated that CANR faculty members shared

115

international issues and case studies regularly. Overall, a quarter of respondents reported
that CANR faculty members either regularly or frequently shared international issues in
classroom. Although, there is no universal standard for measuring the extent of
internationalization of higher education, the results of this study about students taking
international courses, involvement in international research and outreach project, and
faculty sharing international issues and/or case studies in the classroom show that the
CAN R has not extensively internationalized its campus. Since faculty members are the
drivers and main actors in internationalization of higher education, it is important to make
sure that they have enthusiasm (motivation), opportunities, and receive recognition in this
endeavor.

A cross-tabulation (Appendix R) between frequency of faculty members sharing
international issues and/or case studies and respondents’ academic status revealed that
there was significant association (x2 = 31.567, p < 0.01) between these two variables.
Faculty are the most critical driving factor in achieving a goal of internationalization of
campus. Faculty are responsible for creation and delivery of curriculum, and conducting
research or outreach programs. They also make choices about the extent to which
international dimensions are included in their classroom teaching and discussions,
research, and outreach programs (Allen, 2004).

In regard to students’ involvement in international research or outreach programs,
about six percent of respondents indicated that they were involved. A large majority, nine
out of ten respondents, were not involved in international research. Involving
undergraduate students in research activities is important because it stimulates thinking

and helps them develop critical thinking skills (Miller and Ware, 1999). The National

116

Survey of Student Engagement (2007) results showed that students who were involved in
research with faculty members used deep approaches to learning: higher order thinking,
integrative learning, and reflective learning.

A Chi-square test was also used to determine the association between students’
selected demographic characteristics (academic status, gender, age, ethnicity, residence,
residency status, participation in 4-H/FFA, and membership in the national honor society)
and involvement in an international research or outreach project (Appendix S). A
significant association (x2 = 5.419, p < 0.05) was observed between respondents’ age and
involvement in international research or outreach projects. Traditional age (18-24 years
old) students were more involved in international research or outreach projects than non-
traditional (25 years or older) students. Similarly, a significant association (x2 = 10.966, p
< 0.001) was observed between respondents’ ethnicity and involvement in international
research or outreach projects. More white students indicated involvement in international
research or outreach projects than did Students of Color. No significant association was
observed for other demographic variables (academic status, gender, residence, residency
status, participation in 4-I-I/F F A, and member in the national honor society) and
involvement in an international research or outreach project.

The Boyer Commission (1998) advocated engaging undergraduate students in
research activities as an innovative strategy for improving American higher education.
On top of knowledge acquisition, researchers believe that a high quality undergraduate
education should expose students to new ideas and ways of thinking and engage them in
exploring and discovering new knowledge (Association of American Colleges and

Universities, 2007; Miller and Ware, 1999; Boyer Commission, 1998). Studies show that

117

participation of undergraduate students in research activities has a positive relationship
with persistence, pursuing and success in graduate education, and fiirther career choice
(Hathaway et al., 2002; Nnadozie et al., 2001; Nagda et al., 1998). The latest study
results indicate that undergraduate students’ experiences in research have increased since
the late 19905 in research universities and other universities (Hu et al., 2007; Katkin,
2003). Findings of a national survey indicated that about 21 percent of undergraduate
students worked on professors’ research projects during their first year of studies
(Hurtado et al., 2007). A national study of college students indicated that nearly a quarter
of senior students had the opportunity to work on a research project (Saenz and Barrera,

2007)

Demographic profile of study abroad participants in the CANR

Respondents were asked whether they participated in study abroad and if they
planned to participate if they had not done so. One out of ten (11.6%) respondents
indicated that they had participated in study abroad, and four out of ten (45.9%)
respondents planned to participate. Table 17 presents the profile of respondents who
participated and planned to participate in the study abroad program. The cross-tabulation
between demographic characteristics and participation in study abroad indicates that a
little more than half (5 1 .9%) of study abroad participants were junior level students.
Sophomores and seniors participated almost in equal proportion (21%). Of those who
participated, more than two-thirds were female, and nine out of ten were traditional aged
(18 to 24 years old) students. In terms of ethnicity, four out of five study abroad
participants were white students. Six out of ten respondents who participated in study

abroad were from urban residence. Nine out of ten participants were in-state students.

118

Four out of time respondents who went abroad were non-members of 4-H/F FA. Nearly

six out of ten study abroad participants were members of the national honor society.

119

Table 17. Profile of study abroad participants in the CANR

 

Demographic Characteristics

Participated in
Study Abroad

Plan to Participate
in Study Abroad

 

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Status n = 235 n = 819
Freshman 14 (6.0) 214 (26.1)
Sophomore 49 (20.9) 278 (33.9)
Junior 122 (51.9) 282 (34.4)
Senior 50 (21.3) 45 (5.5)

Gender n = 235 n = 812
Male 69 (29.4) 213 (26.2)
Female 166 (70.6) 599 (73.8)

Age n = 235 n = 817
3;???'Zingfslggfgfates 220 (93.6) 786 (96.2)
it?£3123":inseam 1. (.4. 3. .3...

Ethnicity n = 233 n = 814
White 191 (82.0) 706 (86.7)
Students of Color 42 (18.0) 108 (13.3)

Residence n = 235 n = 814
Rural 87 (37.0) 337 (41.4)
Urban 148 (63.0) 477 (58.6)

Residency status it = 234 n = 814
In-State 214 (91.5) 740 (90.9)
Out-of—State and International 20 (8.5) 74 (9.1)

:fizipafion in 4-l-l/FFA club during high it = 235 n = 818
Participant 46 (19.6) 175 (21.4)
Non-participant 189 (80.4) 643 (78.6)

fl\l/l1;rln:>ce}:013]national honor socrety during 11 ___ 234 n = 815
Member 139 (59.4) 468 (57.4)
Non-member 95 (40.6) 347 (42.6)

 

 

 

In summary, the study abroad participants were: white, female, mostly junior
level students with urban residential backgrounds who did not participate in 4—I-I/FFA
activities in high school and were members of the national honor society, and from the
state of Michigan.

A Chi-square test was conducted to determine whether there was an association
between students’ demographic characteristics (academic status, gender, age, ethnicity,
residence, residency status, participation in 4-H/F FA, and membership in the national
honor society) and participation in study abroad. The results showed that there was
significant association (x2 = 27.775, p < 0.001) between respondents’ academic status and
participation in study abroad (Appendix T). More sophomores participated in study
abroad than did respondents from other levels. Similarly, a significant association (12 =
5.581, p < 0.05) was observed between respondents’ ethnicity and participation in study
abroad. Significantly more white students participated in study abroad than did Students
of Color. There was a significant association (x2 = 4.825, p < 0.05) between residence and
participation in study abroad. Significantly more urban students participated in study
abroad than did rural students. No associations were observed for other demographic
variables (gender, age, residency status, participation in 4-H/FFA, and membership in the
national honor society) and participation in study abroad.

Table 17 also summarizes the demographics of respondents who planned to
participate in study abroad. The results show that six percent of the respondents who
participated in study abroad were freshmen. It is interesting to note that a little more than
a quarter (26.1%) of all freshmen planned to participate in study abroad, which is more

than four times the number of freshman participants who had already participated. One-

121

third of sophomore and junior level respondents indicated the y intend to participate in
study abroad. The senior level students appeared the least (5.5%) interested in
participating in study abroad. By gender, a little more than a quarter of male respondents
indicated they intended to participate in study abroad, while female respondents showed
almost three times as much interest in study abroad participation than their male
colleagues. Nine out of ten respondents from traditional aged (18 to 24 years old)
undergraduates indicated they intended to participate in study abroad. Four out of five
white respondents and one out of ten Students of Color planned to participate in study
abroad. Four out of ten respondents with rural residence backgrounds planned to
participate in study abroad, as compared to six out of ten respondents with urban
backgrounds. Results show that study abroad participants, prospective and those who
participated earlier, are predominantly (nine out of ten) in-state students. About one-fifth
(21.4%) of respondents who were 4-H and FFA club members indicated they intended to
participate in study abroad, compared to more than three quarters (78.6%) of respondents
who were non-members. Nearly six out of ten (57.4%) respondents who were members
of the national honor society indicated to participate in study abroad. In summary, the
demographic profile of the students who planned to participate in the study abroad
program was: white, female, traditional aged, sophomore and junior level students,
members of national honor society, non-members of 4H/FF A with urban residence
backgrounds and from the state of Michigan. The only difference was that the proportion
of freshmen was increased substantially.

The demographic profile of study abroad participants in this study is consistent

with findings from other studies (Chieffo and Griffiths, 2004; Open Doors, 2008;

122

Institute of International Education, 2007; NASULGC, 2004). The findings of this study
indicate that there is lack of diversity among study abroad participants. William (2007)
found in her recent research that the proportion of the undergraduate student population
studying abroad is influenced by the proportion of study abroad staff and student
workers. She found a significant difference in awareness in the proportion of the
undergraduate student population studying abroad when presentations by study abroad
office faculty/staff at student club meetings were implemented as a recruitment activity.

Students’ feedback about strengths and weaknesses of the programs and
suggestions to enhance programs in CANR

Respondents were asked three open ended questions to identify strengths and
weaknesses of the program and solicit suggestions for improvement. This section
presents the summary of analysis of the open ended responses. The data for open ended
responses were analyzed by using a qualitative approach in three steps. First, each and
every statement was carefully read and broad thematic areas were identified by academic
major. Second, a code book was developed for each thematic area by assigning a code to
each statement. Finally, all the related statements were grouped under each thematic area
and presented in frequency tables to better visualize the results at a glance for the overall
college. Respondents in various majors from different academic departments and schools
in the CANR expressed a wide variety of responses to open ended questions, and some of
them were unique in nature and very specific to the particular department or school.
Therefore, an attempt has been made to present students’ own voices by providing quotes

verbatim for each thematic area as much as possible.

123

Strengths of the CANR programs

Five unique thematic areas were identified for strengths of the CANR programs,
and they are presented in Table 18. Findings indicate that the most frequently mentioned
responses were related to the theme of faculty, teaching and academic advising.
Respondents spoke very highly about the quality of faculty members, teaching and
academic advising. Respondents frequently characterized the CANR faculty members
and advisors as ‘caring’, ‘approachable’, ‘very helpful’, ‘resourceful’ and
‘knowledgeable’ to name a few.

Table 18. Strengths of the CANR programs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strengths 3:33:23 Percent
Faculty, teaching and academic advising 619 40.3
Hands-on learning and career opportunities 384 25.0
Course curricula 243 15.8
Small class size 133 8.7
Institutional and program reputation 120 7.8
Others 38 2.5
Total 1537 100

Below are a few quotations about faculty, teaching, and academic advising that reflect
how the students perceived their teachers, and teaching and academic services they
received.

Down to the earth faculty.

Professors who really care about students and provide valuable resources to their
students.

124

The faculty are our greatest strength, they provide a great deal of applied learning,
also our extracurricular involvement is key to finding companies through Student
Builders and Contractors Association (SBCA ) and our career fair.

The faculty is awesome! They are approachable and smart and very helpful.

The teachers are involved in the classroom and bring expertise from the field.

I think they help prepare me for my future.

Great advisor- she knows what she’s talking about and sets up a schedule for
personal needs, study abroad opportunities.

The second most frequently reported strength by respondents was hands-on
learning and career opportunities available in CANR program. 'Hands-on' was the most
frequently used word to describe their learning experiences across majors in the college.
Respondents indicated they had a high level of satisfaction with 'hands-on' learning
through labs work, animal farms, research fields, and study abroad, all of which reflect
the real life experience of the marketplace of the world. Respondents also mentioned that
they were happy with the career opportunities available through internships and the
prospects of j ob placement after graduation. A few quotations are provided below that
reflect the feelings of respondents about their hands-on learning experiences and career
opportunities.

Everything we learn in our major, I use it when I go to the farm on the weekend.

Hands on activities that are offered.

Opportunity for study abroad, internships, and major specific club opportunities.

I like the experience we as animal science students get on farms and with farm

animals, it gives me a better visual of what the instructor is teaching me in the

classroom.

High job placement alter graduation because of shortage of qualified people with
agricultural background.

125

Applied knowledge that prepares you for the marketplace.
Real life connections with those in the workforce. Prepares the students for a wide
variety of environmental careers. Classes build upon prior classes to strengthen

understanding of a subject.

There are plenty of opportunities for employment, as well as information about
internships, volunteering, and other positions on and off campus.

Course curricula were the third most frequently mentioned strength of CANR
program. The respondents described the CANR course curricula as ‘diversified’, ‘wide
range of courses’, ‘variety of classes’, and ‘great curriculum’. The availability of a
variety of classes provided them flexibility in choosing required classes for their major
degree programs. The following quotations reflect the respondents’ perceptions about the
CAN R course curricula:

There are lots of interesting classes available for me to take, and there are a ton of
study abroad opportunities.

Strengths of my undergraduate program have been the variety of classes offered
and the opportunities for extracurricular.

There are many classes to choose from, and because of this I am able to create my
degree to what I am most interested in.

My program allows students to be involved in a wide array of activities and take
classes focusing on desired specializations.

The undergraduate program has a great curriculum, full of awesome information
taught by great professors.

There are a lot of materials on fish and wildlife management. The new
curriculum with specializations that is being implemented next year seems a lot

better. Too bad it did not get changed a couple years earlier.

The classes are very fun and entertaining. The class activities leave you
remembering all information learned due to their enjoyability.

126

The fourth most frequently mentioned strength of the CANR program was small
class size. Respondents indicated that because of the small class size, they had more
opportunities to interact with professors and advisors on a one-on-one basis. Further, it
was easy to get to know other people in the majors, develop relationships, and network.
Small classes help develop sense of family or community. Although respondents from
across the departments/schools indicated that they liked small class size, the frequency of
this response was higher from respondents in the School of Planning, Design, and
Construction, Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resources Studies
(CARRS), and Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics than from
other departments/schools. The following quotations reflect how students felt their small
size classes.

Small classes I love. You really get to know the other individuals within your
major. You start to become more of a family.

The small community that is here in CANR everyone knows everyone for the
most part and that makes working together on projects or getting help from a

fiend much easier.

I love the upper level classes that are small enough to have frequent interaction
with the professors.

There are small classes and knowledgeable professors that can meet and talk with
you if you have trouble. There is a sense of community in the Natural Resources

building that makes anyone and everyone approachable.

Classes are small enough that you can have personal interaction with the
professors-I like when they know you on a name to name basis.

Finally, institutional and program reputation was indicated as strength of the
CANR programs. Respondents indicated that they were proud to be in their current major
in one of the nation’s top programs. The expressions below indicate how the respondents

perceived institutional and program reputation.

127

MSU is well known for their contribution in agriculture. Go green!
Highly regarded as one of the top turf programs in nation.

The strengths of Fisheries and Wildlife is that MSU has one of the greatest
programs in the country for this degree. It fits my interests as I’d like to someday
work in a research field doing conservation.

The undergraduate Landscape Architecture program here at MSU is one of the
best at preparing its students for immediate success in the field as well as prepares
them for a graduate degree.

Our program is the largest Dietetic program in the United States and has a good
reputation among dietetic internships directors and professional organizations.

I like the fact that MSU is known for the Packaging degree. I like that the
professors that teach here are some of the best, for this degree, in the world.

The Interior Design program at MSU is a very good one. They push us to be the
best we can be and we learn how to be professional and prepared.

I think the Construction Management program is a wonderful program. Being a
girl in Construction Management program, I feel very comfortable.

In conclusion, finding regarding the strengths of CANR programs are in

agreement with findings of other studies. A recent national survey of four-year public

colleges and universities revealed that valuable course content within major,

knowledgeable faculty and excellent quality of instruction, approachable and

knowledgeable academic advisor about requirements in major, varieties of courses

available, adequate and accessible computer labs and library resources, and institutional

reputation were the institutional and academic strengths (Noel-Levitz, 2008).

Weaknesses of the CANR programs

Students were asked to indicate specific comments about the weaknesses in their

academic majors. Table 19 presents the summary of weaknesses of the overall CANR

128

7‘11

10

(m
r—\

r71

program. Results show that the most frequently indicated area of weakness was related
to poor quality of teaching and academic advising. Respondents frequently characterized
faculty members as ‘unprepared’ ‘unorganized’, ‘inexperienced’, ‘lack of technical
knowledge in the subject matter’, ‘terrible’, and ‘discouraging’. Respondents also
indicated that some professors put unnecessary emphasis on their research projects,
which students were not interested in. It was also indicated that some professors are very
good in research but performed extremely poor in teaching and overall course delivery.
Respondents raised the issue about Teaching Assistants (TAs), as many professors were
heavily relying on them. Most TAs lacked experience in teaching and were often poor in
English language proficiency.

Table 19. Weaknesses of the CANR programs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency
Weaknesses Mentioned Percent

Poor quality of teaching and academic advising 339 28.3
Course curricula are very general not specialized and needs

, . 205 17.1
students inputs
Irregular course offering and scheduling conflict 203 16.9
Limited hands-on learning and career opportunities 165 13.8
Less useful and unorganized required courses 149 12.4
Lack of communication and availability of up-to-date
. . 52 4.3
information
Others 85 7.1

 

 

 

Total 1198 100.0

Respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with regard to academic advising
services they received. Very often, respondents indicated that academic advisors did not
have enough knowledge about course requirements in certain majors. Some advisors

were very hard to reach (unapproachable) and did not respond student’s e-mail in a

129

timely manner. It was also indicated that students were having a hard time finding an
advisor. The following statements from students reflect their level of frustration with
regard to quality of teachers, teaching and academic advising at CANR.

Where are the professors? It seems many of the classes I have had were taught by
less than stellar graduate students, teachers’ assistants, etc.. I don’t feel I would be
walking away fully prepared to enter my field of study if I stay here at MSU to
graduate. The fact that to apply to an alt focused major we don’t have a portfolio
taken into consideration is very disappointing. Being able to perform well on a
test does not mean someone is capable of conveying a design to a client. If one
has a 3.8 GPA but can’t put pencil to paper, what good are they in a very visual,
artistic career?

Professor that have never been on a farm.

We have a professor here and there that don’t know what they’re doing.
Therefore, students lose interest in the major in some situations.

Professors with 10-year that do not feel obligated to concern themselves with their
undergraduate classes.

New professors seem understandably unprepared.

Because the professors’ primary focus is not necessarily teaching, many of them
can’t convey the information very well.

Many of my teachers are experts in their field but not experts in educating. They
are terrible teachers!

Professors put unnecessary focus on their research interests in classes, often
taking away from time that should be spent teaching the actual course topic.

I think there could be a little more information about how to prepare and lay out a
schedule and a “plan of action” for my four years of college, at the beginning of
my freshman year. It would be helpful to learn more about courses other students
have taken and what are some things to look forward to right from the start.
However, I entered this college as a no-preference major within CANR. I
changed my major after having one Crop and Soil Science introductory class
because of the encouragement and information provided by that professor as well
as my involvement in its student organization. I believe the advisors to no
preference students could have done more for me in the summer before I came to
MSU and in my first semester here, to introduce me to my major options and to
help narrow my search. There were many more opportunities I think I could have
taken advantage of, had I known about them.

130

The advising and classes mix up often and is not consistent therefore you are left
to figure out which classes to take and requirements on your own. There seems to
be a gap even with the advisor and what they know, especially about the
Agriscience education part of the degree.

I was not provided an advisor in my major at orientation and I was not aware of
many things when first transferred to MSU.

One academic advisor, she was very discouraging and seems to play favorites.

The advisor runs a strict academic schedule program, discourages students from

taking more than 14 credits, doesn’t adapt well to students desire for course re-

arrangement when pre-planning a schedule. Also, does not welcome walk-ins.

I think that the advising is lacking a personal touch. I do most of my planning

without the help of an advisor.

The second theme that emerged from open ended responses to weaknesses about
the CANR program was course curricula. Respondents’ frequent comments about course
curricula were: ‘lack of focus on production agriculture’, ‘outdated and irrelevant’, ‘lacks
international dimensions’, ‘too focused on 4I-I/FF F A students’, and ‘needs revision and
student inputs’. Respondents also indicated that curriculum lacks classes to be certified
by the professional organization or association in particular fields. The following
quotations from respondents reflect students’ perceptions about weaknesses with regard
to course curricula at CANR.

There is not enough focus on production agriculture. There are a number of

students wishing to return to the farm, but the curriculum does not focus closely

on skills needed to succeed there.

I think that some of the classes we are required to take will be soon outdated and

irrelevant in the work world. I think that it is important to gain a stronger

understanding of materials before the synthesis class of sophomore year.

Many of the design classes don’t separate graphics from design. They should be

separated into two different classes. Also, there should be more technology used

such as AutoCAD, sketch up, and Adobe Creative Suite. That should be
integrated into the program and less learning hand graphics.

131

Need more international credit validations, more options for study abroad in
relation to my major.

That you focus way too much on FFA and 4-H. Agriculture is not the only
component of this college and too often you neglect the natural resources.

That it is a very narrowly based major. It is for livestock and caters to the needs
of students interested in pursuing a livestock based career. While that is great for
those students, others such as those interested in equine and small animal really
have no options. I came in as a student hoping to pursue a career in horses, but
after seeing the non diverse manner of the program, and the somewhat limited
options in it, I am switching my major., I feel this is especially true for students
interested in small animal, aside from one class the program really has nothing to
provide the students and leaves them without any options. There are many
students who are not interested in livestock production that are struggling to get
through the program.

Weak curriculum—needs revisions and student input. I was part of a student
focus group that gave input on curriculum, but in the 2 years since then there have
been no changes.

Not enough classes in all areas of the food and consumer products industry.
Classes about category management would be beneficial. Too much emphasis

placed on “selling”.

The third area of weaknesses of the CANR program as reported by respondents

was related to course offering and scheduling issues. Many respondents indicated that

most of the required courses were offered in one semester, causing them scheduling

problems that affected their ability to graduate on time. Some respondents also indicated

that there were lot of hours in between classes that do not fit with commuter and part-

time students (working students). It was also mentioned that not enough courses were

offered in the summer. The following quotations portray the students’ problems

associated with course offerings and scheduling.

Many classes are only offered during the Spring, and I think they should be
offered year long. Expected time of graduation can be extended just because of
one class not being offered in both semesters.

132

Since our major is so small, all the classes aren’t offered every semester. It
becomes a hassle to schedule because there is no leeway. If a class is only offered
at 8 AM, you have to take it at 8 AM or wait until full year to try again.

I think the major weaknesses of my Ag. Communication and Ag. Education
majors are that there are little to no classes offered pertaining specifically to these
courses within the CANR. All courses that we take to meet these requirements
are 'intro to this' and 'intro to that'. We are given no classes about how to
communicate about agriculture within and outside of the agricultural industry.

We are given very little opportunity about how to teach agriculture and vocational
education. A lot of us come in with 4-H/F F A background and can handle what
agriculture is. We want to know how to take the knowledge we already have and

apply it.

There are no classes offered that teach me how to teach agriculture. With the
major now switching over to a concentration (although this does not directly
affect me), it is hard to find classes that are actually applicable. Also, when we
tried to meet as an Agriscience education club, we were discouraged from doing
so. In all honestly, I don’t feel that the college or university actually care about
me or my major.

I have trouble fitting elective classes in my schedule because there are not many
choices and usually there’s only one section (usually over laps with another class)
and sometimes are only offered 1 semester a year.

The biggest weakness I have noticed in this major so far is the availability of the
classes I need. I transferred in December and the major is so strictly set up that I
pretty much have to wait until fall to take classes that pertain to my major. Also, 1
was really hoping to have an opportunity to study abroad but again, the major is
very strict and there are no classes available for me to take abroad. (Although I
don’t think that is MSU’s fault, I think it is more the regulations for the dietetics
major).

Limited hands-on learning and career opportunities was another theme that

emerged from open ended responses as a weakness of the CANR program. Respondents

stated that they had limited hands-on experiences in computer technologies, lack of

availability of internships and less focus on study abroad in certain majors, and lack of

international case studies in teaching. The following statements are some of the

examples of lacking hands-on learning and career opportunities in the CANR program as

expressed by respondents.

133

Less emphasis with computer technologies such as AutoCad, Photoshop, and
Revit, yet we waste hours of our time on hand lettering and drafting.

Need more hands on, and practical application of practices, we learn all kinds of
research techniques but students need to be practical and have real world common
sense, not everything is as planned out as they are in study trials.

A lot of the courses are lecture based and do not focus enough on developing
problem solving skills to use what we are learning.

Personally, I feel like I haven’t been introduced to very many study abroad
opportunities. I wish they wouldn’t have taken away the community based parks
and recreation major.

It is harder to study abroad, because the classes are accredited, so I cannot take
them somewhere else. This is especially true for me, because I came in with
almost all of my general education courses done.

I think the weaknesses are the availability of internship, etc.. I have applied for a
few, and even research positions within my major, and they all tell me I need
more experience. How do I get more experience if I can’t work on as a Research
Assistant or do an internship?

Not enough 'real world' class work. They should teach more from case studies
then about history.

Less useful and unorganized required courses were other frequently mentioned

weaknesses of the programs. Many respondents indicated that some of the university

required courses such as Integrative Studies in Arts and Humanities (IAH), Integrative

Studies in Social Sciences (ISS), Integrative Studies in Physical Science (ISP),

Integrative Studies in Biological Science (ISB), etc. were not useful on the one hand and

on the other hand they took a substantial amount of time, causing delayed graduation.

Respondents also indicated that most internships take six months, which also causes a

delay in graduation. Some of the prerequisite courses overlap and credits were wasted.

These course requirements are causing more trouble to transfer students than non-transfer

because they have to take many required courses, which causes them to be delayed in

134

graduation. Some of the statements pertaining to course requirements and organization as

expressed by respondents are:

We have classes like IAH, ISS, ISP, ISB, etc.. That take away from what we
would like to be doing. Those classes are such a joke & will not make us “more
well rounded individuals”.

You cannot get into the program until your junior year, so you spend 2 years
taking required classes and if you don’t get in, you have to stay at college longer
because you have wasted so many credits on those major specific courses.

The weaknesses are the fact that we have to take such boring or rigorous pre-
requisites before we get to the material that we are truly interested in.

Changing the program and thus delaying graduation for almost all students in my
class level----It is not fair to change the program for students that are already in it.
I am referring to the changes that no longer allow Construction Management
Program (CMP) students to take all of their 400 level classes in one semester nor
obtain credit for a professional internship. It was not acceptable by any means to
change to program like that for students who already declared CMP as their
major.

It’s harder to graduate in the normal 4 years because most internships are 6
months long. Though you can always take summer classes. Also, participation in
study abroad programs have decreased because most people feel they don’t know
enough information to go after their freshman year. But then a lot of students end
up doing one or two internships which usually takes up an entire summer, not
allowing them to take a study abroad.

I feel as though a lot of the prerequisites overlap and credits are wasted on them
rather than on more directly food science related classes. I don’t feel totally
prepared to go into industry.

There are so many classes required, after transferring in, I can’t graduate in 4
years, even though all of my previous credits transferred in.

Lack of communication and availability of reliable information were other
weaknesses of the CANR programs. Some respondents felt that there was a lack of
communication between undergraduate students in the CANR and graduate students,
faculty, and other majors in the college. Many respondents felt that they did not find

correct information about their degree requirements and occasionally their advisors also

135

were not exactly sure about the requirements. Respondents felt that the college website
was outdated, and it was not very useful to students’ information needs. Some
respondents indicated that there was a lack of information on careers and internships.
Also, some respondents indicated that there was a lack of advertisement of the college
majors. Many potential students and parents are not aware of the existence of some
academic majors in the CANR. The following quotations reflect students’ feelings about
communication and information.

Communication with the graduates students and research faculty. I know that we

get emails but I think it would be a good idea to have posters up or to publish a

pamphlet of sorts listing research opportunities.

I think there is a lack of communication with other majors in the college.

Agriculture students and students from no Agriculture related majors don’t have a

lot of interaction.

There is a lot of confusion about course requirements between advisors. Also,

there are some faculty members who seem to be unqualified to be teaching some

of the courses required/offered for my major.

Weaknesses are that no one really knows about the major and how many
opportunities are out there for students with a Food Industry Management major.

Website is outdated.

It is not very well advertised. I had never heard of Dietetics before college and
did not know how great the program at MSU was before college.

Not much information given on jobs that can be attained upon graduation.

Not enough career/intemship information/help. I think a career fair would be
greatly beneficial to the students.

Suggestions to improve the CANR programs

Respondents were asked to offer suggestions to improve the CANR programs.

Table 20 summarizes their suggestions. A summary of suggestions by department/school

136

is provided in Appendix U. The themes for suggestions were the same as the themes
identified as weaknesses of the CANR programs. Since the suggestions offered by the
respondents were self-explanatory, a brief description for each theme of suggestion and
some quotations are provided in this chapter.

Table 20. Suggestions to improve the CAN R programs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_——__——T—
Suggestions Sggeofig Percent
Hands-on learning and career opportunities 332 29.5
Faculty, teaching and academic advising 216 19.2
Course curricula 182 16.2
Course offering 163 14.5
Course requirements and organization 116 10.3
Communication 64 5.7
Others 53 4.7
Total 1,126 100.0
i. Suggestions about hands-on learning and career opportunities

Respondents offered a wide range of suggestions to enhance hands-on learning
and career opportunities for students. The suggestions included maintaining and visiting
research farms, expanding service learning, internships, and study abroad opportunities,
inviting speakers from industries, and using technology in teaching. Some selected
quotations with regard to recommendations about hands-on learning and career
opportunities are provided below:

Keep the farms!!! Great learning tools.

Have tours of farms to see how farmers actually operate. It would give us the
opportunity to see how farmers deal with the issues we have discussed in class.

137

ii.

Continue to keep animal numbers high at the farms because it helps give a
broader, more well-rounded experience for students, as they have a greater
opportunity to see a wider variety of situations. For instance, animal health,
production settings, performance data, etc..

Have more real life examples, let us put our hands in a loam textured soil, touch
the difference between a tunic and a non tunic bulb, feel primed seed, etc..
Encourage study abroad program to freshman students. They had an introduction
into the course through 101 and the experience would help them to understand
their classes better. It’s sort of which comes first, the chicken or the egg type
deal. Sometimes you have to go somewhere first and not totally understand
things, but it’ll apply to much more knowledge later because you can picture it
now. And sometimes you need the background knowledge first. But for this
circumstance I think it would be fine for students to go abroad and have the
opportunity for one or more internships later.

A public speaking, professional development skill course that brings in industry
leaders and takes students out of the classroom to seek opportunities with agri-
business and other leaders in the industry.

push service learning within the major as much as study abroad. There are so
many nutritional needs in Lansing and our major has enough people to fill those
needs.

...more emphasis should be made on the technologies that firms are using today
(like AutoCad and Photoshop) so that Interior Design students are actually ready
to go out and work in the real world.

Suggestions about faculty, teaching and academic advising

Respondents suggested that teachers should be knowledgeable and passionate

about the subject they are teaching, caring to students, and punctual for class.

Respondents also suggested that faculty members should balance teaching and research

to enrich students’ learning. With regard to academic advising, respondents suggested

that advisors should be more involved in helping students schedule courses, transfer

credits, and answer questions related to course requirements. Students were frustrated

because they had to meet three or four people to get correct information about their

queries. Students also suggested that the college should develop relationships early, in the

138

freshman year. The following quotations suggest the improvements needed with respect

to teaching and academic advising in the CANR.

iii.

Try to find professors who care about each and every class they teach. Who do
not show up late and blow students off during office hours.

Equally weigh research and student learning making a powerful combination.
Faculty with too much research affects students poorly.

As far as advising, it would be really helpful if for the pre-vet track, advisors
could get together with pre-vet advisors and make sure they’re on the same page.
Or at least be able to set the student up with an appointment with a pre-vet
advisor. One thing that frustrates me sometimes is that after seeing one advisor, it
seems you then have to go see three more people before you can really get things
solved or have all your questions answered.

Better counseling with the advising. Coming into this major I did not have the
best grades and the academic advisor gave me really no hope or encouragement
for succeeding in this major which is a really horrible feeling and I definitely
never want to go back to her to ask her advice but know I will eventually have to.
That experience completely ruined my whole intake on academic advising for the
dietetics program.

I would recommend having advisers be more involved in helping their students
get through the stressful times of scheduling and transferring credit by walking
them through it so that no one gets confused or overwhelmed. That way the
adviser has a good idea of what to expect next time and the student has the help
right there so that they don’t get confused.

Suggestions about course curricula

Respondents felt that the curricula should reflect the current educational trends.

They suggested that courses should have an international dimension, an option for

students who are returning to the family farm, an up-to-date and realistic, and periodic

feedback from students and industries. Respondents also suggested the creation of a

better system of course and faculty evaluation. The following quotations help better

understand the course curricula students prefer:

Do a better job of recruiting students to MSU and change the curriculum to better
suit the current educational trends.

139

iv.

Add international classes with a focus on the effects of globalization on the food
industry.

Add an option for farm kids returning to the family farm.

I would like to farm someday so I would like there to be a major that considers
the Agronomy program and the Agribusiness program all in one major.

I would suggest for the curriculum to be more up to date and realistic to what
professionals are actually doing in the field. Keep check on what the students are
actually learning and have the professors be more helpful in what the student can
do to improve their skills, rather than saying a couple sentences about what was
missing in a project. Also, a huge problem I have found is that there is no
connection to companies who can come to recruit people from our major. It is so
difficult to find a job and we have to travel and call countless places just to get
someone to talk to us. I hear other people in other majors who just have to go to a
career fair or a company comes and gives informational meetings. In our major,
there is no point in going to a career fair because there are never any interior
design companies there.

In the dietetics major, there are two main aspects that are widely focused on:
clinical and food service management. I think that these two categories should be
treated more separately. (Clinical nutrition focuses more on clinical and
foodservice focuses more on foodservice management type classes).

I recommend asking students to fill out class and major expectation reports each
year and having the faculty work them into the curriculum.

Create a better system for course and professor evaluations. This is the best way
to see what things are working and what aren’t. With the current system, it is
difficult, at times, to answer the evaluations fully and thus let your voice be heard.

Suggestions about course offering

With regard to course offerings, respondents suggested that the CAN R should

offer more areas of specialization and electives and offer required classes more often

including in summer. Some of the statements with regard to course offerings are as

follows:

Offer more areas for specialization (i.e. International agriculture, animal behavior,
dairy science).

140

Offer a specialization for crop and soil sciences and some through the animal
science department as well, for example beef or dairy management.

Offer the required classes more often, and the non-required classes more than

once every 4 or 6 semesters - scheduling is a nightmare - it seems like the

required classes are all held at the same time (10:20 seems to be the magic time in

ANS).

Prerequisites and the semester in which classes are offered (a great deal of our

required classes are one semester only) have made it difficult to evenly space

courses so that one semester is a breeze, and the following semester is barely

tolerable.

More classes that are offered over the summer at MSU off campus sites.

More elective courses available. There are many things I would like to learn such

as more computer related skills and green design or other in depth areas, but never

have the option.
v. Suggestions about course requirement and organization

Students felt that some of the university required courses were not useful and
relevant to their academic major. Thus, they recommended the elimination of some of
those classes. Some students indicated that they were interested in some classes in the
Agricultural Technology program; however, they could not take those classes because it
is a non-academic program. Therefore, students suggested that they should be allowed to
take certain courses in which they are interested, and the credits should be counted
toward their degrees. Also, students suggested that projects assigned by the professors
should be relevant to students’ learning goals. Below are some suggestions related to

course requirements and organization.

Eliminating the ISS, IAH, ISB/P requirements. They are not helpful and are a
waste of tuition money.

Cut out the irrelevant and redundant classes that the university forces you to take.

Give credit for come Ag-Tech courses because they really pertain to my interests.

141

vi.

Allow the 4-year students to take some of the 2-year Ag-tech courses for specific
species while they are completing their Bachelor’s.

I would say that a lot of the projects assigned by professors are extremely
pointless and do not provide any learning tools for the student other then wasting
the student’s time. I feel that the topics of the classes need to be more diverse
because the material right now is continuously repeated in several classes. There
needs to be more effort on trying to connect the Food Industry Management and
Agri-business Management major to other aspects of the world than just the food
industry because I have found that I can apply the things I have learned from
Food Industry Management/Agribusiness Management can be used just as good
to other things that are not usually brought up in class.

Slow down some of the courses because the classes begin to use information that
was used in other classes and that professor may not have taught the information
well enough for it to be brought into another class. So, I guess make sure the
professor is a good teacher!

Suggestions about communication

Students preferred more communication between students and staff, and between

people from different academic disciplines within the college. Some students indicated

that they should be informed in advance about the upcoming changes in the academic

programs and availability of scholarships. They suggested that information should be

easily available through university and college websites about the course requirements

for graduation, graduate school information, and opportunities for prospective students.

Students also suggested that information about the CANR programs should reach to high

school students before they come to MSU. A few statements with regard to

communication issues are quoted below:

More communication between people involved with different species. The
livestock people keep to themselves, the horse people keep to themselves, and
both are somewhat uninviting and often downright mean to city kids with only
small animal or no animal experience. Including small animals in curriculum
would help make the playing field a little more level.

More communication between students and staff. Yes, they’re approachable, but
it’s not always known what’s going on and when.

142

Marketing of the program to high school students before they come to MSU.
Update the website about what classes are required for graduation.

Provide more information on graduate school and opportunities.

Give more notice for all the available scholarships. A couple of friends and I tried
to apply but by the time we were told about it, it was too late and we did not have

time to get recommendation letters.

Make available more information about university owned sites and possibilities
for internships or jobs.

Make students more aware of upcoming changes, prior to making those changes

final, so students can prepare for class cancellations, or the ending of programs
that they perhaps originally came to this university for.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study aimed at understanding students’ perceptions about course offerings,
faculty support, satisfaction with academic advising, internationalization of curricula, and
strengths and weaknesses of the undergraduate program in the CANR at MSU.

With regard to course offerings, it can be concluded that respondents felt that
most required courses were offered every year. Similarly, a high majority of respondents
agreed that courses were taught by experienced faculty members who are approachable
and accessible outside of classrooms. However, compared to course offering and faculty
support, a majority of respondents agreed that courses were not scheduled at convenient
times. Overall, respondents were positive about course offering and faculty support to
them irrespective of their gender, age, ethnicity, residency (in-state vs. out—of-state
status), academic status (class level), and residence (rural, suburban, and urban).

CANR students are satisfied with the academic advising services. Findings

indicate that the CANR advisors are easily accessible, knowledgeable about the degree

143

requirements, and helpfirl to their students. Respondents indicated that the major
advisors’ encouragement to participate in study abroad and voluntary programs was low
as compared to the encouragement in other academic support and services. Further,
students’ perceptions about academic advising do not vary by demographic
characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, residency status, academic year, residence (rural,
suburban and urban) and their membership in the national honor society. However,
students’ perception about academic advising service varies by their age and personal
experience working in organizations related to agriculture. Older students and those who
participated in 4-H and F F A activities tend to be more satisfied with academic advising
than the younger students without 4-H and FFA experience. Overall, the results from this
study indicate that undergraduate students in CANR at MSU are satisfied with the
academic advising services.

Although there is no universal standard for measuring the extent of
internationalization of curricula in higher education, the proportion of students taking
courses focusing on intemational issues, involvement in international research and
outreach programs, participation in study abroad, and faculty sharing international issues
and/or case studies in classroom teaching and discussions were relatively low.

The demographic profile of study abroad participants in CANR resembles that of
the national demographic profile of study abroad students. Findings showed that study
abroad participants are predominantly White Caucasian female students, which indicates
that there is lack of diversity among study abroad participants.

Open ended responses were helpful to determine the strengths of the CANR

program. The strengths of CANR are experienced and competent faculty members, good

144

academic advising, hands-on learning and career opportunities to students, a wide range
of course curricula better suited to students’ needs and interests, and college reputation.
Despite these strengths, respondents indicated that unprepared and uncommitted faculty
members, inexperienced Teaching Assistants, and unwelcoming and nonresponsive
advisors were some of the weaknesses of the college. Other weaknesses included
narrowly focused and overlapping curricula. Offering of required courses in one
semester and lack of course offering in the summer have caused inconvenience in
academic planning and subsequently resulted in a delay in time to graduation. Students
do not seem happy with some university required courses such as IAH, ISS, ISP, and ISB
and they did not perceive these courses as highly relevant to their majors. Some felt that
taking these courses was waste of time and tuition money, and also affected on taking
other required courses for their majors.

Respondents offered a number of suggestions for improvement of the programs in
the CAN R. Some of the most important suggestions included providing more hands-on
learning and career opportunities, promoting more effective teaching and academic
advising, offering broad base curricula on a regular basis, and more communication and

availability of information through electronic media such as e-mail and websites.

Based on the conclusions about findings of this study, it is recommended that:

i) Academic advisors should encourage students to participate in study abroad and
get them more involved in research activities. They should encourage minority
students to participate in both study abroad and research programs. Both

activities are important to enhance employability skills upon graduation.

145

ii) Academic advising on career services should be equally emphasized along with
academic planning so that students see the connection between their academic
planning and their career goals. The college should invite more industry
representatives for talks, which may provide more internship opportunities to
students.

iii) The college should promote the culture of the scholarship of teaching and learning
by encouraging faculty members to integrate their research outcomes into
teaching in a subtle way so that students understand the value of research in the
teaching and learning process.

iv) The college should offer required courses more frequently and schedule courses
in such a way that commuter, working students, and non-traditional students do
not have problems developing an academic plan. This may enhance study abroad
participation and overcome the problems associated with delayed graduation.

v) Help students realize the value of university or college required courses from the
perspective of the importance of liberal education.

vi) Encourage faculty members to introduce more international content into
classroom teaching and discussions. Since faculty members are the drivers and
main actors in internationalization of higher education, it is important to make

sure that they have enthusiasm, opportunities, and recognition in this endeavor.

The overall results of this study indicate that students were happy with course
curricula and academic advising services they received. It is suggested that future studies

be conducted in the following areas.

146

iii)

Follow-up studies of the CAN R alumni to assess the usefulness of undergraduate
education in the workplace.

Conduct employer assessment to assess the career preparation and competencies
of the CANR graduates.

Conduct a study to determine the value of study abroad on students’ knowledge,
skills, and attitudes.

Perceptions of both participants of the study abroad program and faculty members

on internationalization of program could be valuable.

147

REFERENCES

Acker, D. G. (1999). Improving the Quality of Higher Education in Agriculture Globally
in the 21 st Century: Constraints and Opportunities. Journal of International
Agricultural and Extension Education Summer 1999: 47-53.

Acker, D. G. & Scanes, C. G. (1998). A Case for Globalizing U.S. Colleges of
Agriculture. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 5(1):
59-62.

Afshar, T. & Dhiman, S. (2008). Assessment of the Excellence of Academic Advising:
Lessons Learned. Journal of College Teaching & Learning 5(3): 51-60.

Allen, G. (2004). Role of Faculty in International Education. A background paper for “A
Call to Leadership: The Presidential Role in Intemationalizing the University”.
The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
(NASULGC).

Armstrong, J. S. (1998). Are Student Ratings of Instruction Useful? American
Psychologist 53: 1223-1224.

Arubayi, E. A. (1987). Improvement of Instruction and Teacher Effectiveness: Are
Student Ratings Reliable and Valid? Higher Education 16(3): 267-278.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007). College Learning for the New
Global Century. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU).

Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Macmillan Series on Higher
Education. Macmillan Publishing Co. New York.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bean, J. P. (1982). Student attrition, intentions, and confidence: Interaction effects in a
path model. Research in Higher Education 1 7(4): 291-320.

148

Boyer Commission (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for
America ’s Research Universities. Boyer Commission on Educating
Undergraduates in the Research University. State University of New York at
Stony Brook for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Braskamp, L. A., Wise, S. L. & Hengstler, D. D. (1979). Student Satisfaction as a Means
of Departmental Quality. Journal of Educational Psychology 71(4): 494-498.

Broadbridge, A. (1996). Academic advising a traditional or developmental approaches?:
student perspectives. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 24: 97-11 1.

CANR Homepage. (2009). International Programs. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from
http://www.canr.msu.edu/canrhome/intn_prog.htm.

Chen, Y. & Hoshower, L. B. (2003). Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness: an
assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education 28(1): 71-88.

Chieffo, L. & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-Scale Assessment of Student Attitudes after a
Short-Tenn Study Abroad Program. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of
Study Abroad 10: 165-177.

Corts, D. P., Lounsbury, J. W., Saudargas, R. A. & Tatum, H. E. (2000). Assessing
Undergraduate Satisfaction with an Academic Department: A Method and Case
Study. College Student Journal 34(3): 399-408.

Donald, J. G. & Denison, D. B. (1996). Evaluating Undergraduate Education: the use of
broad indicators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 21(1): 23-39.

Endo, J. J. & Harpel, R. L. (1982). The effect of student-faculty interaction on students’
educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education 16(2): 115-138.

Fielstein, L. L., Scoles, M. T. & Webb, K. J. (1992). Differences in Traditional and
Nontraditional Students’ Preferences for Advising Services and Perceptions of
Services Received. NACADA Journal 12(2): 5-12.

Freeman, K. (1999). No Services Needed?: The Case for Mentoring High-Achieving
African American Students. Peabody Journal of Education 74(2): 15-26.

149

Frey, P. W. (1976). Validity of Student Instructional Ratings: Does Timing Matter? The
Journal of Higher Education 47(3): 327-336.

Greenwald, A. G. (1997). Validity Concerns and Usefulness of Student Ratings of
Instruction. American Psychologist 52(1 1): 1 182-1 186.

Grewe, A. (2007). Adapting Academic Advising Strategies to Meet the Needs of a
Diversified Student Body. Academic Advising Today 30(2): 4 & 21.

Guinn, D. & Mitchell, R. (1986). Academic Advising: And Different Expectations.
NACADA Journal 6(2): 99-105.

Harmer, S. (2000). An assessment of educational and personal needs of adult women
students: Undergraduate and graduate. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61
(11), 4256A. (UMI No. AAT 9994054)

Hathaway, R. S., Nagda, B. A. & Gregerrnan, S. R. (2002). The Relationship of
Undergraduate Research Participation to Graduate and Professional Education

Pursuit: An Empirical Study. Journal of College Student Development 43(5): 614-
631.

Hayward, F. M. (2000). Internationalization of (1.5. Higher Education: Preliminary
Status Report 2000. American Council on Education.

Hearn, J. C. (1985). Determinants of college students’ overall evaluations of their
academic programs. Research in Higher Education 23(4): 413-437.

Hembroff, L. A. & Clark, K. (2001). Undergraduate Academic Advising at MS. U. :
Report of the 2001 Survey. Office for Survey Research, Institute for Public Policy
and Social Research, Michigan State University.

Hemdon, J. B., Kaiser, J. & Creamer, D. G. (1996). Student preferences for advising style

in community college environments. Journal of College Student Development
3 7(6): 63 7-648.

Hester, E. J. (2008). Student evaluations of advising: moving beyond the mean. College
Teaching 56(1): 35-38.

150

Higgins, R., Hartley, P. & Skelton, A. (2002). The Conscientious Consumer:
reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in
Higher Education 27(1): 53-64.

Hu, 8., Kuh, G. & Gayles, J. (2007). Engaging Undergraduate Students in Research
Activities: Are Research Universities Doing a Better Job? Innovative Higher
Education 32(3): 167-177.

Hurtado, S., Sax, L. J., Saenz, V., Harper, C. E., Oseguera, L., Curley, J ., et al. (2007).
Findings fiom the 2005 Administration of Your First College Year (YF C )9:
National Aggregates. Higher Education Research Institute, University of
California, Los Angeles.

Institute of International Education (2007). Meeting America’s Global Education
Challenge: Current Trends in US. Study Abroad & The Impact of Strategic
Diversity Initiatives. Institute of International Education (IIE).

James, A. K. (2001). Student Ratings: Validity, Utility, and Controversy. New Directions
for Institutional Research 2001(109): 9-25.

Katkin, W. (2003). The Boyer Commission Report and its Impact on Undergraduate
Research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2003(93): 19-38.

Kotler, P. & Fox, K. F. M. (1995). Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Mason, S. C., Eskridge, K. M., Kliewer, B., Bonifas, G., Deprez, J ., Pallas, C. M., et al.
(1994). A Survey: Student Interest and Knowledge of International Agriculture.
NAC TA Journal 38(2): 34-3 8.

McAnulty, B. H., O’Connor, C. A. & Sklare, L. (1987). Analysis of Student and Faculty
Opinion of Academic Advising Services. NACADA Journal 7(1): 49-61.

Michigan State University. (2009). Baldness by Design: Strategic Positioning of
Michigan State University. from http://boldnessbydesign.msu.edu/.

Milburn, S. D. (1994). An analysis of the influences of gender, race and age on student
preferences for the delivery of academic advising services. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 55 (10), 3107A. (UMI No. AAT 9507123)

151

Miller, R. L. & Ware, M. E. (1999). A Conversation With Wilbert J. McKeachie:
Involving Undergraduate Students in Research. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate
Research 4(3): 87-93.

Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R., Jonides, J ., Hippel, W. v. & Lerner, J. S. (1998).
Undergraduate Student-Faculty Research Partnerships Affect Student Retention.
The Review of Higher Education 22(1): 55-72.

NASULGC (2004). A Call to Leadership: The Presidential Role in Intemationalizing the
University. National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
(N ASULGC).

National Survey of Student Engagement (2007). Experiences That Matter: Enhancing
Student Learning and Success. Indiana University Bloomington.

Nnadozie, E., Ishiyama, J. & Chon, J. (2001). Undergraduate Research Internships and
Graduate School Success. Journal of College Student Development 42(2): 145-
156.

Noel-Levitz, I. (2008). National Student Satisfaction-Priorities Report: Executive
Summary. 2008 National Research Report. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from
https://www.noellevitz.com/NR/rdonlyres/1 F082DB7-6D9A-423 8-BEF1-
9CB4BO99B8FF/0/NatSatisfactionReportExecutiveSummary08.pdf.

Noel-Levitz Inc. (2006). Advising Needs Report: Summary of Findings from National
Advising Needs Survey. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from
https://www.noellevitz.com/NR/rdonlyres/S3A3CF6F-1408-4344-8DE2-
.OOADAD02B074/0/ADVISING_pdf_1 106.pdf.

Open Doors (2008). Open Doors 2008: US. Students Studying Abroad. Institute of
International Education (IIE). Available at
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=l 3 1 592.

Open Doors (2008). Profile of US. Study Abroad Students 1995/96 - 2006/0 7. Institute of
International Education (IIE). Available at
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=13 1 562.

Pace, C. R. (1985). Perspectives and problems in student outcomes research. New
Directions for Institutional Research [985(47): 7-18.

152

Rodin, M. & Rodin, B. (1972). Student Evaluations of Teachers. Science 177(4055):
1 164-1 166.

Russel, M. & Russell, B. (2008). Predicting Student Satisfaction with Academic
Advising. The Mentor 10(3).

Saenz, V. B. & Barrera, D. S. (2007). Findings fiom the 2005 College Student Survey
(CSS): National Aggregates. Higher Education Research Institute, University of
California, Los Angeles.

Sanders, L. & Burton, J. D. (1996). From retention to satisfaction: New outcomes for
assessing the freshman experience. Research in Higher Education 3 7(5): 555-567.

Seppanen, L. M. P. (1981). Faculty and Student Attitudes towards Academic Advising.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama.

Smith, J. S. (2002). First-Year Student Perceptions of Academic Advisement: A
Qualitative Study and Reality Check. NACADA Journal 22(2): 39-49.

Spencer, K. J. (1994). Student perspectives on course and teacher evaluations.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (04), 881A. (U M1 N0. AAT 9425246)

Strayhom, T. L. (2008). Academic Advising Needs of High-Achieving Black Collegians
at Predominantly White Institutions: A Mixed Methods Investigation. The Mentor
1 0(2).

Stumpf, S. A. (1979). Assessing academic program and department effectiveness using
student evaluation data. Research in Higher Education 11(4): 353-363.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking Causes and Cures of Student Attrition.
Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Twombly, S. B. (1992). Student Perspectives on General Education in a Research
University: An Exploratory Study. Journal of General Education 41: 23 8-272.

Williams, F. D. (2007). Study Abroad and Carnegie Doctoral/Research Extensive
Universities: Preparing Students from Underrepresented Racial Groups to Live in

153

a Global Environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68 (10), (U MI No.
AAT 3286526)

Worley, T. & Casavant, K. (1995). Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Tool for
Directing and Measuring Course Improvement Efforts. NACTA Journal 39(1): 37-
38.

Zimmerman, A. & Mokma, A. (2004). Developing a Student Evaluation of Advising
Survey Instrument. NAC TA Journal 48(3): 2-6.

154

CHAPTER V

WHAT GRADUATING SENIORS SAY ABOUT THEIR COLLEGE
EXPERIENCE: A CASESTUDY OF THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Introduction

The gathering of students’ feedback for the purpose of improving curricula,
instruction, and overall support services has become an established norm in higher
education. Assessment of students’ learning outcomes serves the dual purpose of
demonstrating accountability for the external constituency and improving academic
program for internal constituency (Delaney, 2001). Some researchers assert that “student
voice” is the most important voice in assessment in higher education because student is
the ultimate beneficiary of assessment; thus, it is appropriate to ask what they think about
the educational program (Delaney, 2001; Lingrell, 1992). Twombly (1992) notes that
students are in the best position to describe their academic experience because they have
personal experience of the curriculum designed and implemented by institutions. Pace
(1985) believes that college students express their opinions and satisfactions forthrightly,
and their judgments of what they have gained are consistent with external evidence.

Student assessment employs a range of methods—freshman survey, senior exit
survey, and alumni survey—depending upon the purpose of study. Feedback from
seniors is preferred over alumni survey for the purpose of overall assessment of college
and to address the immediate needs of the undergraduates (Corts et al., 2000; Donald and
Denison, 1996). Lingrell (1992) claims that senior survey is an ideal vehicle for focusing

on students’ voice. Senior survey provides two major areas of assessment: student

155

satisfaction and student perceptions of what they have learned and gained through their
college experience. Lingrell further stresses the importance of senior survey as:

. . . measurement during the senior year provides important information about

previous years in college, as well as about student perceptions about his/her

preparation for life after college . . . . Without the use of a senior survey,
universities miss the chance to gain valuable information about its students.

Implementation of a senior survey program would give faculty and administrators

access to information that is essential in the evaluation of academic programs and

student services (p. 18).

The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) at Michigan State
University (MSU) has been committed to quality education. The teaching mission of
undergraduate program in the CANR is guided by the philosophy of liberal education
learning adopted by MSU which includes integrated judgment, advanced communication
skills, cultural competence, analytical thinking, literacy in science and mathematics, and
effective citizenship (Michigan State University, 2008).

One of the goals of higher education is to prepare students for productive careers.
Today’s fast paced, ever changing, highly competitive, and knowledge-based global
economy has demanded that agriculture students develop a high level of technical
competencies and a wide range of skills necessary to meet new workplace demands. The
review of literature indicates that college graduates should possess a wide range of skills
set, in addition to mastery of knowledge and competencies in the subject matter, to be
competitive for professional jobs. A literature review on the important employable skills ‘
to he possessed by the agriculture college graduates from the perspectives of agri-
business employers and alumni is summarized in the Appendix V, and Appendix W.

Wilson et al. (2004) suggest that educational institutions should assess their

academic programs to determine whether the courses being offered are adequately

156

preparing students to be able to perform desired program outcomes. Gilmore et al.
(2006) argue that colleges of agriculture must update course curricula to meet the ever-
changing expectations of potential employers. Andelt et al. (1997) recommend that
colleges of agriculture be sensitive to the needs of the employers and conduct studies on
students’ and employers’ perceptions about skills preparation every three to five years.
The general purpose of this study is to document the college experience of the
seniors in the CANR at MSU. This study is an attempt to understand perceptions of the
graduating seniors about college/departmental services and development of employable
skills through their undergraduate studies in the CANR. The study results may be used to
revise existing course curricula and to improve the undergraduate academic program

overall in the CANR at MSU.

Objectives

1. To describe graduating seniors’ perceptions of the services and assistance provided
by the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University
and to make suggestions for improvement.

2. To assess experiences of graduating seniors about the services and assistance
provided by the academic departments/schools and to solicit suggestions for
improvement.

3. To identify the employable skills that students developed during their undergraduate
studies.

4. To solicit suggestions from students to make overall academic improvement.

157

Methodology

This study employed two methods: i) an online survey and ii) a focus group to

collect data.

i. Online survey

An online survey of the graduating seniors in the CANR was conducted in each
semester from spring 2004 to spring 2008. The survey instrument was jointly developed
by professor in the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource
Studies (CARRS) , and the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Programs in the CANR at
MSU. The instrument was developed in consultation with the CANR assessment
committee members, undergraduate advisors, and coordinators to ensure face and content
validity.

The survey instrument had four parts (Appendix B). Part A sought students’
academic information. Part B assessed college and departmental services, academic
preparation, and skills development. Part C sought students’ demographic information.
Part D consisted of three open-ended questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the
undergraduate program as well as a request for recommendations to enhance programs.
The reliability of each scale was established using Chronbach’s alpha procedure.

The electronic mail addresses of the graduating seniors were obtained from the
Office of the Dean in the CANR. Online web-based surveys were created and
administered by the Center for Evaluative Studies in the Department of Community,
Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies (CARRS) at MSU. Online surveys were
electronically sent to each graduating senior via a personalized “cover letter” that

included the web-address or hyperlink of the survey. Students were asked to “click” on

158

the hyperlink in the e-mail text to access the web-based survey. Once the student
completed the survey and hit the “submit” button, his/her data were automatically
collected in web-based database. The survey was administered during fall and spring
semesters (i.e. twice a year) when senior students apply for graduation. The online
survey was sent a month prior to the graduation date and remained open a month after
graduation.

The response rates for the graduating senior survey varied from 22.6% to 44.4%.
Response rates were 44.4%, 31.3%, 23.9%, 22.6%, and 41.0% for each academic year
from 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, respectively. The overall
response rate for the graduating senior survey for five-year study was 32.6%.

To increase the survey response rate, participants were provided a free two-scoop
ice-cream coupon, as a token of appreciation, who completed the survey. Participants
were informed to pick up a coupon from the MSU Dairy store located in Anthony Hall.
Additionally, survey reminders were sent after one week and again a week before the ice-
cream event to enhance the survey response rate.

The data analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS
15) for Windows. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency, mean and

standard deviation).

ii. Focus group interview
The focus group interviews are conducted for variety of purposes. The primary
purpose of the focus group interview in this study was the need for fathering in depth

information on the perspectives of graduating seniors about their academic experiences in

the CANR. Various authors (Alreck and Settle, 2004; Larson et al., 2004; Krueger and

159

Casey, 2000) suggest that a focus group be conducted with a clear plan in a carefully
designed and controlled process and environment. In this study, focus group was
conducted by adopting the following procedures:

i) Reservation of focus group venue and identification of participants

An easily accessible focus group venue for all participants was identified and
reserved. Participants were identified by contacting the undergraduate advisors and
coordinators in each academic department and unit within CANR. To expedite the
process of participant selection, the Associate Dean and Coordinator of the
Undergraduate Program in the Office of the Dean in the CANR at MSU sent an e-mail to
all advisors and coordinators of all academic departments and units to identify potential
focus group participants and to pass the names of selected students and their e-mail
addresses to the researcher. Upon receiving the list of potential participants, the
researcher sent e-mail letters (Appendix C for sample invitation letter) inviting them to
participate in focus group interviews. The e-mail letter contained the purpose of the focus
group interviews; the location, time, and anticipated length of interview; and the
provision of incentives to each focus group participant. A final reminder e-mail,
followed by a personal call when appropriate, was sent to each selected student about the
focus group interview topic, venue, and time one day prior to the event. Three focus
groups were conducted with a total of 23 participants of both genders and students of
color.

ii) Development of interview protocol (discussion guide)
Asking appropriate questions is crucial in focus group interviews. Alreck and Settle

(2004) suggest that focus group interview questions should be framed in such a way that

160

participants cannot answer with a single word or phrase. Rather, the moderator should
ask “trigger” questions designed to stimulate a conversation and seek a variety of
opinions. Likewise, Krueger and Casey (2000) suggest using open-ended questions,
which encourage long explanations and avoiding dichotomous questions that can be
answered with a “yes” or “no”. Krueger and Casey (2000) further suggest using different
types of questions to get participants involved. The questions in this proposed focus
group interview were intended to explore the perspectives of graduating seniors on topics
specific to college services, departmental services, academic advising, and skills
development. The focus group questions are mentioned in the focus group script in
Appendix D.

A focus group discussion guide (interview protocol) was developed to help the
moderator lead the discussions. A short and clear script helped the moderator keep
discussions on track and finish the interviews within the stipulated time. The script for
conducting focus groups for this study is attached in Appendix D.

Conducting a focus group interview in a limited amount of time with a first time
audience was a challenging job. Running the focus group sessions successfully and
systematically with a “focus” on the subject matter required some ground rules, which
helped the moderator guide the discussions in a smooth and timely manner. Ground rules
also helped moderator control the environment and kept the discussion on track. The
following basic ground rules were followed in the focus group interview:

0 We used first names in the sessions
0 There was no right or wrong answer

a One person spoke at a time

161

0 Participants were encouraged to feel free to comment on other people’s
opinions but they were also advised to listen and respect other people’s ideas and
opinions

0 Cell phones were turned off during the sessions

iii) Incentives for participation

Each focus group participant received $20.00 in cash as an incentive. Unlike
responding to a survey questionnaire, focus group participants should expend substantial
amount of time and effort. They may incur additional travel costs, and their time is
valuable. Thus, providing incentives to compensate focus group participants’ travel
expenses and time is an established norm.

Focus group interviews demand several logistical managements, such as a meeting
room equipped with necessary audio and visual aids, adequate lighting and work space, a
comfortable room temperature and arrangement of tables and chairs, necessary office
supplies, such as stationary (writing pad, pencils, name cards), and refreshments, etc..
Since interview sessions lasted for an hour to two hours, participants were provided with
drinks and pizza at the beginning to energize them for the sessions.

iv) Moderating the focus group interview

The researcher moderated the focus group interview sessions by following the
discussion guide. One assistant moderator helped the principal moderator by taking notes.
The moderator welcomed the participants and started the focus group interviews with a
smooth and snappy introduction, and the rest of the discussions were conducted as stated
in the focus group script. All three focus group discussions were audio-taped to

transcribe and analyze the data later.

162

v) Analysis of focus group data

The data were analyzed by following the qualitative approach as detailed by
Krueger and Casey (2000). Analysis of the data started with a review of focus group
notes taken by the assistant moderator. A debriefing session with an assistant moderator
was scheduled immediately after the focus group interview. Audio tapes were
transcribed verbatim into Microsoft Word documents for further analysis. Audio tapes
were replayed and transcribed word documents were checked simultaneously to confirm
that no important information was missing. Each participant was assigned unique
identification number (ID) and pseudonyms to protect the student’s identity. Researcher
carefully read the transcribed word documents and highlighted the key themes and
concepts identified using different colored markers. Identified themes and concepts were
coded in Excel, which helped the researcher to sort by focus groups, by major of
participants, and by themes so that comparisons across the groups were easier. The final
results of analysis were prepared in frequency tables and then described and interpreted
according to the research objectives. Findings were presented in the participant’s own
words to the extent possible. Selected quotations were used to illustrate the key points as
appropriate. Some quotations were slightly edited for distracting and repeated phrases

such as “hmmm. . .”, “you know”, “I mean”, etc..

Results and Discussions

This section presents the aggregate findings of the five-year online survey (spring
2004 to spring 2008) and three focus group interviews of the graduating seniors in the
CANR at MSU. The findings from online survey are presented in the first part and the

findings of focus groups are presented in the second part.

163

Online survey results

Characteristics of online survey participants

A total of 1,066 respondents participated in the five-year study from spring 2004
to spring 2008 (Appendix X). Of 1,066 respondents, 428 (40.2%) were males and 638
(59.8%) were females. Nine out of ten respondents were Caucasians. Participation of
African Americans and Asian Americans was 3% and 2.7%, respectively. Hispanic
students’ participation ranked the fourth (1%). Participants’ residence and residential
status were recorded from Academic Year 2006-07, and that analysis revealed that little
more than one-third (37.2%) of the respondents had grown up in rural communities and
more than half (52.9%) had been raised in suburban communities. One out of ten (9.9%)
respondents had urban backgrounds. With regard to residential status, nine out of ten
(91.8%) were residents of the state of Michigan. Out-of-state and international students
accounted for 6.8% and 1.4%, respectively. The average age of respondents was 23
years, with a range from 20 to 55 years.

Survey respondents participated from all 23 academic majors in the CAN R
(Appendix Y). However, respondents from Packaging accounted for 18% of the total
respondents, followed by respondents from Animal Science (13.5%) and Dietetics

(7.6%).

Perceptions of services or assistance provided by the CANR Dean’s Office

Respondents were asked to assess their perceptions of services or assistance
provided by the College, i.e. CANR Dean’s Office (Table 21). Respondents were asked

to indicate their agreement or disagreement in a five-point Likert scale (1=Strong1y

164

Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree). The overall reliability (Chronbach’s Alpha) of the scales
was 0.68.

The findings showed that respondents agreed that staff provided timely
information on academic matters, which students found helpful in making informed
decision about their major. Similarly, respondents agreed that the career advising and
information provided by the College was useful. Respondents also agreed that the
College sponsored a quality study abroad program. Overall, respondents agreed that the

services or assistance provided by the College was useful.

165

oon< bwaobmum was dew<nv doc-wax Roz ookwmma BEBZHM .oouwwwanm Jammy-5 bwcobml no :83 @3388 £ :82 ...

 

 

 

 

 

8.3 .3595 no: moo—5:35 “529m
. 8.: M2 8.: ”a 8.8 I. 8.: 3n 8.: 3
a m 32m >596 3.85% owe—EU of.
8. C .333 mm; owe—BO 05 3 3:305
. 8.: 3 9.: 2 8.8 S” 8.8 ”a 8.: 5
h m coauELQE :5... mm??? 523 2:
.5qu
3.8 b: Sons noise: “BE-5:5 5 95:2:
8.8 2 8.: 2 8.8 3 8.8 3“ 8.: 3
”m E SEE: was $5 EofiaE 28:03.8 :0
gag—:85 32:: 32>th ham 2:-
88 .522 am: .532 am: 282 am: :58: am: .522 8.: *5»:
woo z Nmmuz $72 872 E _ nz oznz
EB 88 macaw-B :5: E: Sam-8 an: 88 macaw-8 E: 88 macaw-8 .5: 38 8 man: 323%
8-88 >< 8-88 >< 8-88 >< 8-38 >< ..8-88 ><

 

 

 

 

 

 

30> 28381::

 

 

8238 owe—.00 no mcotnoobm ..N 293.

166

Perceptions of departmental services

Academic departments/schools implement most of the academic programs of the
CANR. Students interact primarily with the faculty members, advisors, department
chairs, and secretaries. Thus, respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions about
the departmental services offered to them. Fifteen questions were asked covering
different aspects of departmental services, such as access to faculty members and
academic advisors, academic and career advising, study abroad, internships, opportunities
to become involved in professional organizations, and timely communication.
Statements were measured in a five-point Likert type scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5
= Strongly Agree. The post hoc reliability (Chronbach’s Alpha) was 0.88.

Findings about respondents’ perceptions of departmental services indicated that
faculty members and major academic advisors were easily accessible (Table 22).
Respondents agreed that it was easy to get to know a faculty member, and they also had
no difficulty in identifying departmental or major advisors. Despite the easy-to-know
faculty members and the accessibility of faculty advisors, respondents indicated that
departmental faculty members were relatively less available to discuss undergraduate
research and extension opportunities.

Departmental services with regard to academic and career advising indicated
that students got support from their major advisor to decide courses to take. However,
respondents showed less agreement regarding their major advisor’s or Career Field
Consultant’s assistance in preparing resumes and providing tips on interviewing skills.

The respondents showed the least agreement regarding their major advisor’s or Career

167

Field Consultant’s assistance in finding the student’s first professional job after

graduation.

168

029$ bwnobmnm ES .00Hw<uv n“5&8. 20 Z 00885 uofimoznm .oouwammn—HN .888me >38me no woman— 0032800 mm 502 a.

 

028.68» Btu no.8 8:083:03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 ad 2.3 RN 8.: 5m 3.: w.N 8.: 5N ANS ad 8:: .8: 05.: 08 com—0..— Enzsmcou
20E 508.088ng .088 82
.258
2.5 m.m ANS Om 8.3 2+ 3.: m.m 8. C Ym 2.: Wm wiBflEBE :0 3: 08m Emu—3000
20E 50898838 5.80.. 82
.22sz .2: 03:05
9.39m a: m.m 8.: ..v 2.: 8m 2308 8.: m.m 02 maoumowwsm Erato 253—3000
22“. 0008908308 20.88 >2
2.: E. 2:88 8.8 3. 2:3. 8:2. 2:88 .253 382:8 2:
0200: E: 3&0: 28308 00.8.: >2
83:02:38
8. : 8.8 8.8 M: 2.: 3 8.8 mm 8. : 3 8.: 8.8 82825 a Lease 222088.205
308:. 0“ 0388088 20>»
.8258: 50258qu 20.88 b: E
8.: S. 8.: Z. 2.: 2. 2.: 3. 8.8 3. 2.: 3 852382...
.2580 m5: 20m_>_um 58E 32
8.8 3 8.8 S. 2 .: S. 8.8 3. 8.8 3. 8.: 2. 0832 5.353555%“.
E 858282 5 0.58% o: 82 _
dosmucofifioofi
:0 «.0002 8. mwifi :03 00-: 02mm
8.8 m... 8.8 3. 8.: S. 8.8 3 8.: 3. 8. : 3 2:8 2 as 8 22888 :03 .BEE
830$ 0:0 83. 8 305. 8 00m 02
:88 was» : Jung-anon 8.88 b: E
Em: E82 85: .522 am: .532 Em: 282 82m: .532 Em: 282
80— Z mmTZ :72 872 PTZ oEuZ
88 88 waam-B :32: 88 macaw-8 2E: 88 macaw-3 :98 88 macaw-3 :98 SS 8 855m: assesm
woéoom >< noéoom >< 8-38 >< moéoom >< 2.:-meow ><

 

 

 

 

 

 

80> £2583.

 

 

 

803.2% 5025.8 00 .«0 8:0: oocom .mm 033.

169

Respondents agreed that departmental staff provided timely information on
academic matters that helped students make an informed decision about their major
(Table 23). Respondents consistently agreed throughout the study (2004-2008) that in
their major courses, faculty expectations for their performance were clearly defined at the
beginning of the course and sufficient opportunities to become involved in student
organizations relevant to their career/professional interests were presented.

Although the respondents were very close in agreeing that the department
encouraged them to participate in study abroad programs, it is interesting to note that
such encouragement has been decreasing each academic year from spring 2004 to spring
2008. Respondents agreed that their major department encouraged them to participate in
internships, and provided information on internship opportunities. However, respondents
were neutral, neither disagreeing nor agreeing on departmental encouragement to
participate in volunteer programs or unpaid internships.

In summary, overall findings indicated that respondents did agree on such
departmental services as access to faculty members and academic advisors, academic

advising, internships, and study abroad.

170

000w< bwcobmum :28 .002w<uv .002w< .202 0008me 202E02nm .002mwmanm 608805 bwcobml 00 0003 00:29:00 02 2802 .2.

 

.mmEmEBE 282252

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. : ...m 2.: 2.8 2.: 2.8 8.: m... 8. : on 8.8 2 2o m§20822 52522 :2 03.222522
8 0E 0082220000 22202222283320.8222 >2
2.: mm 8.: 3 8.: 228 2.: 2:. 8.: 22.2. 2.: 2:. 82222222088 22222322222 8 8222.555
0.222223% :2 0282-2022. 8 2.2.22 2
8. : N2. 8.8 S. 2.: 2.2. 8. : m2. 8. : S. 8. : 2. 02222053222 .22 38202522
02 0E 200822200220 20022228220320.8222 >52
8.: 22.8 8.: E 2 . : 22.8 8.: 8.8 8. : mm 8.8 22.2. .8852. 83m 5 222202.52
02 0E 200822200220 22202523032088 .32
8.208022: 282202000202320080 .222 02
8.8 2.2. 8.8 0.2V 8.2V 2.2. 8.8 N». 8.8 2.2. 8.8 N4. 222230202 2028222de 200030 :2 0020222
02000022 02 0082020 00222522202220 20020525
0022200 0222 :0 wficfimg 05 20
8.8 2.2. 8.8 2:. 8.8 2.2. 8.8 2. 8.8 8.2. 8.8 S. 2.20% 223020 203 852E858 2a 82
0220220200920 b22208: £00500 20.822 .222 E
.2082: .2: 50%
8.8 2.2. 8.8 22.2. 8.8 mm 8.8 S. 8.8 m2. 2.: 22.2. 282.20% 2.852222 5 022202.08 :2 222222222
085 2205 920228.: 0222200238 :0 22022822220222
30252 000302: 22280 25:0Etam0o
208 .532 828 .2282 828 .5022 828 .2282 828 .5322 828 .2282
082 Z mmmnz 22.—HZ mmTZ PTZ cEHZ
28$ 88 macaw-8 222...: 28 05:20.08 22““: 8° 05:20-8 22$: 28 05:20.28 222.“: 2.228 2.22 022258 3825290
wo-$o~ >< Sboom >< oofioom >< moéoom >< 2.0-meow ><

 

 

 

 

 

 

80> 02222033..

 

 

902222202200: 0003200 280082-8220: :0 02203820020.» .mm 030.2-

171

Contribution of academic major to development of skills

One of the goals of higher education is to develop a wide ranging skill set so that
college graduates who seek employment are competitive on the job market. Accordingly,
the third objective of this study was to identify employable skills developed during
undergraduate studies in the CANR at MSU. Ten different skills were listed on survey
questionnaire and respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which their academic
major contributed to the development of those skills on a five-point scale: 1= ‘made no
contribution’, 2= ‘made a moderate contribution’, 3= ‘made some contribution’, 4=
‘made a considerable contribution’, and 5= ‘contributed a great deal’.

Results showed that respondents indicated consistently that their academic major
made a considerable contribution to their developing the skills and acquiring the
knowledge required by their anticipated career path (Table 24). Academic majors
contributed most strongly in building critical thinking and problem solving skills, verbal
communication skills, and teamwork skills. Academic majors contributed only
moderately in developing diversity skills, and computer technology and database research
skills. The development of skills relevant to working with people from diverse
backgrounds (managing diversity) had the lowest mean (mean=3.3) among the skills.
The computer technology and database research skills had the second lowest mean
(mean=3.5) followed by research skills (mean=3.7), and leadership and interpersonal
skills (mean=3.7).

In summary, the undergraduate studies in the CANR have made a considerable
contribution in building the majority of the skills required in college graduates’

anticipated career path.

172

000 00030000 038020000 a 0002i. 60035000 0080000. 0 onmzum 50035000 088 003)

300 000.2» a 000520000nn

MN 5003:0000 00 0032“— 00 0003 0050800 0 502 _.

 

.00080me8 020000 .2050

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.0 5 8.0 05 8.0 E 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.05 050532005 assuage 02° 60
0:0? 308009005 000 030.0000:—
8. 0 mm 2. 0 3. 8. 0 mm 8.0 _.m 8.0 2% 8.0 mm 35500208 022% :50
E050 00.5 was—00.5 r00 Q0030
2.0 2 8.0 nm 8.0 3 2.0 3. 8.0 3 2.0 pm 0:00 5332
003800 00w. 320503 08:02:00
2.02 8.02 2.03 8.03 2.02 2.03. 2.220380:
8.0 3. 8.8 mm 8.0 3. 8. 0 S. 8.0 3. 8. 0 am 0:00 0252500.
8. 0 mm 8.0 3 8. 0 0m 8. 0 0m 8. 0 0m 8. 0 3 2.3.0 050386 8390 529535
0020 .06 0.50.0 00002020500 0305
8.0 mm 8.0 E 8.0 3 8.0 an 2.0 mm 8.0 3 ..GB .8005 mi: €222 .503
.06 may—m 0000258600 00055
8.8 mm 8.8 ”a 8.8 3. 8.8 3. 8.8 3. 8. 0 0m .23“
wiiom E0305 000 was—:30 300:0
8.8 mm 8.0 mm 8.0 3. 8.8 mm 8.0 mm 8.0 mm .528
00330000 .50» E 0000000 0:05
8.0 3. 8.0 3. 8.0 3. 8.0 3. 8.8 3. 8. 0 3. ea .85 038005
50% 00 0300:0020 0w00_30:v_
80 La»: 8.0 .502 80 282 8.0 .532 S0 .532 80 .532
mooTz Nanz Enz 8T2 Enz $.72
.88 8o waamé .00 88 055mg .00 Go 0550-3 :0 8° 0553.8 0.0 25 3 0550 £00
8.8% >< 8-08m >< 8-88 >< 8-38 >< 2.8-82 ><

 

 

 

 

 

 

50> 02800000.

 

 

“=30 030.3305 .00 E0E020>0D .vm 0300.

173

However, the undergraduate programs/majors have not been very effective in developing
skills related to managing diversity, computer and database, research, and leadership and

interpersonal skills.

Focus group interview results

The findings from focus group interviews were organized into four categories:
description of focus group participants; participants’ experiences with services or
assistance provided by the CAN R Dean’s Office and suggestions to improve services;
participants’ assessment of academic support and services provided by the academic
departments/schools and suggestions to improve; and participants’ experiences with
contribution of the CANR program to the development of employable skills and

suggestions to enhance them.

Characteristics of focus group participants

All together, 23 senior undergraduates in the CANR at MSU participated in three
focus group sessions. Of them, female and male were 10 (43.5%) and 13 (56.5%)
respectively. Only one of the participants was African-American and the rest were
Caucasian. Most of the participants were in—state students, from the state of Michigan.
Focus group participants represented eleven academic departments/schools and thirteen
majors within the CANR. The academic majors and representative number of
participants were: Agri. Science (2); Agriculture and Natural Resource (ANR)
Communication (3); Crop and Soil Science (1); Entomology (3); Fisheries and Wildlife
(2); Food Industry Management (1); Food Science (2); Forestry (2); Horticulture (2);

Packaging (1); Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources (2); Plant Pathology (1); and

174

Landscape Architecture (1). Among the participants, eleven were transfer students either
within the college/university at MSU or from other colleges/universities outside the

MSU.

Perceptions of services or assistance provided by the CANR Dean’s Office

Focus group participants were encouraged to share their experiences with the
services and assistance provided by the Dean’s Office in the CANR at MSU. Out of 23,
fifteen participants (67%) reported that they received some kind of services from the
Dean’s Office. Services included study abroad, career advising, scholarships,
undergraduate research grants and paper work assistance for changing and/or declaring
academic major. Of those who received the services, ten participants indicated that they
visited the Dean’s Office to complete some kind of paper work related to declaring or
changing their major, to drop classes, to turn in under graduate research applications, and
to acquire a study abroad application. Similarly, six participants visited the Dean’s
Office to seek information about study abroad, career advising, and scholarship
opportunities. Out of 23, eight participants (3 female, 5 male) indicated that they did not
visit the Dean’s Office, thus, they did not receive any services.

The majority (67%) of participants who received services or assistance from the
Dean’s Office claimed that their experience overall was positive. The participants who
received services from the Dean’s Office commented that the staff was knowledgeable,
very helpful, service-oriented, and communicated well. A participant who visited the
Dean’s Office to seek information on study abroad program claimed: “everyone was
really informative. I just wish I would have had more interactions going to the building”

(Victoria).

175

Another participant had a meeting with the Career Advisor. He stated that the “career
advisor was very helpful and meeting was very nice” (Rick).

Similarly, another participant had to get some paperwork done to drop one course
after the deadline. He talked to the Dean and he described his experience about the
service he received as:

The Dean was more than understanding about it and was able to withdraw

me from the class without having to take a zero instead of withdrawal. I

felt that the people there were very service-oriented (Edward).

Finally, another participant received an alumni research grant. He described his
positive experience regarding the communication he had with the staff in the Dean’s
Office as: “I had wonderful communication. A constant communication about where
they were at in the process” (Mathew).

Not all participants who received services from the Dean’s Office were equally
happy or had such positive experiences. A few participants were not pleased with the
services they received from the Dean’s Office. The primary reason for not being satisfied
was poor communication between the Dean’s Office and participants. For instance, one
participant received a undergraduate research grant. She mentioned that she had to send
several e-mails to the Dean’s Office to know the status of her application. She said, “I
had to keep shooting e-mails. As a coordinator, he needs to stay on top of things”
(Emily).

Similarly, another participant who applied for a undergraduate research grant also
claimed that she was not happy with her communication with the Dean’s Office because

she did not receive any information about the status of her application. She expressed her

dissatisfaction as: “I never heard anything back so that made me a little upset” (Lexi).

176

Eight out of 23 participants did indicate that they did not receive any services or
assistance from the Dean’s Office, thus, they did not have any experience. The majority
of them were transfer students from other departments. Some of the participants who did
not receive any services indicated that they were not aware of services provisions, thus,
they never visited the Dean’s Office. A participant in the focus shared: “really, I’ve never
known what it [Dean’s Office] has to offer me so I’ve never gone” (Kim).

It is interesting to note that one participant who used to work in Agriculture Hall
and had her classes there mentioned that she has been to the Dean’s Office several times
to drop off paper work, but she did not know what she could receive from the office. In
her own words, she mentioned, “I did not know I can go there to pick up information
about study abroad scholarship or anything like that. I wasn’t clear about that” (Angela).

In summary, there were primarily two reasons for students not taking the
advantage of the services provided by the Dean’s Office. First, some participants were
not aware of the services provided by the Dean’s Office. Second, some participants
stated that they got adequate information and support services from their professors or the

major departments, thus, they did not have any need to visit to the Dean’s Office.

Suggestions to improve services provided by the CANR Dean’s Office

Focus group participants were asked to offer their suggestions to improve services
and assistance provided by the Dean’s Office so that CANR students can be better served
in the future. Out of 23, six participants did not offer any suggestions. The primary
reason for not offering any suggestions were either that the participants were satisfied

with the services provided by the Dean’s Office and they had no recommendation or that

177

the participants were not aware of the types of services offered so they did not have any
suggestions to offer.

Seventeen participants offered a wide range of suggestions with some examples.
The main themes that emerged included: i) more communication between the Dean’s
Office and students, ii) better method of information dissemination, iii) more efforts by
departments/schools to facilitate services provided by the Dean’s Office, and iv) better
policy with regard to studyabroad, especially for single parents.

i) More communication between the Dean’s Office and students

Fourteen out of the seventeen participants who offered suggestions, emphasized
the need for better communication between the Dean’s Office and students. Several of
them would have liked to receive information or services through their respective
academic department/school and advisor. Since many students were either working
closely with or in contact with advisor(s) in their department/school, participants did feel
that getting information or services through department/ school and advisor would be
more effective and efficient. Participants suggested that the Dean’s Office should
involve more academic departments/schools and under graduate advisors and work
through them to provide services to students.

The following statements from participants indicate that they would like to
receive more information or services through their respective academic
department/school and advisor.

For me, I always just talk to my academic advisor (Allen).

I would go to my advisor for everything and did not know there was another
resource there (Kim).

178

I would go to the Department Office far ahead of going to the Dean’s Office
(Ana).

ii) Better method of information dissemination

Some participants indicated that the Dean’s Office should identify and adopt
innovative ways of disseminating information about its programs and services such as
sharing program information with new students during the academic orientation program
(AOP), distributing pamphlets or providing some additional information when students
visit the Dean’s Office, and putting information on the college website, etc.. During the
focus group discussions, several participants indicated that they did not approach the
Dean’s Office for services because they were simply not aware of the support services it
offers. Therefore, participants suggested that the Dean’s Office utilize every opportunity
to disseminate information to assist its students. Again, a few quotations from
participants suggest how students think the Dean’s Office might improve its services:

I think four years ago getting started I should have known the services I could

have gotten there, but I’ve never known. So maybe at AOP they could say, Oh, if

you need anything or this is what you can get from the Dean’s Office, go here for

information for this or that. That should be made clear (Angela).

I guess something they can do would be, like me when you switch your major,

they could give you a sheet of paper or tell me about it and talk to you, say, “You

know, by the way, this is something you could do in our college” (Bob).

One participant suggested that his colleagues join a web-based social networking
site such as F acebook or something similar. He also suggested that the CANR should
prepare a list of services it offers and put it in the web-based social networking site so

that the current students or potential students will know about the opportunities and

services they can obtain from the Dean’s Office.

179

iii) Departments/schools should facilitate services provided by the Dean’s Office

A few participants indicated that the Dean’s Office should decentralize its
services to departments/schools and they should promote the Dean’s Office. In this
regard, one participant noted:

Since a lot of us go there [Dean’s Office] for one thing, maybe decentralize it a

bit. In fact, a lot of our priorities like study abroad trip or scholarships, maybe that

could be more maintained by our own department rather than having to go to Ag.

Hall all the times (Joe).

Joe also added, to reinforce his idea of decentralization of services to
departments/schools, that most of the students live around Wilson Road and South side of
campus. It is, therefore, difficult or inconvenient for students to walk up into the middle
of campus to visit the Dean’s Office. He mentioned that most of the seniors drive,
however, driving is equally difficult given the lack of parking close to the Dean’s Office.
Victoria had a little different view, but she supported the idea of involving academic
departments or schools to serve students better. She recommended that the School of
Packaging promote the Dean’s Office since she did not hear about it from her own
school. She had only heard about the Dean’s Office from the Office of Study Abroad.
Mathew had a similar idea that department should strongly encourage its students to
enroll in study abroad.

iv) Develop a policy to encourage nontraditional students in study abroad program
One of the focus group participants who identified himself as a “returning,
nontraditional student with a lots of real-life experience” expressed his intention to apply
for a study abroad. However, his participation is hampered because he is a single parent

with a thirteen-year old son with him. Despite his keen interest to join a study abroad, he

could not do it since he was not sure whether he can take his son in study abroad with

180

him. During the focus group interview he proposed that the CANR should have some
kind of policy provision that allows non-traditional students, especially single parents,
take their children at their own costs if they wish to do so. During the focus group
discussion, he stated:

I have a son, so sometimes it’s hard to do some things, and you just can’t dump

him off for thirteen weeks at the pool hall. But, one suggestion I would say is that

it’s nice to have a thirteen year old son and he’s my responsibility and everything
else like that, and I would like to see a study abroad program somehow designed
to say, hey, if somebody does have one or two child/children, how can we get the
children over there as well? Let somebody go over and do a study abroad
program, and at the same time somehow have it set up, get some professors
maybe have kids and have something that the kids would do (Mac).

Study shows that family responsibilities, balancing school and work, and home
responsibilities are some of the major challenges for the nontraditional students that
prevent them from going to study abroad (Koh, 2008). Various organizations and
scholars articulated the need for study abroad experience for nontraditional students to
enhance the diversity of US. study abroad programs (Institute of International Education,
2007; NAF SA, 2003). Thus, there is a need for policy development to encourage the

participation of nontraditional students who constitute a significant proportion of US.

undergraduate population.

Perceptions of departmental services

Focus group participants were asked to share their experience about academic
support and services available to students in their respective academic
departments/schools. Five themes of support and services emerged from three focus
group discussions which are presented in Table 25. A brief description and discussion of

each of the support services including participants’ comments are presented below.

181

Table 25. Support and services available in academic departments/schools

——'———T____——

Support and services Frequency Examples

 

 

academic planning, override and course
Academic advising 23 enrollment, credit transfer, prepare for
graduate school, etc..

inform students about internship
opportunities, help prepare resume,
interview skills, and find job, volunteering
14 opportunities, invite outside speakers,
professional organizations/industries,
interaction with graduate students, and
alumni, etc..

opportunities to work in research projects
Research opportunities 9 with professors in labs or in fields and
receive research grants from the college
visiting foreign country(s) for academic

 

Internships and career
services

 

 

 

 

 

Academic advising

Table 25 shows that academic advising was the most frequently reported service
accessed by the participants in their respective academic departments/ schools. Academic
advising refers to those activities and services provided by the academic advisor or
professional advisor to student such as academic planning (study plan), course selection,
override for course enrollment, credit transfer, and preparation for graduate school.
All 23 participants indicated that they received academic advising services. They also
shared their experiences (both positive and negative) about the quality of academic
advising. Seventeen out of 23 participants felt positively about the quality of academic
service they received, indicating that they were satisfied with the academic advising. Six
participants indicated that they were not satisfied with the academic advising service.

Below is a brief discussion on how these two groups of participants—satisfied and

182

dissatisfied—described their advisors and their experiences with academic advising
within CANR at MSU.

Participants who were satisfied with academic advising frequently mentioned that
their academic advisors were: friendly, always available and accessible, knowledgeable,
helpful, nice, good communicators, very open, and great. The following quotations
illustrate some of the participants’ assessment about their advisors and the quality of
academic advising they received:

She is really fiiendly and she knows everybody by name. She is always available,

and she knows exactly what classes you should take and can answer all your

questions (Victoria).

My advisor is great. She will bend over backwards for anybody. If you want to

take this class or you want to do this or that, she will find a way to get you credit

and to make it what Parks and Recreation is about. She is fantastic (Kim).

Everyone in the department is available to you all the time. I mean our adviser,

there’s only one, he manages I think a little more than a hundred students and he

knows us all by name. He even knew who I was dating at one point, and I did not
even tell him. That was kind of creepy, but at the same time it tells us he knew
you, yea, it’s interesting. So. . .he is very very caring (Tanya).

Eleven participants were transfer students either within the college/university at
MSU or from outside MSU to the CANR. These transfer students reported that academic
advising in their current majors in the CANR is much better than in their previous majors.
One of the transfer students had changed her major eight times from such majors as
Chemical Engineering to Pre-Veterinary to Entomology. She said,

Finally, entomology was my savior. It’s a small department, the academic

advising has been the best of any of the other 8 majors I’ve had. There are two

advisors, when I first came into the program they had little meet and greets.

They’ve been great, very helpful and helped me plan my undergraduate and

graduate program. It’s kind of a positive because I had such a terrible experience
at MSU before, and this college has been the best (Lexi).

183

Another participant who was transferred from the College of XXX at MSU to the
CANR indicated that she was highly satisfied with the academic advising in her current
major. She compared the academic advising between the two colleges and said that it
was much better in the current major especially for those students who are out-of-state
and plan to finish program in four years. She compared the differences between the two
colleges in regards to her academic advising:

I drink it’s great [advising], especially coming from the XXX college. Over there
a lot of advisers sugar-coat it, try to make you stay here a lot longer than what you
need to, encourage you to like, “Oh, 12 credits is enough”. I, myself, as a out—of-
state student, I was on the four-year plan so that wouldn’t really fit my four-year
so they [current advisors] were just really open, ...it was one semester I took
eighteen credits and it was advised but they did not like challenge me, and
supported me throughout the semester so if you wanna take that jump. .. take as
many classes as you want, ...they also support you and what they do. I like it,
because it’s like you get to set your own path but they do kind a guide you where
they tell you what classes not to take in the same semester and things like that, so,
I enjoy it a lot (Sophia).

Finally, another focus group participant who identified herself as a transfer
student from the University of XXX mentioned that she found a big difference between
these two universities in terms of academic advising. She explained the difference as:

He [advisor] helped me get a job with someone in the department; ...apply for

grad school, ...with interviews, helped me with everything and then the

professors are great. Every class is geared towards how you’re gonna do your job
in the future, get a job in the future, practical knowledge, and professors are

always available for any sort of advice. ...I came here from University of XXX

and I did not even have an adviser to my knowledge. I don’t even know, and,

yeah, it’s terrible there (Tanya).

Six out of 23 focus group participants did not have a positive experience with the
academic advising services they received. All of them had some common complaints

when they described their experience with academic advising. Most frequently used the

word “frustration” when they talked about their academic advising experience. The main

184

causes of “frustration” were that advisors were not well-informed or knowledgeable
about the course requirements for certain majors and the college website lacked accurate
information. In addition, the information participants received from their advisors about
course requirements often contradicted the information available on the college website.
The participants who were not satisfied with the academic advising service characterized
their advisors as: unwelcoming, uninformed, and inattentive to students. One of the
participants expressed his frustration, stating:

It [academic advising] is the only sour point in my undergraduate career.
Going to our advisor is watching somebody talk to their daughter on AIM [web-
based social networking site] and talking on their cell phone. I know it is
hilarious, I am comedian, but. . .it is sad you know honestly it is really sad because
she sits in her chair. She does not even acknowledge you when you walk in the
room. Once in a while you get a “What’s up?” But that’s really, that’s really
fiustrating [italics added] (Nelson).

The other participant described her “frustration”:

I have had all the same frustrations [italics added]. Figuring out what class I need
to take and should I trust her? Does she know? She’s just crossing things out and
saying, “You need to take this”. I’m like, are you sure it does not say in the paper
and it does not say in the website. And then she’s always being 'Oh, you need to
get this organized,‘ and that kind of make me feel kind of uneasy. And like, is this
the major I should have chosen if things aren’t figured out, things aren’t organized
(Angela)?

One more participant was “frustrated” because he had to schedule his classes for
the first time by himself and he did not get up-to-date information from website; neither
did he get reliable information from his advisor. He got the impression that his advisor
was not certain about the course requirements in his major. His story goes like this:

...One thing that was really frustrating [italics added] to me was that our website

has not been updated for I don't know how long. It is not right. They’ve combined

a lot of courses, they eliminated a lot of courses, and so when I had to schedule

my classes for the first time by myself, I did not know what to do. I had a map of

all the courses that I thought I should be taking and then looked them up, I could
not find them. So when I met with my advisor she was crossing out stuff and

185

actually the sheet of paper that she gave me wasn't even updated. So she was

even crossing things out on that and that made me really nervous because I was

like does she really know what she is talking about? And everything worked out
okay, but my heart kind of sunk, because she's my advisor and I don't know
whether or not to trust her because nothing updated and that was something a lot
of people still talk about and still to this day (Joe).

Another participant was frustrated because he did not get an accurate information
from advisors nor did he get up-to-date information from the college website about
course requirements for his majors. He had three majors, thus, he had to work with three
advisors in different colleges. During the focus group discussion, he stated:

I have to deal with three college advisors and all three are on different pages. One

says one thing and then other things say another thing and you never know if your

class will line up. I am still trying to figure out how I will graduate this year. But
with the ...departrnent, our academic advisor is very unclear on all the different
routes that we need to go to and then I have my other advisors that say one thing
and add a class here and she does not count it and going back and forth it’s just
not communication. No one’s on the same page. It’s all gray lines, so you never
know what classes you are going to take and what counts for what (Tom).
The findings of this study with regard to quality of advisors and academic advising are in
agreement with the study findings of Radhakrishna and Thompson (1997). In their study,
students identified that honesty, friendliness, caring and excellent communications were
the most important qualities in a advisor-advisee relationship. Appleby (2001) notes that
an effective advisor possesses accurate information, Communicate in a clear and
unambiguous manner with advisees, provide a caring and personal relationship by
exhibiting a positive attitude toward students, their goals, and their ability to learn, and
help students explore career goals and choose programs, courses, and co-curricular
activities that support these goals. Similar qualities were reported by the undergraduate

students who were satisfied with academic advising at the University of Arkansas

(Beasley-Fielstein, 1986). When compared to the findings of Suvedi and Heyboer (2004)

186

who studied opinions of the CANR alumni at MSU towards academic and career
advising, respondents in this study rated the attributes of advisors higher than the
respondents in the study of Suvedi and Heybor (2004). A recent study showed that 89.3
% of the undergraduate respondents indicated that they have used academic advising
services at MSU (Hembroff, 2008).

A study on perspectives of faculty and administrators about undergraduate
advising in land-grant colleges found that both faculty and advisors felt that knowing and
working with degree/program requirements was the most important aspect of advising
undergraduate students (Myers and Dyer, 2005). Knowledgeable advisors who can give
accurate information to and care about students can develop a trusting relationships with
their advisees, which has positive effect on students’ development as a whole (Beasley-
Fielstein, 1986). Some participants even suggested that advisors may need to go through
refresher training, which is consistent with the recommendations of previous studies on
academic advising (Horstmeier, 2006; Petress, 1996; Leonhardy and Jimmerson, 1992;
Polson and Gordon, 1988; McAnulty et al., 1987). Since participants frequently
mentioned that information provided on the college website is not accurate and up-to-
date, they recommended updating the college website with the latest information about
course requirements.

Internships and Career Services

Internships provide students with an opportunity to apply classroom learning to
real-world, field-based situations and to develop employable skills. Given the current
ever-increasing unemployment rates in the US, internships are important for college

students to build their resumes since it is work experience that will help them find job

187

after graduation. According to Michigan State University’s 2008-2009 Recruiting Trends
study, only those college graduates who are focused, directed, connected, and have
completed multiple internships will get a job (Gardner, 2008).

Fourteen out of 23 focus group participants indicated that they were informed
about various internship opportunities and the career services that are made available to
them in the CANR. Participants mentioned that faculty members had good connections
with industry, alumni networks, and professional organizations, thus, faculty had many
insights about the types of careers available in different fields. Some faculty members
invited industry staff to give class room presentations, and some industry staff also
participated in career fairs, which provided the CANR students the opportunities to
interact directly with industry people, to build relationships with them, and to explore
internships services available in various industries and organizations. The following
quotations from focus group participants indicate their assessment about opportunity of
internships and career services in their respective departments/schools at MSU:

As far as career internships and full time positions go, our advisor for that also

knows all of us by name, he teaches the class so we are really comfortable with

him and we go asking questions. And he has worked in the packaging industry so
he has lots of insights on types of career there are available and packaging. We
have our own career fair every January and a tons of companies and every student
has the opportunity to get an internship, so I am really pleased overall (Victoria).

I know a lot of people over there [Department of Horticulture] who’ve done

internships, because you know you’re required doing internship. If somebody

doesn’t get an internship over there it’s nothing about the university, it’s
something about that person, and I’m being very honest with you because there is
just lots and lots of opportunities. Horticulture club always has speakers coming
in from different companies offering internships (Mac).

Career and internship stuff, ...... luckily for us we have fantastic alumni

networking system so usually she’ll [Undergraduate Advisor] forward the

message on. Again, faculty they help you out a lot with internships, study abroad
and career building things. They know a lot of peeple from their personal

188

experiences and alumni that have created their own firms and some along those
lines and will pass that on (Nelson).

Doing the professional internship last year made me come back with even more
desire and drive to get done because I could really see how I could apply and
move in a direction that I want to be in (Edward).

Participants indicated that advisors and professors were very good in
communicating with them through e-mails about the available internships opportunities,
thus, students were relatively well informed about what areas of internships, locations,
and the application due dates. The following expressions indicate that there was no issue
of lack of communication between students and department:

Internships, I get hundreds of e-mails a day about internships and career

opportunities so I have no complaints there. We are always informed, you just

have to dig through them and find one (Aman).

I guess in regards to internships and stuff, those opportrmities are readily available

and they let you know where they are and when they are and when the

applications are due. Also the big career fair I know, I don’t know if our

department is really involved with them intensively, but a lot of it’s agriculture
related and I found it really helpful. Career placement services have been a kind

of iffy (Adam).

In summary, participants indicated that faculty and advisors were good at building
relationships with relevant industries and bringing specialists into the classroom to make
presentations, which provided additional opportunities for students to develop networking
skills and professional relationships with potential employers. Participants mentioned
that lots of internships were readily available and that they received adequate e-mail
communications from their advisors. Students seemed pretty happy with communication

and the internships opportunities available to them.

189

Research opportunity

Involving undergraduate students in research projects is an important aspect of
developing students’ critical thinking and analytical skills in college. Studies showed
that undergraduate students who engaged in research activities with faculty members had
a higher probability of persistence in college to pursue graduate education and to conduct
research in the future (Russell et al., 2007). A recent study on the benefits of
undergraduate research experiences indicated students increased their understanding of
how to conduct research, built confidence about their research skills and increased their
awareness about what graduate school is like (Hu et al., 2007). A significant increase in
undergraduate research activities was observed in research universalities in US. after the
publication of the Boyer Commission Report in 1998 (Hu et al., 2007; Katkin, 2003).

The Boyer’s Commission made two recommendations specific to research to improve
undergraduate education: i) ‘make research-based learning the standard’ and ii) ‘construct
an inquiry-based freshman year’ (Boyer Commission, 1998).

Nine participants indicated that they had research opportunities either in their own
undergraduate research projects or in working with professors’ research projects.
Participants described their professors as very helpful in getting involved in research
projects. Two participants described their research experiences as:

I’m really close to my teachers with the undergraduate research project; my one
professor is my mentor also (Emily).

I just walked up to a professor I did not even know one day in my department and
just said, “Can I do a research project with you? And he was like, ‘yes’” (Tanya).

In contrast to other academic support services, participants who were involved in

research activities did not elaborate on their experiences as they had for other activities

190

such as academic advising, internships, and career services. It may be possible that
participants did not have as much research experience to share. The percentage of
respondents who indicated having had research opportunities in the CAN R is higher than
the national average as reported by the findings from the 2007 College Senior Survey
National Aggregate which indicates that 29% of the seniors claimed to have had an
opportunity to work on a research project (Spinosa et al., 2008).

Study Abroad

According to the Open Doors report, Michigan State University has been the
number one university among the public research universities in the US. to have the
highest number of students to participate in study abroad for the last four years in the row
(Michigan State University, 2008). Further, the CANR at MSU hosts the largest study
abroad program amongst the colleges of agriculture in the United States (College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2008).

Six participants indicated that either they had participated themselves or had
heard about study abroad programs in their departments. As reported by the participants,
individual faculty members and the department strongly encouraged students to
participate in study abroad programs often by providing scholarships. As one participant
said, the department valued study abroad program so much that 23 out of 24 students in a
class participated in study abroad program in Landscape Architecture major in the
CAN R. Not only did the college or university provide resources for study abroad
program in the CANR, individual faculty members were also equally motivated to
support study abroad program by writing grant proposals. One of the faculty members in

the Department of Forestry got grants from the National Science Foundation and he was

191

able to take his students to study abroad in China. Participants who participated in the
study abroad programs in the CANR characterized the programs as ‘cool’, ‘great’, and
‘fantastic’ which indicated that they liked the program. One participant mentioned that it
was a tailor-made program for her academic major. Students experiences about study
abroad program are illustrated in the following quotations:
Landscape Architecture has a fantastic study abroad program. It’s not mandatory
but it’s strongly encouraged. It’s encouraged by the department, and the rest of
the university is looking at it as a way to develop other study abroad programs.
We are a five year program and we spend two semesters, our fourth year in
Europe. It’s a lot of hands-on, outdoor; it’s schoolwork but it’s a great
experience. We have small classes, 24 in a class. Last year 23 of the 24 of us

went and it was a fantastic experience (Mathew).

I went on study abroad to Madagascar, and my adviser did not really say anything
about it but it was like tailor-made to my major and that was cool (Tanya).

There are few things like I know myself and a couple of other students have done

a program through the National Science Foundation that has a liaison to the

university from China, so we have gone to China for research opportunity with

NSF, but that’s not related to Ag. Hall or CANR or anything like that (Nelson).

One participant stated in the focus group discussion that the study abroad program
should be geared towards her major. She indicated that students in Food Industry
Management can learn a variety of things like food packaging in different countries, but
she felt that the study abroad program has not been able to develop effective program
within her major. Her concern is in agreement with the Institute of International

Education, which recommends creating study abroad experiences with direct relevance to

student majors for increasing participation (Institute of International Education, 2007).

192

Contributions of academic major to development of skills

Focus group participants were encouraged to share their experiences about the
employable skills they developed through their academic majors. Six types of employable
skills emerged from focus group discussions. The skills identified were: technical skills,
interpersonal skills, research and analytical skills, communication and networking skills,
business skills, and leadership skills. Table 26 presents the employability skills and gives
examples for each skill, which is followed by some description and discussions.

Table 26. Skills developed by students in the CAN R

Employability Skills Frequency Examples

 

Crop and soil management, wildlife management,
disease and insects control, food products
Technical skills 17 development, dairy technology, forestry, fruit and
vegetable production and management, landscape
management, community management, etc..
Diversity management, conflict resolution, risk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interpersonal skills 10 management, time management, teamwork skills,
etc..
Laboratory research, field research, grant writing,
Research and . . . .
. . 9 data analysrs and report writing, computer skrlls
analytrcal skrlls
(spreadsheet), etc..
Oral and written communication (presentations,
Communication and 9 writing, editing, etc.), developing relationships
networking skills with diverse individuals, groups and
organizations, etc..
Business skills 5 Marketing, firnd raising, etc..
Leadership skills 4 Public speaking, group leaderships, etc..
Technical skills

Technical skills include skills that an individual student has developed through
his/her academic major or through expertise related to the student’s specific major.

Examples include: abilities to produce crops, controlling insects and pests, landscaping,

193

and managing forests. Participants candidly mentioned that they developed technical
skills in their primary major. Participants indicated that employment opportunities on
campus, laboratory work, field exercises, internships, group projects, and involvement in
professional students’ clubs helped them develop technical skills. The following
quotation illustrate one participant’s competency and technical skills.

I’ve got a project right now where I’m managing 130 acres, reforesting it and

everything. I had that job presented to me, and if I hadn’t been learning the things

I’m learning in my department, I might not have taken it or if I had taken it, I

might have messed things up terribly. ...I will speak very highly of the skills that

this university has given me (Mack).

Technical skills development does not necessarily always occur in classroom
teaching-learning activities. The extracurricular activities of such student academic clubs
as Forestry Club, Park and Recreation Club, Fisheries and Wildlife Club, and
Horticulture Club have played significant roles in developing students’ technical skills.
The following is an example of how a student club helped a participant develop his skills:

I wanted to say about developing skill is the importance of the Forestry Club and

student activities. A lot of that stuff may just seem like fun and games, but, say

for example, right now the Forestry Club is making maple syrup. We’ve gone
out, we’ve tapped the trees, we’ve collected the sap, we’ve got our own
evaporator and we’re making the syrup. ...Tums out, I’m really interested in
making maple syrup. I would definitely look into that as a job (Rick).

The two illustrations above indicate that participants developed solid technical
competencies in their respective primary field of study, which is one of the most
important criteria used by employers in hiring college graduates for entry level positions
(Cole and Thompson, 2002; Kretovics and McCambridge, 1998). According to a recent
study conducted by CollegeGrad.com (2008), employers ranked the student’s college

major as the first criterion for hiring new college graduates. A high majority of potential

194

employers in the DE. King Equine program at the University of Arkansas indicated that
they would be more likely to hire college graduates with an equine science major than a
non-major (J ogan and Herring, 2007). The technical competencies that the CAN R
students reported are in agreement with potential employers’ criteria for hiring new
entrants for agricultural jobs.

Interpersonal skills

The review of literature of the past 30 years of studies showed employers, faculty
members, and alumni consider interpersonal skills is the most important employable
skills (Garton and Robinson, 2006; Shah et al., 2004; Shivpuri and Kim, 2004; College of
Agricultural Sciences, 2004; Wachenheim and Lesch, 2002; Graham, 2001; Kitto et al.,
1996; Baker and MacLaughlin, 1995; Barkley, 1991; Litzenberg and Schneider, 1988).
Less than half of the focus group participants indicated that they have developed
interpersonal skills through their major academic program. Interpersonal skills included
skills related to teamwork, diversity management, conflict resolution, risk management,
and time management.

Participants who developed interpersonal skills indicated that they were involved
in work employment, group projects working with communities developing management
plans, student organizations like F FA, and personal projects. A participant who
developed interpersonal skills through her work described the experience:

I think I’ve learned enough of the employability skills through different work

experiences and I think just interacting with different people. I don’t think I’ve

learned skills from reading a book about anything. ...I think the skills for what I

want to do are more personal skills that you pick up on when you interact with

people and have to deal with people and just actually getting professional
experience (Rita).

195

Bill and Kim indicated during the focus group discussions that they developed various
interpersonal skills through working on group projects set in communities:

We go over the diversity management and conflict resolution, risk management,

things like that. I think overall I feel pretty comfortable going into the adventure

tourism industry and working (Bill).

We have projects to work on so we learn a lot about group work and working with

other people. ...In just so happens that once we are in that state of doing the

project, we usually don’t have a clue what we’re doing in the beginning and as a

group we have to figure out what we’re doing (Kim).

Mathew claimed that his major in Landscape Architecture (LA) at MSU is different from
LA programs at other universities. At MSU he developed various interpersonal skills
through group-based research module projects. The following statement illustrates how
the program has prepared him to work in the real world:

Our major is so specific and it really is training you to get a job as an entry-level

landscape architectures. ...Really, a different skill that MSU offers that other

universities with the same program don’t offer is a research module. ...Managing
your time, management skills, people management skills, working in diverse
groups. It’s a really well—focused program in getting us to go out and work in the
real world. It’s very comprehensive (Mathew).

Despite the high level of interpersonal skills required by college graduates, less
than half (10 out of 23) of the total focus group participants indicated their competencies
in this skills set. It was interesting to note that seven out of ten participants who reported
their interpersonal skills were females. Female participants who reported interpersonal
competencies had their academic majors: ANR Communication, Park, Recreation and

Tourism Resources, Horticulture, Agriscience, Food Industry Management, Fisheries &

Wildlife, and Entomology. Three out of ten participants who reported their interpersonal

196

skills were males with Horticulture, Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, and
Landscape Architecture majors.
Research and analytical skills

Engaging undergraduate students in their own research projects or getting them
involved in faculty research activities helps students develop critical thinking and
analytical skills. Many employers look for critical thinking, analytical and problem
solving skills as important employable attributes in the new job applicants when making
hiring decisions (Snyder, 2008; Robinson et al., 2007; Rutherford et al., 2007; Bruening
and Scanlon, 1995; Gamon and Chestnut, 1995; Wheelock and Zekeri, 1988). Suvedi and
Heyboer (2004) studied alumni and employer perspectives about graduates’ preparation
for workforce in the agriculture college at Michigan State University and found that
college should better prepare its graduates for software and computer use. A similar
result was found in a study by Sprecker and Rudd (1997) in which practitioners and
alumni stressed skills development in desktop publishing and other computer
applications.

Participants were encouraged to share their research and the analytical skills they
have developed in their academic majors. Less than half of the participants indicated that
they have developed research and analytical skills, which included laboratory research,
field research, research proposal development, grant writing, data analysis, report writing
and computer skills. Participants mentioned that undergraduate research grants, working
with faculty on their research projects, either in laboratory or in fields classroom
exercises or assignments, helped them develop research and analytical skills. One of the

participants who received a research assistantship with a professor in a food science

197

laboratory reported that his research experience was helpful in developing his technical

skills:
I’ve worked as a research assistant for the last two years, roughly. I’ve got a lot
of experience; I’ve been involved with the product development team. I’ve got a
lot of other skills that I was able to learn by pursuing it and then making those
connections. I think in a lot of ways, I know when I get out of here, I’ll be able to
find a good job and make a good living (Edward).

Another participant who was employed in the department in various research projects

during summer expressed his satisfaction with his skills development as:
...Being prepared for leaving this university and developing a set of skills,
applicable skills, the department’s been really good for providing work for the
students over summer on various research projects that the professor’s have.
...l’ve done four such separate summer research jobs through the department
which have helped me figure out what I like and what I don’t like. As far as
critiques go, developing skills, it’s really well-rounded. I’m very satisfied and I
can’t think of anything else right now (Rick).

One of the participants expressed that her involvement in research activities have

prepared her for the workforce:
I feel like my major has prepared me for any kind of job. In terms of skills, my
major really prepared me for any sort of jobs, especially in terms of research and
fieldwork which are two main components of what I want to do anyway (Tanya).
Data analysis indicated that those who reported their research and analytical

competencies, six out of nine were male participants with different academic majors

mostly from technical field of studies such as landscape architecture, food science,

forestry, entomology and pathology. Female participants comprised one third of the total

participants who reported their research and analytical competencies and they were from

fisheries and wildlife, and food industry management majors.

198

It is interesting to note that there was a contrasting sex difference between the
participants who developed their research skills and interpersonal skills. More male
participants indicated that they had developed research and analytical skills; whereas,
more female participants reported they had developed their interpersonal skills.
Communication and networking skills

Communication skills, including speaking and writing skills comprise the most
important and highly demanded employable skills set potential employers in agriculture
desire from college graduates. A recent study of national landscape horticulture
companies indicated that ability to verbally communicate ideas was a key skill for four-
year college graduates to develop (Berle, 2007). Robinson et al., (2007) investigated
supervisors’ and graduates’ perception of the skills needed for employability and found
that both employers and graduates rated listening skills to be of major importance,
however, the agriculture graduates were considered only moderately competent at
performing the skills. A study of potential employers of the College of Agriculture
Sciences at Penn State University found that communication skills was perceived to be
very important by 84% of the employers (College of Agricultural Sciences, 2004).
Another study of agri-business employers by Cole and Thompson (2002) reported that
excellent verbal communication skills were ranked third in the top ten attributes of the
best college graduate employees and that the improvement of writing skills was the
number one suggestion to improve the quality of Oregon State University’s College of
Agricultural Sciences graduates. Graham (2001) studied employers’ perceptions about

preparing college graduates, and based on the gathered feedback from employers,

199

undergraduates’ presentation and verbal communication skills needed improvement at
Agricultural and Extension Education at University of Arkansas.

Studies showed that not only potential employers but also the alumni of colleges
of agriculture perceived communication skills as one of the important employable skills
(Rutherford et al., 2007; Garton and Robinson, 2006; Shah et al., 2004; Zekeri, 2004;
Opara, 2003). Rutherford et al. (2007) studied graduates’ perceptions of career-skill
preparedness and found that graduates believe they were somewhat prepared for their
careers but they also recognized the importance of being better trained in communication
skills, including interpersonal skills, character and computer skills. Similarly, Garton and
Robinson (2006) investigated graduates’ perceptions of the importance of employability
skills and the contribution of the curriculum towards developing such skills. The study
found that graduates rated verbal and written communication skills as of major
importance and that the curriculum made major contributions towards developing verbal
communication. However, curriculum made only moderate contributions towards the
development of written communication skills.

In conclusion, the literature indicated that both employers and alumni perceived
communication skills to be important in workplace, and graduates are not fully prepared
in some aspects of communication skills.

To understand the communication and networking skills of the graduating seniors
of CANR, focus group participants were asked to share their experiences with their skill
building. Nine participants from three focus groups indicated that they have developed
communication and networking skills, which included competencies in writing, oral

presentation, and developing relationships with various individuals and organizations.

200

The participants who referred to their communication and networking skills mentioned
that they were engaged in capstone courses, project works in community, student clubs
and organizations, and internships, either individually or in groups. A participant who
was working on developing wildlife management plan with community expressed her
preparedness in communication competency as:
I think the Fisheries and Wildlife department really gets you prepared for
communicating with people. We do projects all the time. Right now, I’m
working on creating a 40-year management plan for rough grouse and veery, as to
how to manipulate different vegetation types to better suit these two organisms
(Emily).
While working in group projects with communities, students developed not only
communication skills but also networking skills by connecting different organizations
together. Students often developed communication and networking skills when working
with communities in group projects:
I think sometimes we feel that there are too many group projects but in the end,
looking back, I think it was really beneficial, in terms of learning how to deal with
people, and especially with people you don’t know. Then, when I’ve had the
experience to go out and be with one organization and then have to partner up
with another organization or multiple organizations at once, working in a group
with people, I’ve gotten to use some of those skills and experiences in dealing
with the people and connecting different organizations together (Bill).
As reported by one of the participants, she developed communication and networking
competencies through classroom activities as well when faculty members invite outside
speakers from various organizations and industries to share current real world examples

and experiences with students. When students get opportunities to interact with

experienced people from different disciplines, they will not only learn how things work in

201

the “real world” but also develop communication and networking skills. Sophia shared
her experiences working with different people:

...throughout the half of the semester he [professor] has a group of employers, a

panel of employers in almost every class so it gets them a high network. And

with the senior class, at that first step, we would hope that obtained internship and

start networking and it’s just that next step to networking towards a full-time job

(Sophia).
Sophia’s experience corresponds with a recent study report “Recruiting Trend 2008-
2009” of Michigan State University, which recommends that students network with
alumni, fiiends and employers to find job leads (Gardner, 2008). Studies of employers
and alumni of agriculture colleges show that communication skills are one of the most
important skills that agriculture graduates should possess to be competent on the market
and to perform well in agribusiness (Rutherford et al., 2007; College of Agricultural
Sciences, 2004; Zekeri, 2004; Cole and Thompson, 2002; Andelt et al., 1997; Bruening
and Scanlon, 1995; Terry and Bailey-Evans, 1995; Litzenberg and Schneider, 1988;
Broder and Houston, 1986).
Business skills

Business skills are another important skills set that should be developed by
agricultural college graduates, especially for those who are inclined to work in
agribusiness industries. Berle (2007) studied employer preferences in landscape
horticulture graduates and found that eighty percent of the respondents indicated that
undergraduate learning of business skills was either very important or somewhat
important at the level of coursework and activities. Baker and MacLaughlin (1995)

found business skills to be extremely important in nursery industries for entry-level

managerial employees coming out of horticulture programs. Bruening and Scanlon

202

(1995) conducted focus groups study of agribusiness individuals and representatives to
advisory committees for the College of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State University,
their study revealed the most desirable business skills to be human relations,
organizational, managerial, and analytical thinking. Andelt et al. (1997) conducted a
study of employer assessment of skill preparation of agriculture students at the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln. Employers in the study noted that the college graduates should be
better prepared to use general business computer software. Litzenberg and Schneider
(1988) studied agribusiness managers, and they identified business and economic skills as
most significant for building for successful careers in agribusiness.

In conclusion, the literature shows that agribusiness employers want new job
applicants possess business skills. Focus group participants were asked to share their
skills related to business. Five participants Out of 23 indicated that they had developed
business skills through classroom learning and outside of the classroom activities. A
participant explained that one faculty member engaged students in role playing a real
client and business person in the classroom which helped her develop business
(marketing) skills:

I think that they [faculty members] try in the classes by making you job shadow

and mentor with people and, in one of our classes you have to work with a real

client and develop a marketing campaign over the semester, so I think those kind
of things have helped develop skills (Rita).
The outside classroom activities included personal work experience and group projects in
communities. Mack had a different experience from Rita has in developing his business

skills. Mack believed that he developed his business skills through his experience

203

working with nursery people and he is satisfied with level of his business skills. He
speaks of his business competencies in working with large nursery suppliers:

I’m dealing with nursery people, with large suppliers; you have to know what

you’re talking about. You can’t just stand there and say, “I want a tree.” I have

to be able to talk intelligently and say why I want this certain type of tree, should
it go in a shaded area, or do I want this type of tree because of the soil. You’ve
got to be able to talk this with them and I can do that very well. It’s the type of
skills that I’m very much impressed and very happy with what I’ve learned

(Mack).

Bill developed business skills in his classroom activities and outside the
classroom projects. He expressed his confidence in business skills that he plans to utilize
in the adventure tourism industry:

It’s a little difficult for me to differentiate where I got different skills because I’ve

had quite a few experiences outside of the classroom as well where I’ve gained

some of the business side skills that I’ve gotten. ...I think overall I feel pretty
comfortable going into the adventure tourism industry and working (Bill).
In the statement above, Bill mentioned that he is not sure where he developed his range
of business skills. Barr and McNeilly (2002) suggest that educators must communicate
learning objectives through writing and explain the specific skills students will develop
upon completion of those activities to ensure that students are aware of their skill-
building in advance.
Leadership skills

Review of literature indicated that employers, students, and alumni highly valued
leadership skills as the important employable skills. A recent study of leadership skills
sought by employers found that team-work skills, the ability to work in stressful
condition, and the ability to work independently to be the most important leadership skills

(Robinson et al., 2007). A study of employers’ assessment of competencies taught in the

equine program at the University of Arkansas indicated that leadership skills were

204

stressed in the equine program curriculum (J ogan and Herring, 2007). According to
Shivpuri and Kim (2004), employers perceived leadership skills to be crucial skills that
must be developed in college programs. Employers ranked leadership skills within the
top third among 12 dimensions of college student development. However, in the same
study, college department heads ranked leadership skills in the bottom third, which
indicated that they did not deem leadership skills as important as the employers did.
Thus, Shivpuri and Kim stated that college graduates are not building the skills that
employers value most. Cole and Thompson (2002) reported that agribusiness employers
indicated leadership skills to be one of the top ten attributes of best college graduate
employee.

Other studies show that students in college of agriculture acknowledge the
importance of developing leadership skills (Schumacher and Swan, 1993; Love and
Yoder, 1989). A study of college of agriculture students at a land-grant university
showed that students who worked in agri-business desired leadership skills to a greater
extent than students who worked on a farm (Schumacher and Swan, 1993).

In order to understand whether the CANR students believe they have developed
good leadership skills, focus group participants were asked to reflect their experiences.
Four of 23 participants indicated that they had developed leadership competencies
primarily through involvement in students’ clubs and organizations and internships.
Students’ clubs and organizations included Forestry Club, FFA, Student Senate, etc..
Druing the focus group discussion, a participant who served as the president of Forestry

Club in the CANR at MSU mentioned:

205

I’ve been in this college for three years and I’m the forestry club president, and I
believe that I am relatively involved in the things. I discuss things in departments

(Nelson).

The findings of this focus group study in regards to leadership development are in
agreement with study findings of Layfield (2000) who found significant positive
relationships between participation in department clubs and leadership skills. Other
leadership studies also show that students who participated in a variety of organizations
and activities such as athletics, intramurals, department clubs, FFA, 4-H, and church
groups develop leadership skills (Birkenholz and Schumacher, 1994).

Participants’ suggestions regarding the development of employable skills

The focus group participants answered a follow up question about employable
skills and what they believe can be done to develop these skills in students. The
participants across all three focus groups pointed out some weaknesses in the curricula in
developing certain employable skills and they offered a wide range of suggestions to
improve the overall program within the CANR, which are briefly discussed below:
Improving technical skills

The focus group participants from forestry, horticulture, and entomology majors
felt that their academic programs were more research-oriented, which did not aide
students enough in developing the technical skills required by the industries in their
professional disciplines. Participants indicated that not everybody in their academic
major will go on to a graduate program and that a vast majority will seek employment
immediately upon their graduation. Thus, focus group participants suggested having a
greater focus on industry in their respective academic programs. The suggestion offered

by participants is consistent with the findings of Quitadamo and Kurtz’s (2007) and

206

Gamon and Chestnut (1995). In both of these studies, students expected classes to be
specifically related to industry demands since the majority of students would join the
workforce outside of academe.

Participants from the Packaging and the Crop and Soil Science programs
expressed concerns that the courses they were supposed to take in other departments were
neither easy to register for nor were these classes relevant to and effective for developing
the specific technical skills relevant to their primary major. Thus, participants
recommended offering more relevant courses within their home department, if possible.
For example, AutoCAD might be offered in Packaging curricula and a crop genetics
course in Crop and Soil Science department.

Another participant from AN R Communication cemented that she was not able
to develop the necessary technical skills in audio-visual and multimedia since the class
was conducted rushed manner. She recommended that faculty provide enough time for
students to practice and develop hands-on learning opportunities in audio-visual and
multimedia.

Improving communication and leadership skills

Participants in ANR Communication major indicated that they were not able to
develop the necessary communication and leadership skills within their major. One
participant mentioned that she had problems getting into magazine writing courses and
photo journalism classes in other departments. Another participant mentioned that her
program offered many group opporttmities, but she could not understand how those
activities were relevant to building her communication and leadership skills. Thus,

participants recommended that the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation

207

and Resource Studies (CARRS) institute writing courses that are more specific and
relevant to ANR Communication; establish computer lab equipped with necessary
equipment for developing audio-visual and multimedia skills; and instruct faculty to give
clear instructions about course objectives and explain how students will be developing
certain skills.
Other comments

During the focus group discussions, participants also raised additional concerns
that affected their academic studies and offered some suggestions. The issues included:
some faculty members not being well-prepared in the classroom teaching and being more
focused on research; outdated teaching materials; lack of participation of faculty
members in professional meetings and seminars; unprepared and unknowledgeable
teaching assistants who lack enthusiasms for teaching; and vacant faculty positions not
being refilled. Participants also felt that not enough student feedback was obtained when
developing the new curricula, and they reported that only the most outspoken students
were consulted in the process. Some participants expressed their sense that their majors
were either ignored or discriminated by either the college or department. Some
participants also indicated that college teaching is not integrated to develop holistic
learning process but it is segmented due to lack of coordination among departments.

Participants suggested that faculty members should balance teaching and research
responsibilities, update their teaching materials, and participate in regional and national
professional meetings and seminars. Similarly, teaching assistants should be better
prepared and show enthusiasm when teaching. Finally, the college/department should

fulfill vacant faculty positions.

208

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the findings from the online survey and the themes that emerged from
the analysis of focus group data, the following conclusions have been drawn and
recommendations have been made related to each research objective.

I. Services and assistance provided by the Dean’s Office in the CANR at MSU

The Dean’s Office provided such services as study abroad information and
scholarships, undergraduate research grants, career advising services, and administrative
support to change and/or declare academic majors. Given the online survey and focus
group findings, it can be concluded that the majority of participants were satisfied with
assistance from the Dean’s Office. Those participants who did not receive services from
the Dean’s Office were either not aware of the services or received enough information
and services from their respective academic departments/schools. The focus group
discussion findings suggest there was inadequate communication and dissemination of
information about programs and services from the Dean’s Office. With regard to study
abroad participation, the main obstacle of non-traditional student, particularly the single
parent, was family responsibility of taking care of children. For instance, one participant
who described himself as single parent was willing to participate in study abroad along
with his son on his own cost provided such policy exists in the CANR or at MSU.

Based on the above conclusions, it is recommended that:

i) The Dean’s Office communicate more frequently with students via e-mail and
disseminate information through updated college websites, academic orientation

programs (AOP), academic departments/schools, and advisors.

209

ii) The college or university develop policies to encourage participation of nontraditional
students in study abroad programs.
11. Services and assistance provided by the academic departments/schools in the CANR
Results of the online survey suggest that majority of the respondents were
satisfied with the departmental/ school services. Four themes—academic advising,
internships and career services, undergraduate research, and study abroad programs—
emerged from focus group discussions regarding the services or assistance provided by
departments/schools. Among these services, academic advising was the most frequently
reported service used by the majority of participants. Based on online survey and focus
group discussions results, it is concluded that academic advisors were accessible, caring,
helpful and personable. However, given the results of the focus group discussions, a few
advisors were uncaring and inattentive to students needs and that they lacked accurate
information about degree requirements. Participants first tried to find digital information,
and if they did not find the information, only then did they approach their advisors. The
website information about degree program requirements was not found to be useful.
Internships and career services are extremely important for college graduates
marketability. Both online survey and focus group discussions revealed that participants
were happy with internship opportunities available for them and the information they
received about internships. Faculty members, career fairs, and student clubs were
instrumental for internships and career services for students. Presentations by industry
specialists and outside speakers in classrooms proved effective for supplying information
about internships opportunities. Participants knew well in advance about internships and

available career services. Some participants received undergraduate research grants and

210

some had opportunities to get involved in research activities through faculty research
projects. However, participants were not satisfied with the career services they received
with regard to their major advisor/Career Consultant’s encouragement to participate in
volunteer programs or unpaid internships and the advisor/Career Consultant’s assistance
in finding the student’s first professional job after graduation.

Academic departments encouraged students to participate in study abroad
programs. Study abroad programs were perceived to be a worthwhile and wonderful
experience. Participants spoke highly of college, departments/schools, and faculty
members and their encouraging students to participate in study abroad programs. The
importance of study abroad in higher education was not questioned, but its relevancy to a
student’s primary major was questioned. Online survey results indicated that students in
the CAN R need more assistance in finding the first professional job after graduation,
participating in volunteer programs or unpaid internships, and acquiring interviewing and
resume writing skills.

Based on the conclusions drawn from the online survey and focus group
discussions, the following recommendations are made:

a) The college should maintain the good academic advising services and provide
refresher training for existing advisors and intensive academic advising training for the
new advisors.

b) The college and department should update and make their websites interactive.

c) Faculty and professional advisors should make use of more technology for online
advising or include virtual academic advising because today’s college student population

is technologically savvy.

211

d) The college and departments/schools should create more internship opportunities by
working with potential employers and encourage more students get involved.

e) Research should be conducted to find out major obstacles to study abroad for ethnic
minorities and nontraditional students and make study abroad programs more relevant to
students’ specific majors.

III. Development of employable skills during undergraduate studies

One of the goals of higher education is that students develop various skills set that
will make their professional career rewarding. Both the online survey and focus group
discussions revealed that students developed a wide range of skills set. From the focus
group discussions, six themes emerged regarding skills sets, which included technical
skills, interpersonal skills, research and analytical skills, communication and networking
skills, business skills, and leadership skills. These skills sets were developed not only
through classroom activities but also through out-of-classroom activities, such as work on
campus, laboratories, field exercise, internships, and group projects. Involvement in
students’ clubs and extracurricular activities was also instrumental in developing these
skills set.

The majority of participants spoke highly about the technical skills and
competencies that they gained through hands-on learning activities. Overall, participants
expressed confidence in their technical competencies, which indicate that the
undergraduate programs in the CAN R have prepared them “technically” well for
agricultural employment. However, participants were not as confident about their other

skill sets, which are equally important and required in agricultural and allied industries.

212

The least developed skill sets were diversity skills, computer technology and
database skills, research skills, business skills, and leadership skills. Some reasons for
such lower levels of skills development were: few relevant courses offered outside the
CAN R, emphasis on research-focused teaching activities rather than on industrial
applications, courses taught in rushed manner with students receiving little time to put
concepts into practice, and lack of adequate computers with such appropriate software as
AutoCAD and multimedia software.

The following recommendations are made based on the above conclusions:

a) The required courses should be offered within the CANR or the advisors should help
students get courses registered they want to take.

b) The CAN R program should equally prepare graduates in the varieties skill sets needed
for the agricultural industries. The program should provide balance in developing skill
sets for those who are going to graduate schools and for those who are entering the
workforce immediately upon the graduation.

0) Provide students adequate time to practice and establishing computer labs with the
latest software.

(I) Make educational activities inquiry-based and promote critical and analytical thinking
skills by providing more opportunities for students to engage in research and scholarly
activities.

6) Promote student clubs and organizations and encourage students to participate in
extracurricular activities that will help them develop leadership, presentation, and public

speaking skills.

213

f) Maintain the practice of inviting industry people and to do presentations in classrooms
regarding the latest business trends and the key business skills that employers define from
new job applicants.
g) Get feedback from industry people when developing course curricula to focus on
workplace skills and find more internship opportunities for college seniors.
Recommendation for the future research

The literature indicates that a discrepancy exists between college administrators
and employers in regards to the skills students must develop before graduating. Thus, a
final recommendation is that the CANR conduct further studies on the disparity between
college administrators’ and employers’ perceptions of employable skills and the

university’s job preparation of its graduates.

214

Alreck.

Andelt

Apple

Bake

Bar

Bar

Be.

Ber

Birl

BO}:

BTOde

REFERENCES

Alreck, P. L. & Settle, R. B. (2004). The Survey Research Handbook. New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Andelt, L. L., Barrett, L. A. & Bosshamer, B. K. (1997). Employer Assessment of the
Skill Preparation of Students from the College of Agricultural Sciences. NACT A
Journal 46(1): 34-39.

Appleby, D. (2001). The Teaching-Advising Connection. The Mentor 3(1).

Baker, M. & MacLaughlin, P. (1995). Perceptions by the Nursery Industry of the Higher
Education Support Course Needs of Beginning Employees. Paper presented at the
44th Annual Southern Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Wilmington,
NC.

Barkley, A. P. (1991). What Skills Do Graduates Need? NACTA Journal 35(1): 53-57.

Barr, T. F. & McNeilly, K. M. (2002). The Value of Students’ Classroom Experiences
from the Eyes of the Recruiter: Information, Implications, and Recommendations
for Marketing Educators. Journal of Marketing Education 24(2): 168-173.

Beasley-Fielstein, L. (1986). Student Perceptions of the Developmental Advisor-Advisee
Relationship. NACADA Journal 6(2): 107-117.

Berle, D. (2007). Employer Preferences in Landscape Horticulture Graduates:
Implications for College Programs. NACTA Journal 51(1): 21-21.

Birkenholz, R. J. & Schumacher, L. G. (1994). Leadership Skills of College of
Agriculture Graduates. Journal of Agricultural Education 35(4): 1-8.

Boyer Commission (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for
America ’s Research Universities. Boyer Commission on Educating
Undergraduates in the Research University. State University of New York at
Stony Brook for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Broder, J. M. & Houston, J. E. (1986). Employer Assessments of Graduates. NA CT A
Journal 30(2): 18-22.

215

Bruening, T. H. & Scanlon, D. C. (1995). Communications and Business Curricular
Needs of Agribusiness Employees. NACTA Journal 39(1): 28-32.

Cole, L. & Thompson, G. (2002). Satisfaction of agribusiness employers with college
graduates they have hired. NACT A Journal 46(1): 34-39.

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (2008). International Programs.
Retrieved December 27, 2008, from
http://www.canr.msu.edu/canrhome/intn_prog.htm.

College of Agricultural Sciences (2004). Strategic Plan Input Survey: Employer Survey.
College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn State University, College Square, PA.

CollegeGrad.com. (2008). Survey Results Detail What Top Entry Level Employers Want
Most. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from
http://www.collegegrad.com/press/what-employers-want.shtml.

Corts, D. P., Lounsbury, J. W., Saudargas, R. A. & Tatum, H. E. (2000). Assessing
Undergraduate Satisfaction with an Academic Department: A Method and Case
Study. College Student Journal 34(3): 399-408.

Delaney, A. (2001). Assessing Undergraduate Education from Graduating Seniors’
Perspective: Peer Institutions Provide the Context. Tertiary Education and
Management 7(3): 255-276.

Donald, J. G. & Denison, D. B. (1996). Evaluating Undergraduate Education: the use of
broad indicators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 21(1): 23-39.

Gamon, J. & Chestnut, D. (1995). A Focus Group Assessment of College of Agriculture
Seniors. NACTA Journal 39(1): 25-27.

Gardner, P. (2008). Recruiting Trends 2008-2009. The Collegiate Employment Research
Institute and the MSU Career Services Network at Michigan State University,
East Lansing.

Garton, B. L. & Robinson, J. S. (2006). Tracking Agricultural Education Graduates’
Career Choice, Job Satisfaction, and Employability Skills. Paper presented at the
American Association for Agricultural Education conference, Charlotte, NC.

216

Gilmore, J. L., Goecker, A. D., Smith, E. & Smith, P. G. (2006). Shifts in the Production
and Employment of Baccalaureate Degree Graduates from US. Colleges of
Agriculture and Natural Resources: 1 990—2005. Paper presented at A Leadership
Summit to Effect Change in Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC.

Graham, D. L. (2001). Employer Perception of the Preparation of Agricultural and
Extension Education Graduates. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education
Research 51(1): 88-101.

Hembroff, L. A. (2008). MS U Student Perceptions of Problems and Use of University
Programs and Services: Summary Reports. Institute for Public Policy and Social
Research, Michigan State University.

Horstrneier, R. P. (2006). Mentoring in a College of Agriculture: Faculty Perspectives of
Student Advisement. NAC TA Journal 50(4): 47-53.

Hu, 8., Kuh, G. & Gayles, J. (2007). Engaging Undergraduate Students in Research
Activities: Are Research Universities Doing a Better Job? Innovative Higher
Education 32(3): 167-177.

Institute of International Education (2007). Meeting America ’s Global Education
Challenge: Current Trends in US. Study Abroad & The Impact of Strategic
Diversity Initiatives. Institute of International Education (IIE).

Jogan, K. S. & Herring, D. R. (2007). Selected Potential Employers ’ Assessment of
Competencies Taught in the D. E. King Equine Program at the University of
Arkansas. Paper presented at the 2007 AAAE Southern Region Research, Mobile,
AL.

Katkin, W. (2003). The Boyer Commission Report and its Impact on Undergraduate
Research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2003(93): 19-38.

Kitto, S. L., Smith, W. G., Sims, J. T., Morehart, A., Vasilas, B. & Pesek, J. (1996).
Evaluation of the Curriculum of a Department of Plant and Soil Science. NACT A
Journal 40(2): 24-31.

Koh, H.-K. (2008). The Impact of Community Colleges on International Education.
Retrieved December 21, 2008, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=42055.

217

Kretovics, M. A. & McCambridge, J. A. (1998). Determining what employers really
want: Conducting regional stakeholder focus groups. Journal of Career Planning
& Employment 58(2): 25-30.

Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Larson, K., Grudens-Schuck, N. & Allen, B. L. (2004). Can You Call It a Focus Group?
Methodology Brief. Iowa State University Extension. Retrieved February 22,
2008 Iowa State University Extension, from
http ://www.extension.iastate.edu/publications/pm1 969a.pdf.

Layfield, K. D., Radhakrishna, R. B. & Andreasen, R. J. (2000). Self-Perceived
Leadership Skills of Students in a Leadership Program in Agriculture Course.
Southern Agricultural Education Research 50(1): 62-68.

Leonhardy, L. H. & Jimmerson, R. M. (1992). Advising Needs as Perceived by Students,
Advisors, and Administrators. NAC TA Journal 36(4): 37-41.

Lingrell, S. A. (1992). Student Outcomes Assessment: The Senior Survey (Report No. HE
025950). Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED351897)

Litzenberg, K. K. & Schneider, V. E. (1988). Educational Priorities for Tomorrow’s
Agribusiness Leaders. Agribusiness 4(2): 187-195.

Love, G. M. & Yoder, E. P. (1989). An Assessment of Undergraduate Education in
American Colleges of Agriculture. Part I: Perceptions of Faculty. Part II:
Perceptions of Graduating Seniors. Part III: Perceptions of Other University
Students. (054039). Pennsylvania State University, University Park, College of
Agriculture.

McAnulty, B. H., O’Connor, C. A. & Sklare, L. (1987). Analysis of Student and Faculty
Opinion of Academic Advising Services. NA CADA Journal 7(1): 49-61.

Michigan State University. (2008). Outcomes of Liberal Learning. Michigan State
University Board of Trustees. Undergraduate Education. Michigan State
University Board of Trustees. Undergraduate Education. Retrieved November 20,
2008, from http://undergrad.msu.edu/outcomes.htrnl.

218

 

Michigan State University. (2008). MS U among top universities for study abroad
participation, international enrollment. MSU News. MSU News, Michigan State
University. Retrieved December 27, 2008, from
http://news.msu.edu/story/5 728/&keyword_search=study%20abroad&keyword_a
ction=all_words.

Myers, B. E. & Dyer, J. E. (2005). A Comparison of the Attitudes and Perceptions of
University Faculty and Administrators Toward Advising Undergraduate and
Graduate Students and Student Organizations. NA C TA Journal 49(4): 34-40.

NAFSA (2003). Securing America ’3 Future: Global Education for a Global Age: Report
of the Strategic Task F orce on Education Abroad. Association of International
Educators (N AF SA).

Opara, L. U. (2003). From farmers to blue-collar professionals: agricultural engineering
students’ perspectives on their career prospects, critical skills and discipline name

change. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 2(3):
399-402.

Pace, C. R. (1985). Perspectives and problems in student outcomes research. New
Directions for Institutional Research [985(47): 7-18.

Petress, K. C. (1996). The multiple roles of an undergraduate’s academic advisor.
Education 117(1): 91 & 60.

Polson, C. J. & Gordon, V. N. (1988). Issues in Academic Advising Revisited. NACADA
Journal 8(2): 49-58.

Quitadamo, I. J. & Kurtz, M. J. (2007). Learning to Improve: Using Writing to Increase
Critical Thinking Performance in General Education Biology. Lifia Science
Education 6: 140-154. _

Radhakrishna, R. B. & Thompson, J. S. (1997). Academic Advising in Agricultural and
Extension Education: An Empirical Study. NA C T A Journal 42(3): 15-18.

Robinson, J. S., Garton, B. L. & Terry Jr., R. (2007). Identifying the Employability Skills
Needed in the Workplace According to Supervisors of College of Agriculture,
Food and Natural Resources Graduates. Journal of Southern Agricultural
Education Research 57(1): 95-110.

219

Robinson, J. S., Garton, B. L. & Terry Jr., R. (2007). The Leadership Skills Sought By
Employers of College of Agriculture Graduates. Paper presented at 2007 AAAE
Southern Region Research, Mobile, AL.

Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P. & McCullough, J. (2007). THE PIPELINE: Benefits of
Undergraduate Research Experiences. Science 316(5 824): 548-549.

Rutherford, T., Stedman, N., Felton, S., Wingenbach, G. & Harbin, J. (2007). Developing
Skills for the Future: Graduates’ Perceptions of Career Skill Preparedness and
Importance After a F our- Year Undergraduate Program. Paper presented at 2007
AAAE Southern Region Research, Mobile, AL.

Schumacher, L. G. & Swan, M. K. (1993). Need for formal leadership training for
students in a Land-grant College of Agriculture Journal of Agricultural Education
34(3): 1-9.

Shah, A., Pell, K. & Brooke, P. (2004). Beyond First Destinations: Graduate
Employability Survey. Active Learning in Higher Education 5(1): 9-26.

Shivpuri, S. & Kim, B. (2004). Do employers and colleges see eye-to-eye? National
Association of Colleges and Employers Journal 65(1): 37-44.

Snyder, S. (2008). Perceptions of Employers of Graduates of the Agricultural Systems
Management Program Regarding Skills and Competencies Needed for Successful
Employment. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Spinosa, H., J .Sharkness, Pryor, J. H. & Liu, A. (2008). Findings fi'om the 2007
Administration of the College Senior Survey (CSS): National Aggregates. Higher
Education Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles.

Sprecker, K. J. & Rudd, R. D. (1997). Opinions of Instructors, Practitioners, and Alumni
Concerning Curricular Requirements of Agricultural Communication Students at
the University of Florida. Journal of Agricultural Extension 38(1): 6-13.

Suvedi, M. & Heyboer, G. (2004). Perceptions of Recent Graduates and Employers about

Undergraduate Programs in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at
Michigan State University: A Follow-up Study. NACTA Journal 48(1): 22-27.

220

Terry, R. J. & Bailey-Evans, F. J. (1995). Competencies Needed for Graduates of
Agricultural Communications Programs. Paper presented at the 44th Annual
Southern Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Wilmington: NC.

Twombly, S. B. (1992). Student Perspectives on General Education in a Research
University: An Exploratory Study. Journal of General Education 41: 23 8-272.

Wachenheim, C. J. & Lesch, W. C. (2002). Assessing New-Graduate Applicants:
Academic Perceptions and Agribusiness Realities. Journal of Agribusiness 20(2):
163—173.

Wheelock, G. C. & Zekeri, A. A. (1988). Evaluation of Curriculum Competencies and
Skills by Land-Grant University Alumni. Paper presented at the 85th Annual
Meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, New Orleans, LA.

Wilson, E., Flowers, J ., Croom, B. & Moore, G. (2004). Evaluating an Undergraduate
Program Using Outcomes-Based Assessments. NAC T A Journal 48(3): 19-24.

Zekeri, A. A. (2004). College curriculum competencies and skills former students found
essential to their careers. College Student Journal 38(3): 412-422.

221

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Colleges of agriculture in the United States are constantly adapting to a changing
environment. The demographic composition of today’s college students has changed in
many ways. Research shows that the proportion of first-time, full-time White students
has declined, whereas the proportion of African American students has increased. The
Asian American student population has nearly doubled each decade from 1971 to 2006.
The proportion of Latinos entering college to earn a Baccalaureate degree has doubled
from 1971 to 1980, and tripled from 1990 to 2000. Similarly, the gender composition of
college freshman has changed. The proportion of female students is rising and the
proportion of students coming from farm or rural background is decreasing. Today’s
college students come more from suburban and urban areas and have no prior experience
with agriculture, which may pose a challenge for agricultural education.

Shrinking federal and state funding has compelled higher education institutions to
raise tuition, which could impact on college participation of students from low-income
families. The American agricultural and food systems have changed, and American
farms are becoming more efficient in production, smaller in number, larger in size, and
highly mechanized. Consumers’ preferences for food has changed as well. Today’s
consumers of agricultural products are more health conscious and prefer buying organic,
natural, and local food. Consumers have influenced the production of agricultural crops
as well as relevant policy. Thus, the changes in agriculture and food systems have
required colleges of agriculture to prepare graduates who can meet the changing needs of

agricultural industries and consumers.

222

American farmers have been increasing trade in the international marketplace,
and US. agriculture has been impacted by foreign markets. When agribusiness becomes
more involved in the international marketplace, it demands a well experienced workforce
trained in the subject of globalization; this calls for internationalization of curricula in
colleges of agriculture.

In the changing context of demographic composition of prospective students,
shrinking financial resources due to the current economic downturn, increasing college
tuition and costs, changing agricultural systems and consumer preference, and the
globalization of the economy, it is critical that the college of agriculture develop and
adapt new policies regarding student recruitment and revise course curricula to meet
students’ needs and expectations.

The purpose of this study was to analyze and describe the perspectives of
undergraduate students about their experiences in the CANR at MSU. Specifically, the
study attempted to address the following research questions:

1. What are the demographic characteristics of the CANR students and what influenced
their decision to join the CANR program?

2. What is the weekly time use profile of students in various academic and
extracurricular activities?

3. How do students perceive course offerings, academic advising, and
internationalization of curricula in the CANR?

4. What do graduating seniors say about college and departmental services and

employable skills upon graduation?

223

The study population was the current and the graduating senior students in the
CANR at MSU. This study utilized: i) online survey method to collect data from the
current students, and ii) focus group interviews of the graduating seniors.

The online survey was administered in spring semester of each year from 2004 to
2008. A total of 2,798 students participated in the survey, an aggregate of 24.5 percent
response rate for the five-year study. Data were analyzed by using simple descriptive
statistics (frequency count, mean, and standard deviation), test of differences for group
means (t-test and F test), and Chi-square test of association.

Three focus group interviews of the graduating seniors in the CAN R were
conducted in the spring of 2008. Twenty-three graduating seniors, 10 female and 13
male, representing thirteen majors from eleven academic departments/schools,
participated in focus groups. Focus groups were conducted by adopting the procedure
suggested by Krueger and Casey (2000). Focus group participants were identified with
the help of the Associate Dean of the undergraduate program in the CANR. Focus group
sessions were moderated using the interview protocol (discussion guide), and the same
procedures were used for all three groups. The entire group discussions were audio taped.
Participants were provided refreshments along with $20 cash per person as an incentive
for their participation. Data were analyzed qualitatively. Audio tapes were transcribed
verbatim in a Microsoft Word document. Key themes that emerged from the discussions
of each session were identified. Opinions and ideas were compared and contrasted
between the focus groups. A few quotations were used to illustrate the key points when

appropriate.

224

Summary of Findings

Findings on demographic characteristics of respondents showed that vast majority
of respondents in this study were White females from suburban or urban communities,
and residents of the state of Michigan. Less than a quarter of the respondents had
participated in 4-H and FFA activities, which indicated that large majority of respondents
did not have prior backgrounds in agriculture and related clubs and organizations. More
than half of the respondents were members of the National Honor Society when they
were in high school.

Students joining the CANR programs followed four major routes. Transfer
students within MSU was the most frequently mentioned route, accounting for 41%,
followed by students directly from high school (36.2%), and then students from
community colleges (13.3%). Transfer students from other colleges and universities
were the fourth major route, accounting for 8.2% of the total respondents.

Findings on sources of information used by respondents to learn about the CANR
programs indicated that family and friends, (31.8%), were the most used source of
information for prospective students in the CANR. This source of information was
followed by university/college websites, (27.1%) and printed materials, (12.2%). Nearly
ten percent of the respondents received information fi'om the University Undergraduate
Division (UUD).

Respondents indicated that an academic program/curriculum better suited to the
students’ interest, reputation of the CANR, and opportunity for internships were the top

three “very important” factors in deciding on a CANR major. Academic advising and

225

recommendations of friends, alumni, and family members were “somewhat important”
factors.

Recommendations of friends, alumni and family members, and opportunities for
study abroad were other important factors for respondents who entered the CANR
directly from high schools. Credit evaluation and transfer, opportunities for internships,
and scholarship and financial aid were other “very important” factors for respondents
who transferred from community colleges. Similarly, opportunity for internships, and
credit evaluation and transfer were other “very important” factors for transfer students
from other colleges/universities. Respondents who transferred to CANR from within
MSU indicated that academic advising in the CANR was “very important” for their
transfer decision.

The CAN R respondents were asked to indicate an approximate number of hours
per week spent on six different activities during a typical week at MSU. To compare the
results of this study with the NSSE (2008) study, the researcher requested an NSSE staff
member to conduct a special analysis of only Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR)
respondents. To make the findings comparable, the CANR study data were recoded into
interval scale following the NSSE scale of 1 to 8.

Findings of students’ weekly time use (hours/week) profile were: i) preparing for
class (15.2), ii) working for pay on-campus (13.5), iii) working for pay off-campus
(16.9), iv) participating in co-curricular activities (6.1), v) relaxing and socializing (16.2),
vi) providing care for dependents (11.6), and vii) commuting to class (5.0).

Comparison of weekly time use profile between the CANR students and ANR

respondents from the NS SE (2008) survey revealed that the CANR students spent more

226

time preparing for class, working for pay-on campus, relaxing and socializing, and
commuting to class than did ANR respondents in the NSSE (2008) study. The ANR
respondents in the NSSE (2008) spent more time in working for pay off-campus,
participating in co—curricular activities, and providing care for dependents than did the
CANR students at MSU. In both studies, students spent more time relaxing and
socializing than on other activities.

Findings on time use by demographic characteristics of students revealed that
senior and junior students spent more time working for pay (on-campus and off-campus),
and providing care for dependents than did freshman and sophomore students. Freshmen
spent significantly more time relaxing and socializing than did students in other class
levels.

With regard to time use by gender, female students spent more time preparing for
class and commuting to class than did male students. Male students spent more time
working for pay (on-campus and off-campus), participating in co-curricular activities,
and relaxing and socializing than did female students.

By ethnicity, Students of Color spent more time working for pay on—campus and
commuting to class than did White students. White students spent more time relaxing
and socializing than did Students of Color.

Regarding time use by residential background, students from urban communities
spent more time preparing for class, and relaxing and socializing than did students from
rural communities. Students from rural communities spent more time commuting to class

than did students from urban communities.

227

Findings on students’ perceptions about course offerings and faculty help
indicated that respondents felt most required courses were offered every year.
Respondents also agreed that courses were taught by experienced faculty members and
the faculty were accessible and approachable. However, respondents did not agree on the
statement that courses were scheduled at convenient times.

Respondents’ perception about academic advising was positive. They agreed that
major advisors were easily accessible, knowledgeable about degree requirements, and
helpful in solving academic problems. However, respondents were in least agreement
with regard to their major advisors’ encouragement to participate in study abroad and
volunteer programs. Overall, respondents were satisfied with academic advising in the
CANR.

Four out of ten respondents indicated they took courses that focused on
international issues. The same proportion of respondents planned on taking a course that
focused on international issues as those who did not. Nearly half of the respondents
(47.7%) indicated that CANR faculty members “occasionally” shared international issues
and/or case studies with students. One in twenty respondents indicated that they were
involved in international research/outreach projects.

One out of ten respondents participated in study abroad programs, and four out of
ten had plans to participate. The demographic profile of study abroad participants
indicated that majority of the participants were White females from urban residential
backgrounds who were members of the National Honor Society during high school.

Analysis of open ended responses revealed that faculty, teaching and academic

advising, hands-on learning and career opportunities, and course curricula were the

228

strengths of CANR program. Respondents spoke highly about qualities of faculty
members and their teaching, and expressed great satisfaction with academic advising.
However, some respondents indicated that poor quality of teaching and academic
advising, too general nature of course curricula, and irregular course offering and
scheduling conflicts were the major weaknesses of CAN R program. Respondents offered
suggestions to overcome those weaknesses, such as increasing the hands-on learning and
career opportunities and improving teaching and academic advising.

The CANR Dean’s Office has offered services and assistance regarding study
abroad, career advising, scholarships, and undergraduate research grants. Participants
who received services or assistance from the Dean’s Office were happy, and they
described the staff as knowledgeable, very helpful, service oriented, and good at
communication. Not all participants who received services from the Dean’s Office had
positive experiences. A few participants were not very happy with the services they
received from the Dean’s Office because of poor communication. A participant who
received an undergraduate research grant mentioned that she had to send several e-mails
to the Dean’s Office to find out the status of her application. One participant, who
claimed to be a non-traditional returning student, expressed his concerns that as a single
parent he could not participate in the study abroad program because he could not leave
his teenage son alone at home for several weeks. He further commented that he could
take his son to study abroad with him if there were such policy provision.

Participants who did not receive any services or assistance indicated that they had
no idea about what the Dean’s Office offers to students. Some participants who did not

visit the Dean’s Office for services mentioned that they were getting enough information

229

and services from their respective departments/schools. Participants suggested that there
should be more communication between the Dean’s Office and students. Participants also
suggested the Dean’s Office develop study abroad policy which will allow non-
traditional students to participate with children at their own expenses.

With regard to support and services provided by academic departments/schools,
four themes emerged from focus group discussions: academic advising, internships and
career services, research activities, and study abroad programs. Academic advising was
the most frequently mentioned support to students. Participants characterized their
advisors as ‘friendly’, ‘always available and accessible’, ‘knowledgeable’, ‘helpfirl’,
‘nice’, ‘good communicator’, ‘very open’, and ‘great’. Overall, the majority of
participants were satisfied with the academic advising provided to them.

Participants indicated that they were well-informed about various internship
opportunities and career services available to them in the CAN R because faculty
members had good connections with industry, the alumni network, and professional
organizations. Some faculty members invited industry staff in for classroom
presentations, which provided the CANR students opportunities for direct interaction
with industry people, allowing students to build relationships with them and explore
availability of internships services.

Participants described their professors as very helpful with involving them in
research projects. Individual faculty members and the departments strongly encouraged
students to participate in study abroad programs by providing scholarships. As indicated
by one participant, the department valued the study abroad program so much that almost

all the students participated in the study abroad program.

230

With regard to contribution of the CANR program to development of employable
skills, data analysis revealed that participants developed six types of skills sets: technical
skills, interpersonal skills, research and analytical skills, communication and networking
skills, business skills, and leadership skills. Participants confidently mentioned that they
had developed technical skills in their primary major through employment opportunities
on campus, laboratory works, field exercises, internships, working in group projects, and
involvement in professional students’ clubs. Similarly, participants’ interpersonal skill
sets were developed through work employment, group projects working with
communities developing management plans, student organizations like F F A, and
personal projects. Less than half of the participants indicated that they had developed
research and analytical skills through undergraduate research grants, working with
faculty in their research projects either in laboratory or in fields, and classroom exercises
and assignments. Similarly, less than half of the participants indicated that their
communication and networking skills developed while engaging in a capstone course,
project works in community, student clubs and organizations, and internships, either
individually or in groups.

Out of 23, only five participants indicated that they had developed business skills
through classroom teaching activities such as role playing a real client and business
person, and outside the classroom activities. A similar number of participants indicated
that they had developed leadership competencies primarily through involvement in
students’ clubs and organizations and internships. Students’ clubs and organizations

included Forestry Club, F FA, Student Senate, etc..

231

A few participants commented that they had not been able to develop adequate
technical skills in their major because the focus of teaching was more on research and
less emphasis was given to industry application. A participant commented that fast
paced teaching hindered her from developing technical skills in audio-visual and
multimedia because she did not have enough time to practice. Similarly, a few
participants indicated that they were not able to develop communication and leadership
skills because they had problem enrolling in the magazine writing course or photo
journalism courses. A participant mentioned that due to lack of clear instruction in
classroom teaching, she was not able to relate how teaching and learning activities were

going to develop certain skills.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The demographic characteristics indicated that the CANR student population still
lacked ethnic diversity and prior experience in agriculture or working in agriculture
related organizations such as 4-H and FF A. The CANR student makeup was largely
transfer students, which accounted for two-thirds (63.8%) of the total respondents.
Family and fiiends were the most influential source of information for students to learn
about CANR programs. Students preferred digital information to printed materials.
Academic program/curriculum, reputation of college, and opportunity for internships
were “very important” factors for students’ decision to choose a college major. Credit
evaluation and transfer was important among transfer students in making the decision to
join a CANR major.

The CANR students tended to spend more time working, and relaxing and

socializing than in academic activities. The CAN R students at MSU spent more time

232

preparing for class than did ANR students in the NSSE study (2008). However, students
spent more time relaxing and socializing than engaging in academic activities. Students’
weekly time use differed by their demographic characteristics for certain activities.

Students positively perceived course offerings and faculty help. Similarly,
respondents were satisfied with academic advising. Based on the proportion of students
taking courses focusing on international issues, involvement in international research and
outreach programs, participation in study abroad, and faculty sharing international issues
and/or case studies in classroom teaching and discussions, it can be concluded that the
extent of internationalization of curricula in the CANR is not very high.

Students were generally satisfied with the services and assistance they had
received in the college. There is a need to increase diversity among study abroad
participants. Students felt that there was inadequate communication between the college
and students.

With regard to development of employable skills, participants developed a high
level of technical skills and competencies in their majors. Involvement in student clubs,
extracurricular activities, group projects, and laboratory works were instrumental in
developing various skill sets. Not many participants were confident of their business and
leadership skills. Some of the major factors that hindered the development of skills set
were: problems in course registration, more research-focused courses, fast paced
teaching, and lack of adequate hardware and software in laboratories.

Based on the conclusions drawn from this study, the following recommendations

are made:

233

I. It is recommended that the CANR make efforts to recruit students from ethnic
minorities, such as African-American, Asian-American, Native American, Hispanic, etc..
The target population for recruitment should be high school and community college
graduates. Since the 4-H/F FA background was a very important factor for deciding the
CAN R major for respondents who were members of 4-H and FFA while in high school, it
is important that Recruitment Officers identify that population and facilitate their college
selection process.

2. Recruiting Officers should work with parents and the alumni network to market

CAN R programs. Since prospective students prefer digital information, the CANR
should regularly update the college website and make it more useful and interactive.
However, distribution of printed materials (college brochures) remains important.

3. CANR students need counseling about time use. Senior level students may be used as
mentors for their junior colleagues on how to best manage time in various activities.
Academic advising or counseling could focus more on time management, particularly for
White males freshman from urban backgrounds.

4. Academic advisors should encourage students to participate in study abroad programs.
The CANR should promote diversity among study abroad participants.

5. Faculty members should be encouraged to introduce more international content into
classroom teaching and discussions.

6. The CANR should communicate more frequently with students and make information

about the services and assistance it offers available digitally through the college website.

234

7. The CANR should develop policy to promote diversity among study abroad
participants, and one way to do this is to encourage the participation of non-traditional
students.

8. Faculty should invite more outside speakers from industry and other potential
employer organizations for classroom presentations.

9. Promote student clubs and extracurricular activities to develop various transferable
skills set such as leadership skills, communication skills, and interpersonal skills.

10. Faculty should balance research and industry application in their teaching.

11. The college should upgrade teaching equipment with the latest hardware and

software.

Recommendations for future research

As an extension of this study, the following studies should be conducted in the

future.

i) CANR alumni assessment to determine the usefulness of the undergraduate
educational experience in the workplace. It would be helpful to revise and/or upgrade
curricula within the CANR major.

ii) Employer assessment to determine the level of career preparation of CANR graduates
and develop a list of core competencies required for new careers. This will also allow
employers to get involved in CANR curriculrun development process.

iii) The college should conduct further research on usefulness and relevancy of the study
abroad program with regard to students’ academic majors. There are concerns about

the relevancy and effectiveness of the CANR study abroad program. A

235

comprehensive study could be useful to develop meaningful international experience
in the CAN R majors. This study may include perceptions of faculty members about
internationalization of the CAN R program.

iv) A comparative study of college administrators’ and employers’ perceptions about

important employable skills required in agriculture college graduates.

236

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Current Student Survey Instrument
Part A. Academic Information

1) What is your current academic status?

0 Freshman
O Sophomore
0 Junior

0 Senior

2) What is your primary major in CANR?
ANR No-Preference
Agribusiness Management
Agriscience
Animal Science
ANR Communications
Biosystems Engineering
Construction Management
Crop and Soil Science
Dietetics
Entomology
Environmental Economics and Policy
Environmental Soil Science
Environmental Studies and Applications
Fisheries and Wildlife
Food Industry Management
Food Science
Forestry
Horticulture
Interior Design
Landscape Architecture
Packaging
Park Recreation and Tourism Resources
Plant Pathology
Technology Systems Management
3) Are you pursuing a dual major?
0 Yes
0 No
4) Please specify your second major.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

237

5) Are you pursuing a second degree?

0

Yes

0 No

6) Please specify your second degree.

 

7) How did you first enter the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources?

0
O
O
O
O

Entered from high school

Transferred from community college

Transferred from other college or university

Transferred from MSU’s Institute of Agricultural Technology
Transferred from another MSU program

8) How did you learn about the college majors in CANR? (Please check all that apply.)

CI

DDDUDUD

El

Family

Friends

University Undergraduate Division (U UD)
College website

College brochure

High school career day

High school counselor or counseling program
Campus visit

Other

If you selected other, please specify

 

238

9) How important was each of the following factors in your decision to enter your
current CANR major? (Please check one button for each factor.)

Not Somewhat Very Extremely

'on of MSU College of
'culture and Natural Resources
'on of
alumni/famil
'c curriculum
lubs and extra-curricular 'ons
nal/famil reasons
acul member contact
A/4-H
'c ad ' '
redit evaluations/transfer of credits
' for ' '
for service 1
for abroad
to et involved in
ligible for preferred major at MSU
e.g., business program, engineering

larshi financial aid
lass size

 

Part B. Assessment of Major Courses, Faculty, and Academic Advising

10) Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following
statements using the scale below: -

 

Strongly

StronglyjDisagree Neither Agree Agree

Disagree nor Disagree Agree

 

'Most required courses are
offered every year.
Courses are scheduled at
convenient times.
Courses are taught by
experienced departmental
[faculty
Eepartmental faculty are
ccessible outside of class.
Eepartmental faculty are
pproachable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

239

 

1 1) Academic Advising

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements

using the scale below:

 

 

Strongly ID
Disagree

isagree

Neither Agree
nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

 

y major advisor is easily
ccessible.

 

nforrnation about degree

y major advisor gives me accurate
equirements.

 

lMy major advisor helps me with
cademic problems.

 

 

y major advisor refers me to
elpful resources when I need them.

 

nforrnation on internship

y major advisor provides timely
pportunities.

 

y major advisor encourages me to
articipate in internships.

 

IMy major advisor encourages me to
articipate in study abroad.

 

 

y major advisor encourages me to
articipate in volunteer programs.

 

IMy major advisor shares informatiom
n career opportunities.

 

Overall, I am satisfied with the
academic advising services I have
received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Internationalization of Curriculum

Please answer the following questions pertaining to internationalization of the CANR

program.

12) Have you taken a course at MSU focusing on international issues?

13) Do you plan to take a course at MSU focusing on international issues?

0 Yes
0 No
0 Yes
0 No

240

 

14) Have you participated in the Study Abroad Program while a student at MSU?

0 Yes
0 No
15) Do you plan to participate in a Study Abroad while a student at MSU?
0 Yes
0 No

16) How frequently are international issues and/or case studies shared by CANR faculty
in your major courses?

0 Not at all
0 Rarely
O Occasionally
0 Frequently
O Regularly
17) Are you involved in an international research/outreach project?
0 Yes
0 No

Part C. Time Management

18) About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the
following activities?

a) Preparing for class (e. g., studying, reading,

writing, doing homework or lab work, analyzing ........... hrs

data, researching, and other academic activities)
b) Working for pay on-campus ........... hrs
c) Working for pay off-campus ........... hrs
d) Participating in co-curricular activities

(e. g., organizations, campus publications, ........... hrs

student government, social fraternity or sorority,
intercollegiate or intramural sports)

e) Relaxing and socializing ........... hrs
(e. g., watching TV, exercising, partying)

f) Providing care for dependents living with you ........... hrs
(e.g., parents, children, spouse)

g) Commuting to class (e.g., driving, walking) ........... hrs

19) Information about credit hours enrolled:

For how many credit hours are you enrolled this semester? ....... credits
For how many credit hours do you usually enroll in a ....... credits
semester?

241

Part D. Demographic Information

20) What is your gender?

0 Male
0 Female
21) What is your race/ethnicity?
White
Hispanic

African-American
Asian-American
Native American
Other

000000

22) Where did you reside before coming to MSU?
O Inarural area, onafarrn
O In a rural area, but not on a farm
0 In a suburban community
0 In an urban community

23) Which category best describes your residency status?
0 In-state student
0 Out-of-state student
0 International student

24) What is your age? ....... years
25) Did you participate in 4-H or FFA while in high school?
0 Yes
0 No
26) In which club(s) did you participate?
O 4-H
O FFA
0 Both
27) Were you a member of the National Honor Society in high school?
0 - Yes
0 No

242

Part E. Additional Comments

28) What do you think are the strengths of the undergraduate program in your primary
major? Please describe.

 

 

29) What do you think are the weaknesses of the undergraduate program in your primary
major? Please describe.

 

 

30) If you were to recommend one thing to enhance undergraduate education in
your primary major, what would that be? Please describe.

 

 

Thank you for participating in this survey.

243

Appendix B. Senior Exit Survey Instrument
Part A. Academic Information

1) What was your primary major in CANR? (Please check one)

Agribusiness Management
Agriscience

Animal Science

ANR Communication

Biosystems Engineering
Construction Management

Crop and Soil Science

Dietetics

Entomology

Environmental Economics and Policy
Environmental Soil Science
Environmental Studies and Applications
Fisheries and Wildlife

Food Industry Management

Food Science

Forestry

Horticulture

Interior Design

Landscape Architecture

Packaging

Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
Plant Pathology

Technology Systems Management

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

2) Did you pursue a dual major?
0 Yes
0 No

3) If you pursued a dual major, please specify your second major:

 

4) Did you pursue a second degree?
0 Yes
0 No

5) If you pursued a second degree, please specify your second degree:

 

244

Part B. Assessment of College, Department and Academic Major

6) College Services—provided by staff in 121 Agriculture Hall, such as Associate Deans,
Student Affairs, Study Abroad, and Career Services professionals.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement on the following statements
using the scale below:

 

IISDtrongly [Disagreegeither Agree Strongly
isagree isagree nor Agree
Agree

 

The staff provided timely information
Er academic matters that was helpful

 

'n making an informed decision about
y major.

 

e career advising and information
rovided by the College was useful.

 

e College sponsored quality study
broad experiences for students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

245

7) Departmental services—provided by staff in in the department of your major, such
as, academic advisor, department chair, and secretaries.

 

 

Neither
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
nor Agree

 

epartrnental staff provided timely
nforrnation on academic matters that was
elpful in making an informed decision
bout my major.

 

n my major department, it was easy to get

0 know at least one faculty member well

nough so that I could ask for such things
letters of recommendation.

 

or my performance were clearly defined

n my major courses, faculty expectations
t the beginning of the course.

 

had no difficulty in obtaining
° formation on internship opportunities.

 

articipate in study abroad.

 

Emajor/department encouraged me to
Y

maj or/department encouraged me to
articipate in internships.

 

'My major/department encouraged me to
participate in volunteer programs or
Unpaid internships.

 

Sufficient opportunities existed to become
' volved in student organizations relevant
o my career/pgofessional interests.

 

 

n my major, departmental faculty were
ccessible to discuss undergraduate
esearch or extension opportunities.

 

[Shad no difficulty in identifying my
epartmental/maj or advisor.

 

[My major advisor was easily accessible.

 

Ely major advisor helped me decide the
curses to pursue.

 

Edy major advisor/Career Field Consultant
ffered suggestions to prepare my resume.

 

llgVIy major advisor/Career Field Consultant
ave tips on interviewing skills.

 

elped me find my first professional job

EM major advisor/Career Field Consultant
fter graduation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

246

 

8) Academic Advising—classes and services provided by faculty.

 

 

Neither
Strongly Pisagree Disagree nor Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree Agree

 

received quality faculty support in
y major.

 

am satisfied with the academic
uality of classes in my major.

 

am satisfied with the quality of my
reparation for a career.

 

reparation for entering graduate
tudies.

 

 

 

Earn satisfied with the quality of my

 

 

 

9) Skills Development —using the following scale, indicate the degree to which your
education in your major contributed to the development of each of the following skills.
(1= Made no contribution, 2= Made a moderate contribution, 3= Made some
contribution, 4= Made a considerable contribution, 5= Contributed a great deal)

 

1

2

 

[Knowledge applicable to your anticipated career path.

 

Skills required in your anticipated career.

 

Critical thinkingand problem solving skills.

 

Written communication skills (i.e., papers, reports, newsarticles, etc.).

 

Verbal communication skills (i.e., class presentation, group
discussions, etc.).

 

Teamwork skills.

 

esearch skills.

 

 

omputer technology and database research skills.

 

[Diversity (i.e., working with others from diverse backgrounds).

 

ILeadership and interpersonal skills (i.e., club management,

 

 

understanding others, conflict management, etc.).

 

 

 

 

 

247

 

 

Part C. Demographic Information

10) What is your gender?

0 Male
0 Female
11) What is your race/ethnicity?
White
Hispanic

African-American
Asian-American
Native American
Other

000000

12) Where did you reside before coming to MSU?
O In a rural area, on a farm
0 In a rural area, but not on a farm
0 In a suburban community
0 In an urban community

13) Which category best describes your residency status?
0 In-state student
0 Out-of-state student
0 International student

14) What is your age? ....... years
Part D. Additional Comments

15) What do you think are the strengths of the undergraduate program in your primary
major? Please describe.

 

 

16) What do you think are the weaknesses of the undergraduate program in your primary
major? Please describe.

 

 

17) If you were to recommend one thing to enhance undergraduate education in
your primary major, what would that be? Please describe.

 

 

Thank you for participating in this survey.

248

Appendix C. Sample Invitation Letter to Focus Group Participants

Dear {Last Name}:

Your academic advisor or undergraduate coordinator has recommended you as a potential

focus group session participant.

A focus group session has been scheduled for Tuesday April 1, 2008 at 5:00 PM in
Room 338 of the Natural Resources Building to solicit opinions about the programs
and services provided by the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) at
MSU. This focus group session will last for about an hour and half, and the discussion
contained therein will remain completely confidential. No names will be reported with
anything said by the participants. As a participant, your opinions and inputs will help

CAN R improve its programs and services.

If you are willing to participate, please reply to this e-mail by Monday, March 31, 2008.
The first ten respondents will be selected to participate in the focus group session, and

after doing so, each of them will receive $20.00 in cash to thank them for participating.

If you have any questions or concerns about this focus group, please feel free to contact
me at (517) 432-0296 or Dr. Murari Suvedi, Professor in CARRS at (517) 432-0265.

I hope you will be able to participate in this focus group session.

Sincerely,

Krishna Shrestha

PhD Student

Department of CARRS
Michigan State University

249

Appendix D. Script for Conducting the Focus Group Interview

Good evening and welcome! I am Krishna Shrestha, a PhD student in the Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies at Michigan State University.
I would like to thank you for accepting my invitation to participate in this focus group, I
will be the moderator for tonight’s session. Helping me is Mr. Dan Hudson, Ph. D.

student in the Department of Crop and Soil Science, Michigan State University.

The purpose of today’s session is to learn more about your experiences and perceptions
about undergraduate education in your major in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources (CANR). Specifically we would like to hear more about your perceptions of
college services, departmental services, academic advising, and the various skills that you
have developed through academic programs in your major. Please feel free to share your
thoughts and opinions, which will be very valuable for the future improvement of the
undergraduate programs in CANR.

Let me share some ground rules for this session. There are no right or wrong answers.
Please feel free to share your views, opinions, and thoughts even if they differ from your
colleagues’ ideas, but let us listen to others’ views carefully and with respect. Please keep
in mind that we are as equally interested to hear about negative comments as positive
cements, with regard to your college experiences. We will be taking notes and also
audio recording this session, because we don’t want to miss any important piece of
information that emerges from our discussions. Please let one person speak at a time so
that we will be able to later transcribe the audio tapes. We will be on a first name basis
during this session, but let me assure you that your responses will be kept completely
confidential and your name will not appear in any reports. This session will probably last
for about an hour and half. We will take a short coffee break after 45 minutes, and you

will have the chance to enjoy the taste of some Nepali food at the end of the session.

We’ve placed name cards on the table to help us remember each other’s names. Let’s

begin with each of you sharing a little bit about yourselves. . Please tell us your name,

250

major, and the reason why you are interested in your current major. Let’s start from the

right corner and go around the table.

Now let’s start the session. Please think back over your academic experiences during the

past couple of years in CAN R.

The Office of the Dean, located in 121 Agriculture Hall, provides services about
academic matters such as study abroad and career advising. Please recall your memories
about the help and services, if any, that you have received from this office.
1. What has been your experience with services or assistance provided by the CANR
Dean’s office? Please describe them.
2. How could the Dean’s office improve its services and assistance to better meet the

needs of CANR students?

Academic departments or schools in CANR provide various information and services,
such as academic advising, internships, study abroad, and career services to make your
academic program professionally rewarding and successful. Please reflect on the services
that your academic department or school has provided to you, and tell us about your
experiences.
3. What types of academic support and services are available to students in your
department or school?
4. What is your assessment of the quality of these academic support services offered
by your department or school?
5. How could your academic department or school improve the academic support

services offered to students?

CANR strives to prepare its students for gainful employment. In addition to technical
subject matter, skills such as critical thinking, communication skills, research skills, and
leadership skills are considered important by employers.

6. How have the educational experiences you’ve received in your CAN R major

contributed to the development of these skills? Please describe.

251

7. What can be done to develop these employability skills in students with your
same academic major?

8. Finally, do you have any specific comments or suggestions to improve the
academic programs or services within CANR, including within your department

or school?

Thank you for your active participation in the discussion. Please enjoy the food and have

safe trip back home. Thanks.

252

Appendix E. Trend of Fall Enrollment in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources at Michigan State University (Fall l994-F all 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Engcfiijnint % Change % Change
1994 2,274 0.0 0.0
1995 2,545 11.9 11.9
1996 2,622 3.0 3.0
1997 2,629 0.3 0.3
1998 2,600 .11 -1.1
1999 2,532 -2.6 -2.6
2000 2,474 -23 -2.3
2001 2,385 -3.6 -3.6
2002 2,238 -62 -6.2
2003 2,064 .73 .78
2004 2,121 2.8 2.8
2005 2,910 37,2 .05
2006 2,941 1,1
2007 3,001 2,0
2008 2,923 .26

Average change 2.3

=
Data Source: Office of the Registrar, Michigan State University
(http://www.reg.msu.edu/reportserver?/ROReports/CE-Stqu rUN&term_seq_id=l 084)

253

Appendix F. Literature Review: Influential Factors and Sources of Information for
Choosing Agriculture College Major

 

Author/s (Year) Influencing Factors Sources of lnforrnation

 

0

Institutional characteristics

0

Campus visit

 

 

- University academic reputation 0 Printed university
0 Preparation for employment publications
0 Opportunity after graduation O Letter/info. from
0 Faculty quality & reputation university
0 Quality of facilities 6 University website
0 Prestige of the university
0 Degree program characteristics
Robinson et al. (2007) 0 Career opportunities
0 Quality and reputation of the college
0 Quality and reputation of the faculty
0 Quality of facilities
9 Individuals
0 Parent or guardian
0 Relative attending the
college/university
- Friend in college
6 Career opportunities 9 Campus visits
0 Love of animals 0 Contacts with faculty
0 Reputation of faculty 0 Brochures
0 Scientific nature 0 Website
0 Financial aid 0 Interaction with
9 Environmental concern current students
Peiter et al. (2004) o Parent/guardian 0 Letters from staff and
0 University agricultural program 0 Phone calls from
representative university
0 Friend of the prospective student representatives
0 High school agriculture teacher/
counselor
9 Brother or sister of student
0 Institutional characteristics 0 Degree program
0 Academic reputation of the information on website
university 9 University information

Rocca and Washburn (2005)

 

O

0 Opportunity after graduation

o Prestige of the university

0 Preparation for employment

0 Quality of facilities

0 Faculty quality & reputation

0 Variety of majors offered

0 Cost

Degree program characteristics

0 Career opportunities

0 Quality and reputation of courses
0 Quality and reputation of the faculty
0 Quality of facilities

Individuals

0 Parent or guardian

 

on website

College information on
website

Printed materials
Campus visit

0 Friend in college

 

254

Appendix F. Literature Review: Influential Factors and Sources of Information for
Choosing Agriculture College Major (continued)

 

 

 

Author/s (Year) Influencing Factors Sources of Information
0 Degree program characteristics 0 Printed university
0 Career opportunities publications
0 Quality and reputation of courses 0 Campus visits
0 Quality of facilities 0 Letter/info. from

0 Quality and reputation of faculty university admission
Washburn et al. (2002) 0 Institutional characteristics representative
0 Academic reputation of the university University website

9

 

 

- Preparation for employment 9 Personal conversation
0 Opportunities after graduation with university
0 Qualities of facilities admission
0 Qualig and reputation of the faculty representative
0 Printed materials

0

Campus visit
Parents or other family
members

College friends

Cole and Thompson
(1999)

O

O

 

 

 

255

Appendix G. Literature Review: Influential Factors for Choosing Agriculture College

Maj or

Author/s (Year)

Williams et al. (2008)

9

9

9

Influencing Factors
Prior exposure to major
0 Personal work experience
0 Related hobbies
- High School course
0 Related clubs and organizations
0 Relatives in similar fields
People of influence
0 Parent or guardian
0 Professional in similar field
0 Personal role model
0 High School Agriscience teacher
College/Departmental influence
- Friendly college atmosphere
0 Teaching reputation of college and department
0 Faculty’s fiiendliness
0 Departmental clubs and activities

 

 

Segler-Conrad et al. (2004)

Wildman and Torres (2002)

Lynch (2001)

9

O

Influential Individuals

0 Alumni and current students

0 High School Agriscience teacher

0 Siblings and parents

0 Instructor

Influential forms of communication

0 Brochures

0 Conversation with faculty

0 Conversation with admissions representative at high school
0 E-maiI/letter from faculty member

0 Letter/info. from admission representative

Working outdoors

Working with animals

Prior experience in agriculture

Friendliness of departmental faculty

Overall friendly atmosphere in the college of agriculture
Job considerations

Personal role models and professionals employed in agiculture
Personal decision

Parents

Former teachers and

College faculty members

Financial assistance

 

 

Sivapirunthep (2000)

Powers (2000)

 

999999999999999999999

Parents

College teachers/advisors
Preparation for a career
Parents

Employment

Quality of institution
Quality of teachers

Cost of school

Geogr_aphic location

256

Appendix H. Ranking of Factors Deciding the CANR Major for F F A/4-H Respondents

 

Participation in 4-H/FF A
Mean“ SD n

 

Factors

Academic pro gram/curriculum better suited to

your interests 3-35 (0-75) 678

FFA/4-H background 2.86 (1.05) 678
Reputation of CANR at MSU 2.85 (0.91) 681
Recommendation of fiiend/alumni/family 2.58 (0.96) 678
Scholarship/financial aid 2.47 (1.10) 449
Academic advising 2.40 (0.97) 680
Personal/family reasons 2.39 (0.99) 678
Clubs and extra-curricular options 2.37 (0.94) 677
Opportunity for internship 2.37 (0.99) 679
Faculty member contact 2.16 (1.01) 678
Opportunity for study abroad 2.15 (1.05) 677
Opportunity to get involved in research 2.14 (1.00) 675
Class size 2.13 (0.98) 449
Credit evaluations/transfer of credits 2.07 (1.03) 679
Opportunity for service learning 2.00 (0.91) 680
Ineligible for preferred major at MSU 1.37 (0.77) 678

* Mean is computed based on I=Not Important, 2=Somewhat Important, 3=Very
Important, and 4=Extremely Important

257

Appendix I. Results of Post Hoc (Tukey) Test for Multiple Comparisons by Academic
Levels of Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a) Working for pay on-camr us
(I) (J) Mean 1 95% Confidence Interval
Academic Academic Difference Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Status Status . (I-J) Bound Bound
Sophomore .421 .663 .921 -l .29 2.13
Freshman Junior -1.128 .623 .268 -2.73 .47
Senior -2.303‘ .681 .004 -405 -.55
Freshman -.421 .663 .921 -2.13 1.29
Sophomore Junior 4549‘ .480 .007 -2.78 —.31
Senior -2.723‘ .554 .000 -4.15 -1.30
Freshman 1.128 .623 .268 -.47 2.73
Junior Sophomore 1.549. .480 .007 .31 2.78
Senior -1.175 .505 .092 -2.47 .12
Freshman 2.303‘ .681 .004 .55 4.05
Senior Sophomore 2.723‘ .5 54 .000 1.30 4.15
_ Junior 1.175 .505 .092 -.12 2.47
"' The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
b) Working for pay off-campus
(I) (J) Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Academic Academic Difference Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Status Status (I-J) Bound Bound
Sophomore -l .835 1.162 .391 -4.83 1.16
Freshman Junior 8538‘ 1.037 .004 -6.21 -.87
Senior -4.241’ 1.096 .001 -7.06 -1.42
Freshman 1.835 1.162 .391 -1.16 4.83
Sophomore Junior -1.703 .810 .153 -3.79 .38
Senior -2.406‘ .885 .034 -4.68 -.13
Freshman 3.538‘ 1.037 .004 .87 6.21
Junior Sophomore 1.703 .810 .153 1 -.38 3.79
Senior -.703 .713 .758 -2.54 1.13
Freshman 4.241‘ 1.096 .001 1.42 7.06
Senior Sophomore 2.406‘ .885 .034 .13 4.68
Junior .703 .713 .758 -1.13 2.54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"' The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

258

c) Relaxing and socializing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I) (J) I Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Academic Academic Difference Std. Error Sig. Lower ' Upper
Status Status (I-J) Bound Bound
Sophomore .830 .825 .746 -l .29 2.95
Freshman Junior 2143’ .766 .027 .17 4.11
Senior 1.396 .843 .347 -.77 3.56
Freshman -.830 .825 .746 -2.95 1.29
Sophomore Junior 1.313 .629 .157 -.30 2.93
Senior .566 .720 .861 —1.29 2.42
Freshman -2.143‘ .766 .027 411 -.17
Junior Sophomore -1.313 .629 .157 -2.93 .30
Senior -.747 .653 .662 -2.42 .93
Freshman -1.396 .843 .347 -3.56 .77
Senior Sophomore -.566 .720 .861 -2.42 1.29
Junior .747 .653 .662 -.93 2.42
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
d) Providing care for dependents
(I) (J) Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Academic Academic Difference Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Status Status (I-J) Bound Bound
Sophomore 1.938 2.933 .912 -5.63 9.51
Freshman Junior -1.911 2.649 .888 -8.74 4.92
Senior -5.473 2.817 .212 -12.74 1.79
Freshman -1.938 2.933 .912 -9.51 5.63
Sophomore Junior -3.850 2.124 .269 -9.33 1.63
Senior -7.411‘ 2.330 .009 -13.42 -1.40
Freshman 1.911 2.649 .888 -4.92 8.74
Junior Sophomore 3.850 2.124 .269 -1.63 9.33
Senior —3 .562 1.960 .267 -8.62 1.49
Freshman 5.473 2.817 .212 -1.79 12.74
Senior Sophomore 7.41 l ' 2.330 .009 1.40 13.42
Junior 3.562 1.960 .267 -l .49 8.62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

259

Appendix J. Difference between Participants and Non-Participants of 4-H/FFA for Time
Use on Various Activities (hours/week)

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities r1 Mean (SD) t value p value
Preparing for class
Part' ' t . .
1c1pans 674 14 7 (11 3) 1.157 0.248
Non-participants 2076 15.3 (11.2)
Working for pay on—campus
Part' ' t
1c1pans 355 13.8 (6.6) 0.804 0.421
Non-part1c1pants 816 13.5 (6.6)
Working for pay off-campus
Part' ' ant
1c1p . s 290 16.4 (10.3) 1.122 0.262
Non-part1c1pants 714 17.1 (9.0)
Participating in co-curricular activities
Part' ' t
“3“”? ,3 533 6'6 1.786 0.074
Non-part1c1pants 1453 6.0
Relaxing and socializing
Part'c' ant
1 1p . s 667 14.2 (11.0) 4.821 0.001,,“
Non-partialpants 2048 16.9 (13.3)
Providing care for dependents
Part'c' ant
1 1p . s 112 10.2 (14.4) 1.103 0.271
Non-part1c1pants 290 12.2 (16.6)
Commuting to class
Partici ants . .
p , , 664 5 9 (3 8) 1.684 0.092
Non-part1c1pants 2047 4.9 (4.1)

 

*** Significant at 0.00] level

260

Appendix K. Difference between Members and Non-Members of National Honor
Society for Time Use on Various Activities (hours/week)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities 11 Mean (SD) t value p value
Preparing for class
M b . .
em ers 1101 16 5 (11 9) 1.811 0.070
Non-members 884 15.6 (12.0)
Working for pay on-campus
M b . .
em ers 510 13 0(61) 2323 002*
Non-members 319 14.1 (7.1)
Working for pay off-campus
M b
em ers 373 16.5 (9.1) 0.716 0.474
Non-members 312 17.0 (9.4)
Participating in co-curricular activities
M b
em ers 841 6.0 (6.3) 0.608 0.543
Non-members 585 5.8 (6.4)
Relaxing and socializing
M b . .
em ers 1086 160(12 7) 1.169 0243
Non-members 872 16.7 (13.9)
Providing care for dependents
M be
em rs 136 9.3 (13.6) 1.837 0.067
Non-members 168 12.4 (15.8)
Commuting to class
M b .
em ers 1085 5.1 (4 4) 0.612 0.540
Non-members 861 5.3 (4.0)

 

 

 

 

 

* Significant at 0.05 level

261

6.8:

6.8:

6.8:

6.8:

 

 

6.8:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:8 n: Re. «2. 6.8 :35
6.63 2.: 6.ch ca. 6.63 6% 6.3 an 6.96 no :85
6.9.6 3» 6.5 an 6.3V 6.8 6.3 62 6.63 ME .83
vacuumed
6.8: $8 6.8: a: 6.8: mm 6.8: E. 6.8: SN 38.
3.3 63 6.6: 62 6.3 6 66: mm 6.3 ..e. 6686 aeooam
6.68 6: 6.3 66 6.3 Se 6.68 as. 6.63 68 223
62:5
6.8: 28 6.8: a: 6.8: 36. 6.8: 5. 6.8: RN 3:
6.6V .2 6.8 a. 6.3 S. 6.3 8 6.6 mm .626 Ea as» 2
6.3V 82 6.3 £6 :46 «a. 6.36 ”2. 6.3 8m 28» em 92
ow<
6.8: 88 6.8: 2: 6.8: mm 6.8: Me. 6.8: 63 .33
:63 :2 6.66 3.. 9.63 66m 6.5 an». A28 ”2 225
6.8 $6 6.3 gm 6.3 a: 6.3 a: 6.3 mm 262
.6280
6.8: $8 6.8: 2: 6.8: 26 6.8: 0% 6.8: 6mm 38.
6.6: 8m 6.”: w: 6.5 62 6.0 2 2.8 6 66%
6.3.6 86 6.3 Sm 6.69 gm 6.63 ca 6.3 2: 863
6.3 a: 6.8V :2 6.3 as 6.5 3 6.8 p onesofiem
6.6: mom 6.4: :_ 6m: 6 6.6: 66 6.6: 2 5:26;
seem 2:623.
Qt do; 3°C .3; 3°C so: axe men 386 .62...
EB. 88 Son 88 88 8556866 ozaeweeoo
30> hogm

flcocam E250 no mozflefiogzo oE

 

 

 

250 A :2 <

262

 

 

6.8: $8 6.8: 26 6.8: mam 6.8: 5. 6.8: 5 Eek

 

6.5 $2 6.8V 68 SE oz. 6.5 am 6.68 62 oz

:63 Om... 6.6: 5 6.5 m: 6.va m: 6.5 6 66>
£65 a 8:63:66

6.8: $8 6.8: 36 6.8: NS 6.8: 84 6.8: 68 33

6.3.6 moo 6.3 ”2 6.36 am 6.3 EN 6.3 2: oz

6.3 2: 6.63 ea. 6.63 am 6.60 66 6.5 m2 8»

.3208 ~98: 3:23: mo 83:82

 

6.8: ”SN 6.8: m: 6.8: an 6.8: 69. 6.8: 68 BE

 

 

 

6.8 as 6.3 6 6.3 t. 6.3 6m 6.3 mm 2336-80
6.5 an: 6.86 6: 6.3V E. 66% 6? 6.8V 3m 366-5
958m monoEmom
$3 .36 exp .36 6% 462m 386 moi Aé moi
33 88 Sam coca 38 8858635 63683869
53> hogm

 

 

3055303 magnum 3350 60 85:88:25 ofiafionoQ ...— £226?

263

Appendix M. Perceptions about Major Courses and Faculty Help by Selected
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

fl
Prob.

 

 

Demographic characteristics n Mean (SD) t value (005)
Gender
Male 681 3.8 (0.6) 0.731 0.465
Female 1320 3.8 (0.6)
Age

Traditional undergraduates 1155 39 (0.6)

(18 yrs. to 24 yrs. Old) 1.527 0.127
Non-Traditional

undergraduates 82 3.8 (0.6)
(25 yrs. and older)

Ethnicity
White 1738 3.8 (0.6) 0.359 0.720
Students of Color 261 3.8 (0.6)

 

 

Residency status
In-State 1834 3.8 (0.6) 1.243 0.214

Out-of-State and International 165 3.9 (0.6)
Participation in 4-H/F FA club

 

 

during high school
Yes 446 3.3 (0.6) 0.204 0.839
No 1559 3.8 (0.6)

Member in national honor society

during high school
Yes 1106 3.9 (0.6) 1.980 0.048*

 

 

 

 

No 889 3.8 (0.6)

* Significant at 0.05 level.

 

264

Appendix N. Perceptions about Major Courses and Faculty Help by Academic Status
and Residency of Respondents

=

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic characteristics n Mean (SD) F value (1331;)
Academic status
Freshman 305 3.9 (0.5)
Sophomore 508 3.8 (0.6) 1.846 0.137
Junior 898 3.8 (0.6)
Senior 297 3.8 (0.6)
Residency
Rural community 875 3.8 (0.6)
Suburban community 913 3.8 (0.6) 0321 Q7”
Urban community 214 3.3 (0.6)

265

Appendix 0. Perceptions about Academic Advising by Selected Demographic
Characteristics of Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic characteristics 11 Mean (SD) t value (1333)
Gender
Male 677 3.9 (0.7) 0.983 0.326
Female 1293 3.9 (0.7)
Age
(Tlrgdylrtfltlglfingfsr-ggggams ”38 3'9 (0'7) 2.094 0.036*
Non-Traditional
undergraduates 80 4.1 (0.7)
(25 yrs. and older)
Ethnicity
White 1712 3.9 (0.7) 0.814 0.416
Students of Color 255 3.9 (0.7)
Residency status
In-State 1803 3.9 (0.7) 0.791 0.429
Out-of-State and International 165 3.9 (0.7)
Participation in 4-H/F F A club
during high school
Yes 435 3.8 (0.7) 1484 0001*"
No 1539 3.9 (0.7)
Member in national honor society
during high school
Yes 1087 3.9 (0.7) 0864 0.388
No 877 3.9 (0.7)

 

* Significant at 0.05 level.
*** Significant at 0.001 level.

266

Appendix P. Perceptions about Academic Advising by Selected Demographic
Characteristics of Respondents (continued)

 

 

Demographic characteristics n Mean (SD) F value df (1331;)
Academic status
Freshman 300 3.9 (0.7)
Sophomore 506 3.9 (0.7) 0.519 3, 1972 0.669
Junior 880 3.9 (0.7)
Senior 290 3.9 (0.7)
Residency
Rural community 870 39 (0.9)
Suburban community 897 3.9 (0.9) 0.447 2, 1968 0.640
Urban community 204 3.9 (0.9)

 

 

 

 

 

267

Appendix Q. Chi-square Test for Association between Selected Demographic
Characteristics and Courses taken at MSU Focusing on International Issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course taken with 2
Demographic Characteristics international focus Total X

Yes No Value
Freshman 73 235 308
Sophomore 169 349 5 1 3

Academic Status Junior 405 502 907 57.592***
Senior 138 162 300
Total 785 1248 2033
Male 293 395 688
Gender Female 490 849 1339 6.885"

Total 783 1244 2027
Traditional 735 1 163 1 898

Age Non-traditional 48 83 13 1 0.225
Total 783 1246 2029
White 676 1082 175 8

Ethnicity Students of Color 104 162 266 0.041
Total 780 1244 2024
Rural 344 542 886

Residence Urban 440 702 1142 0.019
Total 784 1 244 2028
In-state 720 I 136 1856

Residency Status Out-of-state 61 108 169 0.476
Total 781 1244 2025
. . . . Participant 156 293 449

9813;171:1321] "‘ Non-participant 629 953 1582 3711*
Total 785 1246 2031
Member 413 704 1117

Member of National Non-member 369 535 904 3.1 13
Honor Society Total 782 1239 2021

* Pearson Chi-square significant at 0.05 Alpha level.
"”" Pearson Chi-square significant at 0.0] Alpha level.
*** Pearson Chi-square significant at 0.001 Alpha level.

268

Appendix R. Chi-square Test for Association between Respondents’ Academic Status
and Frequency of International Issues and/or Case Studies Shared by Faculty Member in
the Classrooms

 

 

 

Academic Status X2
, . Total
Freshman Sophomore Junior Semor Value
Not at all 26 33 34 19 112
110w “Went." are Rarely 72 99 183 70 424
mtematlonal 1ssues
and/or case studies .
shared by C ANR Occasmnally 144 265 429 126 964 31 567"
facu'ty ‘" Frequently S6 93 199 63 411
classroom?
Regularly 9 19 62 21 l 1 1
Total 307 509 907 299 2022

** Pearson Chi-square significant at 0.01 Alpha level

269

Appendix S. Chi-square Test for Association between Selected Demographic
Characteristics and Involvement in International Research/Outreach Project

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Involvement in int]. 2
Demographic Characteristics research/ 00393911 Total X
Yes No Value
Freshman 13 292 305
Sophomore 28 478 506
Academic Status Junior 51 846 897 1.724
Senior 20 279 299
Total 1 12 1895 2007
Male 35 647 682
Gender Female 76 1244 13 20 0.3 36
Total 111 1891 2002
Traditional 98 1776 1 874
Age Non-traditional 13 116 129 5.419*
Total 1 1 1 1892 2003
White 85 1651 1736
Ethnicity Students of Color 26 236 262 10.966***
Total 111 1887 1998
Rural 41 832 873
Residence Urban 70 1059 l 129 2. 126
Total 111 1891 2002
In-state 97 173 7 1834
Residency Status Out-of-state 14 152 166 2.872
Total 1 1 1 1889 2000
. . . . Participant 21 421 442
Pmi‘ayggxn 1n Non-participant 90 1473 1 563 0.668
Total 1 l 1 1894 2005
Member 60 1038 1098
Member of National Non-member 50 847 897 0.01 1
Honor Society Total 110 1885 1995

* Pearson Chi-square significant at 0.05 Alpha level.
*** Pearson Chi-square significant at 0.001 Alpha level.

270

Appendix T. Chi-square Test for Association between Selected Demographic

Characteristics and Participation in Study Abroad

Participation in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Characteristics StUdX Abroad Total Vx

Yes No alue
Freshman 14 294 308
Sophomore 49 467 5 16

Academic Status Junior 122 785 907 27.775***

Senior 50 250 300
Total 235 1796 203 1
Male 69 166 235

Gender Female 617 1 172 1789 2.43 7
Total 686 1338 2024
Traditional 220 1675 1 895

Age Non-traditional l 5 l 16 1 3 1 0.003
Total 23 5 1791 2026
White 191 1565 1756

Ethnicity Students of Color 42 223 265 5.581 *
Total 233 1788 2021
Rural 87 798 885

Residence Urban 148 992 1140 4.825“
Total 235 1 790 2025
In-state 214 1640 1854

Residency Status Out-of-state 20 148 168 0.020
Total 234 1788 2022
. . . _ Participant 46 400 446

WEE/fig" ‘“ Non-participant 189 1393 1582 0.906
Total 235 1 793 2028
Member 139 976 l 1 15

Member of National Non-member 95 808 903 1.843
Honor Society Total 234 1784 2018

 

* Pearson Chi-square significant at 0.05 Alpha level.
*** Pearson Chi-square significant at 0.001 Alpha level.

271

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92: {6:4 $56 $03 $2: e\em.v_ e\em.e_ $Nd_ 30.50 ..\e
om: mm 3 Nmm mg: mg mi SN 38,—.
m o o _ o — o _ wztooiwsm ._._m< can mEonszm
a c _ o o c _ fl 320E85—
6 4 v w _ N N o 965..—
nm o N 2 n v o v oocofim =om can .35
co n v E m 3 M: v 0.52:8..5:
on v m 3 o 2 E a 09:25, EB 3:23;
NS 0 o a E m. E om momanoom .mox can econ ._Hw<
o: w E on a S on E mgo
me o N om S 2 S o... mimosa
2: m o G on t 2 a. 88.5680 one Ewen 6558:
a: 6 6 no 2 mm NN on see: 26 BEWMWMM
gm 2 2 mh S cm Nv em 8:25 3.5.544
£050 cosmegfifiou 8698: Fummwwfimw hobo 23:50 ”MHWHWMHQ
mac—“M“..oo . . 8500 3.500 8.500 .bgumm m_oonom\mEoEtamoD
20335888“;

 

 

 

Econowhfiofitaofl .3 mESmoi M720 95:3: 8 mcosmvcoEEooom .3 525996

272

Appendix V. Literature Review: Employers’ Ratings of Important Employable
Skills/Characteristics

 

Author(s) Academic Major(s) Important Employable Skills/Characteristics

Work ethic

Problem solving

Computer skills

Mathematical skills

Willingness to learn new concepts
Analytical skills

Financial skills

Agricultural Systems

Snyder (2003) Management

 

Character Traits and Professional Qualities
Leadership and Organizational Skills
Hands-on Abilities

Communication

Interpersonal Skills

Jogan and Herring

(2007) Equine program

 

Self-motivation

Responsible

Verbal communication

Ethical/professional

Able to learn new tasks

Team work

Able to apply knowledge/skills in workplace

Landscape

Berle (2007) Horticulture

 

Work ethic
Communication skills
Team skills

Problem solving skills
Business skills
Computer skills
Writ'fl skills

Penn State College of
Agricultural Sciences
(2004)

All agriculture
majors

 

Leadership ability

Communication ability

Project initiation and completion ability,
interpersonal skills

Teamwork ability

Barr and McNeilly
(2002)

0000.09.09.09.00.00.009000...

Marketing

 

Knowledge of Subject Matter
Knowledge of New Technology
Verbal Communication Skills
Leadership Skills

People Skills

Self-Starter

Computer Skills

Work Ethic

Reliability, and

Inclusive Decision Making

Cole and Thompson All agriculture
(2002) majors

9.090090...

 

273

Appendix V. Literature Review: Employers’ Ratings of Important Employable
Skills/Characteristics (continued)

 

Author(s) Academic Major(s) Important Employable Skills/Characteristics

0 Character traits
o Honesty, dependability, and integrity
0 Interpersonal
0 Leadership, teamwork, and dedication
9 Communication
Agricultural & 0 Listening, verbalizing, understanding
Extension Education instruction
0 Computer skills
0 Word processing, spreadsheet, database
0 Technical competencies
0 Agricultural sciences, mathematics,
biological sciences

Graham (2001)

 

0 Communication skills
0 Listening, Speaking
All agriculture 9 Leadership skills
majors - Problem solving, Team work
0 Computer skills
0 Quantitative, Information management

Andelt et al. (1997)

 

 

9 Writing (grammar)
9 Computer skills
0 Desktop Publishing, Word Processing,
Graphical Design, Networking and
Mangement

Terry and Bailey- Agricultural
Evans (1995) Communication

 

Interpersonal skills
Marketing skills
Business skills
Computer skills
General education skills

Baker and

MaCLaughlin (1995) Horticulture

 

......

Business skills

0 Human relations, Organizational, Managerial,
and Analytical thinking

Communication skills

Bruening and Scanlon

(1995) A gnbusmess

 

Interpersonal characteristics
Communication skills

Business and economic skills

Technical skills

Computer, quantitative and management
information

Litzenberg and

Schneider (1988) Agnbusmess

......

 

Communication skills
Leadership skills

Work experience

Grade point average (GPA)
Farm background

Letter of reference

Broder and Houston

(1986) A" agriculture

majors

......

 

274

Appendix W. Literature Review: Alumni Ratings of Important Employable
Skills/Characteristics

 

Author(s) Academic Major(s) Important Employable Skills/Characteristics

O Interpersonal skills: decision making,
organizational, time management,
initiative/self-motivation, and problem solving

9 Character skills: dependability, honesty,

Rutherford et al. Agricultural integrity, work ethic, competence, and
(2007) Education confidence as extremely important.

0 Communication skills: understand/follow

instructions, listening, and verbal expression

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Computer skills, intemet use and word
processing
0 Interpersonal (team work)
Garton and Robinson Agricultural . Communication . .
. 0 Planning and completing projects
(2006) Education . .
e Analysns and problem solvmg
9 Leadership skills
0 Communication Skills (Oral and Written)
. All agriculture 0 Problem Solving Techniques
Zekeri (2004) majors 0 Motivation and Managing Others
0 Goals Setting (Personal and Organizational)
. 0 Communication (oral and written)
Env1ronmental . Teamwork
Shah et al. (2004) Science and Heritage P l ’ . .
Conservation 0 ersona organization
— O Self-motivation
9 Technical skills (machinery management)
9 Analytical and data management
0 Communication skills
0 Creativity
Agricultural 0 Lateral thinking
0 2003 . .
para ( ) Engineering 9 Ability to work unsupervised
0 Being open to change and up-to-date with
technology
9 Ability to improvise with limited resources
0 Wide knowledge of the agricultural sciences
Gamon and Chestnut All agriculture . Communication skills
. 0 Computer expertise
(1995) majors . .
O Internships (work experience)
Barkley (199]) All agriculture 0 Communication skills .
majors 0 People skills (managing people and time)
6 Communication skills
Wheelock and Zekeri All agriculture 9 Analytical skills
(1988) majors 9 Organizational skills

.

Managerial skills

 

275

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8: mg 8.8: NNN 8.8: o: 8.8: x: 8.8: a 8.8: z: E;
ANNV _N 8.0 S 8.8 _ 9.8 m ad N 9: m 550
585:3
$8 v 6.8 N 3.8 _ Ge _ 8.8 o 8.8 o 232
ENC oN ad 2 SNV m ANNV v 2.: _ 3: m 555.33
SWOT—05
8.9 0N 8.9 N_ ed at 6.: m $8 0 ANNV v -52:
8.: 2 8.8 N @d v 3.8 _ 8.8 o 2.: N 2532:
6.3 new 8.5: NNN 3.5 m2 QNe o: 8.23 E cine a: 323
3085302
8.8; 88 8.8: NNN 8.8: o: 8.8: x: 8.8: 2: 8.8: :2 35
8.3 NS 9:8 EN 938 :_ 8.8V o: 8.3 o: 8.3 3 case;
A33 ”NV 3.3 we 59 mm 8.5 we 9.5 mm 8.3 8 2a:
8250
ex: ex: £3 E e ex: as:
.88 as 295.8 :55 A8 323° :5: Go 32.5.8 5% Go wsaméo =3: 38 3 359 85220823
8-88 >< 8-88 >< 8-88 >< 8-38 >< 3-88 >< 02%?an

 

 

 

 

 

 

39> o_Eov8<

 

meoEom wquesufiw mo moumtgoflfio oinfionoQ .X x6593.

276

Appendix X. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (continued)

 

Academic Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic characteristics AY 2006-07 AY 2007-08
(Fall 06-Spring 07) (Fall 07-Spring 08) Total
f (%) f (%) f (%)
Residence
Inarural area, onafarm 29 (17.0) 42 (12.7) 71 (14.1)
In a rural area, but not a farm 42 (24.6) 74 (22.3) 116 (23.1)
In a sub-urban community 84 (49.1) 182 (54.8) 266 (52.9)
In an urban community 16 (9.4) 34 (10.2) 50 (9.9)
Total 171 (100.0) 332 (100.0) 503 (100.0)
Residential Status
In—state student 158 (92.4) 304 (91.6) 462 (91.8)
Out-of-state student 11 (6.4) 23 (6.9) 34 (6.8)
International student 2 (1.2) S (1.5) 7 (1.4)
Total 171 (100.0) 332 (100.0) 503 (100.0)

 

* Residence and residential status were asked after 2006-07 academic year.

277

Appendix Y. Primary Major of Respondents (Spring 2004-Spring 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary major Frequency Percent
Packaging 1 89 1 7.6
Animal Science 145 13.5
Dietetics 82 7.6
Food Industry Management 63 5.9
Horticulture 56 5.2
Construction Management 56 5.2
Fisheries and Wildlife 55 5.1
Crop and Soil Science 54 5.0
Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources 43 4.0
Environmental Studies and Applications 43 4.0
Agribusiness Management 42 3.9
ANR Communication 36 3.4
Agriscience 36 3.4
Food Science 34 3.2
Interior Design 28 2.6
Landscape Architecture 24 2.2
Environmental Economics and Policy 21 2.0
Forestry 20 1.9
Entomology 1 5 1 .4
Biosystems Engineering 6 0.6
Environmental Soil Science 5 0.5
Plant Pathology 3 0.3
Technology Systems Management 1 0.]
Others 15 1.4

 

Total 1072 100.0

278

  

"'illijljjj

 

T

11111111111111.1111

   
 

RIES

ll