5. . ‘ : a? ._ ..J. ‘ 3.. it. 1 :94: .I. I :15). : 1 1?. A, .1 ‘51,... i... (5.2. I :nhfiw (in... 1.,.:» :m. J 3.5. . . x»..§. 517“ v 9 . \. ..: .u a ‘ t... 21.. . 3...: . .. Pflfi : .. nfi. 9...! Fa“. humid =2:;v;: 33%....an , inn“... .5? a» o .. tar—«av .. J u» ~|rn cg.“ 1” I! a . a : . .7 Jun” hfih.z..a|§vflnn :3 ‘19:.“ . O! l.) ‘5... 4‘1 :0 31,. ).I 5a.... :0 5.30:)...5 .1» y£ a. 72$? ““3 r .9138: strut}. . 3).. i In. .1? .: 23.6“ t... 29.1.1.5. 0. 1!. 4233,52... s 4 s. :3: 9 b x i263»: iota-I31 I 2.. .ifltusa tr.» :2"... A v I. r 1 ‘1)3533.’ 1.3.“... v I. . ' .l. clout lIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled BOYER'S PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY: FACTORS THAT CONNECT STUDENTS TO A UNIVERSITY presented by Sharon Lynn George has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. College and University degree in KaminIsEraEIon dig/39224504“) ajor professor Date 8/21/01 M5 U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 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 6/01 cJCiRC/DateDuepss-pJS _—__ BOYER’S PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY: FACTORS THAT CONNECT STUDENTS TO A UNIVERSITY By Sharon Lynn George A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College and University Administration 2001 ABSTRACT BOYER’S PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY: FACTORS THAT CONNECT STUDENTS TO A UNIVERSITY By Sharon Lynn George The purpose of this study was to deve10p and administer a survey instrument to determine what items were important and not important to undergraduate full-time students in feeling connected to a university. Also, the survey was developed to determine if there was a significant difference between how important these items were for respondents compared to how true they were perceived to be about Central Michigan University. The survey questions were developed from information gathered from twelve focus groups and research discussed in the literature review. The study focused on Boyer’s six principles of community as discussed in the report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1990) entitled Campus Life: In Search of Community. Boyer’s principles of community were educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative. The survey asked questions about several items for these principles and used a five point ordinal scale. When responding to the survey, students considered all but five items as very important or important. With the exception of one item in the disciplined community principle (#99 “rules are enforced concerning alcohol and drugs”), there was a statistically significant difference between level of importance and degree of trueness for every item. This did not necessarily indicate unhappiness with CMU because there were few untrue or very untrue responses on this survey. Out of nine scales rating both level of importance and degree of trueness, students ranked the Open Community Scale first for level of importance and fifth for degree of trueness. They ranked one of the scales for the caring principle (Opportunities for Friendship) as first for level of trueness and last for level of importance. Individual items listed for the Educationally Purposeful Scale regarding Faculty Characteristics and Teaching had some of the highest ratings for level of importance, yet the overall scale ranked fifih for level of importance and eighth for degree of trueness. The mean scores indicated that all the scales representing the principles were important to students. However, the mean scores for degree of trueness indicated that all scales were true with the exception of the Faculty Characteristics and Teaching (educationally purposeful principle) and Tradition Items (celebrative principle) which rated neutral. As a result of this research, the author believes that Boyer’s principles of community are important to students and therefore, should be important to higher education. Not only is community building and connectedness important but so are the skills necessary to develop such an environment. Such skills used for developing and nurturing positive friendships and developing connectedness in the university community are important to higher education. All members of the higher education community need to understand the importance of their individual roles in developing a coordinated effort and demanding high expectations of each other in creating a connected, united, educated community of learners. The researcher urges higher education to adopt, champion, and implement Boyer’s principles on campus and as a model for the nation. Copyright by SHARON LYNN GEORGE 2001 This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, (3000 and Knapper, and my friends, Maureen Conner and Laurie Braden. Each of you, in your own way, made this a reality. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Working on a dissertation certainly does not add to your “sense of community” or “connectedness” because you really do not have time to be part of anything. If you aren’t studying, you spend all your time worrying about what you should be studying at that moment. Relationships dissolve because you aren’t present emotionally or you are preoccupied and cranky. Friendships and family seem to go on hold. You find you do not have anything to say because you are thinking about your research — which no one understands or really even cares about any more. How could they? You’ve been talking about nothing else for years! But it is to all of you, my family and friends that I salute. You stuck with me and encouraged me and endured my absence — or maybe enjoyed it, I don’t know. I say thank you to all of you from the bottom of my soul. By the way, I know about the bets that were made as to when or if I would finish! Thanks for your support, understanding, patience, and love. The topic of this project was a result of the people in my life and what I have learned from all of you about community building, the importance of feeling connected to each other, and teaching and learning about friendship and loving. I have truly been blessed in my life. A special thanks to my advisor, Dr. Marylee Davis. I thank you for your positive encouragement, expertise, and friendship through the years. Thanks to committee member Marilyn Amey, you were helpful, insightful, and extremely knowledgeable about research on higher education. Thanks to committee members Rhonda Egidio and Brad Greenberg for your feedback and patience. Thanks to Maureen Conner, Susan vi Clarkson, Felix F emoye, Ray Christie, Shelly and Ed Hinck, Joan Schmidt, Shaun Holtgrevie, Rapaport, Hugh Rohrer, and Mark Minnelli, for your assistance with statistics, editing, reviewing, brainstorming sessions, focus groups, suggestions, and especially your friendship and sense of camaraderie. Strong feelings of gratitude to Gregory Gruley, especially for your computer and APA expertise; this project would have never been completed if not for you! Thanks to Bruce Roscoe, Mike Owens, the Office of the Dean of Students, and the Office of Student Life. A special thanks to many, many friends. For your patience, understanding, and laughter: Maureen Conner and Jim Porter, Joan Schmidt, Marcy Weston, Stacy Saul and Vannie Shurtliff, Merlyn Mowery and Miklos Ferber, Cheryll Nordin, Kim Samelstad, Carla and Gary Arbogast, Steve Grenus, Doug Janes, Bill Mordica, Sandi and Marc Tenser, Lisa Diaz, Anne and Eric Monroe, Pam Fitzgerald, Louise Sause, Rhonda Ostrowsky, Bonnie Beresford, Terrie Robbie, Dyke Heinze, Kay and Glenn Starner, Joyce and Gerry Carter, Sharon and Bob Ebner, Vicki and Shannon Ebner, and Carolyn Hancock. A special thanks to my neighbors and friends: Carol and Paul Weber, Judy and Hugh Rohrer, Rosie and Vern Hoag, and Joyce and Keith Wright. Thanks to Louise and Leonard Plachta, you both were always there to cheer me on to the finish. Many thanks to our family: Sadie, Richard and Jane, Susan, Barbara and Paul, M.J., Terry, Charlie and Cindy, Kay, Michael and Vaughn, all your children and our parents, 0060 and Knapper. Also special thanks to Monica and Veronica Brunetti, Krista Numberger, and Laurie Braden. Thanks to all of you for your love and encouragement; you never doubted that I would finish. vii In conclusion, I feel very blessed. All of you have given true value to my life because you taught me how to love and how to be loved. Truly, my family and friends will always be my greatest asset. Thanks for your support. If I ever get the opportunity to facilitate a class or workshop on deve10ping skills for building community or connectedness, I would use episodes from the old television program entitled “Northern Exposure” as a teaching tool. There are wonderful lessons from that program — watch it again, sometime! viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 Introduction and Statement of the Problem ..................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... General Background and Significance of the Problem ................................... 4 The Carnegie Foundation Report’s Six Principles Comprising Community on Campus ....................................................................... 5 Characteristics of College Students and Their Significance to Connectedness .................................................. 9 Community and Connectedness Questioned ................................................... 13 Future Needs ................................................................................................... l4 CMU on Community and Connectedness ....................................................... 17 Research Questions Regarding What Students Think About Community Building and Connectedness ........................................... 20 Research Design and Limitations .................................................................... 20 Summary ......................................................................................................... 23 Definition of Terms ......................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................................. 26 Defining Community on Campus ................................................................... 26 The Carnegie Foundation Report’s Six Principles Comprising Community on Campus ....................................................................... 27 Educationally Purposeful Community ............................................................ 29 Seamless Learning Environment ......................................................... 30 Faculty Characteristics and Teaching Factors ..................................... 32 Open Community ............................................................................................ 36 Freedom of Expression ....................................................................... 37 Civility and the Classroom .................................................................. 39 Just Community ............................................................................................... 4O Disciplined Community .................................................................................. 44 Carolinian Creed and Honor Codes .................................................... 45 Academic Integrity .............................................................................. 46 In Loco Parentis .................................................................................. 47 Community Standards Model .............................................................. 48 Alcohol Abuse ..................................................................................... 48 Caring Community .......................................................................................... 49 Involvement ......................................................................................... 50 Campus Ethos: Caring, Mattering, and Encouraging Positive Peer Friendship .......................................................... 52 Faculty and Student Friendship ........................................................... 56 Volunteerism, Citizenry, and Activism ............................................... 60 Celebrative Community .................................................................................. 64 Prior Research at Central Michigan University .............................................. 67 Summary ......................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 77 Central Michigan University ........................................................................... 77 Rationale for Using Focus Groups .................................................................. 78 Characteristics of the Students Who Participated in the Focus Groups .......... 80 Focus Group Logistics .................................................................................... 84 Focus Group Facilitators ................................................................................. 85 Focus Group Process and Recording Feedback .............................................. 86 Focus Group Questions ................................................................................... 87 Coding and Analyzing the Responses ............................................................. 88 Observations from the Focus Groups .............................................................. 89 Educationally Purposeful Community ................................................ 89 Open Community ................................................................................ 91 Just Community ................................................................................... 91 Disciplined Community ...................................................................... 91 Caring Community .............................................................................. 92 Celebrative Community ...................................................................... 94 The Research Questions .................................................................................. 95 Development of the Survey Instrument (Appendix H) ................................... 95 Disseminating and Collecting the Survey ....................................................... 99 Random Sampling Methodology and Analyzing the Responses .................... 100 Summary ......................................................................................................... 101 CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .............................................. 102 Overview of the Study ..................................................................................... 102 The Sample ...................................................................................................... 102 Demographic Factors (#1 - #12) ..................................................................... 103 Design of the Scales ........................................................................................ 106 Educationally Purposeful Community Faculty Characteristics and Teaching Items in Order of Importance (#25 - #64) ......................................... 107 General Academic Items in Order of Importance (#65 - #72) ............ 111 Open Community Items in Order of Importance (#73 - #90) ........................................... 111 Just Community Items in Order of Importance (#149 - #168) ....................................... 113 Disciplined Community Items in Order of Importance (#91 - #100) ......................................... 115 Caring Community Friendship and Caring Items in Order of Importance (#101 - #132) ........................................................ 118 Caring Community Internet Communication Items in Order of Importance (#143 - #148) ........................................................ 120 Caring Community Student Organization and Activity Participation Items (#13 - #24) ................................................ 122 Caring Community Opportunities for Friendship Items in Order of Importance (#169 - #194) ........................................................ 123 Caring Community Reasons Given for Not Developing New Friendships in Order of Importance (#195 - #201) ..................................... 125 General Questions Regarding Influential People to students at CMU in Order of Importance (#234) .................... 127 Celebrative Community Tradition Items in Order of Importance (#133 - #142) ....................... 129 Celebrative Community Entertainment Items in Order of Importance (#224 - #227) ............... 131 Celebrative Community Campus Event Items in Order of Involvement and Knowledge (#202 - #216) ................................................. 131 Celebrative Community Campus Tradition Items in Order of Knowledge (#217 - #223) ....................................................... 132 General Question Regarding how Important Campus Traditions are in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU (#228) .............................................. 134 Boyer’s Principles: Scales in Order of Importance and in Order of Trueness ......................................................... 134 Demographic Factors and General .................................................................. 136 CHAPTER FIVE MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................ 137 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 3 7 Overview of the Study ..................................................................................... 137 xi Research Questions Regarding What Students Think About Community Building and Connectedness ..................... 138 Discussion of Major Findings and Implications ............................................ 138 Educationally Purposeful Community ................................................ 139 Open Community ................................................................................ 142 Just Community ................................................................................... 144 Disciplined Community ...................................................................... 146 Caring Community .............................................................................. 147 Celebrative Community ...................................................................... 151 Demographic Factors and Selected General Question Responses .................. 153 Recommendations Regarding Boyer’s Principles ........................................... 154 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 156 Future Research ............................................................................................... 159 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 164 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 1 86 A. UCHRIS Approval .................................................................................... 186 B. IRB Approval ............................................................................................ 188 C. Charge to Students .................................................................................... 190 D. Informed Consent ...................................................................................... 192 E. Focus Group Questions ............................................................................. 194 F. Campus Traditions .................................................................................... 198 G. Origin of Survey Questions ....................................................................... 201 H. Survey ........................................................................................................ 212 1. Letter to Survey Participants ..................................................................... 221 J. Email Reminder to Participants ................................................................. 223 K. Demographic Factors and General Question Responses ........................... 225 Question Responses ................................................................................... 225 Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in helping Students Feel Connected to CMU (#228) ........ 225 Level of Connectedness to CMU (#229) ....................................... 227 Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU, a Factor in Academic Success (#230) .................... 229 Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers: a factor in Feeling Connected to CMU (#233) .................. 231 Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU (#235) ...................................................................... 233 xii Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Page . Composition of Focus Groups ......................................................................... 84 Educationally Purposeful Community Faculty Characteristics and Teaching Items in Order of Importance ........................... 108 Educationally Purposeful Community General Academic Items in Order of Importance ......................................................... 112 Open Community Items in Order of Importance ............................................ 114 Just Community Items in Order of Importance ............................................... l 16 Disciplined Community Items in Order of Importance .................................. 1 l7 Caring Community Friendship & Caring Items in Order of Importance .................................................................................... 119 Caring Community Internet Communication Items in Order of Importance .................................. 121 Caring Community Student Organization and Activity Participation Factors ................................ 122 Caring Community Opportunities for Friendship Items in Order of Importance ........................... 124 Caring Community Reasons Given for Not Developing New Friendship Factors in Order of Importance ....................................................................... 126 Celebrative Community Tradition Items in Order of Importance .......................................................... 130 Celebrative Community Entertainment Items in Order of Importance .................................................. 131 Celebrative Community Campus Event Items in Order of Involvement and Knowledge ..................... 133 xiii 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Celebrative Community Campus Tradition Items in Order of Knowledge ............................................ 134 Boyer’s Principles: Scales in Order of Importance ......................................... 135 Boyer’s Principles: Scales in order of Trueness ............................................. 136 Class Standing and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU .......................................................................................... 225 Gender and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU ............................... 225 Ethnic Group and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU ................. 225 Semesters in the Residence Hall and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU .................................................................................. 226 Hours per Week Studying and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU .................................................................................. 226 Hours per Week Worked and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU .................................................................................. 226 Work Location and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU ................. 227 Class Standing and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU ........................... 227 Gender and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU ....................................... 227 Ethnic Group and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU ............................. 227 Semesters in the Residence Hall and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU ................................................................................... 228 Hours per Week Studying and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU ................................................................................... 228 30. Hours per Week Worked and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU ................................................................................... 228 xiv 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Work Location and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU .......................... Class Standing and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success ............................ Gender and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success ......................................... Ethnic Group and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success ......................................... Semesters in the Residence Hall and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success Hours per Week Studying and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success Hours per Week Worked and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success Work location and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success ............................ Class Standing and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers 3 Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU .......................................................................................... Gender and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU ..................... Ethnic Group and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU .......................................................................................... Semesters in the Residence Hall and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU ................................................. Hours per Week Studying and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU ............................................................. Hours per Week Worked and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU ............................................................. XV 229 229 229 229 230 230 230 231 231 231 232 232 232 233 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Work Location and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU .......................................................................................... 233 Class Standing and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU .......................................................................................... 233 Gender and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU ....................... 234 Ethnic Group and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU .......................................................................................... 234 Semesters in the Residence Hall and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU .................................................................... 234 Hours per Week Studying and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU .......................................................................................... 235 Hours per Week Worked and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU .......................................................................................... 235 Work Location and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU .......................................................................................... 235 xvi Chapter One Introduction Introduction and Statement of tip Problem The past fifteen years have been challenging times for higher education. David Mathews (1996), president of the Kettering Foundation confirmed the public’s growing disenchantment with education. Dan Angel (1990), in remarks delivered at the Emerging Leaders Institute at the University of Michigan, reported that public criticism regarding higher education focused on four points: high costs, uncertain quality, confusion of goals, and inadequate response to key national problems. These challenges were also reported by Mercer (1993), Ginsberg (1995), Plachta (1992, 1993, 1994), and Mitchell (1999). The Wingspread Group on Higher Education (Johnson Foundation, 1993) challenged higher education to assure students would “graduate as individuals of character more sensitive to the needs of community, more competent to contribute to society, and more civil in habits of thought, speech, and action” (p. 23). They stressed the importance of putting student learning first on the educational agenda, demanding more of students, and promoting citizenship and civic values in the curriculum such as respect for the views of others. Horton (in Wingspread Group on Higher Education, Johnson Foundation, 1993) stated higher education should be “more relevant to finding solutions to poverty, racism. . .and other social problems” (p. 99). A recent Kellogg Commission report stated, “the biggest educational challenge we face revolves around developing character, conscience, citizenship, tolerance, civility, and individual and social responsibility in our students” (cited in Schroeder, 1998, p. 5). The report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1990) entitled Campus Life: In Search of Community (referred to as the Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990) identified two distinct needs in higher education. They included the need to begin a national dialogue on community building and the need to challenge higher education to define its role in developing ways to create and strengthen the campus community. Under the direction of Ernest L. Boyer, the Carnegie Foundation reported results of a yearlong effort to consider social conditions on campus. It concluded that the breakdown of civility between students, unhealthy separation between in-class and out- of-class activities, and shallow commitment to academic life as concerns of campus presidents. In short, “it became apparent during [the] study that the quality of campus life has been declining, at least in part, because the commitment to teaching and learning is diminished” (Boyer in Carnegie Foundation Report, p. 3). Research suggested that a traditional campus community was “one of sharing, caring, of collaboration and mutuality, homogeneity, and constant, demanding conformity. It witnessed a sense of shared commitment among colleagues, and boasted generations of history and continuity” (Gardner, 1989, cited in Baker, 1994, p. 1). According to researchers, these were not the characteristics of today’s colleges and universities. Strange (1996) stated “the creation and maintenance of community on campus is particularly challenging to educators, especially at institutions that are redundant or fragmented by various subgroups” (p. 263). That “which contributes to strong subcommunities usually detracts from the community of the whole. . ..” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992, p. 154). Cross (1998) noted that the diversity of students attending college made it difficult to choose community principles that were accepted by all students as well as any one single learning method deemed appropriate for all students. However, the overlapping values, norms, and symbols of group identity were some of the factors necessary to insure common experiences for students, faculty and staff (Kuh, 1999). The Carnegie Foundation Report found community building to be a challenge for college presidents. It was obvious, according to those surveyed in this report, that students felt disconnected from campuses and developing some sense of community would be difficult. Of particular concern was whether students of color developed a sense of connectedness. However, there was no evidence “that students who belong to ethnic- specific groups choose to isolate themselves from the campus, or that their participation in these groups hamper their involvement with the campus and other groups” (Smith & Schonfeld, 2000, p. 19). They also suggested that student involvement in “population specific” (p. 18) services and resources such as ethnic theme houses, support centers, or academic departments contributed to the development of community. “Healthy subcommunities are not enough. . .in today’s complex and diverse world, more than ever, students and everyone else working on our campuses, must connect with the institution” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992, p. 151). Purpose of the Study This research addressed the issue of connecting today’s undergraduate students to institutions of higher education — the American university. To this end, a survey was developed and administered to answer two research questions. What items were important and not important to undergraduate full-time students in feeling connected to a university? Was there a significant difference between how important these items were for respondents compared to how true they were perceived to be about Central Michigan University (CMU)? The study focused on the Carnegie Foundation Report’s six principles of what a learning community should consist of, because according to Chickering and Reisser (1993), the characteristics of connectedness or community building were “also markers for developmentally powerful learning environments” (cited in Kuh, 1996, p. 135). Gardner (1989) also focused on characteristics of an effective community, which were very similar to the Carnegie Foundation Report’s findings. It should be noted that in 1991, Janosik developed a survey instrument based on Boyer’s (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990) six principles that shape community on college and university campuses. According to the survey directions, it could “help individuals interested in campus climate measure the level of community at a particular campus. It could also be used to measure the differences in perception among various groups and individuals” (Janosik, 1991, p.1) and measure progress over time. The survey contained 36 general statements with a five point Likert scale. According to an email communication in June 2000, the survey had been used at Virginia Tech and the University of Delaware. Neither study had been published or was available for review. General Background and Significance of the Problem In 1990, Ernest Boyer (Carnegie Foundation Report) introduced the need for the establishment of community on university campuses. According to Boyer (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990): the start of the new decade presents perhaps the most challenging moment in higher education in forty years. . .It affords us the unusual opportunity for American colleges and universities to return to their roots and to consider not more regulations, but the enduring values of a true learning community. (p. xii) Boyer introduced six principles that "provide an effective formula for day-to-day decision making on campus and, taken together, define the community every college and university should strive to be” (p. 32). The Carnegie Foundation Report suggested that a university should be educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and a celebrative community. Also, Gardner (1989, pp. 77-81) listed the following factors in defining the modern community: wholeness incorporating diversity; good internal communication; caring, trust, and teamwork; group maintenance and government; participation and the sharing of leadership tasks; development of young people; and links with the outside world. The Carnegie Foundation Report’s Six Principles Comprising Community on Cam us “First, a college or university is an educationally purposeful community, a place where faculty and students share academic goals and work together to strengthen teaching and learning on campus” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 9). According to the Carnegie Foundation Report, this means that the learning environment is not divided. Learning occurs in and outside the classroom through events and activities that support the educational mission of the university. Connectedness starts in the classroom because faculty members care about students and engage them in active learning. Students are encouraged to be creative and are inspired to continue learning after their college days. There are social and academic events that both faculty and students are encouraged to attend. Being active on campus is encouraged and supported as well as attending theatre, musicals, and lectures on campus because it is part of the intellectual environment. Academic and student affairs support each other for the welfare of the ieneral studies and departments are integrative. Students understand how together — things are not fragmented. Fecond, a college or university is an open community, a place where freedom of I is uncompromisingly protected and where civility is powerfully affirmed” Foundation Report, 1990, p. 17). Freedom of expression, according to the ioundation Report, is the quality of communication between students measured and civility. Students listen and speak carefully to each other. Free speech and are balanced. “. . .Good communication means listening carefully, as well, and moments of genuine understanding. . .we can expect everyone to respect the dignity of everyone else” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 23). Students ty and staff with respect. hird, a college or university is a just community, a place where the sacredness rson is honored and where diversity is aggressively pursued” (Carnegie it Report, 1990, p. 25). A diverse community, according to the Carnegie n Report, is a university that “serves the full range of citizens in our society "’ (p. 25) and is equitable and fair. This includes support for all populations gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, older students, international, eligious groups, students from all economic backgrounds and so forth. “striking a balance between special groups and the larger community is an challenge” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 30). Academic communities :veloped in which “people learn to respect and value one another for their 5, while at the same time defining the values shared by all those who join the as scholars and as citizens” (p. 35). Gardner (1989) stated that good communities incorporate and value diversity. The Carnegie Foundation Report (1990, p. 32) stressed the importance of building racial, cultural, and economic understanding through in class and out of class educational programs. “Fourth, a college or university is a disciplined community, a place where individuals accept their obligations to the group and where well defined governance procedures guide behavior for the common good” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 37). A disciplined community, according to the Carnegie Foundation Report, states what is expected of students both in the classroom and out of the classroom. This includes that students are responsible and accountable for their behavior through a code of conduct that sets the standards for social and academic matters. Students should be held to high academic standards by faculty. Gardner (1989) stated that good communities have group maintenance processes and governance structure that encourage participation and sharing of leadership tasks. “Fifth, a college or university is a caring community, a place where the well- being of each member is sensitively supported and where service to others is encouraged” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 47). A caring community, according to the Carnegie Foundation Report, involves students making a connection between what they learn and how they live. Students need to build bridges across the generations, they need to reach out to others, to children, to adults, to those not as fortunate as themselves. Students need to understand the reality of their dependence on each other. Students need to know that faculty and staff care about them, that they matter to the university and to each other. They are more than a “customer” to the university. The development of friendship with other students is significant and planned. Gardner (1989) stated that good communities promote care, trust, teamwork and foster internal communication. Membership in student organizations such as student government, the student newspaper, intercollegiate athletics, campus sports teams, greeks, entertainment organizations, and residence hall organizations is a special way to meet people and “bond”. This principle also supports the bonding or caring that can develop through academic clubs and academic majors. The precaution with this “bonding” is the negative influence of “little loyalties” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, pp. 48-49). The concern with such groups within learning communities is that a strong identity with an involved academic program or greek organizations can give a feeling of security but can also create isolation from the greater organization. “Sixth, a college or university is a celebrative community, one in which the heritage of the institution is remembered and where rituals affirming both tradition and change are widely shared” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 55). A celebrative community, according to the Carnegie Foundation Report, has its own traditions and heritage. The university has ritual and ceremony and yet, can be fun, cause pride or other positive emotions. This includes activities such as convocation, sporting events, certain programs such as black history month, commencement, orientation activities, etc. Gardner stated that communities have a shared culture. Special landmarks, attractive buildings and beautiful places on campus also add to the distinctiveness and tradition. “A healthy community affirms itself and builds morale and motivation through ceremonies and celebrations that honor the symbols of shared identity and enable members to rededicate themselves” (Gardner, 1989, p. 77). Characteristics of College Students and Their Significance to Con‘nectedness The literature on the importance of community and connection on campus was convincing and significant. An overview of recent work regarding student characteristics and their expectations of education was also significant to this paper. Consider the following student characteristics as reported by various researchers and the effect on developing community or a community of learners at a university. Levine and Cureton’s book, When Hope and Fear Collide: A Portrait of Today ’3 College Student (l998d), and subsequent articles from this research (19983, 1998b, 1998c), reached the following conclusions about today’s students: Comparing colleges to bank services, students did not want “softball leagues, religious counseling, health services” (Levine & Cureton, 1998a, p. 14). They could do that for themselves and cheaper. Students did not want to pay for services they did not use. They wanted the same type of service expected from other commercial establishments: “convenience, quality, service, and cost” (Levine & Cureton, 1998a, p. 14). Faculty should give them the education they wanted. According to Levine and Cureton (l998d), students seemed to be overwhelmed and more damaged than in the past. They came from one-parent families, had more eating disorders, caused more classroom disruptions, more drug and alcohol abuse, more gambling problems, and more suicide attempts then previous generations. They were fiightened of the world, the economy, terrorism, and of not getting good jobs. They expected the university to take care of their personal problems. Students feared intimacy but had lots of sex. They dated differently because they rarely had witnessed successful adult romantic relationships; instead students participated in “unpartnered packs” (Levine & Cureton, 1998c, p. 7). They believed they could be successful but feared relationships, romance and were concerned about future happiness. Students described themselves as “tired” (Levine & Cureton, 1998a, p. 15). They seemed to be loners and wanted single rooms. The residence hall rooms had televisions so they no longer needed to use the community lounge as in the past. They were leaving campus to have fun. Drinking was the primary form of entertainment with more binge drinking occurring than ever before. Levine and Cureton (1998d) continued by stating the following characteristics: Civility was declining. Different ethnic groups did not mix. Students seemed to be uncomfortable expressing unpopular or controversial opinions and did not want to discuss diversity. They were doing only what was necessary to get a job, and were very career and task oriented. They were not really at the university to learn to get along with people and formulate values and goals as in the 60’s — this was now at the bottom of their list. Levine and Cureton (1998d) also found that students did better in class through active learning rather than just lectures. Students needed remedial and developmental education. Faculty and students spent less time together. About twenty-eight percent of students enrolled for college took five years to graduate. Finances were a major issue, which caused students to drop out or postpone graduation. Losyk (1997, pp. 39-44) called “Generation X” home alone individualists, 40% came from broken homes where they had a great deal of responsibility at a young age, and they were freedom-minded and self-absorbed. Losyk predicted these students 10 probably had better family values because they resented their own upbringing in “dysfunctional families”. They stayed at home longer so they could spend their money on other things. Losyk (1997) also found that students were not dedicated to work, because life began after work. They questioned faculty and their bosses and did not like taking orders. They expected a whole lot for nothing. They resented phony hype and had a need to be noticed. They were computer literate with the Internet and comprehended software programs quickly. They expected shorter workweeks because technology could assist them in being more productive. Although arriving at a different conclusion than Levine and Cureton (1998d), Losyk (1997) stated students would be able to communicate and get along better with people from different ethnic backgrounds. This was because the changing demographics in today’s society led to more exposure to different ethnic groups. The Dehne Report (1998) added the following characteristics regarding young students: The latch key generation was extremely independent, yet very insecure in dealing with people outside their home and immediate family. Parents seemed to be very involved in settling the student’s problems on campus. There was an increased demand on counseling services regarding relationships, roommates and professors. Males seemed to be less prepared in interpersonal skills and seemed to like being detached. Dehne (1998) found students wanted to be told exactly what they needed to know and had trouble connecting theory to their own reality. They did not understand the importance of liberal education. Coming from a video and television generation, they read very little and had trouble thinking abstractly. ll According to Dehne (1998), they controlled a great deal of spending and were very savvy beyond their years, which impacted higher education. They seemed to be even more sensitive than their parents about what they were willing to pay. Students were not willing to give up designer jeans, sneakers, or cars, in order to attend a high cost institution. Many worked to purchase, not necessarily to pay tuition. They think locally, “but ignore globally” (Dehne, 1998, p. 3) and believed they had no control over the big picture, but could have some control over the little picture. An example of this was that they might demonstrate over increased tuition, but not national policy. They were more prepared for a highly global, diverse, and high-tech environment. Newton (2000) interviewed 200 students at Kansas State University and communicated with colleagues at thirty different college campuses to discover who made up the “millennial student” (p. 80). His research showed the following: Students were much more grown up; they were the most informed generation to have lived but were emotionally deficit; and they had no systematic way of managing their money, time, personal health, or problem-solving. Students were less likely to be paired-off as couples but participated in more group activities and had many brief sexual encounters. They experienced extremely high levels of stress and anxiety and had more psychological disorders. Changing gender role expectations were influencing their stress and pressures. Students were beyond their parents technically with regard to computer knowledge. Their commitment to schoolwork diminished and part-time employment during college in order to maintain a certain life style was very common. Students had very unrealistic expectations about what it took to achieve their ambitious career goals. Although they knew the campus community rules and regulations as well as expected political 12 correctness, there was very little moral or personal commitment to expected behavior. Their concern was not getting caught breaking the rules. They believed in local volunteerism. The characteristics listed by these authors described self-absorbed, disconnected, disinterested, and very troubled students. They were not easy candidates for community building programs or activities intended to increase connectedness. Community and Connectedness Questioned In a recent New York Times article, Herszenhom (1999) stated that while some students wanted more supervision of their lives, just as many were offended with the community building on campus or what was interpreted as paternalism. As research by Levine and Cureton (1998d), Losyk (1997), and Dehne (1998) noted, Herszenthom commented that the restructuring of undergraduate life was a response to consumer values of recent years. Both parents and students were demanding better living environments, better food, better safety, and better service for the tuition dollar. June (1998) quoted a Business Week (Hammonds & Jackson, 1997) article that stated the public expected the university to be run more like the $250 billion business that it had become. Groccia (1997) and Hughey (1999) discussed the student as customer versus the student as learner. Higher education had copied the business world due to the competitive pressure to attract students in the early 19905. Students had contracted for “goods and services and an opportunity to learn in an organization that is in the business of selling opportunities to learn” (Groccia, 1997, p. 31). They deserved efficient procedures for registration, food, safe living conditions and satisfaction with the “mechanics or policies 13 of instruction and the quality of campus life” (Groccia, 1997, p. 32). They deserved quality faculty, computers that worked, clear syllabi, and the opportunity to give constructive feedback regarding solutions to campus concerns. Hughey (1999) suggested students deserved easy procedures and policies that made sense and were easy to understand. In personal interviews with students for this research, such factors were listed as strong connectors to the university. However, Groccia (1997) pointed out that the student as a customer could not possibly understand all that was necessary for the concept of learning because it “often involves some discomfort, disequilibrium, and challenge” (p. 31). According to Groccia (1997), because students had to take responsibility for their own learning, education was the result of their efforts and not just a service they could purchase. As Levine and Cureton (1998d) stated, students of today did not understand “customer service” as it related to college campuses. Future Needs Adelman (1999) stated that the population of 18-24 year olds enrolling in college would increase drastically in the next ten years. He reviewed population statistics and gave some sobering speculation about whether there was enough room to meet the needs of students in the future. Many campuses had overwhelming waiting lists for residence halls and debated with faculty about the time and day classes should be taught to meet student needs. Frances, Pumerantz, and Caplan (1999) gave strong arguments for future planning with regards to university physical plants to accommodate so many students. Since 1980, according to Levine (cited in Green, 1999) most of the growth in higher education has been the non-traditional age student (over 25 years of age). 14 However, Adelman (1999) stated that higher education was not really ready to meet the needs of all the citizens who would be interested in higher education in the future. The life-long learner, the person who wanted to improve certain skills for their present position, or the non-traditional student who just could not leave the house would need to be accommodated through instructional technology (Frances et al., 1999). Yet, Peter Drucker (cited in Green, 1999) and Irby ( 1999) said the residential colleges wouldn’t survive distance learning or certificate programs set up by businesses. Levine and Cureton (l998d) also cited studies between 1992 and 1997 that stated the living-leaming community was dead or dying on most campuses today. The high cost of education continued to make economic class an access issue with the residential college. Students continued to question if the four-year degree was worth the cost for all the hinges (Levine & Cureton, l998d). The American College Personnel Association (ACPA) tried to “determine how changes in higher education. . .will influence students’ educational experiences in order to prepare professionals to serve students” (Johnson & Cheatham, 1999, p. 31). Senior scholars from several universities and national organizations submitted the following issues for higher education: access and success for diverse learners, technology, collaborative partnerships, accountability, affordability, learning and teaching in the twenty-first century, work environment, and changing governmental roles (such as court decisions, special interest group agendas, new regulations, etc.). In the report entitled ACPA’s Higher Education Trends for the Next Century, a question was raised as to whether technology could “pose a significant threat to the goals and educational effectiveness of ‘involving colleges’ (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, Andreas, 15 Lyons, Strange, Krehbie & MacKay, 1991) unless it is reconceived in ways that will accommodate a broader conception of student learning or student affairs can develop new ways to promote those goals” (Upcrafi, Terenzini & Kruger, 1999, p. 33). The involved college is one that adheres to the Boyer and Gardner’s principles on developing community. Technology has already proven that students really do not even have to step h foot on a college campus. Many articles were reviewed regarding the virtual campus. 1 There seemed to be conflicting information about technology: some faculty claimed to have stronger and more effective discussion groups on the Internet regarding their classes (Trinkle, 1999) and some students claimed they did not have strong experiences through technology (Frances et al., 1999). Strong class discussion and faculty interaction is an important form of connectedness (Boyer, 1990; Kuh et al., 1991). The Carnegie Foundation Report stated that the following principles define the ideal campus community: an educationally purposeful community, an open community, a just community, a disciplined community, a caring community and a celebrative community. Boyer (in Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990) thought that this would be a campus compact, a “framework that not only could strengthen the spirit of community on campus, but also provide, perhaps, a model for the nation” (p. 8). After reviewing characteristics of today’s students by Levine and Cureton (1998d), Losyk, Dehne (1998), and Newton (2000) there seemed to be similarities between the disconnected 18 to 24 year olds now on college campuses and the adult learner discussed by Brookfield (1999). Although the focus of this study was the full- time student population, a study by F auber (1996) regarding adult students was significant. Results from this study indicated that persistence of adult students was not 16 affected by their perception of the educational environment support and responsiveness to student needs or mattering. In other words, developing community was not relevant to whether they finished college. However, a study on adult learners completed by Graham and Long Gisi (2000), found that the “students sense of the college’s core values [educational ethos] and their perceived concern for students appeared to have much more of an effect than the amount of time students spend becoming more involved in various activities” (p. 99). Both points were considered connectedness factors. Kuh et a1. (1991) commented that developing community might be impossible because of all the subcultures on today’s campuses. Developmental trends of students should be based on societal issues such as more independence at home and lack of parental supervision, students’ changed perceptions of society, changes in patterns of student behavior and the increased amount of social and psychological damage (Woodward, Love & Komives, 2000). Students were not found to be as well prepared for college academically, and needed more “catching up” up in order to succeed (Hansen, 1998). Hersch (1998) pointed out that “the most stunning change for adolescents today is their aloneness” (cited in Woodward, Love & Komives, 2000, p. 41). CMU on Community and Connectedness In 1995, the newly appointed Acting Dean of Students asked for volunteers to serve on a university-wide committee to increase the sense of community on CMU’s campus. Efforts were made through a few focus groups with students to understand what the status in 1995 was for “community” at CMU. This assignment was based on a strategic goal by the Dean of Students’ Office which stated CMU should “enhance our sense of community by increasing and valuing interaction while developing a strong 17 sense of pride and ownership” (Dean of Students Office, 1994, p.3). The goal continued by stressing the importance of open communication when approaching issues of diversity, multiculturalism and globalization. These goals represented two principles from the Carnegie Foundation Report: open community and a just community. The other principles were also addressed under another strategic goal which stated that CMU should “hold the community of students, faculty and staff accountable for the success of the University” (Dean of Students Office, 1994, p. 5). The committee conducted two focus groups and reviewed a model for community building from Clemson University (1992). Although the study did not continue, several suggestions were developed within the perimeters of the Dean of Students Office such as an enhanced orientation program in which expected living behavior (disciplined community) was stressed, and diversity and sexual assault information was enhanced (just community). New students were required to attend convocation (celebrative community) and accept a “Charge to the Students” (Appendix C) about expected behavior. This past year, the student body president led the oath and new students laughed through it. The oath was not taken as seriously as when the Dean of Students read it. The volunteer movement was also enhanced through the development of the Volunteer and Service-Leaming Center (caring and educationally purposeful community). Services were offered in a manner that were student-oriented rather than at the convenience of staff. Departments started working together to serve students. Money was Spent on “customer service” type enhancements that were encouraged by President Leonard Plachta (Plachta, 1995). The “student as customer” concept was never fully 18 accepted by the faculty. But in fact, services to students were improved (caring community). Residence Life also took the initiative to develop several residential colleges, learning centers within the living community (educationally purposeful community), expanded student leadership development (caring community), as well as multicultural training (just community). Several of these new programs were part of the Carnegie Report’s principles regarding community. In 1998 and 1999, the provost sponsored two major all campus conferences on improving learning and retention. Prominent speakers were solicited and everyone, including students, were encouraged to offer suggestions and feedback. However, many people grew impatient with the lack of follow-through with suggestions. It seemed as if a strong faction of faculty were unwilling to try new ideas in the area of teaching. An example of this was the failure to incorporate a university-wide freshmen experience class. Studies (Gardner, 1998; Upcraft & Gardner, 1990) showed this as a legitimate means of improving retention. As an experiment, the College of Health Professions successfully initiated a freshmen experience class for their students during the fall semester, 2000. Two major research projects were initiated by CMU to measure student satisfaction with the university. As a result of a few questions asked about involvement and how often students left the area on weekends, both studies lefi university researchers concerned with the lack of connection students felt towards CMU (Office of Institutional Research, 1998, 1999). These studies were discussed further in Chapter Two. The studies gave no feedback as to why 30% of the surveyed students did not feel connected l9 to the university. A recent survey conducted by CMU indicated that only about 12% of the survey students indicated “very involved” and 35% “not involved” in campus student organizations. Students seemed satisfied with campus services that were considered connectors (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). In July 2000, CMU hired a new president whose message to the university community was that all people should be nice to each other and that connection would be a strong priority. All of his public addresses and written communications included this message (Rau, August, 2000). Rau (October, 2000) also requested that the entire campus engage in a discussion regarding CMU’s core values. Values were the corner stone of community building and established what Kuh (1993a) called campus ethos. Research Questions Regarding What Students Think About Community Building and Connectedness. 1. What items were important and not important to undergraduate full-time students in feeling connected to a university? 2. Was there a significant difference between how important these items were for respondents compared to how true they were perceived to be about Central Michigan University? Research Design and Limitations This study used a random sampling from the full-time undergraduate student population enrolled at Central Michigan University for at least two consecutive semesters for Fall Semester, 2000, at the Mt. Pleasant campus. This was a mixed method study involving a survey instrument in which the questions were derived from twelve focus groups and research discussed in the literature review. 20 This study attempted to identify items that were important to undergraduate full- time students in feeling connected to a university. The study also attempted to identify items that were unimportant to undergraduate full-time students in feeling connected to a university. And finally, the study attempted to identify how important an item was compared to how true it was perceived to be at Central Michigan University according to full-time undergraduate students. The researcher believed that clarifying whether or not important items that connect students are true about an institution would be valuable to the administration. It added an assessment component to the research. The purpose of this research was to determine if what researchers believed connected students was important to the students being surveyed. As Knefelkamp (1989, p. 3) stated, “if we really listen to students and take them seriously, then our teaching and learning methodologies will change. . .assessing can help us to reconnect.” Covering all issues within the Carnegie Foundation Report (1990) would result in six research documents. The study would be extremely long if the literature were exhausted in all areas. For example: A review of all literature on subgroups of students (gender, ethnic, adult learners, handicapped, etc.) attending colleges and universities was beyond the scope of this research. However, discussion regarding the importance of educational programming on various subgroups was possible. A review of all literature relating to teaching and learning, student organization involvement, greeks, student discipline, alcohol abuse, or all the literature on student involvement with faculty was beyond the scope of this research. Yet developing a survey on connectedness should encompass more than just one factor discussed in the Carnegie Foundation Report. The researcher discussed the Carnegie Foundation Report’s six principles necessary for 21 community: educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and a celebrative community. The participants in focus groups included students that were self-defined as not actively involved in the university community, neither with campus student organizations, their faculty, or academic major or minors. Survey questions were based on their feedback as well as information in the various studies discussed in the literature review. The researcher believed many factors that effected sense of community for adult learners, nontraditional students, and part-time students have already been extensively documented and were beyond the scope of this study. Nor is it doubted that graduate students have specific needs with regards to university services (Woodward, Love, & Komives, 2000). However, graduate students were not within the scope of this study. This paper focused on the full-time students and their concern about connectedness and the importance of community. Although the students interviewed during the focus groups were not necessarily involved in campus activities, with faculty, or had declared a major, the random sampling did not list this as criteria for participation in the study. Too ofien, the typical traditional full-time student has not necessarily been asked for feedback from administrators. These students were identified by Woodward, Love, and Komives (2000) as “students in the middle” (p. 36). Kuh et al. (1991, p. 387) tried to interview the “average” type student who was not necessarily involved in activities, leadership, faculty or had declared majors or minors. Often, the students who have a voice were student leaders or students who view the college experience as “consumers” and were vocal about their concerns. 22 This study randomly selected students from the student body. This survey instrument may be used in the future to target specific subcommunities on campus to solicit their feedback about what factors are important for community building and whether an institution is satisfying these needs. Many undergraduates no longer view their college experiences as the central focus of their lives (a characteristic of adult students) even during the time they are attending school as full time students (Riera, 2000). As Levine and Cureton (1998d) noted, this may be why college students seemed to prefer the relationship with their institution to resemble how they were serviced by their bank, telephone company, or supermarket. This is why student services are so significant. Riera (2000) reported an important connector for today’s students: they are not so concerned about what they knew as much as whom they knew. It should not be misconstrued this researcher assumed all problems with learning and the classroom were strictly the fault of faculty. However, the focus of this study was limited to the students’ perspective. Some of the issues faculty have dealt with in and out of the classroom are included in the survey, but as issues for students. This research did not address the challenges in developing community on a college campus where staff and faculty did not feel a sense of connection to the institution. This, too, was beyond the scope of this study. Summagy Community building has remained a persistent theme in discussions of educational policy design and practice (Palmer, 1987; Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992; Strange, 1996; Tierney, 1993). Palmer (1987) reported, “community must become a central concept in ways we teach and learn” (p. 25). Strange (1996) stated community 23 “incorporates all the essential features associated with effective learning environments —— a compelling and unifying purpose, traditions and symbols of membership and participation, and mutual support among institutional members” (p. 263). A commitment to community in higher education, “helps students to go beyond their own private interests, learn about the world around them, develop a sense of civic and social responsibility, and discover how they, as individuals, can contribute to the larger society of which they are a part” (Boyer, pp. 67-68). When comparing Kuh’s (1991) work on involvement and Levine’s (1998) recent research on student characteristics, it is difficult for universities to predict what students really want in order to feel connected to the institution. Higher education leaders nearly all agree a sensed of community and connection to the university was one of the most effective ways to improve the quality of life on campus (El-Khawas, 1989). Community and connection were significant on a college campus as they related to the central mission of the academy. This manuscript was organized into five chapters. The first chapter provided the purpose of the study and the value of researching the topic. Chapter Two provided a focused literature review that was relevant to the purpose of the study. The chapter reviewed literature based on the six principles discussed in the Carnegie Foundation Report (1990). Chapter Three contained a description of Central Michigan University, the focus group procedures for developing the survey instrument, the development of the survey, and data analysis techniques. Chapter Four provided a presentation and analysis of the research data. Chapter Five presented a summary of the major findings, examined the limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research. 24 Definitions of Terms ~Community: Bargain (1996) defines community as A blend of people who care for one another and for the place that surrounds them. It is people who appreciate a common good for all, and who balance their need to be connected with one another. A distinguishing characteristic of community is an abiding respect for the uniqueness of each of its members — where the need to be ‘connected,’ is balanced by each member’s desire to be separate and distinct. (p. 136) -Feeling connected: Feeling like you belong; feeling like you can relate to; or feeling like you are cared about by people working in the institution. -Ethos: Kuh (1993) includes in the definition that this word comes from the Greek word meaning habit. It points to an institution specific pattern of values and principles that invokes a sense of belonging and helps distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. . .It carries messages about the relative importance of various educational functions — teaching, research, preparation for a career and citizenship, the cultivation of practical competencies and political sensibilities. . .. It’s a network of human relationships sustained by a sense of common purpose, mutual caring and respect. . .. (p. 23-24). —Involvement: Astin (1984) defines involvement as the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student’s devotes to the academic experience (p. 297). . .It is not so much what the individual thinks or feels, but what the individual does, how he or she behaves, that defines and identifies involvement (p. 298). 25 Chapter Two Review of tile Literature In the main, you arrived poorly prepared, undisciplined and incurious. Once here you treated your teachers with incivility, your schoolwork as an inconvenience. . .You, the consumer told us you wanted less for your college dollar and we listened to you. (Gary Trudeau, 1998, p. 4) Because the literature is extensive on issues and concerns with regards to the Carnegie Foundation Report (1990) on creating community on campus, only those considered most relevant within space constraints of this study will be discussed. This chapter includes definitions of community and a review of the literature regarding the six principles in the Carnegie Foundation Report (1990). Defining Community on Campus Kauffinan (1977) defined community as a place (or social unit) identified in part by first a location, a way of life (which relates to what people do as well as to their goals) and, a collective action, or people acting together for some type of common purpose (p. 1). According to Boatman (1995) community involved four prevalent elements which included (a) the concept of connection, (b) the significance of diversity, ((1) the role of social responsibility, and (e) the influence of the common good. McMillan and Chavis (1986) described sense of community as including four core elements: membership, influence, interaction and a “shared emotional connection” (p. 13). Palmer (1987) defined community by stating “I understand community as a capacity for relatedness within individuals — relatedness not only to people but to events in history, to nature, to the world of ideas, and yes, to things of the spirit” (p. 24). Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swindler, and Tipton (1985) defined community as a 26 group of people who are socially interdependent, who participate together in discussions and decision-making, and who share certain practices that both define the community and are nurtured by it. Such a community is not quickly formed. It almost always has a history and so is also a community of memory, defined in part by its past and its memory of its past. (p. 333) Finally, Bargen (1996) defined community as a blend of people who care for one another and for the place that surrounds them. It is people who appreciate a common good for all, and who balance their need to be connected with one another. A distinguishing characteristic of community is an abiding respect for the uniqueness of each of its members — where the need to be ‘connected,’ is balanced by each member’s desire to be separate and distinct. (p. 136) The Carnegie Foundation Report’s Six Principles Comprising Community on Cam us In 1990, in a report entitled Campus Life: In Search of Community, Boyer and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching introduced the need to define and build community on university campuses. The Carnegie Foundation Report (1990) and Boyer (1990) will be used interchangeably in this literature review because Boyer has ofien been credited as the author. The report was a collaborative effort with the American Council on Education and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Spitzberg and Thomdike’s research (assisted by Mariann Kurtz) was the basis for the Carnegie Foundation’s report on campus community published in 1990. It should be noted that Spitzberg and Thorndike then authored their entire research findings on campus life in their own book published in 1992. Researchers found that campus leaders’ were concerned about the “perceived deterioration of student life, as illustrated by racial separation and tension, alcohol abuse, violence against women, and retreat from participation in the extracurriculum. It quickly broadened to include inquiry into undergraduates’ experience of academic community as 27 well” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992, p. xv). The main obstacle to community building, observed by many of those interviewed by Spitzberg and Thorndike, was the “complexity and diversity characterizing the modern academy and our large society” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992, p. 154) even on small campuses. Finding community of the whole was not as easy as community among subgroups. Many faculty and staff believed “healthy subcommunities [were] not enough, that in today’s complex and diverse world, more than ever, students, and everyone else working on our campuses, must connect to the institution” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992, p. 151). Several people agreed that the healthy subcommunities were the prerequisite for a “healthy community of the whole” (p. 151) but connecting them to the whole seemed to be the challenge. They found as a commonality on campuses, an interest by administration in building community and connectedness. “Preconditions for community” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992) included: Adequate personal safety; adequate facilities such as classrooms, library space, meeting spaces, and secure personal storage; access to required courses in popular areas of specialization; and adequate institutional services such as health care and access to public transpiration. . .Society. . .must provide financial support for students and faculty at a level that allows them to invest time in the campus community and its central principles without putting at risk their economic security. . .(p. 164) Many general services to students were connectors in past focus groups at CMU (Dehne, 1998; Levine & Cureton, 1998; Losyk, 1997). Although students of today listed these items as absolute requirements, colleges and universities were scrambling to meet these “simple” expectations (Astin, 1993b). Even though these services were expected, they were still listed as community builders. 28 c l d i P, it h— Boyer was concerned about the results of the research conducted by Spritzberg and Thorndike specifically for the Carnegie Foundations Report (1990) because he did not believe what was found at these colleges and universities as the “current best practice could be used to define the future” (Glassick, 1999, p. 22). Thus, the Carnegie Foundation Report, Campus Life, In Search of Community (1990), included six principles, educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring and celebrative. The six principles would “provide an effective formula for day-to-day decision making on campus and, taken together, define the kind of community every college and university should strive to be” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 7). The six principles from the Carnegie Foundation Report (1990) will be discussed in detail. After a brief description of the principle, each section will include contributions from other authors about the principles. Many of the items included in the survey were a result of topics from focus groups and the literature review. Not all of the topics from this literature review could be included on the survey due to length. Although some topics appeared to be very significant in the literature, they were not relevant to focus group participants. Subheadings indicate significant topics regarding the principle as reviewed in the literature. Educationally Purposeful Community “F irst, a college or university is an educationally purposeful community, a place where faculty and students share academic goals and work together to strengthen teaching and learning on campus” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 9). According to the Carnegie Foundation Report, this means that the learning environment is not divided. Learning occurs in and outside the classroom through events and activities that 29 support the educational mission of the university. Connectedness should start in the classroom because faculty care about students and engage them in active learning. Students are encouraged to be creative and are inspired to continue learning after their college days. There are social and academic events that both faculty and students are encouraged to attend. Being active on campus is encouraged and supported as well as attending theatre, musicals, and lectures on campus because it is part of the intellectual environment. Academic and student affairs support each other for the welfare of the student. General studies and departments are integrative. Students understand how classes fit together — things are not fragmented. Good communities, according to Gardner (1989, p. 80), fostered the development of young people and had links to the outside world. Seamless Learning Environment One of the most significant points in the educationally purposeful community was the need for developing a seamless learning environment (Astin, 1996a; Banta & Kuh, 1998; Knefelkamp, 1989; Kuh, 1995a; Kuh, 1996a; Kuh, 1996b; Kuh, Lyons, Miller & Trow, 1995; Potter, 1999). Such an environment on a college campus existed when departments and divisions were connected and collaborated in order to offer the most effective learning environment for students. University departments needed to collaborate with each other but they were not even close to accomplishing this type of environment (Palmer, 1992). Senge called this systems thinking. The key was that all groups should have effective dialogue, which “maximizes group learning, knowledge, and understanding” (Isaacs, 1994, cited in Lenning & Ebbers, 1999, p. 95). Learning communities were a strong example of a seamless learning environment, which was one of the best environments to promote student connection to the university (Cross, 1998; 30 Potter, 1999). However, the student as customer may not even notice what Kuh labeled as the “seamless environment.” Students viewed life holistically; they resisted efforts to compartmentalize their lives and they resisted faculty and staff’s efforts to “validate only certain aspects of their lives” (Magolda, 1997, p. 20). The students Magolda observed wanted to draw knowledge from all their academic disciplines when examining issues or solving problems, not just in the class that made the assignment. Higher education institutions had a responsibility to reestablish vision and to teach students collaboration with others (Palmer, 1987; 1996). Palmer stated higher education should respond to this collapse by becoming a model of community in at least two ways. First, higher education administrators must develop new, cooperative social forms of campus life and second, higher education administrators should reorganize curricula toward a more integrated vision of the world, offer more interdisciplinary studies, and do more ethical and value-oriented work. (p. 22) In addition, Palmer suggested that students should feel empowered to shape and change the communities in which they live, including their campus community. Collaboration among students, faculty, and administrators encouraged students to feel part of the campus community (Boyer, 1990; Kuh, 1991). According to Tinto, Goodsell-Love, and Russo (1993), participation in a collaborative group enables students to develop a small supportive community of peers that help bond them to the broader social communities of the college while also engaging them more fully in the academic life of the institution. (p. 20) “Student learning is strongly affected by the implicated curriculum or the pedagogy, values, and culture of a place” (Smith, 1993, p. 32). Thus, if colleges and 31 universities were to move from traditional education to community based learning, institutions had to reform their thinking, their classrooms, and their campuses. This shift requires education to have a cultural framework and calls for education and training that supports the notion of individual empowerment but also encourages people to channel their own empowerment to enhance the energies of others and their communities. (Smith, 1993, p. 1) According to Smith, community meant “connector” and thus, establishing community would allow students, faculty, and administrators to share common interest and concern while at the same time embracing differences. Faculty Characteristics and Teaching Factors One of the most significant points of influence to a supportive, connected classroom environment included certain faculty characteristics (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Researchers advised that faculty needed to convey enthusiasm and develop rapport, which would result in student interest and participation. Bonwell and Eison grouped these characteristics under faculty charisma, which included such simple things as speaking clearly, relating material to student’s interests, and acting excited about the material. They suggested that faculty also had to be organized by giving overviews, stating clear objectives, and using clear headings so students could follow the material. It was important that faculty make the classroom a safe place for students to take risks. Such behaviors included the following (Bonwell & Eison, 1991, p. 22-23): taking an interest in students as individuals, acknowledging student feelings about assignments, encouraging and respecting students’ personal viewpoints; communicating that each student’s understanding of material was important, encouraging students to be creative in dealing with the material and to formulate their own views. But one of the most important points stressed was learning student names. Requiring students to visit with the professor 32 [I through appointments scheduled early in the semester, giving written feedback on homework, tests, and papers, and knowing how to encourage active class discussions was also emphasized. Faculty needed to provide a supportive and creative environment for discussions so students knew it was safe to disagree in a civil manner (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999). Researchers suggested that faculty and students needed to interact more in and 1 out of the classroom setting. However, student-faculty relationships “hardly exist characterized mainly by an ‘absence.’ Few students sought assistance outside the class and few faculty offered much of it” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992, p. xii). The researchers explained this as the changing patterns of campus life stating that even full- time students did not see classes and study as their top priority. Traditional age students had part-time jobs and reserved weekends for partying. Faculty and students seemed to be satisfied with the status quo of teaching and learning (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). Students were not socialized to value an intellectual community, and students did not expect or desire such interaction with faculty. In return, the faculty was at odds with the decline in academic standards, so they took little time or energy to create more interactive and demanding class experiences. Students did not complain about the lack of faculty attention or involvement and expressed little need for such contact with faculty. Reinforced in a national study, Spitzberg and Thorndike (1992) found that students seemed to feel they had good access to faculty. The students had no expectations of faculty contact outside of the classroom at campus events or student organization activities. 33 The leamer-centered environment in which faculty, students, and staff were all co-teachers and co-leamers provided a positive learning community (Potter, 1999). The “disconnection between students’ academic lives and the rest of their life experiences” (Potter, 1999, p. 12) could be resolved if faculty and staff worked together as collaborators of learning. Active learning, connectedness, building on experiences, learning from social interactions, improved forms of evaluation (testing), and self- monitoring were examples of the leamer—centered environment (Baxter Magolda, 1996; Potter, 1999). Cooperative learning could also show students how to work with each other (Astin, 1993b; Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998). Active learning constituted a source of influence on social integration (sense of belonging), institutional commitment, and departure decisions (Braxton, Milem & Sullivan, 2000). If social integration was to occur, it had to do so in the classroom because it “functions as a gateway for student involvement in the academic and social communities of a college” (Tinto, Goodsell, & Russo, 1993 cited in Braxton, et al., 2000, p. 570). But research did not support this; such social integration occurred outside the classroom at most universities (Kuh, 1995b). With the exception of liberal arts and community colleges, students rarely spoke of the classroom as a place for connecting or community building. As The Carnegie Foundation Report emphasized, active learning was an important teaching and learning method. Another example of this was service learning. Gray et al. (2000) suggested that the challenge for institutions was to ensure the quality of service learning experiences. They advised that the impact of service learning increased if it was connected to course themes, if students were supervised, trained and had the 34 opportunity to discuss the experience in class, and if the experience was more than 20 hours. Despite several studies, the challenge remained to convince faculty to engage in civic activities in a culture that only promoted research (Antonio, Astin, Cress, 2000). Although in the early stages of assessment, there was no evidence that service learning courses were less demanding than traditionally taught classes. Participating in service enhanced the undergraduate student academic development, life skill development, and sense of civic responsibility (Astin & Sax, 1998; Gray, Ondataatje, Fricker & Geschwind, 2000). The short-term effects of volunteer service during undergraduate years also persisted beyond college for at least five years. (Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999). Schilling and Schilling conducted a study in 1995 to address the issue of expectations for student academic effort. National concerns were voiced about the fact that most “students were quite successful in terms of GPA while working considerably less than faculty assert was necessary” (1999, p. 5). They made several suggestions to increase expectations of students. One included the expectation that students were to attend campus lectures, art events, and study groups. This was introduced at orientation and confirmed by faculty in hopes that students would participate in such activities even if they were not required to do so because it was part of what Kuh (1995) labeled the ethos of the institution. High expectations did not necessarily mean just grading harder or increasing admission standards. It meant “heightening the intellectual challenge of courses, moving beyond memorization to engaged critical analysis that creates excitement for students” (Schilling & Schilling, 1999, p. 10). 35 Putting all the puzzle pieces of college life together was important because they consisted of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and were interconnected (King, 1999). “Deficits in one impede the capacity to operate at an optimal level of maturity” (King, 1999, p. 4). Faculty needed to assist students in applying knowledge learned in the classroom to practical problems they faced in everyday life as well as understanding and appreciating human differences, and the importance of civic responsibility (Kegan, 1994; King, 1999). In conclusion, the primary fimction of higher education was not just to impart knowledge. “The outcomes of today’s college experience must move beyond knowledge toward enhancing understanding and personal wisdom” (Woodward, Love & Komives, 2000, p.50). Classroom learning and personal development could not be separate processes. Personal development did not just have to exist because of a residence hall or student organization experience. Designing learning experiences that “integrate intellectual, social, and emotional elements enriches the development and learning for more students” (p. 51). Open Community “Second, a college or university is an open community, a place where freedom of expression is uncompromisingly protected and where civility is powerfully affirmed” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 17). Freedom of expression, according to Carnegie Foundation Report, is the quality of communication between students measured by clarity and civility. Students listen and speak carefully to each other; faculty, staff and students treat each other with civility and mutual respect. Free speech and constraint are balanced. Respondents in the Report believed that abusive language was used as an 36 assault weapon. “. . .Good communication means listening carefully, as well, and achieving moments of genuine understanding. . .we can expect everyone to respect the rights and dignity of everyone else” (Carnegie Foundation Report 1990, p. 23). Freedom of Expression After reviewing several campuses regarding racial tension, alcohol abuse, and violence against women, researchers found that campuses had initiated efforts to remedy such societal problems (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). However, the solutions were the concern. Administrators tried to curtail what was defined as first amendment rights and freedom of speech through restrictive speech codes. Instead, Spitzberg and Thorndike encouraged campuses to curtail uncivil behavior through education in both intellectual and moral terms. Political correctness seemed to be an issue of the 1980’s and early 1990’s according to Street (2001). It became obvious that students did not wish to discuss issues that could cause people not like them to be insulted or disagree or cry racism (Trosset, 1998). In an ethnographic study lasting several semesters, Trosset (1998) found that students were willing to participate in discussion when they wanted to convince others of their point of View only if they held strong views on the topic. If students did not have strong views or if they found the issue difficult, they did not wish to participate in discussion. Interacting with people who shared their views instead of people who disagreed with them led students to think that there was widespread support of their view. Educators needed to understand that sometimes students interpreted being tolerant of different points of view as demanding that they agree and approve instead of just being respectful or civil to members of the community (Trosset, 1998, p. 49). 37 Moral learning was defined as “reinforcing the elements of character that lead to ethical actions” (Ehrlich, 1999, p. 6). These elements, according to Ehrlich, included respect for the autonomy and dignity of others, compassion, honesty, integrity, and a commitment to equity and fairness. He worked on a project for the Carnegie Foundation to develop moral and civic responsibility. Ehrlich (1999) and Colby wanted to explore a sound balance between an undergraduate experience that is rooted in strong values, with its dangers of indoctrination and political correctness, and one based on objective inquiry, with its dangers of failing to prepare students to make their own moral and civic judgements. (p. 7) Ehrlich and Colby believed the following points: Civic and moral reasoning were interconnected. They found that this reasoning was not necessarily a goal of higher education except in the institutional mission statement. Moral and character strengthening occurred where classroom and out-of-classroom learning experiences were integrated through several approaches. They also believed it was very important to assist students in developing their own views and judgements. They truly believed that faculty and staff needed to do more than “report, analyze, and criticize” (Ehrlich, 1999, p. 9). Concern that “pushing students to think a particular way” (Baxter Magolda, 1999, p. 4) because it pushed the real issues underground and out of reach of the educational process was an issue in higher education. In order to have true community, Baxter Magolda stressed the importance of students having input in how to resolve problems such as civility towards others and racial tension. According to Pavela (1995, 1996), Gibbs (1992) and Pomerantz (1993), the courts striking down speech codes that limited hate speech was important because education was a more significant way to address this problem on campuses. Yet, “people of goodwill across the country are struggling with the 38 “r Fm inc-1 x i complexity of achieving balance between two equally important and competing principles: freedom of speech and freedom from harassment or offensive speech” (Barr, l995,p.6) University officials believed present policies of restricting time, place, and manner regarding speech on campus was still protected by the United States Supreme Court (Street, 2001). Such policies were instituted to control protests that interfered with teaching and regular university business. Students still believe such limitations have more to do with public relations (Street, 2001). Civility and the Classroom Lack of civility in the classroom according to Trout (1998) was the result of several factors including poor parenting, contempt for authority, and a demanding consumerism attitude. He also believed that academically underprepared students were resentful towards the demands and rigor of higher education. Students did not study and prepare for classes because they didn’t have time in between work and social activities (Levine & Cureton, 1998d). Stress coming from a complex life that students faced also contributed to inappropriate behavior (Newton 1998). Isolation and disconnection from support was part of uncivil behavior. Being demanding and taking a confrontational stance with faculty and staff was part of the consumerism mentality (Levine & Cureton, 1998d). However, the worst thing the administration could do was send disruptive students to counseling rather than adjudicate the negative behavior through the campus discipline system (Amada, 1994; Schneider, 1998). 39 In conclusion, no matter what the reason for inappropriate classroom behavior, Brooke (1999) emphasized the importance of faculty developing skills to control the classroom so that students were respectful towards others with differing points of view. She suggested that the basic ground rule during class was respect. Faculty needed to remind students of this basic rule as well as assist them in developing respectful communication skills (Pomerantz, 1993). The importance of creating an environment where “different voices are heard and everyone is a learner” (p. 153) regardless of disagreements was necessary and needed to be emphasized to students (Tierney 1993). Im" 'fi. .‘1Q-nrh" .-ma.as_m' However, Carter (1998) strongly believed that if students weren’t civil by the time they reached college, there was probably little that could be done to change the behavior. Just Community “Third, a college or university is a just community, a place where the sacredness of each person is honored and where diversity is aggressively pursued” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 25). A diverse community, according to the Carnegie Foundation Report, is a university that “serves the full range of citizens in our society effectively” (p. 25) and is equitable and fair. This includes support for all populations including gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, older students, international, different religious groups, students from all economic backgrounds and so forth. However, “striking a balance between special groups and the larger community is an important challenge” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 30). Academic communities must be developed in which “people learn to respect and value one another for their differences, while at the same time defining the values shared by all those who join the university as scholars and as citizens” (p. 35). Gardner (1989) stated that good 40 communities incorporate and value diversity. The Carnegie Foundation Report (1990, p. 32) stressed the importance of building racial, cultural, and economic understanding through in class and out of class educational programs. Ringgenberg (1989) stressed the importance of subgroups in campus activities to promote community. He felt it was important not to force students to give up their cultural heritage, or history in the interest of developing a student melting pot. Focusing on specific group programs should be considered as important as general student activities; Students spoke of connecting to the university through living-leaming centers in residence halls and through their academic majors and academic clubs (Feldman & Newcome, I969; Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). But many administrators voiced concern about the negative effects of subgroups (“subcommunities, little loyalties”) as they pertain to greek organizations and groups of students from racial or ethnic backgrounds. Subgroups for minority populations for a “campus that is run and peopled by members of the majority” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992, p. 150) were important to community building. The peer group may have had a strong effect on students because they tended to segregate themselves with like individuals by ethnic background, gender, and socioeconomic status (Astin, 1993b). Astin found that undergraduates tended to affiliate with people like them: women with women, men with men, same ethnic backgrounds connect. Student interaction with peers (especially those of the same gender, race, or socioeconomic status) largely determined a student’s development. “The single most powerful source of influence on the undergraduate student’s academic and personal development is the peer group” (Astin, 1993b, p. 7). 41 Prejudice and discrimination were rooted in misconceptions rather than personality traits (Vogt, 1997, cited in Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella & Hagadom, 1999). Therefore, colleges needed to educate students, faculty, and staff in order to overcome intolerance and to have a well thought out educational plan when increasing minority enrollment (Taylor, 1998). However, Astin (1993a) also suggested students were not being challenged to understand and accept differences because they were isolating themselves (within those peer groups) according to gender, race, and socioeconomic background. Astin admitted that socioeconomic factors and race could have more to do with an institution’s geographic location or prestige. Campuses were not fostering or creating a commitment to diversity or diverse communities (Astin, 1993a). With regards to diversity, Astin found that emphasizing such training and awareness on campus promoted understanding between the races. Experiences with diversity had a positive effect on the student’s overall satisfaction with college and student life on campus. As higher education becomes more market driven, caution should be taken not to leave out the poor and less prepared student (Hunt, 1999; Newman, 2000). There was a concern about the added expense (remedial classes) necessary to educate less prepared students who came from poorer backgrounds. Newman (2000) and Hunt (1999) believed that the prestigious institutions, those with money for remedial work, needed to take on the responsibility and not leave the hardest to educate to less prestigious institutions who had no sources for these extra services. Remedial students were “the most important educational problem in America” (Astin, 2000, p. 130) because underprepared students 42 were the ones to drop out of school, which affected the opportunity to obtain strong employment. There is a “digital divide” (Newman, 2000, p. 21) with regards to equal access of technology on campus. Even the use of technology really could hinder opportunities based on the personal economics of students. A campus that did not have enough computers for student usage made it difficult on students whom could not afford their own equipment. The importance of a supportive community for student success was quite apparent among students of color and students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Tinto, 2000). If in white institutions, academic and social support was very significant to their persistence, both in and out of the classroom. Factors affecting African-American students and white students’ decisions to persist were very similar (Cabrera et al., 1999; Grana & Petersen-Perlman, 1998). However, “what distinguishes one group from the other is the intensity of the effect and the role that perceptions of discrimination play on commitments to the institution” (Cabrera, 1999, p. 152). Researchers recommended that institutional policies and practices should address student needs and not their ethnicity (Cabrera et al., 1999; Grana & Petersen-Perlman, 1998). Something that needed to be studied were the factors that encouraged or discouraged the patterns of involvement. Having this information could assist in developing “purposefully designed programs and activities that more effectively promote the quality of campus community” (Schlossberg, 1989, p. 6). Schlossberg proposed that marginality and mattering would add a new way to explore the issue of why some students choose not to get involved. 43 Schlossberg (1989) agreed that research could define what divided students such as ethnicity, age, gender, social class, politics, religion, etc. These factors also described why students felt marginal. Schlossberg’s question centered on discovering if there were factors that could connect people and create a campus community where all students could find a “place of involvement and importance” (p. 6). Her work showed that transition (events or nonevents that alter lives) could cause people to feel marginal. Schlossberg suggested that marginality could be because of a temporary situation during transition or a way of life. She advised that higher education had to divide student situations or experiences into a transitional or permanent situation. Social action was necessary to remove permanent marginal status as well as special programs that could assist temporary transition. An example was affirmative action programs and special university services for students of color and other special populations. Temporary transition might involve extensive orientation programs or other campus rituals for new students until they became acclimated to campus. Pascarella and Terenzini (1998) believed that technology could offer opportunities to expand access to higher education and could respond to diverse learning styles. The effect on learning when the student-student and faculty-student interaction were different both inside and outside the formal classroom warranted further research. Another issue was whether or not the effect and importance of involvement in cyberspace could even be researched through existing methods of data collection. Disciplined Community “Fourth, a college or university is a disciplined community, a place where individuals accept their obligations to the group and where well defined governance procedures guide behavior for the common good” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 37). A disciplined community, according to the Carnegie Foundation Report, states what is expected of students both in the classroom and out of the classroom. This includes that students are responsible and accountable for their behavior through a code of conduct that sets the standards for social and academic matters. Students should be held to high academic standards by faculty. Gardner (1989) stated that good communities have group maintenance processes and governance structures that encourage participation and sharing of leadership tasks. Carolinian Creed and Honor Codes One university that has been repeatedly praised for its campus creed shared by students, faculty, and administrators is the University of South Carolina. The university’s Carolinian Creed has been recognized as an attempt to redefine the mission and the roots and traditions of USC. The creed was created as a way to incorporate Boyer’s principles of campus community. The creed described the established values that the university expected to govern peer relationships within the campus community and provide the entire campus with a common “vocabulary” or vision. “The Creed does not motivate behavior by threat or fear of punishment, rather it suggests that individual virtue is its own rewar ” (Pruitt, 1996, p. 2). According to USC’s Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students, The Carolinian Creed incorporates the spirit of the guidelines for establishing ‘community’ suggested by Boyer and others. . .. The Creed captures and articulates USC’s standards, ideals, expectations, and aspirations and is a wonderful teaching tool for our students, and a point of pride as we teach each other how to treat one another, and share to all what it means to be a Carolinian. (Pruitt, 1996, p. 5) 45 Another method of trying to strengthen the mission of the university and communicate expected student behavior was through Honor Codes (Dannells, 1997; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2001). McCabe and Pavela (2000) encouraged the use of a modified honors code along with student leadership and intensive programming about the importance of academic integrity to change the campus culture. Students needed to be active in the discipline process, active in making presentations to their peers as well as peer pressure to do the right thing. A modified honor code also asked that students work with faculty to change the campus culture. Missing from the modified version was mandatory reporting of cheating, unproctored exams and a non-toleration clause. Academic Integrity The most important factor in curbing academic dishonesty was the overall culture on a campus and it was suggested that an honor code was an important way of emphasizing expected behavior (McCabe & Trevino, 1996). Requiring students to report academic dishonesty lead to more reporting and less cheating, but the campus culture was still a more important factor in curbing the behavior (McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2001). In other words, students, faculty, and staff had to take an active role in encouraging and promoting academic integrity (McCabe & Pavela, 2001). Although academic dishonesty has increased at all levels in education, students did not believe cheating was a serious ethical problem (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2000). Until recently, higher education has only focused on such issues as drinking, violence, sexual assault and is just beginning to be concerned about cheating on campus (Cole & Kiss, 2000). In a study conducted by Mathews (1999), freshmen and sophomores were stricter about academic dishonesty than juniors and seniors. He 46 interpreted this to mean that the college environment may tend to stimulate more lenient attitudes about cheating. Mathews (1999) found that the majority of students would probably not report academic dishonesty. Students justified cheating citing such reasons as: everyone cheats, boring and poor faculty, institutional indifference, and few role models when it comes to personal integrity (McCabe & Pavela, 2000). It was also found that women tended to perceive “academic integrity policies as having a much stronger deterrent effect on their behavior to refrain from cheating than did males” (Hendershott, Drinan, & Cross, 1999, p. 352). Technology exposed new unresolved problems with cheating through a new primary research tool: the Internet (McCabe & Drinan, 1999). In Loco Parentis ’ “The idea that a college stands in for parents, in loco parentis, is today a faded memory. But on many campuses there is great uncertainty about what should replace it” (Boyer, 1987, p. 50). In loco parentis was not a fair or just relationship with students (Nuss, 1998) because there was little freedom, men and women had different conduct standards, and there was an absence of freedom of speech and association. Hoekema (1994) stated that the challenge still remained that universities had a duty to protect students from each other and an unsafe university environment. But, as Willimon (1995) and Kuh et al. (1991) stated, stronger and more assertive relationships toward students had to develop with faculty and staff in order to promote a climate in which students took active responsibility for academic and personal development. Expectations for responsible behavior had to be developed and enforced (Hoekema, 1994). 47 Community Standards Model Baxter Magolda (1999) stressed the importance of enhancing the learning community by encouraging students to be involved in meaningful decision-making. She encouraged administrators and faculty to reexamine their “assumptions about knowledge, authority, and learner capability and to explore the true potential of leaming-centered practice” (p. 4). One example of giving students responsibility according to Baxter Magolda (1998) was through the Community Standards Model developed by Piper (1996, 1997) The Community Standards Model was introduced in 1991 in the residence hall system at the University of Nevada. The model emphasized a governance system that encouraged student empowerment, responsibility, and critical thinking (Engstrom, Hallock, Riemer, & Rawls, 2000). Standards were not rules but “shared agreements that define mutual expectations of how the community will function on an interpersonal level, that is, how the members will relate to and treat one another” (Piper, 1997, p. 22). This model has also been used in the residence hall system at Central Michigan University and is being explored for use with registered student organizations and the leadership development program in the Office of Student Life. A qualitative study of the model found that it provided a method of community building in the residence hall (Engstrom et al., 2000). Alcohol Abuse The Carnegie Foundation Report (1990) saw alcohol abuse as a major campus challenge. In an interview with two college presidents, Schroeder et al. (1999) suggested that strong disciplinary rules would not alone change campus cultures. The presidents 48 involved faculty, students, parents, staff, and the community in trying to change the accepted drinking culture. Faculty were drawn into the living environment and had a strong involvement in the lives of students. The fraternity system declined drastically as a result of alcohol violations and no one wanted to live in the houses. The university did support greek housing as a potential source for a learning environment. Programming on campus was scheduled late in the evenings with food. Schroeder et al. found that students actually left bars early to eat and enjoy the late night activities. Vandalism decreased at one of the institutions. Despite Spitzberg and Thomdike’s (1992) observations about unsuccessful attempts to change the alcohol culture, some universities, according to Schroeder et al. (1999), were continuing to address ways in changing the campus culture in a successful manner. Faculty needed to play a role in this culture change as well as students and staff (Kuh et al., 1991; Willimon, 1995). In conclusion, Hoekema (1994) stated that discipline programs had several purposes on a college campus: prevent harm and exploitation to students, promote an environment of free speech and learning, and to encourage a sense of community through responsibility. To accomplish this, universities had to set high standards and enforce them not only through regulations but also through example, education, and persuasion. Caring Community “Fifth, a college or university is a caring community, a place where the well- being of each member is sensitively supported and where service to others is encouraged” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 47). A caring community, according to the Carnegie Foundation Report, involves students making a connection between what they learn and how they live. Students need to build bridges across the generations, they 49 need to reach out to others, to children, to adults, to those not as fortunate as themselves. Students need to understand the reality of their dependence on each other. Students need to know that faculty and staff care about them, that they matter to the university and to each other. They are more than a “customer” to the university. The development of friendship with other students is significant and planned. Gardner (1989) stated that good communities promote care, trust, teamwork and foster internal communication. Membership in student organizations such as student government, the student newspaper, intercollegiate athletics, campus sports teams, greeks, entertainment organizations, and residence hall organizations is a special way to meet people and “bond”. This principle also supports the bonding or caring that can develop through academic clubs and academic majors. The precaution with this “bonding” is the negative influence of “little loyalties” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, pp. 48-49). The concern with such groups within learning communities is that a strong identity with an involved academic program or greek organizations can give a feeling of security but can also create isolation from the greater organization. Involvement Out-of-class involvement included student leadership opportunities and membership in student organizations, residence hall programs, going to campus cultural events, campus lectures, convocations, and using campus services. It also included “interactions with faculty after class — in the hallway, laboratory, library, residence hall, union - as well as collaboration on research and teaching projects” (Kuh et al., 1991, p. 8). A simple description of involvement was provided by Astin and Pace: “The 50 behavioral view of involvement can be found in what students do and how much effort they expend in various activities” (Kuh et al., 1991, p. 367). Students in fraternities and sororities had higher levels of social participation, interaction, school spirit, and extroversion (F eldman & Newcomb, 1969; Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1995). The frequency and quality of students’ interactions with peers and their participation in student activities were positively associated with persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Involvement in student activities and positive involvement with peers affects learning and enjoyment of college (Keintz, 1999). It was estimated that only about ten percent of the student population was involved with student organizations (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). There were plenty of student leaders, but very few student followers. There was increased administrative interest in providing opportunities for involvement and increased funding as a “conscious and concerted efforts at community building” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992, p. 149) to assist the student subcommunities as important components of a healthy community of the whole. However, few institutions, according to Spitzberg and Thorndike, understood or could shape the student culture. Investing money in on-campus pubs and minor entertainment was not necessarily successful. The traditional students, like the commuters, part-timers, and adults were just not interested in the out of class experiences. Even focusing only on residential students did not necessarily resolve the challenge of connecting students through planned activities as a substitute for alcohol abuse. Understanding and reaching the student culture was a challenge for administrative staff that tried to connect students to their environment. Researchers found no lack of opportunity to create connection; students were aware they had to take the initiative 51 (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). Encouraging students to engage was the challenge (Kuh, 1995b). Most students did not seem to be interested in involvement except with regards to partying or resume development (Levine & Cureton, l998b). According to Komives (1997), it was necessary for student affairs professionals to assess their leadership, student organization and volunteer programs by measuring whether such programs met the standards and guidelines established by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. It was important for higher education institutions to evaluate their student programs in an attempt to determine if they were (a) meeting the goals established by the institution, and (b) if they were linked to relevant issues, standards, or guidelines in higher education. Community could not be established without assessment and evaluation. Campus Ethos: Caring, Mattering, and Encouraging Positive Peer Friendship Students attributed gains in learning and personal development to “ethos.” Kuh referred to ethos as a belief system of educational principles and values that was shared by faculty, administrators, students and staff (Kuh, 1993a). Expectations of students were clearly stated that promoted loyalty and participation in the learning environment (Kuh, Schuh & Whitt, 1991). Faculty, staff and students all worked together in order to create this supportive learning environment. Kuh’s emphasis on the “ethos of learning” was very similar to what was necessary to develop a sense of community and connectedness on a college campus as suggested in the Carnegie Foundation Report (1990). It was important that “faculty and staff believe that all students can and will succeed, academically and socially...” (Kuh, 1997,p.2) 52 New students on campus should not to be left to discover on their own. Establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships during orientation could aid in student adjustment to the college experience. Students who had confidence in their relationships and received positive reinforcement tend to do better in college. Positive social relationships could “contribute to an individual’s attitude towards academic success” (N ewman-Gonchar, 2000, p. 79). But, Newman-Gonchar emphasized the importance of students needing guidance in forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships. If such deficiencies existed, students tended to focus on this searching for community first instead of their studies. When working together, faculty, staff and student peers were important to the success of a student (Astin, 1993b). Social affiliations or services should not be considered as extras — as long as such things contributed to the development of the whole student or made education easier to access. Research showed that marginal students did not persist if they did not believe they mattered (Kuh, 1997). How staff and faculty interacted with students, how students were treated, expecting that students could and would succeed, patiently confronting the student because their socializing did not balance with studying were examples of “authentic commitment to student success...” (Kuh, 1997, p. 3). Institutional members who demonstrated that they cared about students were on the way to developing an environment for student connectedness and an “ethos of learning. . .In such a community, the teaching and learning roles are merged, and the curricular and experiential combined. . .both a sanctuary for reflection and stimulus to practical action” (Kuh et al., 1991, p. 43-44). 53 In research on student departure, Tinto (1993) and Stage (2000) emphasized the role higher education institutions played in influencing the social and intellectual development of students. Academic and social integration were critical factors in student persistence (Tinto, 1993). Interaction between a student and faculty or staff or other students could influence the individual’s commitment to the institution. “The absence of interaction results not only lessened commitments and possibly lowered individual goals, but also in the person’s isolation from the intellectual life of the institution” (Tinto, 1993, p.117) Experiences that could integrate the student into the life of college increased attachments, and therefore, could strengthen individual commitments to the institution (Tinto, 2000). The quality of interaction between students and other members of the institution was important. If the contact was not of strong quality, students would express a sense of separation or marginality from the community. Schlossberg (1989) defined mattering as simply the belief that people were important to someone else. She believed that mattering was a motive that determined behavior and that university practices, programs, and rules needed to show people that they did matter. With all the differences that students bring to the college environment, they shared the connection of needing to matter and needing to belong. Therefore, it was important that the college environment focus on mattering and greater student involvement (Astin, 1993b), which would lead to better learning environments, better retention, and institutional loyalty (Schlossberg, 1989). Cooperative learning could increase the number of friendships developed in the classroom. The more “effort students expend in working together, the more they tend to 54 like each other. . .and the harder they tend to work to learn” (Johnson et al., 1998, p. 32). Group work could only be successful if students were taught valuable skills such as interpersonal skills, positive interdependence among students, and group process which could also increase caring and committed relationships (Astin, 1993b; Johnson, et al., 2000). The college environment affected student outcomes in three categories. They included academic development, personal development, and satisfaction. “The student’s peer group was the single most potent source of influence on grth and development during the undergraduate years” (Astin, 1993b, p. 389). The values, beliefs, and aspirations of individual students generally tended to change in the direction of the peer group. Peer groups with negative behaviors were at risk of failure at the university (Keintz, 1999). The role of the college social environment in promoting moral judgement should be taken seriously because the effects of. college classes were only “secondary and conditional on other personal and social-environmental factors” (Derryberry & Thomas, 2000, p. 18). Their work emphasized that in order to promote personal growth, universities needed to take an active role in shaping social experiences and promoting healthy fiiendships with other students. Social connectedness was experienced and valued by both men and women in college, “but they differed in the types of social provisions that contributed to this interpersonal closeness” (Lee & Robbins, 2000, p. 488). Lee and Robbins (2000) reported the following: Women were more socially connected than men when using measures of empathy, intimacy, and physical proximity. When women felt lonely, they were likely to lack a sense of connectedness in their lives. Men were more likely to experience social 55 connectedness when they were reassured of their worth as individuals. Men were less likely to depend on the mutual support and the constant presence of others to feel socially connected. Men seemed to be lonelier in college than did women because women had more social support than men. Although, according to Lee and Robbins (2000), both men and women value social connectedness, they seemed to pursue different types of relationships to sustain it. Faculty and Student Friendship Next to peer group, Astin (1993b) found faculty represented the most significant aspect of the undergraduate’s development. Just the amount of interaction with faculty could have strong effects on student development. Whether it be working on a professor’s reseach project, assisting with teaching, or discussion out side of the classroom, interaction was significant. He found that the characteristics and behaviors of faculty influenced student development. In a speech, Lincoln (2000) shared her discussions with students about teaching, learning communities, and caring within the academy. She described a classroom full of students who were delighted about the class because it was the first class many of them had experienced that they knew the professor “loved them” (p. 246). They felt like Lincoln was a friend and a “guide” instead of an “assigned instructor.” Many of the thoughts discussed by Palmer (1998) about community were verified in these student discussions. The students told Lincoln (2000) they knew she cared by the way she graded their papers including comments and suggestions. She learned more about them through their journal assignments. Lincoln concluded with these suggestions to show that faculty “care” about their students: commenting on their assignments, 56 correcting grammar, empowering them by giving choices about research, being demanding without being “hard” by believing they could do the work, and reading their papers. The final suggestion was to give students “psychological space” (Lincoln, 2000, p. 254) in the classroom. Although this explanation may have seemed very controversial, she explained that this space meant that all people bring to the classroom their own professional identity, their own “take” on the subject, and their own personality. Students explained to Lincoln that there was really no such thing as objectivity in the teaching process. Parker Palmer (1998) strongly supported bringing one’s personal knowledge to the classroom. Lincoln (2000) was very clear that what students described as demonstrations of caring was nothing more than good teaching. What she was shocked about was the interpretation of the students. Rendon (July, 2000a; 2000b), too, believed that a learning community had to “engage the heart as well as intellect” (2000a, p. 3). In other words, faculty had to deal with the emotional part of an issue as well as the academic analysis of the issue. Rendon stressed the importance of getting to know students better. In 1990, Willimon, campus chaplain, was asked by Duke University’s President Brodie to “listen to students, to gather information on the relation between social and academic activities, and to report the findings” (Willimon & Naylor, 1995, p. 4). Brodie was concerned about student life at the university: alcohol abuse, residential life, students’ personal safety, social activities, fraternities, and sports (1995, p. 6). The president felt there was a gap between academic pursuits and life after dark and on the weekends. These concerns were very similar to the comments in the Carnegie Foundation Report of l990.The findings provided the experiential basis for the book entitled The 57 Abandoned Generation: Rethinking Higher Education, which was published in 1995 and written with Thomas Naylor. They created and taught “The Search for Meaning” seminar beginning in 1991. From this class, they were able to conduct in—depth discussions and interacted with undergraduates. The book contained many comments and discussions as a result of these conversations. Their basic premise was that: “student alcohol abuse was symptomatic of deeper malaise. [It was] an illusionary attempt to deal with their separation and meaninglessness” (1995, p. 6) and lack of community. Binge drinking provided a sense of belonging to frightened, lonely college students (Bruffee, 1999). Underlying this crisis were three fundamental problems: meaninglessness, fragmentation of a student’s life into unrelated components, and the absence of community. Willimon (1995) found that most students thought that “academic” only applied to the classroom, a fact supported by the faculty. Learning could not occur while faculty and staff separated out-of-class activities and behavior from what went on in the classroom (Kuh, 1995b; Kuh, 1996; Love & Goodsell-Love, 1995; Willimon, 1995). He believed that faculty and staff did not understand the role they played with students emerging into adulthood. He asserted that even nontraditional and adult students wanted more meaning to their lives and connection then they were given by today’s faculty and staff. Willimon found that faculty were afraid to meet students for a meal out of fear of sexual harassment accusations. Classes at Duke, he claimed, were even structured for disengagement and the climate was such that students were supposed to be treated like adults with given responsibility. But students were not ready for this added responsibility. The one department Willimon and Naylor cited as understanding his point was women studies. He found female students were much more upset about the lack of 58 intellectualism at Duke. Women studies’ faculty believed there was far too little appreciation for the learning that occurred outside the classroom. They believed that education could be improved if “more attention were given to the emotional and social development of students” (Willimon, 1997, p. 7). As discussed in Chapter One, many students came from one-parent families, lacked role models, and seemed more troubled than in the past. In his classes, students voiced a concern about their lack of connection and few knew how to resolve it. Perhaps one of his most poignant points was the following: Faculty and staff who were students in the 603 were teaching and administering campuses today. Faculty and staff were clear that they did not wish to be “parents” to these students. But Willimon (1995) challenged them to at least be older brothers, sisters or friends. The supreme value was an “abstract value of freedom” (Willimon & Naylor, 1995, p. 91). It was a time when administrative and faculty interference was removed from student life. Willimon saw a very different generation: “They seem more interested in the search for roots, stability, order, and identity” (Willimon & Naylor, 1995, p. 91.). As Levine and Cureton (1998b) stated, students had lost hope that anything they decided to do could possibly impact the shape of the world. Willimon (1997) contended that the university needed to act as a wise friend. He believed the higher educational system created a lonely environment for students and it needed to change in order to nurture fi'iendship between “adults” and students. This “generation of faculty and staff that [were] uncomfortable with in loco parentis might want to consider the Socratic ideal of friendship as model for guiding a renewed connection with students” (Willimon, 1997, p. 8). Aristotle noted in his 59 Nicomachean Ethics that friendship “holds states together.” Aristotle basically contended, “friendship is the basis of polis” (Willimon, 1997, p. 9). Astin (1993b) reported the importance of faculty relationships to students and Willimon (1997) challenged the university to become a place where people are allowed the time and the space for fiiendship to develop, where the virtues required of friends are cultivated, where all become more adept in the art relating to one another not as strangers, clients, customer, or caregivers, but as fiiends. (p. 9) Although many questioned student affiliation with dysfunctional groups such as fraternities, Willimon believed loneliness, detachment, and isolation were greater problems for students based on conversations with them. One of the strongest complaints by students was that they thought college faculty would be like their high school teachers. Students made it clear to him that they did not want more rules, more requirements, or more limitations (Willimon & Willimon, 1998). The students stated they needed “more faculty time and energy spent getting to know them as people” (Willimon & Willimon, 1998,p.12) Volunteerism, Citizenry, and Activism One of the most significant points of Boyer’s caring principle was the importance of volunteerism in creating a sense of connectedness or community on campus. Since Astin’s original study (1984), more research was completed on the importance of volunteerism to the learning process. He recommended that faculty and staff should consider the strong influences the peer group had on learning and that volunteering with the peer group and even faculty (through classroom experiences) would maximize the amount of interaction that could occur among students (1996a). Astin found that 60 facilitating community involvement through volunteerism was a factor that developed a sense of community among students and faculty. The importance of community and community service also reflected the need for universities to focus beyond formal education in which students were rooted in specific disciplines and emphasized the need to include the teaching of values through experience (Goodman & MacNeil, 1999). Research suggested institutions could contribute to character development through intentional leadership education, volunteer work, and interracial experiences (Astin & Antonio, 2000). Curricular experiences in women studies, ethnic studies, and interdisciplinary classes also enhanced character development according to their study. Along the lines of a caring community, US. President Bill Clinton requested campuses to examine their commitment to civic responsibility and to become more deeply involved in their communities (Lively, 1999). US. Vice President Albert Gore announced a plan to encourage universities to become more active in their local communities and to help train neighborhood leaders (Campus Compact, 1999). Despite critical comments by Gray et al. (2000) that volunteerism and service learning did not lead to social activism, Loeb (1994, 1999) believed that linking what students experienced to reflection and class discussion, students could look to the political system for solutions. Students who experienced the soup kitchen, shelters, or literacy programs were better equipped to take social action then the ones that had no experience (Astin & Sax, 1998; Loeb, 1999). Participating in service during college enhanced their sense of civic responsibility (Astin & Sax, 1998). Service offered one way of preparing students to communicate in meaningful interactions with people from 61 diverse cultural backgrounds (Rhodes, 1997, 1998). Individuals would only have meaningful interactions if there was a deep sense of caring. Rhodes believed that higher education had a role to foster a commitment to others. This was in strong support of the Carnegie Foundation Report (1990). “An undergraduate education should prepare students to understand and deal intelligently with modern life” (Chickering & Gamson, 1987, p. 4). Lack of community on campuses had much to do with the state of the world. “There has been a collapse into expressive and competitive individualism, and a loss of integrated vision” (Palmer, 1987, p. 22). The challenge for higher education included moving from theoretical or value perspectives to providing opportunities for student action and involvement (Neururer & Rhoads, 1998). Nurturing and caring for the greater society should be promoted and valued in higher education (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990; Neururer & Rhoads, 1998) One thing higher education must undertake was to “create skills and attitudes necessary to be contributing citizens” (Newman, 2000, p. 17). The need to provide academic and out-of-class experiences was important in order to develop these skills and attitudes. Newman suggested that being a good citizen included appreciating diversity, working in teams, and helping the less fortunate. He emphasized the balance between socializing students to fit in to today’s world and questioning today’s society. Whether the new for-profit institutions or even the general university would continue this goal in a society that seemed to support higher education for employment advancement only was challenged (Newman, 2000). Universities have talented students who are truly interested in leadership, club activities, involvement with their majors and professors, and learning 62 through service (examples of connectedness). Students are not apathetic, but activism is spread around many different issues with no single focal point as in the 603 (Dreier, 1998). F lacks stated the following: “student activism ebbs and flows, but it never disappears” (cited in Dreier, 1998, p. 22). Student activism, according to Flacks and Thomas (1998) was centered among a small proportion of students but they stated that the difference was that it took fewer students to cause major “waves” on campus today. Skocpol (cited in Miller, 1999) felt this was a societal trend, civic life has been reoriented by an explosion of advocacy groups. That trend has cut the ties that once drew ordinary citizens into political activism and gathered members of various economic classes in joint causes. The result is a new civic America largely run by advocates and mangers without members. . .(p. A17) Although the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) found students in 1997 showed the lowest levels of political interest in 30 years, the rate of student volunteerism was increasing. Students believed they could make a difference in small ways (Loeb, 1999). Levine and Cureton (1998d) report that students were activists, almost to the level of the 19608 and they believed individuals could make a difference. According to Perreault (1997), the increasing need for community service derives from several different concerns, including individualism of United States society, the alienation and consequent withdrawal of citizens from the political process, and the variety and depth of problems and unmet needs in the society. Community service provides one means of involving young people in serving their society and is premised on the assumption that if service begins early enough in life it will become a ‘habit of the heart.’ (p. 148) 63 Celebrative Community “Sixth, a college or university is a celebrative community, one in which the heritage of the institution is remembered and where rituals affirming both tradition and change are widely shared” (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, p. 55). A celebrative community, according to the Carnegie Foundation Report, has its own traditions and heritage. The university has ritual and ceremony and yet, can be fun, cause pride or other positive emotions. This includes activities such as convocation, sporting events, certain programs such as black history month, commencement, orientation activities, etc. Gardner stated that communities have a shared culture. Special landmarks, attractive buildings and beautiful places on campus also add to the distinctiveness and tradition. “A healthy community affirms itself and builds morale and motivation through ceremonies and celebrations that honor the symbols of shared identity and enable members to rededicate themselves” (Gardner, 1989, p.77). Perhaps the one ceremony recognized by most campuses was commencement. Many campuses also reinstituted new student convocation (Carey & Fabiano, 1999). Roberts and Brown (1989) recommended that the entire campus participate in new student orientation and convocation, and that faculty or staff participation was equally important. Traditions played a role in community or connection for students. Strong athletic teams added to the tradition and celebration on a campus unless winning at all costs became a negative force on campus (Willimon, 1995). Strong academic reputations or even specific academic programs were reasons for connections to institutions. There were times when students “expressed a sense of community of the whole by evoking their 64 posit; haul inch 199‘] Xth' Schor for all di’lejt lmpor (IQ . l‘ten positive experiences with faculty” (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992, p. 152). This was especially true at community colleges and small liberal colleges because of gratitude to faculty who treated students like they were family. Campuses actually tried to develop traditions to create a sense of community or connection amongst students. Examples included experiences such as convocation, arts festivals, concerts, sibling weekend, and so forth. Many times these were the ideas of young enthusiastic administrators (Boyer, 1990; Kuh, et al., 1991; Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). Campus events such as Martin Luther King Day, Women’s History Month, or Native American Pow Wow were examples of significant activities that celebrate diverse populations on campus and assisted these students in becoming part of the campus tradition. These specialized events were “the important reward for staying in school despite isolation, marginalization, and struggle” (Sanio, 2000, p. 643). Smith and Schonfeld (2000) reviewed research that suggested the importance of campus activities for all students and acknowledgment of the “differences between members, through the development and existence of ethnic organizations and support networks” (p. 18). It was important to examine who was connected and who could be disconnected because of any given campus ritual (Young, 1999). Activities also demonstrated the values of a campus and encouraged university support as a method of building community (Gonzalez, 1989; Peck, 1987; Young, 1999). However, special attention must be paid to negative traditions that tell students inappropriate values are acceptable such as greek hazing or derogatory mascots, alcohol abuse, inappropriate behavior towards certain people because of gender or sexual Preference (Manning, 1989, 1994). 65 Orientation and convocation were appropriate times to teach campus traditions such as stories, songs, and positive athletic activities that assisted new students in fitting in the campus community (Kuh et al., 1991). School spirit and these traditions could be used to make students feel comfortable rather than separated because they did not know what was expected. Meaningful celebrations endured the passage of time because they were significant, enjoyable, and educational. The celebrations usually included a time to inform as well as pass history of the institution to the newcomers (Hackney, 1996). Celebration added to the ethos of campus (Kuh, 1993a). Kuh believed institutions should “generate feelings of loyalty and a sense of specialness” (Kuh et al., 1991, p. 363). Weekends such as homecoming and alumni activities for graduating seniors promote community as well as major concerts and speakers for all students. Schlossberg (1989) stressed the importance of rituals for making transition easier, but acknowledged there were very few of them on campuses for academic transition whether it was selecting a major, completing a project, or getting an A in a class. Perhaps, she concluded, this was the reason students celebrated accomplishment with alcohol. Texas A&M was often cited as a fine example of a celebrative campus because of its strong respect for traditions. However, after the tragic bonfire at Texas A&M, students acknowledged that their greatest strength was also their greatest weakness (Lowery, 2000). They found that their campus culture, which was such a strong attribute, also resulted in the campus rejecting outside advice and positive change. In the Carnegie Report (1990), Boyer warned that a celebrative campus embraced positive change. Ojeda, O’Connor and Kuhn (1997) advocated for the importance of tradition and community by stressing the importance of an attractive learning environment. They noted 66 the importance of planning and designing campuses as places where students live, work, play, eat, and shop, as well as learn. The Carnegie Foundation (1990) suggested that this was a very important connector for many students, which added to their sense of pride, and reason for celebration. In conclusion, Kuh et al. (1991) stated that ceremonies “integrate the academic with the nonacademic in ways that celebrate the total experience of students” (p. 212). Chickering and Reisser (1993) described ceremonies as those times when the university employees collaborate together to “refocus on the individual student who is more precious than any publication, more complex than any curriculum, and more worthy of our attention than any committee work” (p. 453). Sanio (2000) believed “ceremonies and celebrations are ways in which institutions show students they matter” (p. 643). Prior Research at Central Michigan Upiversity It should be noted that the position of vice president of student affairs at Central Michigan University was eliminated in Summer, 1994. The president reorganized in order to “improve the delivery of services to students, provide greater collaboration between academic and service units, provide increased responsiveness to students’ academic and non-academic needs, and make better use of staff and resources” (Plachta, 1994, p.2). In 1995, the Dean of Students Office asked for volunteers to investigate building a sense of community on campus. Several brainstorming sessions with faculty, students and staff lead to ideas for discussion about community development. Many suggestions were very similar to the characteristics of institutions reviewed in Kuh et al.’s Involving Colleges, (1991) and information provided by Spitzberg and Thorndike (1992). 67 Members of the committee were divided into groups for three assignments. One group was assigned to seek student opinion through focus groups. A second group was asked to identify an instrument to be administered to a larger number of students about developing a sense of community. A third group was assigned to look at what were considered successful models for building community at other campuses. The records indicate that two focus groups were completed. Approximately fifteen undergraduate students were interviewed. According to a discussion with the Interim Dean of Students, the general topic of community building was not a priority beyond his area. However, improving services was a priority to the president. Several key administrators continued interest in building community and worked to improve the service area of the university such as financial aid, and student receivables. Academic advising and counseling services set up satellite offices in some residence hall complexes. Basically, services were delivered to the living environment. It became evident that improving services was not necessarily correlated with improving connectedness and community. Yet students on today’s campuses do not tolerate poor service (Levine & Cureton, 1998d). General campus services for students were a prerequisite for student satisfaction with the institution, which led to building community and connectedness (Astin, 1993b; Astin, 1996a; Kuh et al., 1991; Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). Several students in focus groups also listed good service and polite behavior as a strong connector. In 1998 and 1999, Central Michigan University’s Center for Applied Research and Rural Studies (CARRS) surveyed undergraduate students at the Mt. Pleasant campus. 68 Both were entitled Report of Findings: Study of the Attitudes and Experiences of CM U ’s On-Campus Undergraduates. They discussed the student satisfaction rate with the university. There were very few differences in information reported in 1998 compared to data obtained in 1999. Campus researchers voiced concern regarding the lack of connection to campus by about thirty percent of those surveyed. The lack of involvement in out-of-class preparation for class was extremely low for the full-time student population. Although students seemed satisfied with CMU, it appeared that students living off campus were not as connected to the campus as freshmen. Senior administration was concerned about the lack of involvement in campus activities or student organizations, and lack of attendance to cultural events and the number of students who did not feel connected. This was important to the discussion of community and connection because the studies involve CMU’s climate. Summary Boyer’s (The Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990) six principles were the result of his desire to change the climate on college campuses described by Spitzberg and Thomdike’s study conducted for The Carnegie Foundation in 1990 and later published in 1992 (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). The study recommended that campuses needed to be committed to learning, protecting freedom of thought and expression, justice to all student subgroups, and respect for differences in a civil and tolerant manner. From these recommendations, Boyer developed the following principles for creating community on campus: educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative. An educationally purposeful community included teaching pedagogy and faculty characteristics because of their importance to connecting students to the classroom 69 (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Yet few educators really understood how students learned (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). Faculty and students needed to share academic goals and the entire campus needed to work together to strengthen teaching and learning (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990). In their study, Spitzberg and Thorndike (1992) reached these conclusions: Classrooms were not seen as the place to build community because students did not have the opportunity to connect with other students or develop fiiendship. F ull-time students did not see classes as a priority. Neither faculty nor students seemed bothered with the lack of interest in learning or connecting with each other in or out of the classroom. There was little interest in active learning. Faculty and students did show an interest in connecting with each other at smaller institutions. Active learning, experiential learning, and service learning could help students become responsible members of society and responsible learners of classroom material (Berman, 1990). Students needed faculty to have high expectations of them (Schilling & Schilling, 1999). Examples of teaching pedagogy included: taking an interest in students as individuals; learning student names; written feedback on homework, tests, and papers; encouraging active discussion; and providing a supportive and creative learning environment (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Personal and academic development was equally important and necessary for students to feel connected to the institution. A seamless learning environment was necessary in order to accomplish this development (Astin, 1996a; Banta & Kuh, 1998; Knefelkamp, 1989; Kuh, 1995a; Kuh, 1996a; Kuh, 1996b; Kuh, Lyons, Miller, Trow, 1995; Potter, 1999). Institutions needed to combine all the influences in a student’s life in 70 order for them to have a strong learning environment. Students wanted class to be relevant to their lives and not just a graduation requirement. Boyer’s open community principle included discussion about the importance of freedom of expression and civility on campus. But students seemed uncomfortable discussing controversial issues (Trosset, 1998). Students needed to develop skills and participate in experiences where they could learn respect for others opinions, compassion, honesty, fairness, honesty, and how to develop their own views and judgements (Ehrich, 1999). Lack of civility in the classroom should be resolved through campus disciplinary procedures (Amada, 1994; Schneider, 1998). Faculty needed to be skillful at controlling behavior in their classroom and students needed to be reminded that they were expected to respect all points of view during class or out-of-class discussions (Brooke, 1999). Some students may need coaching in developing respectful and appropriate communication skills (Pomerantz, 1993). There were conflicting views by campuses as to how they should handle incivility and harassment on campus. Restrictive speech codes were not appropriate according to the researchers, but the codes were supported on many campuses (Gibbs, 1992; Pavela, 1995, 1996; Pomerantz; Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992;). In Boyer’s just community principle, diversity was pursued and the importance of each person was honored (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990). Subgroups could play a role in developing community and connectedness on campus (Ringgenberg, 1989) rather than making community difficult to create as some researchers expressed (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). However, students tended to affiliate with people like themselves and isolate from people who were different from themselves. A student’s peers were the most powerful source of influence on academic and personal development (Astin, 1993b). 71 Diversity education enhanced the student’s commitment to promoting understanding regarding differences (Astin, 1993a, Kuh, 1991) as well as remedying diversity problems on campus (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). As part of a just community, institutions needed to make an effort to work with the poor and less prepared student by supporting remedial classes; this included the affluent and prestigious schools that could afford such programs (Astin, 2000; Hunt, 1999; Newman, 2000). Also, it was important that students “matter” to the institution (Schlossberg, 1989). In Boyer’s disciplined community, individuals accepted their obligation to the group in and out of the classroom and the university had clear-cut expectations of student behavior (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990). The student judicial or campus discipline program’s purpose was to prevent harm and exploitation of students, promote free speech and learning, and encourage a sense of community through responsible behavior (Hoekema, 1994). Expecting and enforcing high standards was important. However, students were indifferent about regulations in residence halls, participating in university governance, and rule enforcement (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). Campuses were not quite sure what to replace in loco parentis with during the 19903. Stronger involvement with students by faculty and staff was significant to influencing student behavior (Astin, 1993b; Kuh et al., 1991; Willimon, 1995). Honor Codes were also used on campuses to strengthen the ethos and mission of the institution. The most important factor in curbing academic dishonesty was the overall campus culture; educating students and not tolerating cheating on campus was also important (Dannells, 1997; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2001). The Carolinian Creed was an example of a method of establishing expectations for student behavior (Pruitt, 1996). The Community Standards Model was a 72 method of giving students responsibility for governing their own behavior (Baxter Magolda, 1999; Piper, 1997). Campuses continued the struggle with alcohol abuse by challenging the campus culture, which accepted the abuse in the past. This culture change had to involve administrators, staff, students, the surrounding community, and faculty (Schroeder et al., 1999). However, Willimon and Naylor (1995) believed student alcohol abuse was an illusionary attempt to deal with student separation and meaninglessness. Boyer’s caring community principle included a campus where the well being of each member was supported and service to others was encouraged. Students were encouraged to be involved in and out of the classroom and bonding with other students, faculty, and staff was important (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990). Developing friendships and bonding opportunities should be planned through campus activities and through the classroom. If fiiendships were lacking, students tended to focus on this searching for community rather than their studies (N ewman-Gonchar, 2000). Both men and women in college value and experience social connectedness, “but they differ in the types of social provisions that contribute to this interpersonal closeness” (Lee & Robbins, 2000,p.488) Kuh et al. (1991) reviewed colleges and universities that used out-of-class learning and personal development to compliment their educational goals because they contributed to a sense of community and connectedness. Examples of out-of-class involvement included student leadership opportunities, student organization involvement, residence hall activities, campus cultural events, lectures, concerts, convocations, use of campus services, interaction with faculty, and collaborative research. Kuh et al. (1991) used the definition of involvement by Astin and Pace: behavioral view of involvement 73 could be found in what students do and how much effort they expend in various activities. However, encouraging students to engage or be involved was the challenge (Kuh, 1995b). Involvement with student activities increased friendship and bonding opportunities and satisfaction with the institution. But very few students (about 10%) were interested in student organizations or participating in activities that could lead to a sense of connectedness to campus, or entertainment provided by campus despite active encouragement by administrative staff (Spitzberg and Thorndike, 1992). Loneliness, detachment, and isolation were concerns of students (Willimon & Naylor, 1995). Friendship with students, faculty, and staff was important to connectedness. “Mattering” to the institution was also significant (Schlossberg, 1989). Willimon challenged faculty and staff to develop friendship with students as well as help cultivate student friendships with other students. Friendship development was important to personal growth and a student’s attitude towards academic success; it was important that institutions make an effort to cultivate positive student friendships (Newman- Gonchar, 2000). The peer group had an influence on how students spent their time. Peer groups had a significant impact on each other, for both men and women. The student’s peer group was the single most influential force on grth and development. Faculty were the next most influential force on students (Astin, 1993b). Academic and social integration were critical to student retention and connectedness to the institution (Tinto, 1993, 2000). Certain learning methods increased friendship opportunities in class, which were significant to connectedness (Lincoln, 2000; 74 Rendon, 2000a). Volunteerism (service learning) developed a sense of community among students and faculty (Astin, 2000). It was very important that faculty show they cared about students. Behavior as simple as good teaching methods was interpreted by students - as “caring” (Lincoln, 2000). Willimon and Naylor (1995) found that students wanted to be more connected with faculty and staff. Faculty and staff administered institutions as if it were still the ‘605 with no school interference with student lives while students were more interested in the search for roots, stability, order, and identity. Students were quite clear that they did not want more rules and regulations. Alcohol abuse was an illusionary attempt to deal with student separation and meaninglessness. Volunteerism and good citizenry skills were very important to feeling connected. Both should be part of in-class and out—of—class activities. Education should prepare students to understand and deal with modern life (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Strong campus services to students were a precondition for connectedness (Astin, 1996a; Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). Boyer’s celebrative community included ritual, ceremony, and campus traditions that were important to feeling connected (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990). Activities that celebrate diversity were significant to connectedness and community (Sanio, 2000). Attractive, well-kept, modern facilities and grounds were important to campus pride and connectedness (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990; Ojeda, O’Connor & Kuhn, 1997). Orientation and convocation were important opportunities to teach campus traditions and rituals to new students (Kuh et al., 1991). Flamed activities, winning athletic teams, school spirit, big concerts, and famous lecturers add to campus pride and sense of 75 community as well as acclaimed academic programs (Kuh et al., 1991; Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). This did provide a sense of connection or campus pride. Research at Central Michigan University found students to be happy with campus services. However, administration was concerned that about thirty percent of the students did not feel connected to the university. There was a concern about the lack of involvement in student organizations and lack of attendance at cultural events. 76 Chapter Three Research Methodology Chapter Three discussed the research methodology used to develop and administer a survey designed to determine what items were important to undergraduate full-time students in feeling connected to a university and what items were not important to undergraduate full-time students in feeling connected to a university. The survey also determined if there was a significant difference between how important these items were for respondents compared to how true they were perceived to be about Central Michigan University. Focus groups were used to develop questions for the survey. This chapter discusses the focus group procedures and the development of the survey format. Central Michigan University The study took place at Central Michigan University, a mid-westem university. According to the mission statement published by the CMU Board of Trustees, CMU “aspires to become the premier comprehensive institution for Michigan and the region. It will be known for excellence in liberal arts and professional programs” (Central Michigan University, June 2000 p. 8). The Mt. Pleasant on-campus undergraduate enrollment for this institution for Fall Semester, 2000, was 16,374 (Office of Institutional Research, October 2000). Of that total, 4707 were freshmen, 3820 sophomores, 3423 were juniors, and 4424 were seniors. Of the total enrolled, 1132 were new transfer students and 132 were non-degree students. Of the undergraduate students, 21.8 percent were enrolled for 16 or more credit hours, 71.1 percent for 12 to 15 credits, 5.0 percent 77 for 6 to 11 credits, and 2.1 percent took 5 or fewer credits. The average age of undergraduate students was 21.2 years with women representing 59.4 percent of undergraduate student population. The number of undergraduate students of color on campus was 1338, 7.24% of the undergraduate population. Institutional Research reported that nearly 74% of first-time freshmen entering CMU in the fall semesters of 1996, 1997, and 1998 began their second year at CMU. For the 1999 entering freshmen class, 77% returned for the fall, 2000 semester. Approximately 85% of the students who began their second year continued to their third year. Nearly 76% of transfer students entering CMU in the fall semesters of 1996, 1997, and 1998 began their second year at CMU and 93% of transfer students who began their second year either graduated or continued to their third year at the university. Of a typical freshman class, about 53% graduate from CMU with a bachelor’s degree within seven years, with 16% finishing in four years or less and 41% in five years or less. Male for Using Focus Grrmp_s This was a mixed method study involving a survey instrument in which the questions were derived from twelve focus groups and research discussed in the literature review. The results of the focus groups were used to refine and add to factors discussed in the literature thus, insuring that. the questions were appropriate for students at CMU. The decision to use focus groups as a means to obtain information for the construction of the written survey was based on the desire to obtain qualitative data related to opinions, feelings, convictions, and beliefs that were not as easily obtained through written form (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). The verbal feedback of the students was determined by the researcher to be critical to insuring that the students’ perspectives 78 were reflected in the written survey. Additionally, focus groups have a long and favorable history in the student affairs and academic life of universities as demonstrated by Jacobi (1991), and Peterson and Spencer (1993) who stated that face-to-face interaction was an effective way to obtain information from college students. McKenzie and Smeltzer (1997) stated that students better express their opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and insights in group settings. Jacobi (1991) and Peterson and Spencer (1993) explored the use of focus groups as an alternative method of research for learning useful information about college students for student affairs professionals. Focus groups could validate “clinical and anecdotal information collected by academic counselors, faculty, and other service producers...” (Jacobi, 1991, p. 200). Hemdon (1993) explored the use of this method for preliminary investigation. Patton (1990) suggested using standardized open-ended questions to allow participants to tell their story. It should be remembered that the focus group results were not necessarily meant to generalize about an entire population. But the focus group allowed the researcher to probe unanticipated issues. Results could be discussed in lay terms that were understandable, inexpensive and speedy (Krueger, 1994). Focus group interviews originated from group therapy methods, where participants responded and interacted more freely in a group setting then on an individual level (Javidi, Long, Vasu, & Ivy, 1991; Lederman, 1990; Toper, 1992). In the last three decades, they were been widely used in market research (Greenbaum, 1988; Krueger, 1988; Morgan, 1988) with the consumer participating in “carefully planned discussion groups designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, 79 nonthreatening environment were participants respond to ideas and comments in the discussion” (Javidi, et. el. 1991, p. 232). Individual interviews were another method to gain qualitative input. They were not chosen for two reasons. The most important reason was that focus groups provided a safe environment for participants to express their views, and the information was often richer and deeper because of the interaction among the participants and between the participants and the facilitators (Jacobi, 1991; Lederman, 1990; McMillin, 1989; Stewart and Shamadassani, 1990; Whitt & Kuhn, 1991). Focus groups promoted interaction among group members, and between the facilitator and group members by reacting to each other’s comments or offering contradictory impressions, which provided rich information about the participants’ experiences and perceptions (McMillin, 1989; Whitt & Kuh, 1991). The second reason was that the researcher wanted to obtain input from as many people as possible in a shorter time period. According to Krueger (1994), validity in focus groups could be explained as follows: “. . .focus groups are very much like other social science measurement procedures in which validity depends not only on the procedures used but also on context. . .The most basic level is face validity: Do the results look valid?” (Krueger, 1994, pp. 32-33). Focus groups have face validity in large part to the “believability of comments from participants” (Krueger, 1994, p. 33). _(_3_hgracteristics of the Students Who Participated in the Focus Groups The focus groups comprised a purposive sampling (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Patton, 1988, 1990) from the student population attending Central Michigan University 80 spring semester, 2000. Students were interviewed until new ideas no longer came forward (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The primary criteria for selecting participants for ten of the twelve focus groups were that they had minimal involvement in CMU campus activities or organizations, had not selected their academic major, or had limited involvement with faculty and staff. The decision to solicit information from these students was made based on the belief that typical traditional or academically marginal full-time students were not necessarily asked for their feedback. The Dean of Students and members of his staff voiced this concern. The researcher was interested in interviewing students who were not involved in campus groups or activities, or committed to a major, or involved with faculty and staff. Astin (1993b) and Kuh et al. (1991) already discussed the importance of involvement to the quality of education. The thoughts of uninvolved students regarding the importance of community and feeling connected to Central Michigan University was of interest because they were “information rich” (Patton, 1990) about possible factors which were important to them in feeling connected to CMU. Students involved in student organizations were not directly solicited for participation in the focus groups because there is a wide range of research on the importance of out-of—class involvement to connection as discussed in Chapter Two. Students who were marginal academically were also solicited for feedback. However, two of the focus groups consisted of students with the only criterion that they be enrolled full-time. Involvement in student activities, campus events, or with their major was not an issue for volunteering to participate in these two groups. 81 The students were selected in several ways. First, students in the Freshman Empowerment Program (F EP) were invited to participate in six focus groups. Membership in this university program was not just limited to freshmen. Students in this group also included transfer students. Students in this program were academically suspended after their first semester at CMU, but allowed to return on academic probation. They were invited to participate in the focus groups with the understanding that their willingness to participate was totally voluntary and would have no positive or negative effect on their academic standing or membership in the Freshman Empowerment Program. Strong ties had not yet been developed to the group. The researcher asked for volunteers from the Freshman Empowerment Program to participate because they had low involvement in CMU programs and activities or their academic majors as evidenced by Boyer-Chase (2000). They also had trouble academically and the researcher was interested in their specific thoughts on connection. Students lived in residence halls and off-campus: About fourteen students of color from the FEP chose to participate in this volunteer process. This included African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. There were also two students from India. They had no problem voicing their opinions about the university. These students did not have an issue with answering questions because of racial differences. Perhaps, their academic similarities gave them reason to be open to self-disclosure (Jourard, cited in Krueger, 1994; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Next, the researcher solicited assistance from resident hall directors and resident assistants in identifying students in the residence halls who did not normally participate ’ in regularly scheduled events and activities, student groups, or committed to their 82 academic major. Students living in residence halls were selected because they were typically in their freshmen or sophomore year. As Geraghty (1996) indicated, these students were a key population with regards to retention issues as they relate to the university in completing college successfully. Three focus groups were utilized. Students did not necessarily need to be withdrawn or unhappy. All the students interviewed met the criteria with the exception of three. One student was on the field hockey team and two students were members of student groups. The other students were typical students not necessarily enmeshed in the active campus culture. Their involvement on campus was centered on partying with their peers. Another focus group included full-time non-traditional students. This group was identified through the Nontraditional Student Resource Center. Participants who used the center for studying were invited to participate in the focus group through an announcement posted in the center. At CMU, they were also identified as a marginal group (Schlossberg, 1989) of students due to their age and special needs. Participants in two focus groups were selected through two general education classes. CMU professors asked for volunteers from their classes. No criteria for participation in these groups were mandated and the professors offered no extra credit. Some students in these two focus groups were involved in student organizations and some students were involved in their academic majors. It was not the intent of these focus groups to represent any specific race or gender. As Krueger stated (1994), in order to capture the opinions of a certain group of people, several groups of that category need to be interviewed. Residence hall students shared the environment as a commonality. Non-traditional students shared their commonality of age. 83 Despite what Axelrod called the “peacock effect”(cited in Krueger, 1994), the researcher did not observe the men and women performing for each other. It should be noted that a possible bias could have existed from an overage of female participants. There were also an overage of sophomores and an under representation of seniors. Seniors might have been the most knowledgeable group of students about the university. See Table 1. Table 1 Composition of Focus Groups Group Male Female Fr Soph Jr Sr Res Hall Off-Campus White Non-White #1 2 6 1 6 1 0 5 3 8 #2 7 3 4 6 O 0 10 0 7 3 #3 6 7 3 6 2 2 6 7 10 3 #4 7 5 5 5 2 O 9 3 8 4 #5 4 5 0 5 4 O 5 4 9 0 #6 6 7 0 8 5 0 8 5 11 2 #7 0 8 5 O 3 0 5 3 8 0 #8 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 8 0 #9 4 4 3 0 1 4 3 5 6 2 #10 0 8 5 3 0 0 8 0 8 0 #11 4 3 1 1 2 3 0 7 7 0 #12 0 4 3 1 0 0 4 0 4 0 TOTAL 44 64 30 45 24 9 67 41 94 14 Focus Group Logistics Each group had one facilitator and a recorder who took field notes and operated the audio tape recorder (Krueger, 1994). Releases (Appendix D) were obtained from the students. Groups were held in residence hall facilities, a lounge in an academic building, rooms in the university center, and in the non-traditional student resource center. All the locations were “student areas,” meaning none of the areas were specifically reserved for university administration or faculty. The researcher felt that the students would be more comfortable in physical locations typically used by students. The rooms were arranged with the chairs in a circle. All areas were familiar to the students and provided easy 84 access, except for parking, for the participants. Students had direct eye contact with each other and seemed comfortable (Krueger, 1994). The questions were posed verbally. Focus Group Facilitators Four facilitators were solicited from the CMU faculty and administration. They were selected based on their expertise and past experience with student focus groups (Krueger, 1994; Morgan & Krueger, 1998). The researcher operated the audio recorder and took field notes during all the sessions. The facilitator asked the questions. The facilitators or the researcher did not know the students before the sessions. The facilitators had experience in facilitating focus groups as recommended by Krueger (1994). They were very respectful of student opinions and feelings, a most important factor according to Krueger (1994). The fact that students were academically suspended or not involved was of no importance to the facilitators. Students wanted to know the facilitators’ opinions on some of their answers, but careful skills were used to make sure this did not occur (Fontana & Frey, 2000). Before each group started, the facilitator and recorder participated in small talk so the participants felt comfortable with strangers as recommended by Toper (1992). The facilitators established a sense of trust, which was necessary for accurate disclosure (Glesne & Preshkin, 1992). The facilitators were careful to “probe and pause” when necessary (Krueger, 1994). As Krueger (1994) stated, the purpose of these focus groups was to collect data, to determine the perceptions, feelings, and manner of thinking of consumers regarding products, services, or opporttmities. [These] focus groups [were] not intended to develop consensus, to arrive at an agreeable plan, or to make decisions about which course of action to take. (P. 19) 85 Facilitators had to remind students of this last point as some wanted group consensus when it just was not necessary (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Each group had a member or two that tried to dominate the discussion (Fontana & Frey, 2000). The facilitators were skillful in steering the conversation so that it included other group members. FMS Grm Process any] Recording Feedback The focus groups were held in February and March 2000. Each focus group took approximately 60 to 90 minutes to conduct. The process began with the facilitators introducing themselves; then the students introduced themselves. Everyone wore tags indicating their first name only. Next, the facilitators explained that the students had been invited to participate in the focus groups regarding what connects or disconnects students to CMU. They defined connect or connection as “feeling like you belong; feeling like you can relate to; or feeling like you are cared about by people in the institution.” The facilitators began by explaining the ground rules for participation in the focus groups. The ground rules were maintaining confidentiality, remembering that all student answers included important information, and that if a student felt uncomfortable with a question he or she did not have to respond. Then, the facilitators explained that the discussions would be audiotaped and hand recorded (field notes) to insure that all of their feedback was accurately captured. The facilitator posed each question individually and asked for feedback from any student who wished to respond. If no responses were forth coming, the facilitators would restate the question and begin calling on the students, by name, to provide feedback. Only one time did a student ask to pass when asked by the facilitator to respond. For the most part, students readily offered feedback. Sometimes, the students appeared to be shy 86 about giving answers, but the facilitators were skillful in “gently probing” for clarification rather than “second guessing” them (Patton, 1990). At the end of the question period, the facilitator reviewed their answers and asked for student verification to insure that the feedback was captured accurately. Member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were conducted to establish credibility. Comments were repeated and reactions solicited from students about the information gathered from the groups. Students were also asked if they had any additional comments to offer before leaving. When that was completed, the students were thanked and reminded that their feedback would be used to develop a survey on what connects students to a university. Focus Grou uestions In the first session, the focus group questions had an illogical sequence to the students, which was confusing for them specifically when direct quotes were used from Boyer’s work (1990) which was later deleted (Krueger, 1994). Other questions were added based on subject matter introduced by the students (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Focus groups assist researchers in discovering the students’ reality. For instance, several people in every focus group listed parking problems as a disconnector. An example of a connecting factor was the extensive use of the Internet to communicate with family and fiiends; yet, students expressed little interest in using it for academic reasons. They wanted direct contact with faculty. Questions were very general in the beginning and became more specific as the interviews continued (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). The questions were open ended, designed to obtain as much information as possible from the students. The questions were 87 divided into seven categories: students’ background, questions related to the university experience and campus environment, faculty and academic issues, residential arrangements and fiiendships, general questions, questions about CMU in the future, and wrap-up (Appendix B). After the facilitator’s oral summary of each session, the students were asked if it was correct and additional comments were added. Interestingly, at the conclusion, all the groups wanted to know more about the nature of the study and if they had helped the researcher in any way. The students seemed pleased their opinions were valued (Krueger, 1994). One student commented, “I appreciate the university taking the time to find out what I think is important and listening.” Coding and Analyzing the Responses Tape recordings and field notes were reviewed to code the data as well as debriefing between the facilitators and the recorder (Krueger, 1994). The students’ responses collected during the focus groups were transcribed and coded to allow themes to emerge. Coding is a process of induction that allows the researcher to order the data. Responses from participants were recorded onto one master list in order to key in on themes. The process of coding always begins by asking two fundamentals questions: “Of what category is the item before me an instance? What can we think of this being about?” (Lofland & Lofland, 1995, p. 86). In particular, this researcher asked: “What is this factor? Does this factor represent student connection? Does this factor represent student disconnection? How is this item similar or different from other responses?” Answering these questions allowed the researcher to assign labels or tags on the data, 88 which allowed for sorting, organizing, and compiling the data into analytical codes. Two stages of analytical coding were used in this study: initial and focused coding. Initial coding is the first step of discovering and defining the data (Charrnez 1983). It is at this stage of coding that the induction of analysis begins (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The second stage, focused coding, is the process whereby the initial codes are analyzed for frequency of use and applicability (Lofland and Lofland, 1995). The resulting effect being that fewer and fewer codes are applied to a broader range of data. It is at this stage that coding moves from individual labels to more comprehensive themes, which represent overarching ideas or propositions. The researcher collapsed or eliminated codes on two separate occasions. The codes that remained were those findings from the focus groups that were used to develop the written survey instrument. Themes were coded under the Carnegie Report’s six categories of community: educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative because these categories were so encompassing. Observations from the Focus Groups Based on the following observations, survey questions were developed to make sure emphasis was properly placed on topics important to students. The focus group comments are listed under the Carnegie Foundation Report’s six principles. Some general observations from the focus groups were as follows: Educationally Purposeful Community -Although it could have been because of lack of exposure or opportunity, students did not seem to have any interest in cultural events. Out-of-class activities and involvement in campus events seemed important to the students but few chose to participate in them. 89 Their reason for lack of involvement was “time” and not knowing what events were scheduled. -Very few students had educational goals, but stated they knew the importance of preparing for “some kind of career”. Career enhancement was the main reason for coming to college. -The question that raised the most discussion was “If you were responsible for teaching professors how to teach, what would you tell them?” Comments such as “I just wish he would smile or at least, know my name” or “instructors should take an interest in me as a person” were prevalent. There was strong interest in discussing the classroom environment and the way faculty related to them. Such comments included: “I wish they could speak English” or “I like it when my prof relates class information or assignments to everyday life”or “I want the test information to relate to what we discussed in class” or “I do better when my teacher expects me to do well” or “I wish they would smile once in a while.” -Students did not seem to know their professors’ names and rarely had personal conversations with them. Students seemed to have very little connection with faculty and really did not portray a need to improve this factor. Students did not expect “a lot” from faculty outside of classes. When asked if they would like to be friends with professors, they were not sure. They were somewhat interested in knowing their professors as “people”. -Participants did not understand how general studies’ courses fit in to their lives or why such classes should be required. 90 -Students wanted small classes and were concerned with their computer skills and poorly serviced computer labs. Open Community -Several students voiced their concern about the lack of respect for from some of their professors. -Some students were concerned about expressing their opinion in class if it differed from the professor’s, especially regarding racial issues, they stated that it “just wasn’t worth it.” Just Community -Students seemed rather open to meeting other students different from themselves and believed they could connect with “just about anyone”. But they were not so interested in going to programs or having experiences regarding diversity “forced” on them by the university. The group that got “cut down” the most and defended the most was the “greeks” or students in fraternities and sororities. Disciplined Community -Although students complained about campus rules regarding “behavior," by the end of the discussion, they thought some rules were necessary to maintain the rights of everyone. An example of this was their comments about enforcement of the alcohol policy in the residence halls: too stringent at the beginning of the discussion but necessary towards the end of the discussion. -Another prevalent theme was the amount of cheating that was allowed on campus and the lack of interest by faculty to change it. However, many students did not seem upset about it. 91 Caring Community -After five weeks into their second semester, the interviewed F EP students (freshmen and transfers) did not feel connected to CMU. -The students felt it was very important that they mattered to those employed by the university, but talked about staff as if they were students’ personal “service people” as described in Levine and Cureton’s study (1998). Few could identify a campus employee or adult they “mattered” to. Students felt like they were often sent “on a wild goose chase” to get answers to questions. They did not feel like they were listened to regarding their opinions or concerns. But very few took the time to voice their concerns to staff or administrators. These comments were even stronger for students living off-campus. They seemed to know little about available services and activities. Questions regarding services were eliminated from the survey because the topic was covered extensively in CMU’s studies conducted in 1998 and 1999. -Most students thought this was a “friendly campus.” Students who did not have a lot of friends on campus gave the following reasons: “work too much and did not have enough time between working and studying”. Some students felt it was harder to meet people because they didn’t live in the “dorm.” One student said he was not “here to make fiiends.” A few students did not think people were friendly. One women said her roommates were “too shy” to make friends. -The participants expressed strong opinions about the importance of making fiiends at college. Although not a surprising connector, how and where students were able to develop friendships on a college campus seemed limited to parties in residence halls and 92 off-campus parties. Alcohol made it easier to meet people. They rarely had the opportunity to make fiiends in class. -Some students believed CMU “felt like home.” -Students clearly understood the importance of getting involved in student organizations but few participated. They really gave no specific reason for lack of involvement. Few knew where to go in order to inquire about student organizations and involvement. -Participants had no opinion as to what a university of the future should look like. They only knew that everyone should be in a classroom and “not sitting behind a computer for credit” (distance learning). They seemed almost frightened about depending on computers because of their lack of skills and poorly serviced equipment on campus. Internet communication seemed important in regards to connecting with family or friends, not faculty or staff. -Parking was a serious disconnector to students. -Leaming how to be a contributing, good citizen, participating in government, or knowing about societal issues was not an important part of their college education. Few students looked at college as the place to develop citizenry skills. Few students interviewed knew about CMU’s volunteer center. - Focus group participants confirmed many of the student characteristics discussed in Chapter I expressed by Levine and Cureton (1998). This was especially true of what Levine and Cureton called the unpartnered groups. Students agreed that there was a great deal of “impersonal sex” meaning no relationship just sex. The survey instrument did not replicate questions regarding student characteristics because of the length. 93 Celebrative Community -School spirit seemed to be important to many of the participants as were winning athletic teams. Many did not go to athletic events and complained about the losing football and mens’ basketball team. Few knew about the minor mens’ sports or the womens’ teams that were doing quite well. It should be noted that CMU’s mens’ basketball team was in last place at the time of these focus groups. -Modem and attractive facilities were very significant to the participants. Most of the students had participated in some activity in the Student Activities Center, if only to “work out.” -Most students named negative activities as recognized campus traditions (i.e., beer parties, tailgating parties with alcohol). Younger students were able to name some “stories” about CMU’s past as a result of new student orientation. The questions on celebrative factors were extracted from a handout of campus traditions submitted by the Dean of Students to CMU’s Board of Trustees on campus traditions during their April meeting, 2000 (Appendix F). The campus has struggled with this part of its identity. -Students wanted “big name” concerts and speakers. Developmental Origin of Survey Factors (Appendix G) contains a list of the survey according to the three categories of information where the factors originated. The categories were as follows: Information from the literature (L), information from focus groups (F), and information from the literature and focus group participants (B). 94 The Research Questions The research questions were as follows: 1. What items were important and what items not important to undergraduate full- time students in feeling connected to a university? 2. Was there a significant difference between how important these items were for respondents compared to how true they were perceived to be about Central Michigan University? Development of tpe ngey Instrument (Appendix H[ As Krueger (1994) suggests, focus groups can strengthen the quantitative research process by assisting with the questionnaire design. “Transferability to other students and contexts is left to the judgement of the reader, as is customary in qualitative inquiry” (Patton, 1990 cited in Baxter Magolda, 1998, p. 143). But the purpose of a survey or a questionnaire was “. . .to collect data from participants in a sample about their characteristics, experiences, and opinions in order to generalize the findings to a p0pulation that the sample is intended to represent” (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996, p. 289). Combining qualitative and quantitative procedures could be very beneficial in strengthening the research design (F ontana & Frey, 2000; Krueger, 1994; Morgan and Krueger, 1998). In developing the survey instrument, several examples were examined. These examples included: ACT’s Evaluation/Survey Service; the Higher Education Research Institute’s (HERI) College Student Survey; the Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning’s College Student Experience Questionnaire (author George Pace); Janosik’s Campus Community Scale; and CMU’s Center for Applied Research & Rural Studies’ 95 Study of the Attitudes and Experiences of CMU’s On-Campus Undergraduates. Theories and opinions by several authors were also studied and ideas extracted for the survey. This was reviewed in Chapter Two. Sudan & Bradbum (1982) suggested using ideas for questions from tested surveys. Due to the length of the survey instrument, questions regarding why students decided to go to college and why they attended CMU were not used in the demographic section. According to the Office of Institutional Research, this information could be obtained from secondary data also available in other surveys (Salant & Dillman, 1994). One of the most difficult issues was to determine what survey length students would tolerate. CMU survey development experts were interviewed for feedback. The literature also provided insights. Dillman (1983) suggests that lengthy surveys were possible if the “Total Design Method”(TDM) was used to design the survey to maximize return rate and personalizing the communication. Harvey, Plimmer, Moon and Geall (1997), in the Student Satisfaction Manual, stated that opinion surveys tended to be long. Special care as to design and asking relevant questions was important. ‘Sheatsley (1983) supported the notion that length may be necessary because questions needed to relate to the student’s knowledge of what disconnect meant to them. Dillman (1983) suggested certain recommendations for survey construction followed in this study: The survey instrument was typed in a format that proved easy for the participant to follow, the questions and statements were in lower case letters and the answers were in higher case letters. There was no overlap of individual questions from one page to the next page. The questions were in order of what would appear to be the most interesting to students. No questions were printed on the first page, which included 96 the cover letter as well as one of the school symbols. The demographic questions were easy to understand according to the pilot study. Campus survey development experts suggested that demographic information should be first rather than the last page, differing from Dillman’s suggestions. The survey results were confidential, but a code number was used with a master list for tracking returned responses. Names were also matched with the code for the prize drawing. The codes were then destroyed. The Likert scale was reviewed as a means of measurement in order to increase reliability. According to Fink and Kosecoff (1998) and Babbie (1990), the Likert scale was a category scale, considered by most researchers as ordinal. The number of categories was up to the researcher based on the willingness and knowledge of participants to give the information. Participants were presented with a statement and asked to respond. Response wording could be modified, but usually included strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, and neutral (Fink & Kosecoff, 1998). Babbie (1990) suggested that the Likert scale was a valuable measure because the format was “unambiguous” (p. 164). However, the scale for this survey was a five point ordinal scale because it was modified to include very important, important, neutral, unimportant, and very unimportant for questions involving importance of connection to a university. For whether the statements were true about CMU as perceived by the respondents, the scale was very true, true, neutral, untrue, and very untrue. The questions involving just community and celebrative community used different scales as deemed appropriate to the answer. It should be noted that scale titles were not used on the survey instrument sent to students so that there was no confusion when answering questions. Titles were added to 97 decrease reader confusion when labeling scales for tables and reference to Boyer’s Principles of Community. The researcher was available to note questions for necessary revisions during the pilot study, which was defined by Babbie (1990) as “initial testing of one or more aspects of the study design, such as the questionnaire, the sampling design, a computer program for analysis, and so forth” (p. 220). The precontact letter, survey, data entry, and computer analysis were piloted with a group of randomly selected students. Minor changes were made with regards to wording of some of the questions. In developing the survey questions, the researcher tried to use simple vocabulary and short statements (Sheatsley, 1983). Wherever possible, the process was personalized or the survey enhanced as suggested by Fowler (1993). Personalizing the precontact letter, the envelope, adding color to the survey instrument and a university symbol were examples of enhancing the survey instrument (Salent & Dillman, 1994). The Dean of Students was asked to review the questionnaire as well as other key administrators or “influencers” (McKenzie & Smeltzer, 1997). Several staff members were interested in survey feedback and suggested the information could affect some future practices and studies. The following CMU people reviewed the survey: Director, Office of Institutional Research; two members of the Office of Student Life staff; President of the Academic Senate (and also Sociology Professor); two of the focus group facilitators; the retired Associate Dean of Students; the university Statistician; and five students who were not part of the focus groups or pilot study. Three Michigan State University professionals also reviewed the survey: two 98 Educational Administration faculty and the Director of the Jaritt Project. All had several suggestions, sometimes conflicting. As Sheatsley (1983) suggests, information considered important during the focus groups needed further questioning through a formal written survey. This was necessary in order to ascertain if a sampling of campus felt the same way as the focus groups about certain factors being important to feeling connected as discussed in the literature. This included the Carnegie Foundation Report (1990) and authors such as Kuh, Astin, Willimon, Spitzberg and Thorndike. The researcher was interested in whether students were more characteristic of the disconnected student described in Levine’s (1998) work and if factors in the literature mattered to them with regards to connection and community on a college campus. Disseminating and Collecting the Survey A precontact letter (Appendix J) as suggested by Gall, Borg & Gall (1996) was used to notify participants about the study, its purpose, and the importance of their participation. This letter was co-signed by the Dean of Students. A follow-up email (Appendix L) to stress the need for the return was also sent eleven days after the due date. Research has emphasized that the return rate is not much different even if a financial reward is offered (Salant and Dillman, 1994). However, university personnel suggested that participants who turned the survey in by the requested date be part of a drawing for an opportunity to win one of three $50 gift certificates from the local bookstore. A stamped, self-addressed envelope was enclosed with the survey for return. The survey also included the return address in case the return envelope was lost. All mailing was sent through first class mail to insure promptness (Babbie, 1990). The first mailing of the 99 survey was sent to the permanent residence of the participants during the fall semester break, 2000. Follow-up surveys were then sent to local addresses. This process provided a total of forty surveys or ten percent of the 412 received. Completed questionnaires were identified for follow-up purposes (Babbie, 1990). Babbie (1990) suggests a time frame of two to three weeks between contacts. Data entry was completed by trained office staff from completed surveys directly to the computer. Participants answered questions on the original instrument. Random Sampling Methodology and Analyzing the Responses The random sampling was provided by the Registrar’s office according to methodology used by Central Michigan University. It consisted of undergraduate students who were freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors, or non-degree students, enrolled full-time for at least two consecutive semesters at the Mt. Pleasant campus. Based on this population consisting of about 10, 300 students, the random sampling was 900 students with a necessary return rate of 385 completed surveys to make it valid. The survey was sent to an additional random sampling of 100 students of color to increase the response rate of this population. Descriptive statistics were computed. To compare a single question under the category of importance with the corresponding question under category true, the marginal homogeneity test was used. Cross tabulations were also generated, and the Pearson chi- square test was used. To measure reliability, Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal consistency was utilized. 100 As suggested by the literature (Salent & Dillman, 1994), a “general comment” section at the end of the survey. It was included to offer respondents the opportunity to add general feedback on items covered or not covered. Summat'y This chapter discussed the methodology used to develop and administer the survey instrument. Focus groups were initially used to solicit student input regarding items that connected them to Central Michigan University. Focus group responses were coded, analyzed, and blended with research from the review of literature. This information was used to develop connection items for the survey. The survey was piloted, revised, and sent to the random sampling. The data were collected and analyzed. 10] Chapter Four Presentatiowd Analysis of the Data Overview of tl_re Strfly The purpose of this study was to develop and administer a survey instrument to assist in understanding what items were important and not important to undergraduate full-time students in feeling connected to a university. Also, the survey was developed to determine if there was a significant difference between how important these items were for respondents compared to how true they were perceived to be about Central Michigan University. The study focused on Boyer’s principles of community as discussed in The Carnegie Foundation Report (1990). The principles were as follows: educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative community. The Sample The random sampling of Central Michigan University undergraduate full-time students consisted of students chosen through the registrar’s office. All students were enrolled at the Mt. Pleasant campus for at least two consecutive semesters. The random sampling consisted of full-time undergraduate freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Based on this population consisting of about 10,300 students, the random sampling was 900 students with a necessary return rate of 385 completed surveys to make it valid. The survey was sent to an additional random sampling of 100 students of color to increase the response rate of this population. 102 Demographic Factors (#1 - #1;) A total of 412 students participated in this survey. Each demographic factor appears with the question number for easy reference when referring to the survey. What follows is a description of the students at the time they responded to the survey. 1. Class standing There were five categories used. There were eighteen freshmen (4.4%), 151 sophomores (36.9%), 118 juniors (28.9%) and 122 seniors (29.8%). There were five missing cases. 2. Age There were five categories used. There were thirteen (3.2%) students eighteen or younger, 241 (58.6%) students were nineteen or twenty, 132 (32.1%) students were twenty-one or twenty-two, fourteen students (3.4%) were twenty-two or twenty-three, eleven (2.7%) students reported being twenty-five years or older. There was one missing case. 3. Gender There were 308 (75.1%) women and 102 (24.9%) men that participated in the survey. There were two missing cases. Women represented 59.4% of the CMU undergraduate population. 4. Ethnic group Seven ethnic categories were used. There were 353 (85.7%) white students. There were fifty-nine (14.3%) students of color: twenty-five (6.1%) African-Americans, eleven (2.7%) Hispanics, seven (1.7%) Native Americans, five (1.2%) Asian-Pacifics, eight (1 .9%) Multi-Racial students, and three (0.7%) chose the category “Other”. Students of 103 Color represented 7.24% of the CMU undergraduate population. There were three missing cases. 5. Transfer student status There were 338 (82.8%) students who started college at Central Michigan University and seventy (17.2%) transferred from other another college or university. There were four missing cases. 6. Semesters in residence halls There were six categories used. There were forty-nine (11.9%) students who never lived in a residence hall, thirty-two (7.8%) spent one semester, 132 (32.1%) spent two semesters, sixty-six (16.1%) spent three semesters, 112 (27.3%) spent four semesters, and twenty (4.9%) spent five or more semesters in the residence hall system. There was one missing case. 7. Hours per week spent studying There were five categories used. There were 105 (25.7%) students who reported studying ten hours or less each week, 167 (40.9%) reported eleven to fifteen hours each week, eighty-three (20.3%) reported sixteen to twenty hours per week, thirty-seven (9.1%) reported twenty-one to twenty-five hours per week, and sixteen (3.9%) reported studying twenty-six or more hours per week. There were four missing cases. 8. Hours per week working at paid employment during the school year There were six categories used. There were 148 (36%) students who reported not working at all during the school year (except during a holiday or vacation), seventy-one (17.3%) worked ten or less hours, sixty—six (16.1%) worked eleven to fifteen hours, sixty- five (15.8%) worked sixteen to twenty hours per week, thirty-one (7.5%) worked twenty- 104 one to twenty-five hours per week, and thirty (7.3%) worked twenty-six hours or more per week. There was one missing case. 9. Work location There were four categories used. There were 110 (26.8%) students who reported working on campus, 141 (34.4%) reported working off campus, twenty-three (5.6%) reported working both on and off campus, and 136 (33.2%) reported not working. There were two missing cases. 10. Recipient of federal, state, or college-sponsored financial aid There were 269 (66.3%) students who reported receiving financial aid and 137 (33.7%) reported receiving no financial aid. There were six missing cases. 11. Self-reported overall cumulative grade point average (GPA) There were five categories used. There were six (1.5%) students who reported a 1.99 GPA or below, fifty-four (13.2%) reported a 2.00 — 2.49 GPA, 103 (25.2%) reported a 2.50 —2.99 GPA, 133 (32.5%) reported a 3.00 — 3.49 GPA, and 113 (27.6%) reported a 3.50 — 4.00 GPA. There were three missing cases. 12. Parent(s) or guardian (5) college graduation status There were four categories used. There were 210 (51.1%) students who reported neither one of their parents or guardians graduated from a college or university, ninety- four (22.9%) reported both of their parents or guardians graduated, forty-seven students (11.4%) reported only their mother or guardian graduated, and sixty (14.6%) reported only their father or guardian graduated. There was one missing case. 105 Design of the Scales This Chapter includes a discussion of The Carnegie Foundation Report’s six principles: educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative. Each principle had at least one scale that contains general questions or items grouped together according to the basic principles. Each scale was listed in order of how the students ranked the factors according to level of importance in feeling connected to a university. In most of the scales, students were also asked to respond to how true the statements were about Central Michigan University. A nonparametric marginal homogeneity test was used to compare each question under the category of importance with the corresponding questions under category true to determine if there were statistically significant differences when compared. The alpha level was less than .05. Each item also appears with the question number for easy reference when referring to the survey. All but five items were considered very important or important to the students at the time they responded to the survey. These items will be discussed with each scale. For most of the scales, the units of analysis for this study were based on a five point ordinal scale as follows: 1.00 was very important or very true; 2.00 was important or true; 3.00 was neutral; 4.00 was unimportant or untrue and 5.00 was very unimportant or very untrue. The level of analysis was compressed as follows: any mean score between 1.00 and 2.50 was considered to be very important or important and very true or true; any mean score between 2.51 and 3.50 was considered neutral; and any mean score between 3.51 and 5.0 was considered unimportant or very unimportant and untrue or very untrue. Any deviation from this will be discussed when the scale is introduced. The mean scores are the result of the compressed scores for each item. 106 Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal consistency was utilized to measure reliability. The results are reported with each scale. At the end of the survey, students had the opportunity to respond to the following request for a response: “If you have any general comments about developing community on campus and feeling more connected to CMU, please use the back of this page.” The responses are in Appendix K. Educationally Purposeful Community Faculty Characteristics and Teaching Items in Order of Importance (#25 - #64) Students were asked to indicate how important it was that faculty demonstrate certain teaching or personal characteristics in order to feel connected to a university. There were twenty items in the scale. Students also responded to how true the items were about CMU. The alpha measure of internal consistency for importance was .81 and trueness was .86 for the entire scale. Student responses to a five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of importance. See Table 2. This principle was not only significant to focus group participants, but survey participants also responded very important or important to all of the items except two. As discussed, it was the principle that stimulated the most conversation in the focus groups. It was for this reason that so many questions (items) were included for this principle. With regards to teaching pedagogy (teaching characteristics), students were asked to respond to fourteen items. The items used are listed in order of importance: #61, #45, #39, #43, #35, #47, #41, #59, #63, #49, #57, #53, #51, and #55. Students rated #61 “test information covered in class” (mean 1.20), #45 “understand the material” (mean 1.25), and #43 “clear answers to their questions” (mean 1.26) extremely high in level of 107 2.3.5.. :80 no.3... ..o. 83... 3.2.30on 35922. 8o. 8... 88 8.8.8. 888.1885; 8.0 8.8 88.88 8:8. 83:... 52.8.5.2 8 53 83 88358558388 8... 88 88 8.83.. 8.388. 8.888 88 .88 8.8.88 8.38.. 8.3:... 5838.0 2.... 3.38 35.6... 3.8:... 5.; 822... 88 8o. 8... 8.8 88.8... 8.388. 83:8. 8. 8.8 88.88 8.889 8.888 29.8.88 33.8 Ba ...oz.o.oz.2.o%o.o.m 2352.. 8 .8; 823828.88 28. 88 8.8 8...... 8.388. 8.3:... .o. 8.8 88:8 888... 8.8.8 8.258... :65. 2.8 2283... 92.85828... 2.58. 8:88 8... 88 3.8 8.2.3 8.8.3.. 8.38.8 3... 8.8 88.8 8.88... 888.8 .28... 8.58 9.8.8... 8853328828 2288.. 8o. .8... 8.8 8.8.8 88.8. 8.888 88 8.8 8.38 8.88.. 8.888. 8...... 8.58.2... 2822.58.83. 8o. 88 .88 8.85.8 8.838. 8.388 88 8.8 88.... 8.838 8.88.8 52.. 32... 2.8 28.5.8828...» 3.0.8 28. 8... no... 8.8:. 8.88. 8.888 8... 8.. 8.: 8858 88:8 2...... 8:82.. 35.8.. 8... 8... 8 8888 888.. 8.888 .3 8.. 888 8.8.8.8 8.888 855.28 258838325883 .5... 96:88 8o. 8... 3.8 88.88 8.88. 8.888 8... a... 8.8 8.53 8.888 888:2...» 83.26 £53898358o83 220888 8... 8.. 88 8888 .388. 8.83... I... .8. 8.: 8.53 8.888 69.882.385.888 £582» 2.28.. 228. 58352... 28 .85 3988.. 28. R... 8.8 88.8 8.888. 8.838 «8... 8. 8.8 8.98 8.388 2...... 818388.83 .8... o8. a; 8.8 88.8 88.88 8.3.8 .88 3. 8.8 8.88. 88:8 2838...... 281.820 E... 33...: 323.....1. 8... 8d 8.8 8.38. 88:8 88:8 .8... 8. 88 888. 8.888 53588358.. 22988.8... 8o. 8... 2.8 .888 8888. 83.8. mm... .8. 8.3. 8.: 8.883 98...... c8 .52.... on 22.8 Ba 28. ..o .3558 :1. 8o. .8... 8. 888. 88.8... 8.88:8 .8... 8. 8.8 88. 8888 =qu 8.2.83. 2.58888... So. 8... 8.8 8:...” 8.888 88:88 3... 8.. 8.8. 888 88:3 2.9.83 9.33... 283838... 2.0.3.. So. 8.. .88 8.8.8. .88.. 8.388. 8... 8.. 888 888. 8.888 83225.85 2.235588 28. .8... 8.... 8.8.8... 8.888. 8.388 38 8.. 88 8.8 88:3 3.22.. a... 2328.... 3:82.. a...» 982.83. 8... 8... 3.8 8.188 8.888 8.888 3... 8.. 88 8.8 8.883 820 58.2.8 83.238..o..a....o.....8.o.a.om .8 .52 $32 $32 $22 $32 832 ...2. 23> ..z: z k ...> :> .5 z ...> .9? cm .2 82.2.5. .0 09.qu 0m 2 35:09:20.0)?— oocoton§ .o .020 c. 2.5: 9.230.. was 3.83.0220 Enoch. EcaEEoo 5039:... 2.2.9.835 N 038. 108 importance. These items received some of the highest mean scores in level of importance not only on this scale, but also on the entire survey. An issue in the focus groups was faculty being #39 “fluent in the English language;” this item also received one of the highest mean scores (1.26) in level of importance on the survey and a neutral rating (mean 2.84) with regards to degree of trueness. Students at CMU gave all these items lower scores with regards to degree of trueness. Another significant difference between level of importance (mean 1.34) and degree of trueness (mean 2.74) was item #47 “commenting on tests and papers so students could improve.” Service learning (#55 “learning methods used such as volunteerism”) was not rated important in this scale to the majority of students, although 167 students still rated it as very important or important. This is possibly an indication that students are not familiar with this as a teaching method. It is also worth noting that ninety-two percent of the students responded that the classroom was the best place to meet friends and yet only sixty-one percent listed #53 “learning methods that help student to get to know classmates” as important or very important (mean score of importance 2.30). One item that had a great deal of support in the literature was #59 “relate subject matter to student’s everyday experiences.” This factor was strongly supported by students, but only fifty-four percent responded true or very true about CMU (mean score 2.54). What was significant was the number of students (31%) who responded neutral to this item. Again, this could indicate lack of experience, indifference, or no opinion. The following items, listed in order of importance to students, were used to describe faculty personal characteristics: #37, #27, #29, #25, #31, and #33. For items describing personal characteristics such as #27 “warm, friendly, smiles” (importance 109 mean score 1.55 and trueness mean score 2.36), and #29 “show they care about outside factors beyond a student’s control that effect school” (importance mean score 1.69 and trueness mean score 2.88), there were significant differences between level of importance and degree of trueness. But there was also a high level of students that responded neutral in the trueness category for both of these items. This could indicate no experience with these items. Students responded favorably regarding CMU faculty and #37 “passion for the subject matter” (mean score for importance 1.38 and degree of trueness mean score 2.09). Although very important or important to seventy-six percent of the students, almost forty percent were neutral that faculty should #31 “give students the opportunity to get to know them”(mean score for importance 2.00). Less than fifty percent thought this was true (mean score 2.62). Item #33, “interacting with students at events outside of the classroom,” was only very important or important to less then fifty percent of the respondents (mean score 2.54). But only 23% responded that it was very true or true at CMU (mean score 3.06) with forty-eight percent responding neutral. The literature viewed this as a very significant item in connectedness. This may also be an indicator that students or faculty just do not see it as an expectation of each other and have settled for very little interaction on a personal level. Personal characteristics are significantly important to students. Most of the items with regards to teaching methodology or pedagogy and personal characteristics of faculty scored high in the important or very important category. Degree of trueness at CMU was significantly lower for all the items in this scale. The category of neutral in degree of trueness had a high number of responses that could indicate lack of experience, indifference, or no opinion. 110 Educationally Purposeful Community General Academic Items in Order of Importance (#65 — #72) Students were asked to indicate how important general academic items were in helping them feel connected to a university. There were four items in this scale. Students also responded to how true the statements were about CMU. The alpha measure of internal consistency for importance was .48 and trueness was .53 for the entire scale. Student responses to a five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of importance. See Table 3. This scale was not considered reliable; but as individual questions, the items were important to focus group participants and students responding to the survey. Students responded that it was very important or important that faculty were present in the classroom (#67 mean score 1.45), in other words, they were not interested in long- distance learning. Students were comfortable with their own computer skills (#69 mean score of trueness 2.16) and thought this was important to connectedness (mean score 1.66). There was a significant difference between importance and level of trueness. Students thought small classes (#65 mean score 2.01) and understanding the university general studies program (#71 mean score 2. 03) was also important. Level of trueness for both of these items were among the lowest (mean score in order mentioned 3.09 and 2.90) on the survey. Open Community Items in Order of Importance (#73 - #90) Students were asked to indicate their responses to the importance of an open community in feeling connected to a university. There were nine items in the scale. They 111 «contaano pagan. 3. amok 3.2.30on 35922. oood .... ad 3.8mm. «.33. 8.3%. So. 8d 3m... 3.2.3 2.2.38 82832688 23502.8 spasm b.2625 5965285.... 89o 8.. 8..” 3.08%. 8.8:... 3.38. Bad .o.~ 3.83 8.2.2 333.». on» 323353.. 89° :3 o..~ 3.2mm $.8me Sate?“ aid 8.. 3...... 8.38 38:8 25593» 3% new 5.38:0.2.232358 ésrofioodoa 89° :3 3.. 3.89 8.25 @833 on; m... 3.88 8.88 3.3:.” 38.3% on. 52823828 5828233855.. 332 332 saz 3&2 332 $32 52. 23>..z: z ...> :>..: z ...> .05. cm 2 mmocoahfio oobqoo 0w 2 occatouE:o_o>o.. occatonE. .0 520 5 «Eu: 0.5392 .8230 3.58500 5039:... 2.2.0.3035 n 033. 112 also responded to how true the items were about CMU. The alpha measure of internal consistency for importance was .86 and trueness was .86 for the entire scale. Student responses to the five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of importance. See Table 4. Ninety percent of the students responded very important or important to the following items in this scale: item #79 “treated with respect by faculty ” (importance mean score 1.32, trueness mean score 2.08); #81 “encouraged to treat others with respect” (importance mean score 1.34, trueness mean score 1.92); #77 “treated with respect by other students when expressing viewpoints” (importance mean score 1.47, trueness mean score 2.21); and #75 “freedom to express ideas in class” (importance mean score 1.56, trueness mean score 2.20). For the rest of the items in this scale, eighty percent of the students responded very important or important. However, there was still a significant difference between level of importance and degree of trueness for items included in this scale. Again, there was a high percentage rate of neutral responses in the degree of trueness category for #85, #73, and #89. Items #87 “Communication skills” (mean 2.38), #85 “discouraging hateful speech” (mean 2.48), #73 “exploring a wide range of views” (mean 2.4), and item #89 “exploring emotions and ideas constructively” (mean 2.56), were rated the lowest in the category of trueness by students. Just Community Items in Order of Importance (#149 - #168) Students were asked to indicate their responses to the importance of a just community in feeling connected to a university. There were ten items in this scale. They 113 80828800 38d 3. 83h 3.283on 35922. 3.8 84. 8.52 8.83.... @835 83 8.. 2.88. 88.8 3.838 828288 88. 28 8888822.... 888298 888838.. 83 84. 8.23.. 8.83... 88:8 2.3 8... 8.8. 8...: 8.838 8258 28 8323.. 882 82388888 88885.2... 8.. 88 8.23. 2.83.. 8.3.8 83 S... 88:. 28:8 28:8 288 82832888288; 82888 88 28 8.8888 83 88 28:8 8.88. 8.838 2.3 8.. 8.3 8.38 8.838 228 5.; 88.2 .8 8......» c888228 882...; 88585 ..8 83 88. 8.38 8.8.3. 8.8.8 83 8.. 8.8 8.28 8.838 888 588.8288 22282“. .2... 83 .~.~. 8....” 8.88 2.838 83 t... 833 8.8... 28:8 25838, 8.3298 :8; 3888 888825.; 8825:... 83 8.~ 2.38 2.8.3. 8.2.2.... 88 8.. 8.8... 2.8. 8.838 8.8388288 88288 88585.88 8.3 8.. 2...:. 8.8.3.8 2.3.8 .83 8.. 8.8. 8.8 8888 258383828... 88298 8888825.; 22.882. 28858:w..8 8o. 83 84. 8.28 2.2.8. 2.83.». 8.3 8.. 8.8. 8.3 8.88.. 888 58.838.) 8.8298 .8...» 2.323.882 5? 882...o$ 392 832 2&2 832 832 48.2 22. 23>..z: 2 ....§ 3>§ z ...> am 2 80¢th .0 00300 ow s. 005.205.530.30.— I, /l 8:0: v 030... 114 also responded to whether they participated in these experiences at CMU. The alpha measure of internal consistency for importance was .91 and for level of participation for the entire scale .86. Student responses to a five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of importance. See Table 5. During the focus groups, students expressed concern about being “forced” to attend educational programs on diversity and differences. But students responded very important or important to all the items in this scale. Whether or not students participated in these experiences at CMU all the time or often was rated lower than level of importance. Mean scores for the following items indicated that students participated in events sometimes or never: #151 “becoming aware of international issues (2.82), and #153 “understanding religious values that differ” (2.73). Disciplined Community Items in Order of Importance (#91 - #100) Students were asked to indicate their responses to the importance of a disciplined community in feeling connected to a university. There were five items in this scale. They also responded to how true the factors were about CMU. The alpha measure of internal consistency for importance was .77 and trueness was .71 for the entire scale. Student responses to a five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of importance. See Table 6. The only item on the survey that did not have a statistical difference was #99 “rules are enforced concerning alcohol and drugs.” The rest of the items in the scale had significant statistical differences between level of importance and degree of trueness. The responses on the survey with regards to academic dishonesty as a problem at CMU did 115 «conga—coo no.3... .0. 38: 5.2.30on 3598.2. 8o. 88 8.8 8.888 .888 8.8:... 8.... 6.8 8.88. 8.8.... 8.8.8.8 82.32.. 822. 829.282.8228....8... 8°. 8... 8.8 ...c... 8.888 8.88.. o... .8. 8... 8.8.8. 8.8.88 2:288 88282282228 22.8 82288.8... .8. 8.. 8.8 8.888 8.888. 8.8888 8.8 .8. 8.88. 8.8.8. 8.8.88 88.8288 88882222828 .8... 8o. .8... ...~ 8.88. 8.88. 8.88.8 ...o .8. 8.8 8.8. 8.888 .88 28 2.; 8.888 8.82282: .8... 8o. 8... 8.8 8.8 8.888 8.888 8... 8.. 888 8.38... 8.888 823.888 22.288 5.; 88282. .8... 8°. 88 8.8 8.8.8 8...... 3.8:... 8.... .... 8... 8.388 8.888 2288.2358228288282 82288. .22.. 88.8.8... So. .8... ...8 8.... 8.8.... 8.888 8.8 8.. 8.38 8.2.3 8.888 8829.88 228822082282... 22. 828 9.3 2888 8.8228828... 8... 8... .8. 8.88 8.8.... 8.8.88 8... 8.. 888 8.28 8.88.8 882282.8_2o288 25.8 8.8328288... 8o. 8... 8.. 88 8.8.8 8.8.88 8... 8.. 8.88 8.8. 8.888 822: 88 .82 £8 5.3 8.888.283 2882.. 82882822838... 8... 8... ...8 888. 8.8.8. 8.8.8.8 8... 8. 888 8.888 8.588 82222888 83:88.88» 8.8228838... Gazl 8.1.2 8.2 Fe: 83.2 8&2 22. <2 2.» o.< <2 23>... ...> .9m. 0m 2 co..m&o.tum.o 00500 cm 2 0028382305.. 825.35. .0 .820 2. «ES. 3:58:50 .82. 8 2.... 116 I I|}lll'..l a II t < ‘. LII... I in i}... .1}. 1... acomtmnEoo no.8... .o. 33... 3.2.32.8... 35903.. 8.. 8... 8.8 888.. 8.8.8. 8888 8.. 8.8 8.8.. 8.8.8 8.8.8 82.. 222.88 8.58:8 8225 2a 8.3.88 So. ... 8.8 8.88.. 8.88.. 8.83.... .8... 8.. 888. 8.8.88 8.8.8.. 2538350 8 8.820 2222.8 on 283882. 8... 8... 8.8 8.88 8.8.8 8.888 8.... .8. 8.88 8.8.8 8.888 8.3.8 2.2388» :8 253.2858 .8225 2a 8.3.88 So. 8... o... 8.8 8.8.8.. 88888 8... 8.... 8.8 888. 8.388 8.82.. 2222.2 on 8:8...8 28. 8... 8.. 888. 8.8. 8.8.8... and 8.. 888 8.88 8.88.8 3.22.2...os.o.z_+_._eaco%22.2 2.92.2.3 2a 3538.8 832 892 832 832 832 832 22. 22>..z: z ...> :>..: z .13 Em. cm s. 30:25.... ooao‘o am .2 cue—3.352330. 02.3.3.5 .o .280 c. 850.. 5.55500 35.935 o 2.3... 117 seem congruent with information received in focus groups. Only forty-two percent of the students responded very true or true to #95 “students do not tolerate cheating by other students.” This item had a mean score of 2.80 indicating a neutral response. Focus groups indicated that faculty did little to deter cheating. This finding was not supported by survey results. Students felt faculty did not tolerate cheating (mean score of 1.78 for degree of trueness and a mean score of 1.42 for level of importance) and believed this to be a very important item in feeling connected. The highest mean scores for importance were for #91 “students are expected to take responsibility for their behavior” (1.37) and #97 “faculty do not tolerate cheating” (1.42). Caring Communig Friendship and Caring Items in Order of Importance (#101 - #132) Students were asked to indicate their responses to the importance of a caring community in feeling connected to a university. There were sixteen items in this scale. Students also responded to how true these items were about CMU. The alpha measure of internal consistency for importance was .89 and trueness was .87 for the entire scale. Student responses to a five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of importance. See Table 7. There were also several items regarding specific questions on friendship and Internet communication that were addressed in this section with different scales. All the items in this section regarding friendship and caring were very important. Items rated a mean score of 1.38 or lower indicating very important. The items were #107 “A friendly campus” (1.31), #105 “friendships with other students” (1.34), #119 “faculty and staff work together to give a good educational experience” (1.36), and #12 118 3114.! " u acomtuano Erin. .0. £3... .EocouoEoI 3596.2. mom «.3 .8 8.838.. 8.34%... .88 on.“ 8. DE 8. 83%. 3. 83.“ 2:288 8:85.. 53.5.5; 92. 98.55 .56 8.... New. 285% 8.2%.. 8.32. and n..~. 8. en. 8. 8:». 8888 moazsflcoeegoa 2289258 239. 2:83... 863. .5... and 8......» 8.5va. 8.2.3. who 88 8. «K. 8.38. 8. E 2.8 can 5:» 8285:“. .8... Sn 2.88 8888. 8.5an o; .8. 8.8.. 8.52 :8. an b.3553 82855.8; 8: 8.8:: 8.888. 38.3 88 8.. 8.88 838 8...: o8 8.5.5.226 22885.53.» 8:65. .8... man 888 8.8.6. 8.352 I8 3.. 88 2.52 8.8 .8 55% 8882. 2:9. 3:25; 353.. mm; and 858 8.58.. 8 8888 ...o o... 8...; 88:3 8.3. 8.8 885.85 2.5 833292830 28;» on 22:83» 868.8“; 8.. 3.82 8.8.8 8 2888 8.0 I. 8 an 38.6. 8.8 awn 3222.22 €2.88.disaséscama 8.2% 28555805; 3.. 88:9. 88:5 8888» who N... 8 .: 88:3 8.3 ax” 598 288 moocozaxfgzag..n; «8.1.95 8.3:... 8388 .3 8.. 3.. 8.5: 8.... 8mm tsmucaéaasaczosmz...u 88.. 8.88. 8.3.8 8.8.8 28 mm. 3.. 8.38 8.8 E... 352.3:m.oo:a£§a:_8<.m.§ ta 8:6 8.388 8888. 8.0 .we. 8.; 5% 2.618 2228.. 2293553 50228383.» 33385338252; 98 8.88 8.88%. 8.383 and 8.. 3.. :3: 8.3 88 22.832983250.82.58.26__3:ouamu§2oc 8:38 21:88 .3... mod r em 88:8 8 atmun Ed on. 8.8” 8.: 8.5 8.. 85.830.29.838 80:25 otoeouolazuam 25 £38". 8.; 6.. 888 8.82. t «868 Ed 3... 83. 8.82 8.8 88 3:83.228 53 82355.3... 2.. 8.: 3%.. 8 .888 .we to... 8.8. 8.5 8.8 8.. 39:8 223......» Es. 8:839... ..o EEO =_ 2:2. 5530 d 250cc...“— EcsfiEoU 05.50 h 25... 119 “faculty and staff do not send students all over campus for answers to questions” (1.38). The degree of trueness was lower for these items, but the mean scores still indicated degree of trueness. Mean scores for three items indicated neutral responses. The items were #123 “university that gives students a voice in administrative decisions” (2.77), #127 “teaches students to participate in government activities” (2.52), and #113 “staff members help students with personal problems” (2.55). Although lower in level of importance than other items, seventy-two percent of the respondents rated as important #103 “friendships with staff,” sixty-three percent rated as important #127 “teaches students to participate in government activities,” and fifty-three percent rated as important #113 “staff members help student with personal problems. However, the mean score for degree of trueness for these items was lower with two rated in the neutral category (#103 mean score 2.39, #127 mean score 2.52, and #113 mean score 2.55. Caring Community Internet Communication Items in Order of Importance (#143 - #148) Students were asked to indicate their responses to how important the Internet was to feeling connected for communicating with faculty, with staff, with family and friends. They were also asked to respond to level of trueness with regards to how much they used the Internet to communicate with the people listed. There were four items in this scale. The alpha measure of internal consistency for importance was .75 and trueness was .70 for the entire scale. Student responses to a five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of importance. See Table 8. 120 mcomtmano wagon. .0. 3mm... 33:39.6... 35922. ooo. 3.. «Na 8...? 8.8.8 8.383 8o 8.. 88.88 8.3.9 8.2.8.. ooo. 8o 8.. 88.8 8.8.86 8.2.88 8o 8.. 8.8.... 8...? 8.8.88 ooo. {no t... 8.8 8.88 88:8 moo no. 8.: 8.8.8. 8.8.88 :3» 5.2. .3... 2.38. 5.2. .3... 2.28. can 88:. 5.2. .2... 832 832 J52 $32 48.2 832 ES. 23>..z: z 55 3:: z _._> gm. am .2 mmocoahfi 33on cm s. oo:mtoafl...o.o>o.. 8:33.... .o EEO :. 2:2. :o..mo.::EEoo 352:. 2.5.6800 @530 m 033 121 Students indicated a significant level of importance (mean score 1.35) with the Internet for communicating with their friends and family and indicated a high level of usage (mean score 1.47). They also felt it was important for communicating with faculty (mean score 1.69) and then staff (mean score 1.94). Mean scores for degree of trueness for usage was significantly lower for faculty (mean score 1.98) and staff (mean score 2.22). Caring Community Student Organization and Activity Participation Items (#13 - #24) Two categories were used for each type of student organization or type of student activities. There were twelve items. Students were asked to respond yes or no to which student organization or type of student activities they had participated in at Central Michigan University. See Table 9. The highest rate of participation included #23 “service organizations or volunteer activities” (46%), #15 “intramural sports at the SAC” (39%), #13 “academic clubs or activities” (36%), and #21 “residence hall programs, governance” (34%). Table 9 Caring Community Student Organization and Activity Participation Items Participation Item Yes No #13. Academic clubs related to major and minor 146(36) 260(64) #14. Fraternity and Sorority 68(16.7) 339(83.3) #15. Intramural sports at the SAC 162(39.4) 249(60.6) #16. Student Government, Program Board, On the Fly 44(10.8) 365(89.2) #17. Political activities 24(5.9) 383(94.1) #18. Theatre productions or performing arts such as orchestra 48(11.8) 358(882) #19. Religious clubs and activities 73(17.9) 334(82.1) #20. Ethnic or cross-cultural activities and clubs 45(11.1) 360(88.9) #21. Residence Hall programs, governance 140(34.1) 270(65.9) #22. Media activities (e.g., CM Life. campus radio stations) 43(10.6) 364(89.4) #23. Service organizations or volunteer activities 186(45.5) 223(54.5) #24. Intercollegiate athletics 38(9.4) 368(90fl 122 Caring Community Opportunities for Friendship Items in Order of Importance (#169 - #194) Students were asked to respond to the importance of student involvement opportunities in helping develop new friends and whether students used or are using these opportunities to make new friends. There were thirteen items in this scale. The alpha measure of internal consistency for importance was .89 for the entire scale. Student responses to a five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of importance. The units of analysis for this table were based on a five point ordinal scale. Very important was 1.00, important was 2.00, unimportant was 3.00, very unimportant was 4.00, no experience was 5.00. The level of analysis was compressed as follows: any mean score between 1.00 and 2.50 was considered to be very important or important; any mean score between 2.51 and 3.50 was considered to be unimportant or very unimportant; any mean score between 3.51 and 5.00 was no experience. The units of analysis used to measure degree of usage of the listed items for opportunities for friendship was: yes was 1.00, no was 2.00, and no experience was 3.00. The level of analysis was as follows: any mean score between 1.00 and 1.79 indicated yes to usage; any mean score between 1.80 and 2.29 indicated no usage; and any mean score above 2.30 indicated no experience. When determining the level of analysis, the percentage of students responding in the categories was considered. For instance, if at least fifty percent of the students listed an item as yes to usage, the item was included. See Table 10. Students responded to opportunities in their #179 “classes” as the highest level of importance (mean score 1.49 was very important) and yes to degree of usage (mean score 123 W‘s-L 208.8230 02.0.. .0. 980... 3.050080... 6590.2. 8... 88.8 8388. 8.5.8.89...» 8.. 8.8 8.888. $88.8. 8.8838. 5288 €20.88... .8... 88.8 8.3.888 8.88.... 8.88 .8... 9.8 8.3.3. 8.88.3. 8.88.8. semen. 82938.. 88:088.... 88.8 3... 8.2.3. 8....2. 8.8.38 8... 8.8.8 8.2.... 8.3.88. 8.3.88 8:82 5.; 3.5: «3580.80.88... 8... 38 8.88.888 8.8.8. 8.8.8.. 8... 88.8 8.3.8. 88.8. 8.8.8. 8.50 829883.88... 2.... 88.8 8.88.8.8 8.88.... 88...: 88... 8.8 8.8.3. 88.8. 8.88.8... 5888.53.08.18... .8... 8.8 8.8388. 88.8. 888...... 880 «.8 8.8.88. 8.88.88 8.3.8. 822638580: 8:298:88... 88... 3.. 8.8.8.. 8.8.8. 8.9.8. 08.0 8.8 8.8.8. 88.8 8.8.888 535.5 3... 0.55500 95 28:50.2... 8.0 88.. 88...: 8.8.88 8.83.88 .8... 3.. 8.8.88 8.2.88 8.8.38 8.8828... 8:828:88... ...o 8... 8.2.8 8.8.88 8.8.88 88... 8.. 8.8....” 8.3.... 8.88.88 98 22.82.382.88 : 3.8.8... 8.88.8. 8.88.8 8.8.88 8.... 88.. 88...... 8.8.88 8.8.88 «macaroaxm.o2:=_o>..m.8 88... o... 8.88.... 8.48.88 8.88.28 88... 2... 8.2.8 8.2.8 8.88.38 20.88.590.538.88... 88... 88.. 8.8.3. 8.8.88 8.8.83 88... 8.. 8.8.8 8.8.88 8.8.88 3:20.388... 8.3 .... 8.8.8. 8.8.8. 8.88.2.8 we... 9.. 88.... 8.8.88 8.88.888 88.80.833.088... 832 832 5.2 832 832 832 22. mz oz «.8. mz ...> .5 ...> am .2 Mama: .0 00500 cm .2 005.58.830.90... 00:380.... .0 .005 :. 880.. 0.50:3". .0. 8025:0000 5.5.8500 0:...00 o. 0.00... 124 1.11). With the exception of #187 “greek system” (mean score 2.60 which was unimportant), all items on the scale were considered important to the students. Student responses to the following items indicated yes for usage: #193 “social events,” #183 “student organizations,” #191 “volunteer experiences,” #181“activities in the SAC,” #177 “residence hall activities,” and #185 “off-campus parties with alcohol.” However, the mean score for the following items indicated no usage: #173 campus and community life orientation” (1.84), #189 “religious meeting/ activities” (2.17), #187 “greek system” (2.26). The mean score for the following items indicated no experience: #171 “leadership safari,” #169 “leadership camp,” and #175 “Eclipse leadership program.” Carijngfiommunity Reasons Given for Not Developing New Friendships in Order of Importance (#195 - #201) Students were asked to respond to this question only if they were not developing new friendships at CMU. There were seven items in this scale. The alpha measure of internal consistency for this was .69 for the entire scale. There were seventy-two students (17.5%) who responded to this question that they were not developing new friendships. Student responses to a five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of agreement with the item. See Table 11. The response rate for this question was low (17.5%) which was interpreted as a strong majority of students were developing new friendships (85.5%). Over one-half responded they were not making new friends because they lived off-campus, yet almost forty percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with this response. “Too busy studying” 125 88.. .88 8.88.88 8.8.... 8.28 0.20 .8 88 o. .88; .8 80 .8888 .8.. 88.8 88.88 .88.... .88.... 88:8... 9.8... o. 0.20 .8 .oz ..888 .... 88.8 8. 8.3 8.88.... . 2...... 28:8... .8 8.8 8.88838 .88... 88.. 88.8 88.... 8.28. 8.88.8. 852. >882 2 .32. 88.8 8.... 8.8 8.3.88 8.8.... 888.88 .88 8. 88.8 88.. 88.8 8.88.88 8.88.88 8. 3.88 85.838 .83 8. .88... 88.. 88.8 8.88.88 8.8.8 8.88.88 8828.88 88>... .88... 4&2 $0.2 $0.2 . 08 .0 z < .(8 am E0502d< .0 .05.. 0088.305. .0 .0080 8. 0.28000... 2.02 0500.050 .02 .0. 0020 8008008. 2.005500 00.800 3 0.00... 126 (42% strongly agreed or agreed; mean score 2.88) or “too shy” (47% strongly agreed or agreed; mean score 2.96) rated higher than the other responses. Only about twenty-six percent of the students believed that they #195 “work too many hours” (mean score 3.49). General question regarding influential people to students at CMU in order of importance (#234) Students were asked to rank in order of importance, the three most influential E people in their life at Central Michigan University. There were seven items in this scale, I which included friends, professor(s), staff, work/volunteer supervisor, significant other, m T—rm .TI‘ii k parent(s) or guardian(s), or sibling(s). Peers (friends) influenced students the most at CMU. However, parents or guardians and significant other were rated much higher than CMU professors. Influential relationships with staff only existed for about fifty percent of the respondents. Student responses are listed in rank order of importance as follows: Friend(s) There were 154 (43.8%) students who responded their friend(s) were the most influential to them at CMU, ninety-seven (27.6%) responded this was their second choice, and 101 (28.7%) that responded this was their third choice. There were sixty students that did not choose this item. Parent(s) or guardian(s) There were 149 (47.3%) students who responded their parent(s) or guardian(s) were the most influential to them at CMU, ninety-one (28.9%) responded this was their second choice, and seventy-five (23.8%) responded this was their third choice. There were ninety-seven students that did not choose this item. 127 Significant other There were fifty-seven (38.8%) students who responded their significant other was the most influential to them at CMU, fifty-five (37.4%) responded this was their second choice, and thirty-five (23.8%) responded this was their third choice. There were 147 students that did not choose this item. CMU professor(s) There were twenty-nine (13.9%) students who responded their professor(s) was the most influential to them at CMU, seventy-eight (37.5%) responded this was their second choice, and 101 (48.6%) responded this was their third choice. There were 204 students that did not choose this item. Sibling(s) There were ten (9.8%) students who responded their Sibling(s) was the most influential to them at CMU, fifty-one (50%) responded this was their second choice, and forty-one (40.2%) responded this was their third choice. There were 310 students that did not choose this item. CMU staff There were four (9.1%) students who responded CMU staff member(s) was the most influential to them at CMU, sixteen (36.4%) responded this was their second choice, and forty-four (54.5%) responded this was their third choice. There were 368 students that did not choose this item. Work or volunteer supervisor There were three (6.3%) students who responded their work or volunteer supervisor was the most influential to them at CMU, seventeen (35.4%) responded this 128 was their second choice, and twenty-eight (58.3%) responded this was their third choice. There were 364 that did not choose this item. Celebrative Community Tradition Items in Order of Importance (#133 - #142) Students were asked to respond to how important certain items listed in the Carnegie Foundation Report as celebrative were in helping them feel connected to Central Michigan University. The alpha measure of internal consistency for importance was .75 and for trueness was .67 for this entire scale. Several scales where listed under this principle. The first scale included five items. Student responses to a five point ordinal scale are listed in rank order of importance. See Table 12. Students responding to this survey valued attractive, modern facilities (#135) and an attractive campus (#133). According to the mean scores for these items, they also believed these two items to be true about CMU. They rated #141 “knowledge about campus events and activities” as important and also believed this item to be true about CMU. Item #139 “Winning athletic teams” was very important or important to almost half of the students, but the mean score (2.61) indicated a neutral response from most of the students regarding level of importance. Item #137 “strong school spirit” was important to seventy-five percent of the respondents (mean score 1.94). Only about fifty percent of the students thought school spirit was strong and the mean score (2.57) indicated a neutral response regarding degree of trueness. Few students (17%) felt CMU had winning teams with a mean score of 3.36 indicating a neutral response. 129 ‘ 3 0008009000 02.0... .0. 880... 3.0000080: 00.0.0.2. 000. 3.0 88.8 $8.08.. 8.88.88. 8.8588 8... .88 3.8.08 £88.88. $8.088. 80.88.008.58 80.05388... 000. 80.. 88.8 .88.... 3.8888. ...08.808 88.0 8.. 3.9.8 88.88 8.80.08 0.38.858 80000.88... 000. 88.0 8.8 ...8.88 .88.... 8.88.808 88.0 08.. .88. .5388 8.88088 3.80880 008 288...... 82858858288... 000. 88.0 88.8 88:88 .8...8..0. $8.88 ...0 08.. ...v 3...: 8.88888 88.2.8 008 308588068588 8808.;ocx.$.8 000. 88.0 88.8 38:88 8.88:8 88.888 88.0 8.... ...v .8.8.8 8.88.88 0.88... 008 288.08 8.285 880.808.20.888 0.... 58.888688... $8.2 $8.2 $8.2 $8.2 $8.2 38.2 0.8.. 20> ..20 z p ...> 0> .5 z ...> .05. am .2 88000:; .0 00.000 cm 2 00000090. .0 .05. 0000000.... .0 .020 0. 00.0.. 000.00.» 3.0:EE00 0.50.0200 N. 0.008 130 Celebrative Community Entertainment Items in Order of Importance (#224 - #227) Students were asked to respond to a five point ordinal scale to indicate the importance of entertainment in helping them feel connected to a university. There were four items in this scale. Student responses are listed in rank order of importance. See Table 13. Students believed “social activities” to meet people was the most important item in the scale. The other items: “major concerts,” “famous lecturers,” and “famous musicals” were also valued as important items but the means’ scores were lower. The mean score for famous musicals was 2.51 indicating neutral. Level of trueness was not measured due to survey length and concern voiced by the university statistician regarding how respondents might interpret the meaning of the terms “major” concerts and “famous” lecturers or musicals. Table 13 Celebrative Community Entertainment Items in Order of Importance Level of Importance M SD VI. l N Ul. VU Item N(%) N(%) N(%) #227. General social activities to meet people 339(82.8) 49(12) 21(5.2) 1.84 0.89 #225. Major concerts 274(67) 87(21.3) 48(11.7) 2.19 1.02 #224. Famous lecturers 234(57.3) 117(28.6) 58(14.1) 2.4 1.00 #226. Famous musicals 209(51.3) 131(321) 68(16.6) 2.51 1.03 Celebrative Community Campus Event Items in Order of Involvement and Knowledge (#202 - #216) Students were asked to indicate their responses to the level of their involvement and/or knowledge of campus traditions, or whether they had no knowledge of the campus tradition. There were fifteen items in this scale. The units of analysis were based on a 131 three point ordinal scale as follows: 2.00 indicated involvement, 1.00 indicated knowledge but no involvement, and 0.00 indicated no knowledge. The level of analysis was: any mean score between 1.35 and 2.00 indicated involvement, any mean score between .60 and 1.00 indicated knowledge but low involvement, and any mean score below .59 indicated no knowledge. This was based on the percentage rates. The responses are listed in rank order of involvement, knowledge but low involvement, and no involvement and high level of no knowledge. See Table 14. Activities such as “CMU versus WMU football game,” “Homecoming,” “Siblings Weekend,” and “F amily/Parents Weekend” had higher levels of involvement or knowledge of the events. Several other events such as “Black History Month,” “Greek Week,” and “Earth Day,” leadership programs, and Convocation, had high levels of knowledge but low levels of involvement. The “Take Back the Night March” and “Be My Neighbor Day” scored no involvement and no knowledge on the scale. Celebrative Community Campus Tradition Items in Order of Knowledge (#217 - #223) The following traditions included items which most students could not have direct involvement in, but could have knowledge of. There were seven items in this scale. Students were asked to simply indicate their response to two categories: knowledge of or no knowledge of. They are ranked order according to highest level of knowledge through lowest level of knowledge. The units of analysis were based on a two point scale with 1.00 indicated knowledge of and 0.00 indicated no knowledge. The level of analysis was any mean score .55 and above was considered yes for knowledge. See Table 15. 132 88.0 .80 £88.88 6.88.88. 08.8.88 880 3808.82 0.2 88 8.8.. 88.0 88.0 2.88.8.8 8.3.08. .888. 28.8.2 28.2 8... .888 8.8. 8.8... 302.0 000.000 .0 0000.305. 00 .0 .30. 00... 000 3050202.. 02 88.0 88.0 $88.88. 8.8.88 8.8.88 2.80 8.28.8088. .808... 08.0 88.0 8.8.0.8. 8.08.88. .8.88..8 880... 8....80 8.8... 08.0 88.0 .8. .8.08. 8.88.38 8.8.88 2.82. 2.0.. 0.8.. 88.0 88.0 3.88.8... 8.88.88. 8.8.88 880 8.0.8802 .80 .808... 88.0 88.0 .8. .8.08. .8. .8.0.8 .8.8..88 02.8.0800 8.... 0.080.580 .8 8:80.80 080882.80 E8820 2.82 .8088 88.0 88.0 ... .8.88. .8. .8.8.8 ...8..08 08.80 8.88.8888. .808... 88.0 88.0 .8...8.88 8.88.888 .8.8..08 880 5.80 8.8... 88.0 88.0 .8.8...8 88.088 8.3.88 .882. 188.0 8.88 88.0 88.0 2.8508 .8.88..88 8.8588 508.2 8.8.8.: 88.8 .8088 «ca—8.0202... 30. «an .3=o>o nan—cue no 0500.395. 88.0 88.. 8.8.88 $88.88. 3.3..8. 809.882. 8.08.88.28.58. .808... 88.0 3... .38. £8.08. 8.88.008 809.882. 8053.0 ...88 88.0 88.. .8.8.8. ... .88. .8.88.888 8.088 808 80.88 80.0.8858: .808... 88.0 88.. .880. 8.08.8.8 8.88.8.8 80.88 .898. 0.22. .88 0.20 .8088 300>0 000.000 0. 200.0202: 38.2 0.882 38.2 0.8.. 0.2 .20. _ 0w «coEo>_o>c_\mmuo_>>oc¥ .0 _o>o._ 0000.305. 000 .0080>.0>0. .0 .005 0. 8.00.. .00>m 8000.00 3.000.800 0208.00.00 e. 0.00.. 133 More than half of the students had knowledge of three items: “cannon” (#223), “true love and the seal” (#221), “Warriner Circle” (#222). Less then thirty-five percent of the students knew about the other items on the scale. Table 15 Celebrative Community Campus Tradition Items in Order of Knowledge Degree of Knowlegqg M SD KO NKO Item N(%) N(o/o) #223. Cannon shot after a football score 292(71.7) 115(28.3) 0.72 0.45 #221. True love at the Warriner Seal 232(56.7) 177(43.3) 0.57 0.50 #222. Warriner Circle 225(55.3) 182(44.7) 0.55 0.50 #217. Cymbal crash during the Alma Mater 144(35.5) 262(64.5) 0.35 0.48 #220. Legends of the Dark 125(30.6) 283(69.4) 0.31 0.46 #218. Senior Send-Off 97(23.8) 311(76.2) 0.24 0.43 #219. Marching Band circling the tree 93(22.8) 315(77.2) 0.23 0.42 General Question Regarding how Important Campus Traditions are in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU (#228). Students responded to a five point ordinal scale as follows: There were 270 (66%) that responded very important or important to campus traditions in helping to feel connected to CMU, eighty-five (20.8%) that responded neutral, and fifty-four (13.2%) that responded unimportant or very unimportant. Boyer’s Princigles: Scales in Order of Imgortance and in Order of Trueness According to the mean scores, all the scales were considered to be important to student respondents. With regards to level of trueness, the Educationally Purposeful Scale for Faculty Characteristics and Teaching Pedagogy (mean score 2.54), and the Celebrative Community Scale for Tradition Items (2.58), were considered neutral by student respondents. The mean scores for the other scales were rated true on degree of trueness. See Table 16 and Table 17. 134 Table 16 Boyer's Principles: Scales in Order of Importance Level of Importance Degree of Trueness Principle M SD M SD Open Community (#73-#90) 1.56 .5 2.25 .6 Disciplined Communlty (#91-#100) 1.64 .6 2.18 .7 Caring Communlty Internet Use (#143-#148) 1.66 .7 1.90 .7 Caring Community Friendship 8 Caring (#101-#132) 1.70 .4 2.21 .5 Educationally Purposeful Community Faculty Char. And Teaching (#25-#64) 1.77 .3 2.54 .5 Just Communlty (#149-#168) 1.77 .5 2.28 .6' Educationally Purposeful Community General Academic (#65-#72) 1.79 .6 2.46 .6 Celebrative Community Tradition items (#133-#142) 1.90 .6 2.58 .6 Caring Community Opportunities for Friendship (#169-#194) 2.00 .5 1.84 .4" 'Indicates Degree of Participation "Indicates Degree of Usage Table 17 Boyer's Principles: Scales in Order of Trueness Degree of Trueness Level of Importance Principle M SD M SD Caring Communlty Opportunities for Friendship (#169-#194) 1.84 .4' 2.00 .5 Caring Community Internet Use (#143-#148) 1.90 .7 1.66 .7 Disciplined Community (#91-#100) 2.18 .7 1.64 .6 Caring Community Friendship & Caring (#101-#132) 2.21 .5 1.70 .4 Open Community (#73-#90) 2.25 .6 1.56 .5 Just Community (#149-#168) 2.28 .6“ 1.77 .5 Educationally Purposeful Community General Academic (#69-#72) 2.46 .6 1.79 .6 Educationally Purposeful Communlty Faculty Char. And Teaching (#25-#64) 2.54 .5 1.77 .3 Celebrative Community Tradition Itemg#133-#142) 2.58 .6 1.90 .6 'lndicates Degree of Usage “indicates Degree of Participation 135 Demograghic Factors and General OtLestion Ram Cross tabulations were conducted for demographic factors to selected general questions: #228, #229, #230, #233 and #235. Demographic factors included: class standing, gender, ethnic group, semesters in the residence hall, hours per week studying, hours per week working, work location, and self-reported overall cumulative grade point average (GPA). The selection of demographic factors was based on standard demographic variables when looking at college students to determine if there are differences. Semesters in the residence hall was chosen to see if connectedness was significant to students in university housing. Hours per week studying and working was chosen to see if these variables affect connectedness. The Pearson chi-square test was used and there was no statistical difference in responses for the following general questions based on demographic factors: level of importance of campus traditions in helping them feel connected to CMU (#228); level of connectedness to CMU (#229); level of importance of feeling connected to CMU a factor in academic success (#230); level of importance of developing friendships with peers a factor in feeling connected to CMU (#233); and level of importance of involvement in student organizations in helping feel connected to CMU (#235). See Appendix K for Tables 18-52. 136 Chagter Five Maior Findings, Implications, Limitations and Future Research Introduction The purpose of this chapter was to present an overview of the study, discuss the major findings, implications, limitations and future research. Qverview of the Sum The purpose of this study was to develop and administer a survey instrument to assist in understanding what items were important and not important to undergraduate full-time students in feeling connected to a university. Also, the survey was developed to determine if there was a significant difference between how important these items were for respondents compared to how true they were perceived to be about Central Michigan University. The study focused on Boyer’s principles of community as discussed in the Carnegie Foundation Report (1990). The principles were as follows: educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative community. The survey asked questions about several items for these principles by using ordinal scales. The survey was sent to a random sampling of 900 full-time students registered at Central Michigan University for at least two consecutive semesters. The survey was sent to an additional random sampling of 100 students of color to increase the response rate of this population. There were 412 students that returned the survey instrument. Descriptive statistics were computed. To compare a single question under the category of importance with the corresponding question under category true, the marginal homogeneity test was used. Cross tabulations were also generated and the Pearson chi- 137 square test was used. To measure reliability, Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal consistency was utilized. It should be noted that the “general comment” section was included in this survey to offer respondents the opportunity to submit feedback or emphasize a point they were passionate about at the time. It is the researcher’s personal belief that general comments do offer valuable feedback as long as one or two comments are not interpreted as the opinions of the general student body. The literature does suggest that a comment section is valuable and important to respondents. Many of the comments supported survey results or emphasized items asked on the survey. Research Questions Regarding What Students Think About Community Building grid Cogecteggess. 1. What items were important and not important to undergraduate full-time students in feeling connected to a university? 2. Was there a significant difference between how important these items were for respondents compared to how true they were perceived to be about Central Michigan University? _D_is_cg_issiog of Major Findings and Implications Similar to the rest of this study, Boyer’s principles (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990) were used to organize the discussion of the major findings, implications, recommendations and conclusions. It should be noted that students considered most of the items as very important or important when responding to the survey. This interpretation of data was based on the high number of respondents that chose the category very important or important for every item. For Boyer’s principle entitled 138 disciplined community, one factor had no statistical difference between level of importance and degree of trueness. This item was #99 “rules are enforced concerning alcohol and drugs.” Although there were no preconceived hypothesis, it was surprising that all p values were .00 except for one item. This indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between level of importance and degree of trueness for all other items on the survey. This did not necessarily indicate unhappiness with CMU. For most items, the mean scores for degree of trueness indicated many items were true. There were also many items that had high rates of no opinion or neutral for level of importance and degree of trueness. This could have implied indifference, lack of experience with the item, or simply, no opinion. It would be interesting to see how students would have responded with forced choice. Educationally Purposeful Community This principle was comprised of twenty-four items in total, only two of those items (#33 and #55) were not considered to be very important or important by the students. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this principle is that just thirteen items, or a little over half, were viewed by the students as neutral in terms of how true they were for CMU. Even though items related to faculty characteristics and teaching generated the most discussion during the focus groups, they were not as important when the students in the study were asked to respond to other items that comprise Boyer’s principles. Although specific items on the educationally purposeful scale had some of the highest mean scores of the entire survey for level of importance, this scale, entitled “Faculty Characteristics and Teaching” (#25-#64) ranked fifth out of the nine scales. For degree of 139 trueness, it ranked eighth out of the nine scales. The “General Academic” (#65-#72) scale ranked seventh for level of importance and seventh for degree of trueness. Nonetheless, the mean responses to the items that comprise educationally purposeful community suggest that there is a meaningful gap between the level of importance of faculty characteristics and teaching pedagogy and how often the students experience these same items at CMU. It is important to note that none of the items were viewed as untrue about CMU. What this gap may mean is that students and faculty do not have the same views about what is important in the classroom and how students and faculty interact with each other. In fact, when discussing these items with some faculty before sending out the survey, they indicated that they did not believe teaching pedagogy had much to do with whether a student would feel connected to CMU. Students felt the opposite, and the literature was convincing that pedagogy was very important to connectedness. Students wanted their “test information covered in class,” “understand the material” and they wanted “clear answers to their questions” so items had such a high response rates for level of importance (Bonwell & Bison, 1991). An issue in the focus groups was faculty being fluent in the English language. Students at CMU gave this item one of the lowest levels of trueness on the survey implying that something needs to be done about language skills for some faculty. Another significant difference between level of importance and degree of trueness was the item regarding “commenting on tests and papers so students could improve.” Faculty need to be encouraged to make comments on student papers. Although very time consuming, Lincoln’s (2000) students actually viewed this as a sign of “love.” 140 Students rated CMU faculty high regarding their “passion for the subject matter,” and “following the syllabus and clearly stating expectations” (Bonwell & Eison, 1991) indicating a strong degree of trueness. For the items “warm, friendly, smiles” (Bonwell & Eison, 1991), and “show they care about outside items beyond a student’s control that effect school” (Boyer, 1987; Willimon & Naylor, 1995), there were strong levels of difference between importance and level of trueness. But there was also a high level (thirty-four percent and forty percent) of students that responded neutral in the trueness category for both of these items. This could indicate no experience with these factors. One item that had support in the literature was “relate subject matter to student’s everyday experiences” (Bonwell & Bison, 1991; Boyer, 1987; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; King, 1999; Kuh, 1995b; Magolda, 1994; Potter, 1999). This item was strongly supported by students as important, but only fifty-four percent responded true or very true about CMU. What was significant was the number of students (thirty-one percent) who responded neutral to this item. Again, this could indicate lack of experience, indifference, or no opinion. Since all but two items were viewed as very important or important by the students, this study would suggest that CMU would become more educationally purposeful to students if the faculty engaged in interactive teaching methodologies that involved all students in the learning process, related subject matter to real life experiences, provided clear and meaningful feedback in both written and oral form, and communicated in an open and honest way that helped all students learn. Although strongly supported by Willimon and Naylor (1995), and very important to seventy-six percent of the students, almost twenty percent were neutral that faculty 141 should “give students the opportunity to get to know them.” Less than fifty percent thought this was true. Getting to know faculty better and “interacting with students at events outside of the classroom” (Boyer, 1990; Kuh et al., 1991; Willimon & Naylor, 1995) was only very important or important to less then fifty percent of the respondents. But only twenty-three percent responded that it was very true or true at CMU. According to the literature, this as a very significant item in connectedness. This may also be an indicator that students or faculty just do not see it as an expectation of each other and have settled for very little interaction on a personal level (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). Willimon and Naylor (1995) interviewed faculty that just did not feel knowing students out of class was appropriate and felt it was too time consuming. It might be implied that CMU faculty feel the same way about relationships with students outside of classroom activity. The university should also consider promoting its efforts to encourage faculty to get involved with students outside of the classroom. During focus group sessions, students seemed distrusting about getting to know faculty, yet they seemed curious about it. Being close to faculty reminded them of high school (comments were made on the survey about this point as well as in the focus groups). Open Community Students were asked to indicate their response to the importance and trueness of nine factors for the open community principle. There were about twenty-five percent of the students who responded neutral to degree of trueness for several of the items. This principle ranked the highest (mean score 1.56) for level of importance and fifth (mean score 2.25) for degree of trueness. 142 According to the ranking of items as important or very important, students believed an open community should consist of all the items listed on this scale. As indicated by Spitzberg and Thorndike ( 1992), a strong percentage of students supported “treated with respect by faculty when expressing viewpoints in class” and “treating others with respect when expressing different viewpoints” as very important items. Students also strongly supported the importance of being “encouraged to consider different viewpoints” and being “treated with respect by students when expressing viewpoints” (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Trout, 1998). According to the findings, the key to all of these items and to an open community seemed to be freedom of speech and respect for others while using this right (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). Students also supported the importance of developing communications skills which assisted them in expressing different thoughts, emotions and methods of talking to each other with respect. The difference between level of importance and degree of trueness was significant enough to encourage more developmental emphasis for items included in the open community principle. The importance of students developing dialogue skills (Pomerantz, 1993) and allowing students to form their own opinions and to discuss differences respectfully (Baxter Magolda, 1999) was supported by these findings. The importance of civility in the classroom and assisting students to learn how to be civil and respectful to each other (Trout, 1998) was also suggested by the findings. Faculty should be encouraged to develop or use their skills in order to facilitate student behavior so that respectful discussion while disclosing differences of opinion exists in the classroom (Brooke, 1999). The findings imply that faculty can assist students with communication skill development so that a wide range of views can be explored. 143 Faculty and staff should assist them in learning how to have dialogue constructively and respectfully. The findings suggested that students may also need to feel like they have freedom to express ideas in class and may be concerned about being respected by other students when expressing ideas. Conducting a class so that civility is expected is significant to having an open community where people are respectful to each other when expressing opinions. Just Community Students were asked to indicate their responses to the importance of ten educational and experiential opportunity items for a just community and whether they participated in these educational experiences. For this principle only, it was assumed that CMU had various activities and opportunities to meet and interact with people different from themselves, to learn about diversity, sexual assault, gender issues, socio-economic differences, age issues, gay and lesbians, international students, different religions and cultural issues. This principle ranked sixth (mean score 1.77) for level of importance and sixth (mean score 2.28) for degree of participation. According to the literature (Astin, 1993a; Carnegie Foundation Report, 1992; Kuh et al., 1991; Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992), the importance of educating students about people different then themselves was relevant to promoting understanding and connectedness. However, during the focus groups, students expressed concern about being “forced” to attend educational programs on diversity, differences and sexual assault. Based on their responses, students believed the items on this scale were very important or important to an open community. The items reported least important to the 144 rel 50 1'61 tip Th1: durii students were awareness of international issues or events and understanding different religious values. These items were the only two on the scale that students also responded sometimes or never to degree of participation. Over one-half reported sometimes or never to interacting with people from other cultures. This implies that student need more encouragement or a reward system for attending programs developed for understanding international issues or different religious issues. Perhaps there are not enough programs that discuss religious differences on campus. Being tolerant of gays and lesbians was higher than anticipated for level of importance, but students did not seem to take advantage of experiences related to this item. One student in the comment section was insulted with “being tolerant” of gays and lesbians. He or she felt just being tolerant was not enough. It could be that students are not aware of contact with gays or lesbians if students were not overt about their sexual orientation. Because there was a statistically significant difference between level of importance and degree of participation for all the items on the scale, the author recommends that students need to be encouraged to take advantage of educational and experiential opportunities regarding items on this scale. Encouraging students to take advantage of educational programs or experiences to meet people different than themselves should be encouraged in a manner that is not required but considered expected behavior at CMU because it is part of the “institutional ethos” (Kuh, 1993a). This should be emphasized when students visit campus through the admissions office, during new student orientation and floor meeting during the first week of school. 145 Disc & 1 SU ad Cal Disciplined Community Students were asked to indicate their responses to the level of importance of five items for a disciplined community. This principle ranked second (mean score 1.64) for level of importance and third (mean score 2.18) for degree of trueness. Chapter Two reviewed literature regarding honor codes (Dannells, 1997; McCabe & Pavela, 2000; McCabe, Trevino, Butterfield, 2001; Pruitt, 1996) and the community standards model (Baxter Magolda, 1998; Piper, 1996, 1997). Although CMU has initiated the community standards model on some floors in the residence halls, students participating in focus groups were not really familiar with the concept. They were not familiar with honor codes. Therefore, questions did not appear on the survey. Academic integrity has been an issue on college campuses, but only recently has it been a major focus of concern (Cole & Kiss, 2000). The responses on the survey with regards to this as a problem at CMU did seem congruent with information received in focus groups. It seems as though students tolerate cheating by other students, which is similar to the research findings in the literature (Matthews, 1999). However, focus groups indicated that faculty did little to deter this behavior. This finding was not supported by survey results. Students felt faculty did not tolerate cheating. The university needs to address the issue of academic integrity. Students seem to tolerate the behavior amongst each other. The only item which did not have a significant statistical difference on the entire survey was #99 “rules are enforced concerning alcohol and drugs.” Only about sixty- seven percent of the students thought this item was important (mean score 2.09) and true (mean score 2.13). Alcohol and drug enforcement does not seem to be an issue that is as 146 important as the other items on the scale to students. In focus groups, students did not like the rules regarding alcohol and drugs, but understood why they needed to be enforced. Their concern was that rules were enforced fairly. They knew taking responsibility for their behavior (mean score 1.37) was important but whether that was true at CMU rated lower (mean score 1.98) in level of trueness. Taking responsibility for one’s behavior should be expected by all members of the community and emphasized through discussion. Caring Community Students were asked to indicate their responses to the importance of a caring community in feeling connected and the level of trueness about CMU to sixteen items on this scale. There were also several items regarding specific questions on friendship and Internet communication addressed in this section. This section was the original reason for the development of this study. The scale entitled “Friendship and Caring” (Table 7, #101- #l32) ranked forth (mean score 1.70) for level of importance and forth (mean score 2.21) for degree of trueness. The researcher was interested in the role of feeling connected and friendship on a college campus. Several authors (Astin, 1993b; Kuh, 1993b, 1995b; Newman-Gonchar, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993, 2000) supported the role of friendship with peers in the educational success of college students. Specifically, Newman-Gonchar (2000) and Derryberry and Thomas (2000) reported the importance of the university taking an active role in shaping social experiences and promoting healthy friendships with peers. They believed that students would focus on this rather than studies if it was 147 lacking. Willimon and Naylor (1995) believed the importance of establishing friendships with faculty and staff would have a positive affect on student success. All the items regarding friendship and caring were very important or important to students. The degree of trueness regarding a friendly campus and friendships with other students was high, which may imply that the university has a positive environment for a friendly campus and friendship development. However, the degree of trueness of knowing students matter to each other was not as strong. This may indicate that students need to be taught this characteristic or reminded by peers that showing they care about each other is important. Only about one-half of the students responded they were taught good citizenry skills or taught how to participate in governmental activities; this was not rated as important when compared to the mean scores of other items. The low response rates to importance and trueness were similar to findings by Levine & Cureton (l998d). CMU may wish to look at this as it relates to its own mission statement about citizenship. In other words, CMU may not be practicing what it preaches regarding the importance of developing students as contributing citizens. As discussed in Chapter Two, faculty and staff working together was important to connectedness (Blake, 1996; Kuh et al., 1991, 19953, 1996a; Palmer, 1992; Potter, 1999). Student respondents also supported this concept. This means that they did not want to be sent all over campus for answers to questions. According to the findings, this item received a mean score of 2.77 (neutral) for degree of trueness indicating a need for improvement. This may be interpreted that CMU needs to continue to work on making sure students have access to the information they need. Perhaps more cross training for 148 faculty and staff regarding university procedures may need to be looked into further. This may also be an indication of Levine and Cureton’s (1998d) findings that students want to be serviced like a bank. CMU has service centers for the convenience of students. The literature has indicated that service is important to connectedness (Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). A challenge to this recommendation may be that faculty do not see service as part of their campus role. In another scale, students indicated the importance of the Internet for communicating with their friends and family and indicated a high level of usage. They also felt it was important for communicating with faculty and staff, but the level of importance and usage was not as high. This may indicate that students have not yet used the Internet to communicate needs with staff. It may also indicate that faculty are using this as a method of communication with students, but not to the degree that students use it with family and friends. Overall, this scale ranked third for level of importance (mean score 1.66) and second for degree of trueness (mean score 1.90). The scale entitled “Opportunities for Friendship” (Table 10, Items #169—#194) ranked last (mean score 2.00) in level of importance and first (1.84) in degree of trueness. Although Spitzberg and Thorndike (1992) and Kuh et a1. (1991) reported differently, students responded to opportunities for friendship in their classes as the highest level of importance and degree of trueness. Social events, student organizations, volunteer activities, activities in the SAC and activities in the residence halls were also important and used to develop friendships. Off-campus parties with alcohol, greeks, and the newly developed leadership programs had a lower response rate to very important and important. Off-campus parties with alcohol were very important to focus group members 149 for friendship development. The university may wish to consider funding more social activities in the SAC as it may have the potential of attracting even more students for friendship development. Only about fifty-three percent supported student organizations for friendship development, although they see this as an important item. Peers influence students the most at CMU (Astin, 1993b; Kuh, 1995b). However, parents or guardians and significant others were rated much higher than CMU professors. This is contrary to what Astin found in his research (1993b). Influential relationships with staff only existed for about fifty percent of the respondents. It is recommended that CMU look very strongly at the influence students’ place on peer interaction. These peer relationships should be used in a positive manner to create community on campus. Student relationships with faculty and staff should be looked at for possible development. Students were asked to respond to the question “reasons for not making new friends at CMU” (Table l 1) only if they were not making friends. Seventy-two (17.5%) students responded to this question. The low response rate for this question implied that almost eighty-three percent made new friends. Over one-half responded they were not making new fiiends because they lived off campus. Involving off-campus students in friendship development should be further investigated. Further investigation to determine what students suggest about reasons for not making friends is recommended. CMU should look at methods of communicating with off-campus students. Knowledge about campus events and activities was very important or important to students and should be improved according to the level of trueness about CMU. 150 ”MLI‘ . ...e Celebrative Community Students were asked to indicate the importance of a celebrative community and level of trueness for some of the items. Students were also asked to respond to their level of involvement or knowledge of several items regarding traditional events and activities. There were a total of four scales containing thirty-one items for this principle. The scale entitled “Tradition Items” (#133-#142) ranked eighth (mean score 1.90) for level of importance and ninth (mean score 2.58) for degree of trueness. The other scales were not ranked. Students responding to this survey valued modern facilities and an attractive campus. Having an attractive, state-of-the-art campus, as well as strong academic programs were supported by the literature as having a connection value and also related to school spirit (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990). With school spirit being rated neutral in degree of trueness, the university may wish to emphasize it’s prestigious programs and what students considered an attractive campus as one method of increasing school spirit or pride. Winning athletic teams were very important or important to almost one-half of the students and strong school spirit was very important or important to seventy-five percent of the respondents. The literature supports strong athletic programs as important to connectedness and school spirit (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990, Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992). With seventeen percent of the students indicating the trueness of winning teams at CMU, promoting other successful teams at the university could increase campus pride. However, students rated winning teams as neutral (2.61) with regard to level of importance, which implies this was not a strong item in feeling connected to the 151 university. This also may be a reflection on the fact that up until 2001, most students attending CMU did not really witness strong football or basketball teams. Boyer (Carnegie Foundation Report, 1990) discussed the importance of developing traditions on campus. Several authors supported this principle through planned campus celebrations or events (Kue et al., 1991; Sanio, 2000; Smith & Schonfeld, 2000; Young & Gonzalez, 1989). Survey results (Table 14) indicated that with the exception of a few major events, student respondents really were not involved in many campus activities considered to be traditional events according to the literature. Students seem to have knowledge of most of these events, but lack of involvement is a concern considering the emphasis placed on this as a connector to a university by the literature. Students in the focus groups had no involvement in and very little knowledge of campus events. One item that most new students participate in is convocation and the fall orientation (item #204, Table 14) because it is “required.” Yet, it scored low with regards to involvement. This could be that students did not recognize the name of this item as being what they attend when coming to campus in the fall. Students believed social activities to meet people was the most important item on the scale (Table 13) to indicate importance of entertainment in helping students feel connected to a university. Maj or concerts and famous lecturers were also rated important. Although the level of trueness was not measured, low student attendance at most cultural events sponsored by CMU may indicate dissatisfaction. Students, as indicated on this survey, may be indifferent to musicals (mean score 2.51) as a form of entertainment. Students indicated that they wanted more knowledge about campus events and activities 152 which could be a reason why they do not attend certain types of events as indicated in previous CMU research. This was perhaps, the weakest principle surveyed. CMU needs to continue its efforts to develop new traditions and educate students about the traditions already on campus. With the exception of one tradition, many of the items (Table 15) were recognized by lower percentage rates of students. Students in focus groups indicated learning about some campus traditions at orientation. They also implied that traditions were important to feeling connected. New student orientation should strengthen its efforts to continue educational efforts about campus traditions. Boyer (1990) and Kuh et al. (1991) suggested that the entire campus (such as Residence Life, Office of Student Life, Athletics, the Alumni Office and the Public Relations Office) should assist with these efforts. Appreciating the campus traditions that do exist need to be part of the campus ethos. Regardless of demographic factor, about sixty-six percent of the students responded that traditions were important to feeling connected which implies that students may want more emphasis on this principle. Demo ra hic Factors and General uestion Res onses Cross tabulations were conducted for selected demographic factors and responses to the following questions: #228, #229, #230, #233, and #235. Demographic factors included class standing, gender, ethnic group, semesters in the residence hall, hours per week studying, and hour per week working. The Pearson chi-square test was used and there was no significant difference reported. There was no statistical difference in responses for the following general questions based on demographic factors: level of importance of campus traditions in 153 helping them feel connected to CMU (#228); level of connectedness to CMU (#229); level of importance of feeling connected to CMU a factor in academic success (#230); and level of importance of student organization involvement in helping them feel connected to CMU (#235). Recommendations Regarding Boyer’s hm Teaching pedagogy and faculty characteristics were important to students feeling connected. Funding should be used for faculty development in this area as well as controlling disruptive student behavior in the classroom. Faculty need to continue to develop interpersonal skills and should be encouraged to relate the subject matter to students’ everyday experiences. Specific attention should be given to improving English language proficiency for some faculty. The literature indicates that the university should also encourage faculty to get involved with students outside of the classroom. It is important to develop methods of teaching students so that classroom knowledge relates to their life’s activities. This includes their educational, career, interpersonal and personal development. This should also include exposing students to the role they should play in how they relate to their communities after graduation as well as their contributions to how the United States should relate to the rest of the world. Loeb (1994) refers to this as their civic responsibility. Students need to be taught, through teaching and learning methods, how to improve their communication skills in and out of the classroom. Students should be encouraged to take advantage of learning experiences or activities in order to meet and interact with people different from themselves. Educational development concerning this should be continued. 154 There are some recommendations as a result of the findings that could strengthen student friendship opportunities. The university should take an active role in providing and shaping social opportunities and experiences in order to promote healthy friendships between students and their peers. Teaching methods that encourage friendship amongst students in class is strongly suggested, also. As mentioned, organized faculty involvement outside the classroom could increase student friendship opportunities for student peers and faculty. Healthy faculty and staff involvement with students should be encouraged. Relationships with staff should also be improved. Students at CMU believe campus involvement and student organizations are important, but they do not seem to participate. The university may wish to consider alternative methods of promoting campus groups, programs, social activities, and major entertainment as possible alternatives for friendship opportunities and further connectedness to the institution. Funding for more social activities in the popular SAC should be investigated. The peer relationship and influence students have on each other should be used in a positive manner for several issues regarding campus ethos. The special relationship students could have with each other in developing and improving the campus ethos should not be underestimated. For instance, peer influence can change student acceptance of academic dishonesty. It can also affect the development and promotion of new campus traditions. In order for students to feel a sense of pride in the university, CMU must actively promote university pride throughout the campus. According to authors reviewed in Chapter Two, all offices, as well as faculty and staff on an individual basis, could take an 155 active role in this endeavor. Wearing CMU apparel, attending minor sporting events as well as the major team sports, or even just acknowledging winning minor teams could be important to connectedness. Acknowledging student academic and leadership success can add to a sense of connectedness. Participation by all should be encouraged. Supporting diverse celebrative events and acknowledging the importance of the development of the whole student leads to connection to the institution. Activities, events, and services that demonstrate students “matter” to faculty, staff, and other students should also be part of the campus ethos. Students need to believe that they matter to faculty, staff and to each other. Students need to feel they are being listened to with regards to their Opinions and suggestions for improvement of campus services or problems. Discovering how faculty and staff can expose students to the importance of possessing skills that enable them to connect and contribute to community building is significant. Higher education should demonstrate to students just how these skills can affect the way students relate to people they will work with as well as how personal relationships are developed with all types of people. Students need to understand how successful community building or connecting with others in a positive manner can contribute to their own success. Educators should assist students with learning these skills even though students are not always interested in developing them. Limitations Although seventy-five percent of the respondents were women, fifty-nine percent of the undergraduate full-time population were female when this survey was distributed. It would be helpful to have more male respondents in the future or to follow up with males who did not respond. Only about seven percent of the undergraduate full-time 156 students were students of color at CMU, whereas about fourteen percent of the respondents to this survey were students of color. They were oversampled. It is not known how many students of color responded from the additional random sampling compared to students of color in the random sampling from the overall student body. It is recommended that the data be analyzed and reported for this specific population in more detail for further conclusions. Implications are not known regarding over sampling ethnicity as to how the results would have been different. The researcher should have weighed the responses back to the population proportions because it is not known if the results would have been different due to the over sampling of students of color and / or the high response rate of females. This survey could also be used for specific populations on campus such as ethnic groups, nontraditional students, off-campus students, long- distance commuters, part-time students, greeks, dematriculated students, etc. It is not known how many student respondents lived in the residence halls at the time they returned the survey. They were asked only length of time they resided in the residence hall system. Students self-reported their overall grade point averages. The grades seemed very high (sixty percent over a 3.00). This could indicate that students with better grade points tend to respond to surveys. Perhaps level of trueness should have been measured for “Entertainment Items.” Concern was originally voiced by the university statistician as to determining what the terms “famous” and “major” would mean to respondents. While these terms did not seem 157 controversial to focus group members, the group participants all agreed there were not enough “famous” lecturers or “major” concerts on campus. It was decided to eliminate level of trueness for these items because of the lengthiness of the survey. There were also many items that had high rates of no opinion or neutral for level of importance and degree of trueness. It is not known if this response implied indifference, lack of experience with the item, or simply, no opinion. This response should have been defined in the survey instructions or eliminated to encourage forced choice. The survey length was always an issue. Perhaps some questions (items) for the educationally purposeful, caring and celebrative principles could have been eliminated. Some questions for the open principle may have been redundant. The response rate was about forty-two percent; this may have increased if the survey had been shorter in length. Perhaps, just surveying if the items were true about CMU instead of also surveying level of importance could have drawn the same conclusions. But part of the reason for the project was to determine if these items were still important to students now enrolled in college. The time of year may have affected the survey return rate. The survey was sent to permanent addresses during the holiday. It is not known if all students went to that address for the holiday. There were three students that reported not receiving the first mailing. In order to save time, students who did not return a survey after the first mailing were emailed a request to do so using the university assigned email address. It is not known if students even use the university address compared to one through other sources such as “Yahoo!” 158 Student friendships with faculty and staff may call for further investigation. The research supports such relationships as rewarding for faculty and staff, and beneficial for students. Issues such as fear of sexual harassment accusations and lack of time for students, faculty and staff may be a factor that deter these relationships and should be researched. Although the survey instrument was complicated to format, expensive to print F because of color, and expensive to mail because of length, it was very inclusive and attractive. Because the format has now been developed, other universities may be able to adapt specific information regarding their campuses in such areas as activities to meet it. I people and campus traditions. Campus offices may wish to limit the demographic variables based on specific populations being researched. It would be interesting to see how students responded if the five point ordinal scale was forced choice (no Opinion eliminated as an option). Although the survey was \very inclusive, some topics important in the literature review were not viewed as significant to the focus group participants. Therefore, the topics were not listed as survey items. Examples of this included community standards, honor codes, and different teaching methods such as service learning. Some campuses may wish to add more items discussed in the literature review if their students are more familiar with the topic. Future Research It may be interesting to develop a survey to solicit faculty and staff suggestions for connecting students. Often, front line staff have significant information to contribute for suggested changes in operations which could affect student connectedness. 159 Campuses may wish to extract certain sections, based on specific campus concerns or perceived needs, rather than duplicating the entire survey. It may be interesting to compare data results from different sizes and types of institutions. Research on fiiendship development could further be investigated. Specific suggestions from students as to how friendships could be developed should be solicited through focus groups so information is specific to each campus. Off-campus students should not be ignored in such research. In fact, it is suggested that this group be targeted because on most campuses, the largest student population resides off-campus. It was suggested in focus groups that off-campus students do not receive enough attention; this could be a way of showing that they “matter” to the institution. Further research should be conducted on methods to develop positive, strong peer relationships. This is still rated as the most influential relationship on campus: student peers. It certainly is worth determining the best methods of providing student opportunities to develop peer relationships and provide a positive environment to do so. A survey should be developed to solicit feedback from faculty and staff on possible methods they might feel comfortable with in developing healthy friendships with students. Based on focus groups and some literature (Willimon, 1995), friendships between students and faculty should be encouraged but not required. Universities may wish to survey students further as to why they are not involved more with campus student organizations, activities and programs. Marketing and promotion ideas should be researched through an all-campus organized methodology involving more than just a student activities office with the purpose of soliciting ideas on the best way to communicate to students what is happening on campus. A method of 160 determining if low involvement or attendance at campus programming and membership in student organizations is a lack of interest or a lack of knowledge should be further researched. Campuses that have not inquired about or assessed campus services with students should begin their research with this step because campus services are very significant to creating community and connectedness. This does not mean just services labeled “student a gun...» “'fi, 3. services.” This assessment should include all divisions of the institution. Conclusion ‘Ii ‘ I. All except five individual items for Boyer’s principles of community: educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative were important to students participating in this survey. There were significant statistical differences between how important items were for respondents compared to how true they were perceived to be about Central Michigan University according to undergraduate full-time student respondents. The survey instrument developed and administered was very unique in that no other one exists that is so inclusive in addressing all of Boyer’s principles of community. As a result of this research, the author believes that Boyer’s principles of community are important to students and therefore, should be important to higher education. Not only is community building and connectedness important but so are the skills necessary to build a connected community. Such skills used for developing and nurturing positive friendships and deve10ping connectedness in the university community are important to higher education. All members of the higher education community: trustees, the president, faculty, administrators, staff, and students need to understand the 161 importance of their individual roles in developing a coordinated effort and demanding high expectations of each other in creating a connected, united, educated community of learners. The researcher urges higher education to adopt, champion, and implement Boyer’s principles on campus and as a model for the nation. 162 BIBLIOGRAPHY 163 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelman, C. (1999, January/February). Crosscurrents and riptides: Asking about the capacity of the higher education system. Change, 31(1), 20-27. Amada, G. (1999). Copirg with misconduct in the classroom: A practical model. Asheville, NC: College Administration Publications, Inc. American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. American College Personal Association. Angel, D. (1990, October). American higher education on the grill. Leadership Abstracts, 3(16), 33-34. Antonio, A. L., Astin, H. S., & Cress, C. M. (2000, Summer). Community service in higher education: A look at the nation’s faculty. The Review of Higher Educatiom 23(4), 373-398. Astin, A. (1996a, March/April). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College Student Develgment. 37(2), 123-134. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 2; 297-308. Astin, A. W. (1993a, March/April). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus. Change, 44-49. Astin, A. W. (1993b). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Astin, A. W. (2000). The civic challenge of educating the underprepared student. In T. Ehrlich (Ed.), Civic responsibility and higher education (pp. 124-146). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998, May/June). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 32(3), 251-263. Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999, Winter). Long term effects of volunteerism during the undergraduate years. Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 187- 202. 164 Astin, H. S., & Antonio, A. L. (2000, November-December). Building character in college. About Campus, 5(5), 3-7. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Baker, W. E. (1994, May). Campus community: Students’ search for an operational definition. Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in College Student Personnel. Banta, T. W., & Kuh, G. D. (1998, March/April). A missing link in assessment. Change, 41-50. Bargen, D. (1996). Community Visioning and leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies 3(3), 135-162. Barr, M. J. (1995, February). Partners for student success: Education, ethicsfl discipline. Speech presented at the Association for Student Judicial Affairs national conference, Clearwater, FL. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996, July/August). Cognitive learning: Personal development in a false dichotomy. About Campusg(3), 16-21. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1998, March/April). Developing self-authorship in young adult life. Journal of College Student Development, 39(2), 143-156. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Engaging students in active learning. In G. S. Blimling, E. Whitts, & Associates (Eds), Good prgctice in student affairs: Princfles to foster student learning (pp. 21-43). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Bellah, R. N., Madsen R., Sullivan, W. M., Swindler, A., & Tipton, SM. (1985). Habits of the heart. New York: Harper and Row. Berman, S. (1990). The development of social consciousness: Nurturing a positive and empowered relationship with society. In J. Kendall and Associates (Eds), Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service. (pp. 354-357). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. Blake, E. S. (1996, September/October). The yin and yang of student learning in college. About Campus, 1(4), 4-9. 165 Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San F rancisco: Jossey-Bass. Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Boatman, S. (1995). Leadership for community: A conceptual framework and suggestions for application. [Leadership paper #5]. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Ashe-Eric Report no. 1. Washington DC: George Washington University. Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholapship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Learning. Boyer-Chase, P. (2000, March). College freshmen: The impact of academic support groups on gradepoint average, retention and locus of control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti. Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000, September/October). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process. Joumpl of Higher Education, 71(5), 569-590. Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (1995, Fall). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Joumal of Community Service Learning, 2. 112-122. Brooke, C. P. (1999, Spring). Feelings from the back row: Negotiating sensitive issues in large classes. In S. Richardson (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning, No. 77, Promoting Civility: A teaching challeng (pp. 23-33). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Brookfield, S. D. (1999, January —— February). What is college really like for adult students? About Campus, 3(6), 10-15. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bruffee, K. A. (1999, February 5). Binge drinking as a substitute for a “community of learning.” Chronicle of Higher Education, XLV(22), B-8 Editorial. 166 Cabrera, A. F ., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagadom, L. S. (1999, March/April). Campus racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between white students and African American students. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 134-160. Campus Compact. (1999, July 4). Presidents ’ fourth of July declaration on the civic responsibility of higher education. [WWW Document]. URL http://www.compact.org/resources/plc-declaration.html Carey, A. & Fabiano, P. M. ( 1999, January—February). In practice — welcome to western: A community’s approach to convocation. About Campus, 3(6), 23-25. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, The (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Carter, S. L. (1998). Civility: Manners, morals, and the eticprette of democracy. New York: Basic Books. Center For Applied Research and Rural Studies (1998, May). Report of findings: Study of the attitudes and experiences of undergraduates at CMU’s Mt. Pleasant campus. Mt. Pleasant: Central Michigan University. Center for Applied Research and Rural Studies (1999, June). Report of findings: Study of the attitudes and experiences of CMU’s on-campus undergraduates. Mt. Pleasant: Central Michigan University. Central Michigan University. (2000, June). 2000-2001 Undergraduate bulletin. Mt. Pleasant: Central Michigan University. Charrnez, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings, (pp. 109-126). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity. (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clemson University. (1992, February). Final report of the Clemson community: Suggestions for promoting campus involvement. South Carolina: Clemson University. 167 Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000, January/February). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. The Journal of _H_igher Education, 71(1), 60-83. Cole, 8., & Kiss, E. (2000, May-June). What can we do about student cheating? About Campug5(2), 4-12. Cooper, M. (1996). A faculty gpide to reflection. Paper prepared for the Florida International University Action Center. Coye, D. (1997, May/June). Ernest Boyer and the new American college: Connecting the “disconnects”. Change, 20(3), 21-29. Cross, K. P. (1998 November/December). Finding out what makes learners tick: Is research the best way to know? About Campus, 3(5), 31-32. Dannells, M. (1997). From discipline to development: Rethinkingstudent conduct in higher education. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 25, No. 2). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED RR-93- 002008) Dean of Students Office. (1994, Fall). Strategic goals for developing a sense of community at CMU. Mt. Pleasant: Central Michigan University Dehne, G. (1998). The new student generation: Are we ready? Do we care? Pamphlet mailed from George Dehne and Associates. Derryberry, W. P., & Thoma, S. J. (2000, May-June). The friendship effect: Its role in the development of moral thinking in students. About Campus, 5(2), 13-18. Dillman, D. A. (1983). Mail and other self-administered questionnaires. In R. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 359- 377). San Diego: Academic Press. Dreier, P. (1998, April 13). The myth of student apathy. The Nation, 266(13), 19- 22. Ehrlich, T. (1999, September/October) Civic and moral learning. About Cflpfi 5(4), 5-9. El-Khawas, E. (1989, Summer/F all). Ways to improve campus life: What the president suggests. Educational RecordL7O(3/4), 10-1 1. 168 Engstrom, C. M., Hallock, H., Riemer, S. M., & Rawls, J. (2000, May/June). Perspectives Of democracy: A lens for analyzing students’ experiences in a pilot community standards program. Journal Of College Student Development, 41(3), 265- 278. F auber, T. L. (1996). “Mattering” doesn’t matter: An analysis of adult undemaduate persistence patterns. Dissertation submitted to the College of William of Mary for the degree of Doctor of Education. Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of collegeon students: Volume one: An analysis of four decades of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. (1998). How tO conduct surveys: A step-bv-step guide. (2nd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Flacks, R., & Thomas, S. L. (1998, November 27). Among affluent students, a culture of disengagement. The Chronicle Of Higher Education, p. A48. F ontana. A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structural questions to negotiated text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fowler, F. J ., Jr. (1993). Survey research methods (2Ind Ed.) (Applied social research methods series, Volume 1). Newberry Park, CA: SAGE. Frances, C., Pumerantz, R., & Caplan, J. (1999, July/August). Planning for instructional technology: What you thought you knew could lead you astray. Change, 3_1 (4), 24-33. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman. Gardner, J. N. (1998, January 23). Student Retention. Materials accompanied to a presentation at Central Michigan University. Gardner, J. W. (1989, Fall). Building Community. KetteringReview, 73—8 1. Gaulden, A. C. (1997). Clearing for the millennium. New York: Time Warner. Geraghty, M. (1996, July 16). More students quitting college before sophomore year, data show. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A35-A36. 169 Gibbs, A. (1992). Reconciling righflnd responsibilities Of colleges and students: Offensive speech; assembly, drug testing and safety (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report NO. 5). Washington, DC: The George Washington university, School of Education and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED RI-88-O62014) Ginsburg, S. G. (1995, June). SO long, farewell, auf wiedrsehen, adieu: An agenda for concern, analysis, and action. Portfolio 20-23. Gitlin, T. (1995). The Twilight Of common dreams: Why America is wracked by culture wars. New York: Metropolitan Books. Glassick, C. E. (1999). Ernest L. Boyer: Colleges and universities as citizens. In R. G. Bringle, R. Games, & E. A. Malloy (Eds), Colleges and universities as citizens (pp. 17-30). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Glesne, C., & Preshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman. Gonzalez, G. M. (1989, Winter). Understanding the campus community: an ecological paradigm. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community, VOl 48, (pp. 17-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goodman, A. 1., & MacNeil, C. (1999, July-August). Collaborating with our communities. About Campus, 4(3), 19-24. Graham, S. W., & Gisi, S. L. (2000, Fall). Adult undergraduate students: What role does college involvement play? NASPA Journal, 38(1), 99-121. Grana, S. J ., & Petersen-Perlman, D. (1998, February 8). Where do I fit in? Non- majority student experiences at a culturally homogenous university. Paper presented at the Rebuilding Higher Education: Strategies for Creating Community on Your Campus conference, Burlington, VT. Gray, M. J. (2000, May-June). Making the commitment to community service: What it takes. About Campus, 5(2), 19-24. Gray, M. J ., Ondataatje, E. H., Fricker, R. D., Jr., & Geschwind, S. A. (2000, March/April). Assessing service-leaming: Results from a survey of “Learn and serve America, higher education.” Change, 32(2), 30-39. Green, K. C. (1999, March/April). When wishes come true: Colleges and the convergence Of access, lifelong learning, and technology. Change, 31(2), 10-15. 170 Greenbaum, T. L. (1988). The practical handbook and Mic to focus group research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Groccia, J. E. (1997, May/June). The student as customer versus the student as leader: Is the customer always right when the customer is a student? About Campus, 2(2), 31-32. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hackney, D. (1996). Perceptions and implications Of altering symbols, traditiongand ceremonies at an institution: A case study Of Drexel University’s undggraduate culture. Dissertation in Higher Education for the University of Pennsylvania in Partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the Degree Of Doctor Of Education. Hammonds, K. H., & Jackson, S. (1997, December 22). The new 11: A tough market is reshaping colleges. Business Week, 96-102. Hansen, E. J. (1998, November). Essential demographics of today’s college students. AAHE Bulletin, 51(3), 3—5. Hansen, E. J ., & Stephens, J. A. (2000, September/October). The ethics of leamer- centered education. Change, 33(5), 40-47. Harvey, L., Plimmer, L., Moon, S., & Geall, V. (1997). Student Satisfaction Manual. [Society for Research into Higher Education] Bristol, PA: Open University Press. Heller, S. (1996, March 1). Bowling alone. The Chronicle Of Higher Education, 42, pp. A10, A12. Hendershott, A., Drinan, P. F ., & Cross, M. (1999, July/August). Gender and academic integrity. Journal Of College Student Development, 40(4), 345-354. Herndon, S. L. (1993). Using focus group interviews for preliminary investigation. In S. L. Herndon & G. L. Kreps (Eds), Qualitative research: Applications in grganizzflonal communication (pp. 39-45). Annandale, VA: Hampton Press. Herszenhom, D. (1999, April 4). Student life. New York Times, pp. 4A, 20-21. Hoekema, D. A. (1994). Campus rules and moral community: In place of in loco parentis. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Horowitz, H. L. (1987). Campus life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf: 171 Hughey, A. W. (1999, January). Customer service comes tO higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 7-8. Hunt, J. B., Jr. (1999, July 16) If you were governor, what would you do? 111a Chronicle of Higher Education, 45, p. A52. Hunt, J. B., Jr. (1999, July 16). The Chronicle Of Higher Education, p. A52. Irby, A. J. (1999, March/April). Postbaccalaureate certificates: Higher education’s grth market. Change, 31(2), 36-41. Jacobi, M. (1991, Spring). Focus group research: A tool for the student affairs professional. NASPA Journal, 28(3), 195-201. Janosik, S. M. (1991). The campus community scale. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Janosik, S. M. (2000, June 19). Campus community scale. [personal e-mail communication]. Javidi, M., Long, L., Vasu, M., & Ivy, D. (1991). Enhancing focus group validity with computer-assisted technology in social science research. Social Science Computer Review 9(2), 231-245. Johnson Foundation. (1996, January) Appendix A: Standards of quality for school based and community-based service learning. Expanding boundaries: Serving and learning, 76-81. (Report Of the Wingspread Group on Higher Education). Milwaukee: University Of Wisconsin. Johnson, C. S. & Cheatham, H. E. (Eds). (1999). Higher education trends for the next century: A research agenda for student success. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. Johnson, C. S. (1999, January—February). Bottom Line: Preparing to serve students in the twenty-first century. About Campus, 3(6), 31-32. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1998, July/August). Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, 30(4), 27-35. June, L. N. (1998, February 19). The making of a generation: Current and future challenges. Keynote address at the Big 10 Counseling Center Conference, East Lansing: Michigan State University. 172 Kauffrnan, H. F. (1977). Toward an interactional conception Of community. In R. L. Warren (Ed.), New perspectives on the American community (pp. 79-90). Chicago: Rand McNally. Keintz, B. (1999). Student relationships: An analysis of peer, faculty, and staff effectiveness. Journal of Student Affairs, 8, 59-70. King, P. M. (1999, March—April). From the board: Putting together the puzzle Of student learning. About Campus, 4(1), 2-4. Knefelkamp, L. L. (1989, June). Assessment as transformation. Paper presented at the AAHE Assessment Forum, Fourth National Conference on Assessment in Higher Education, Atlanta. Komives, S. R. (1997). Leadership program assessment. Concepts and Connections, 5, 15. Komives, S. R. (2000, November-December). Bottom line: Inhabit the gap. About Campus, 5(5), 31-32. Komives, S. R., Woodward, B. B. Jr., & Associates. (1996). Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Beverly Hills: Sage. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groqus: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kuh, G. D. (1993a, Fall). Ethos: Its influence on student learning. Liberal Education, 72 22-29. Kuh, G. D. (1993b, Summer). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 277-304. Kuh, G. D. (1995a, June 20). Designing an institutional renewal strategy to create seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, [Prepared for the “Focus on Student Learning an imperative for Student Affairs” Special Issue]. Kuh, G. D. (1995b). The other curriculum: Out-Of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal Of Higher Education, 66, 123-155. 173 Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal Of College Student Development, 37(2), 135-149. Kuh, G. D. (1997, September/October). You gotta believe! About Campus, 2(4), 2- 3. Kuh, G. D. (1999, Winter). How are we doing? Tracking the quality Of the undergraduate experience, 1960s to present. The Review Of Higher Education, 22(2), 99-119. Kuh, G. D., Lyons, J ., Miller, T., & Trow, J. A. (1995, January). Reasonable expectations: Renewing the educational cormgact between institutions and students. Project sponsored by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., Andreas, R. E., Lyons, J. W., Strange, C. C., Krehbie, L. E., & MacKay, K. A. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful apgoaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G., Schuh, J ., & Whitt, E. (1991). Some good news about campus involvement. Change, 23(5), 48-55. Lazerson, M., Wagener, U., & Schumanis, N. (2000, May/June). Teaching and learning in higher education, 1980-2000. Change, 32(3), 13-19. Lederman, L. C. (1990). Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group interview as a technique for data collection. Communication Education, 38, 117-127. Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (2000, Fall). Understanding social connectedness in college women and men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(4), 484-491. Lenning, O. T., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). The powerfiil potential Of learning communities: Improving education for the future. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Vol. 26, NO. 6. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998a, May / June). Collegiate life: An Obituary. Change, 30(3), 14-17, 31. Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (l998b, Winter). Student Politics: The new localism. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 137-150. Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (l998c, March/April). What we know about today’s college student. About Campus, 3(1), 4-9. 174 Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (l998d). When hope and fear collide: A portrait Of today’s college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lincoln, Y. S. (2000, Spring). When research is not enough: Community, care, and love. The Review of Higher Education, 23(3), 241-256. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Lively, K. (1999, July 6) College presidents call for campuses to get involved in their communities. [WWW Document] Chronicle Of Higher Education: Today’s News. URL http://chronic1e.com/daily/99/O7/99070606n.htm Loeb, P. R. (1999). Soul of a citizen: Livingwith conviction in a cynical time. New York: St. Martin’s. LOfland, J., & LOfland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide tO qualitative Observation and analysis (3“. ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Losyk, B. (1997, March/April). Generation X: What they think and what they plan tO do? The Futurist, 31, 39-44. Lounsbury, J. W., & DeNuie, D. (1995). Psychological sense of community on campus. College Student JoumaL 11(2), 270-277. Love, P. G., & Goodsell-Love, A. (1995). Enhancing student learning. Ashe-Eric report no. 4. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Lowery, J. W. (2000, July-August). Bonfire: Tragedy and tradition. About Campus _5_(3), 20-25. Magolda, P. M. (1994, May). A quest for communim An ethnographgic study of a residential college. Submitted to the University Graduate School of Indiana University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor Of Philosophy in Higher Education. Magolda, P. M. (1997, May/June). Life as I don’t know it. About Campus, 2(2), 16- 22. Manning, K. (1989, November 27). Campus rituals and cultural meaning, Submitted to the Graduate School Of Indiana University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy in Higher Education. 175 Manning, K. (1994). Rituals and rescission: Building community in hard times. Journal Of College Student Development, 35, 275-281. Mathews, C. O. (1999, September/October). The Honor System. The Journal Of Higher Education, 70(5), 504-509. Mathews, D. (1996). The public’s disenchantment with professionalism: Reasons for rethinking academe’s service tO the country. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 21-28. Maybe, C. (1995). The making Of a citizen leader. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insights Of leadership through the ages (pp. 310-317). New York: The Free Press. McCabe, D. L., & Drinan, P. (1999, October 15). Toward a culture Of academic integrity. The Chronicle Of Higher Education, 46, p. B7. McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college: Longitudinal trends and recent developments. Change, 28(1), 28-33. McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001, January/February). Dishonesty in academic environments. Journal of Higher Education, 72(1), 29-45. McCabe, D., & Pavela, G. (2000, September/October). Some good news about academic integrity. Change, 33(5), 32-39. McKenzie, J. F. & Smeltzer, J. L. (1997). Planning, implementing and evaluating health promotion programs, (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense Of community: A definition and theory. Jouml of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23. Mercer, J. (1993, October 23). Campuses that stress teaching community. Chronicle Mm Education,40(9), p. A44, Miller, D. W. (1999, July 16). Perhaps we bowl alone, but does it really matter? T_h_e_ Chronicle Of Higher Education, XLV(45), pp. Al6-A17. Mitchell, T. N. (1999, March/April). From Plato tO the intemet. Change, 31(2), 16- 22. ' Morgan, D. L. & Krueger, R. A. (1998) The focus group kit. (Vols. 1-6). Thousand OakS, CA: Sage Publications. 176 Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Beverly Hills: Sage. Morse, S. (1989). Renewirlg civic capacity: Preparing college students for service and citizenship. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report no. 8. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse on Higher Education. ERIC Document 320-524. Morse, S. (1995). Thinking about the future: Leadership for organizations, communities, and nations in the 21" century. Concepts and Connections, 4, 1-3. Neururer, J., & Rhoads, R. A. (1998, July/August). Community service: Panacea, paradox, or potentiation. Journal Of College Student Development, 39(4), 321-330. Newman, F. (2000, September/October). Saving higher education’s soul. Change, 3_3(5), 16-23. Newman, F. (2000, September/October). Saving higher education’s soul. Change, 31(5), 16-23. Newman-Gonchar, R. A. (2000). The role Of orientation program in guiding freshmen transition to college life. Journal Of Student Affairs, 9, 77-84. Newton, F. B. (1998). The stressed student: How can we help? About Campus, 3(2), 4-10. Newton, F. B. (2000, November-December). The new student. About Campus, 5(5), 8-15. Nuss, E. M. (1998, Spring). Redefining college and university relationships with students. NASPA Journal, 35(3), 183-192. Office of Institutional Research. (2000, October). 0n campus student profile fall 2000 [WWW document]. Central Michigan University. URL http://www/ires.cmich.edu/profiles/profile.html Ojeda, O. R., O’Connor, J. M., & Kohn, W. (1997). Canpaus and communigyg Moore Ruble Yudell architecture and planning Rockport, MA: Rockport Publishers. Origin Of the Carolinian Creed, The. (1997). Paper produced by the University of South Carolina. Ostriker, R. (1998). All you need is love. New Age, 15(4), 18-21, 104. Palmer, P. J. (1987). Community, conflict, and ways Of knowing: Ways to deepen our educational agenda. Change, 19(5), 20-25. 177 Palmer, P. J. (1992, March/April). Divided no more. Change, 24(2), 189-194. Palmer, P. J. (1993). Good talk about good teaching: Improving teaching through conversation and community. Change, 25(6), 8-13. Palmer, P. J. (1996). To know as we are known: A sgirituality of education. New York: Harper. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The Courage to Teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998, Winter). Studying college students in the 21St century: Meeting new challenges. The Review Of Higher Education, 21(2), 151- 165. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, RT. (1991). How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. Q. (1988). Paradigms and pragmatism. In D. M. Fetterrnan (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent revolution (pp. 116-138). New York: Pareger. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pavela, G. (1995). “Talk radio” and the search for community. Synthesisg6(3), 453- 454,472. Pavela, G. (1996). The power of association: Defining our relationship with students in the 21St century. Synthesis, 7(3), 529-533, 537-540. Peck, M. S. (1987). The Different Drum: Community makipg and peace. New York: Simon and Schuster. Perreault, G. E. (1997). Citizen leader: A community service Option for college students. NASPA Journal, 34, 147-156. Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1993). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to academic culture: DO they tell us the same thing? In J. C. Smart, Higher education: Of theory and research, Vol IX. (pp. 344-388). New York: Agathon Press. Piper, T. D. (1997, July-August). Empowering students to create community standards. About Campus, 2(3), 22-24. 178 Plachta, L. E. (1992, September 21). President’s speech calls for continued change. Centraline p. 1, 5-7. Plachta, L. E. (1993, October 25). President advocates openness to change. Centraline p. 1-4. Plachta, L. E. (1994, September 13). Changes prepare CMU for bright future. Centraline p. 1-6. Plachta, L. E. (1995, September 12). Plachta asks CMU community to build upon positive momentum. Centraline p. 1-5. Plater, W. M. (1998 November / December). SO. . .why aren’t we taking learning seriously? About Campus, 3(5), 9-14. Pomerantz, N. K. (1993, Fall). Dialogue and the ethic Of responsibility: A new perspective on racial harassment and free speech. NASPA Journal, 31(1), 30-35. Potter, D. L. (1999, May-June). Where powerful partnerships begin. About Campus, 3(2), 11-16. Pruit, D. A. (1996, May-June). In practice: The carolinian's creed. About Campus, x_, 27-29. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracyg 6(1). [Online edition with pagination]. 65-78. Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Rao, M. (2000, August 12). CMU goals: Goals for the President, 2000-2001. Mt. Pleasant: Central Michigan University. Retrieved September 1, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cmich.edu/pgoals.html Rao, M. (2000, September 30). CMU Update #3. Mt. Pleasant: Central Michigan University. Retrieved October 13, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cmich.edu/updat3.html Rejuvenating the Clemson community: Suggestions for promoting campus involvement. (1992, February). Final Report Of the ad hoc committee to promote the Clemson experience. South Carolina: Clemson University. Rendén, L. I. (2000a, July-August). Academics Of the heart. About Campus, 5(3), 3- 5. I79 RendOn, L. I. (2000b, Fall). Academics Of the Heart: Reconnecting the scientific mind with the Spirit’s artistry. The Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 1-13. Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Community service and higher learning: Explorations Of the caring self. New York: State University of New York Press. Rhoads, R. A. (1998, May/June). In the service Of citizenship. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 277-297. Riera, J. (2000). Academic life on the college campus. Journal of Student Affairs, 9, 93-100. Riggenberg, L. J. (1989, Winter). Expanding participation Of student subgroups in campus activities. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster 3 sense of community, Vol 48 (pp. 27-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survgy; New York: John Wiley and Sons. Sanlo, R. (2000, November/December). Lavender graduation: Acknowledging the lives and achievement Of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students. Journal Of College Student Development, 41(6), 643-647. Schilling, K. M., & Schilling, K. L. (1999 May-June). Increasing expectations for student effort. About Campus, 4(2), 4-10. Schlossberg, N. K. (1989, Winter). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense Of community Vol. 48 (pp. 5-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, A. (1998, March 27). Insubordination and intimidation signal the end of decorum in many classrooms: Professors see rise in uncivil behavior by students - from talking during lectures tO physical assaults. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44, pp. A12-A14. Schroeder, C. C. (1998, September-October). Being all that we can be. About Campus, 3(4), 4-12. Schroeder, C. C., & Hurst, J. C. (1996). Designing learning environments that integrate curricular and cocurricular experiences. Joumwf College Student Development, 37(2), 174-18 1. Schroeder, C. C., Carothers, R. L., & Hardesty, D. (1999, July/August). Battling the alcohol culture on campus. About Campus, 4(3), 12-18. 180 Sheatsley, P. B. (1983). Questionnaire construction and item writing. In R. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson (Eds), Handbook of survey research (pp. 195-230). San Diego: Academic Press. Singleton, R. A., Jr., Garvey, R. H., & Phillips, G. A. (1998, May/June). Connecting the academic and social lives Of students: The holy cross first—year program. Change, 3_0_(3), 19-25. Smith, B. L. (1993, Fall). Creating community. Liberal Education, 79, 32-39. Smith, D. G., & Schonfeld, N. B. (2000, November-December). The benefits of diversity: What the research tells us. About Campus, 5(5), 16-23. Spitzberg, I. J ., & Thorndike, V. V. (1992). Creating community on college campuses. Albany: State University Of New York Press. Stage, F. K. (2000, July-August). Campus commons: Making a difference in the classroom. About Campus, 5(3), 29-31. Stage, F. K., & Muller, P. (1999). Theories of learning for college students. In F. K. Stage, L. W. Watson, & M. Terrell (Eds), Enhancing student learning: Setting the campus context (pp. 25-41). Lanham, MD: University Press Of America. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups. Applied Social research Methods Series, Volume 20. Sage Publications: London. Stoner, E. N., 11, & Steinbach, S. E. (1996, Dec 13). The truth about college discipline. The Chronicle Of Higher Education, 43, p. A56. Strange, C. C. (1996). Dynamics of campus environments. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodward Jr., & Associates (Eds), Student services: a handbook for the profession (3rd ed.) (pp. 244-268). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Street, S. (2001, January 12). Promoting order or squelching campus dissent? m Chronicle of Higher Education, XLVII(18), pp. A37-A38. Sudman, S., & Bradbum, N. M. (1982). Asking questions San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Taylor, B. E. (1989, Summer/Fall). When boards become part Of the campus community. Educational Record, 70(3/4), 13-16. 181 Taylor, S. H. (1998, Summer). The impact of college on the development Of tolerance. NASPA Journal, 35(4), 281-295. Terezini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-Of-class experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal Of College Student Development, 37(2), 149-162. The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. (1996). Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 1 18-122. Tierney, W. G. (1993). Building communities of differences: Higher education in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character Of student leaving. Journal of Higher Educatiorg59(4), 438-455. Tinto, V. (1993). Leavingcollgge: Rethinkifl the causes and cures Of student attrition (2"d ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1997). Classroom as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 599-623. Tinto, V. (2000, September 25). Student success and the construction of involvirpg educational communities. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Student Success Conference, East Lansing, MI. Tinto, V., Goodsell-Love, A., & Russo, P. (1993 Fall). Building Community. Liberal Education, 79, 16-21. Topor, R. S. (1992). Complete guide to focus group marketing research for higher education. Mountain View, CA: Educational Catalyst. Trinkle, D. A. (1999, August 6). Distance education: A means to an end, no more, no less. The Chronicle Of Higher EducatiorgXLV(48), p. A60. Trosset, C. (1998, September / October). Obstacles to Open discussion and critical thinking: The Grinnell College study. Change, 30(5), 44-49. Trudeau, G. (1998, May 10). Doonesbury. Bloomington Herald Times, p. 4. Turabian, K. L. (1993). A manual for writers Of term papers, theses, and dissertations. Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press. 182 Upcraf’t, M. L., & Gardner, J. N. (1990). The freshman year experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Watson, L. W., & Terrell, M. C. (1999). Cultural differences in student learning. In F. K. Stage, L. W. Watson, & M. Terrell (Eds), Enhancing student learning: Settirpg the campus context (pp. 43-58). Lanham, MD: University Press Of America. White, E. (1993, February 24). TOO many campuses want to sweep student plagiarism under the rug. The Chronicle Of Higher Education, 39, p. A44. Whitt, E. J. (1991, September). Artful science: A primer on qualitative research methods. Journal of College Student Development, 32(5), 406-415. Willimon, W. H. (1997, September-October). Has higher education abandoned its students? Change, 29(5), 4-9. Willimon, W. H., & Naylor T. H. (1995). The abandoned generation: Rethinking gigher education. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing. Willimon, W. H., & Willimon, W. P. (1998). On college and friendship. About Campus, 3(2), 11-15. Woodward, D. B., Jr., Love, P., & Komives, S. R. (2000, Winter). Leadership and management issues for a new century: NO. 92. New directions for student service. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Young, R. B. (1999, September/October). Reexamining our rituals. About Carrgms, 51(4), 10-16. ' Zlotkowski, E. (1999). Pedagogy and engagement. In R. G. Bringle, R. Games, & E. A. Malloy (Eds), Colleges and universities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 183 APPENDICES 184 APPENDIX A UCHRIS Approval 185 OFFICE N RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES University Committee on Research involving lierueu Meets Midrigan State University 246 Administration Building East Lansing. Michigan 48824-1046 5173552130 FAX 51 miners Web: mmedu/user/trcrihs E-Meii: ucn'hsOmsuew MWMM WBWWW Warm monefimhwam APPENDIX A UCHRIS Approval MICHIGAN STATE 0 N l v E R s I T Y February 7. 2000 TO: Marylee DAVIS 102 Linton Hall RE: IRBff 00-019 CATEGORYIZ-F APPROVAL DATE: February 7, 2000 TITLE: DEVELOPING COMMUNITY ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM: WHAT FACTORS DISCONNECT STUDENTS AND WHAT FACTORS CONNECT STUDENTS TO THE UNIVERSITY? The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and, methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project. RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review. REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures Involving human subjects. prior to initiation of the change. if this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project‘s IRBII and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work. notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects or 2) changes In the research environment or new Information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved. If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email: UCRIHS@piIot.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web: http://www.msu.edu/unitlvprgsIUCRlHSl ‘std‘ David E. Wright. Ph.D. DEW: ab cc: Sharon Lynn George 5666 W. Lakeshore Dr. Weidman. MI 48893 Si 186 APPENDIX B IRB Approval 187 APPENDIX B IRB Approval flit CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Institutional Revww Board 25! Four! Hall Mt, Pleasant. MI 48859 Phone: (517) 774-6777 Fax (517) 774-3439 November 30, 2000 Sharon George 5666 W. Lake Shore Weidman, MI 48893 Dear Sharon: Your proposal titled “Developing Community on University Campuses in the New Millennium: What Factors Disconnect Students and What Factors Connect Students to the University?” was evaluated as an expedited proposal and approved by the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects’ (UCRIHS) at Michigan State University. We respect and accept the approval granted by Michigan State University. If you have any questions, please call me at 774-6477. Sincerely, Susan Jacob, Ph.D. IRB Coordinator MOUNT PLEASANT. MICHIGAN 48859 188 APPENDIX C Charge tO Students 189 APPENDIX C Charge to Students Central Michigan University Charge to Students The administration, faculty, and staff charge Central Michigan University students, with the following: To actively seek intellectual development and make a life-long commitment to learning. TO develop a sense of self-worth and confidence as well as the capacity tO have an impact on society. To develop a sense Of caring about fellow students by being responsible and caring colleagues while members Of the University community. To be concerned about the welfare of humanity and, as thoughtful citizens, tO engage in public service tO promote that welfare. TO develop those competencies which are important for success in chosen vocations. And, TO become a participant of this university community as it strives tO foster mutual trust and respect among its students, administration, faculty, and staff. 190 APPENDIX D Informed Consent 191 APPENDIX D Informed Consent Informed Consent Welcome. Mynarneis andeorkatCMU.Wcareinterestedinlearningrnoreabout student opinions and experiences related to developing community at CMU. Specifically, we are interested in what factors disconnect students and what factors connect students to this university. Our purpose is to deve10p a questionnaire tint will be administered to members of the student body based on information you give us about your stay at CMU. We will be asking several questions about your experiences at CMU for the purpose of completing a dissertation at Michigan State University and recommending information to CMU’s administration about what this university should look like in the new millennium to meet student nwds. Our recorder is __ who will be taking notes on comments and themes from your comments. These notes will not identify specific individuals. The discussion will be tape recorded to make sure we remember points you make. The names of focus group participants will not be collected. “Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law." This discussion will take about two hours. Your participation in this focus group is voluntary and you may at any time choose to provide input or choose not to provide input in response to a particular question. Also, at anytime you can choose to discontinue your participation in the focus group in its entirety. The risks include the possrbility of some discomfort with discussion of issues or feelings about your comfort zone at CMU or your personal satisfaction about faculty, staff, other students and the overall university environment. The potential benefits of participation include providing information which could assist us understand what the climate should be like at a public university. Hopefully, as a result of this discussion, we can all learn from each other. Does anyone have any questions about this study at this time? Questions or concerns regarding this project can be directed to: Sharon George, Office of Student Life, 111 Bovee University Center, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, 774.1345 or Michigan State University IRB chairperson: David E. Wright at 517.355.2180. If you would like a copy of the sway results or the questionnaire that will be developed as a result of these focus groups, please leave your name with the leader or the recorder. Thank you for your assistance with this research project. Your signature below indicates that you have voluntarily decided to participate in this research project as a subject and that you have read and understand the information provided above. Subject’s Printed Name Subject’s Signatme Investigator’s Printed Name Investigator’s Signature Ufiggrglzgnéfihggn FEB 07 2001 1 RENEWAL APPLICATION 3% MONTH PRIOR TO ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE 192 APPENDIX E Focus Group Questions 193 APPENDIX E Focus Group Questions Focus Group Questions Background Questions: What made you decide to go to college and obtain an undergraduate degree? What made you decide to come to CMU? How many hours a week do you work? Purpose of Study: I want to have a discussion with you about what makes a student feel connected to the university. This means feeling like you belong at CMU; feeling like you can relate to CMU; or feeling like your are cared about by the people in the institution (the people who work here). Questions Related to the University Experience and Campus Environment: *Tell me what really connects you to CMU or what do you like most about being here? Tell me about the campus environment outside the classroom. DO you know administrators and staff who you think care about you? Is this important to your feeling connected? Do you get the feeling that you matter to someone who is employed by the university? Is this important to your feeling connected? *Tell me what disconnects you to CMU or what do you like least about being here? Are there any university policies or regulations that disconnect or alienate you from CMU? If so, how would you change them? Are students held accountable for their behavior? Is this important to the learning and living environment? (How or why?) Faculty and Academic Issues: *Tell me about your classes, what makes you feel connected? Disconnected? Do you have the Opportunity to make friends with your classmates? How does this occur? 194 What do you like about the method in which you are taught in class? (Example: out of class activities? Lecture format? Group work? What else?) *Tell me about your professors, what helps you feel connected to them? Disconnected? Is there anything you would change about the relationship with any of them? If you were responsible for teaching professors how to teach, what would you tell them? Do your professors respect you and your opinion? Is this important to your feeling connected? Would you feel more connected to CMU or to your professors if you were “friends” with professors? Should you party with them? Would you like to participate in class outings with them (like have dinner or attend university events?) Does this type Of activity improve your interest in the classroom? Should students socialize with professors? Residential Arrangements, Friendship: *Tell me about your living arrangements. What type of housing do you live in and how does it help you feel connected to CMU? How does it disconnect you? *Tell me about CMU’s social life and it’s importance to feeling connected to CMU. *How are the opportunities for developing new friendships? *Are there opportunities to meet people that are different than you? (With regards to ethnic, cultural, religious, sexual orientation, etc.) Do students treat each other with respect? *Do students date or have the opportunity do develop significant intimate relationships? Discuss the “pack” phenomenon. General Questions: *Does involvement outside of class (clubs, sports, going to cultural events, lectures, major concerts) connect you to CMU? Is this important and necessary? *Name some of our campus traditions. Does CMU’s traditions connect you to the university? *Do any of these things about your social life or life outside of the classroom make a difference in the quality of your education? Do these things make you feel more connected? 195 Questions about CMU in the future: *How do you think the university will be different in the future and what will that mean to your feeling Of connectedness to CMU? Distance learning Communicating through the internet with faculty and students? Communicating through the internet with family and friends? Technology Anything else? F Wrap up: ‘31 *Do you feel being connected to CMU will increase your academic performance? Explain your response. With the exception Of taking classes for credit towards graduation, is anything else you experience on campus really important in Obtaining your degree? Once you graduate, what would encourage you to return to campus? *What have you learned at CMU to make you a good contributing citizen? What have you learned at CMU that could help you make this a better country and world? *What do you think the university most needs to know about students? 196 APPENDIX F Campus Traditions 197 APPENDIX F Campus Traditions CAMPUS TRADITIONS Gentle Friday - Gentle Friday takes place the last Friday before spring exams in Warriner Mall. Students are encouraged to enjoy the company while snacking on ice cream and different foods. There are fun games and activities. It is a time to relax before the final week at Central. Senior Send-off - This event takes place the week before finals in the spring. The entire week is occupied with luncheons and speakers talking to the "soon-tO-be alumni students." Circling of the Tree - After every home football game, students, faculty, and alumni will see the marching chips encircle a large rock with a plaque commemorating the Band Tree once located there. The CMU fight song will resound across campus after a win, while a more solemn Alma Mater is played in defeat. CMU vs. WNW Blood Drive - The week of the Central/Westem Weekend football game, we hold a blood drive. This is a long-standing competition between these two schools to see who can donate the most blood to benefit The American Red Cross. Little Siblings Weekend - During the month Of February, Little Siblings Weekend is held. Over the course of the weekend, siblings of CMU students are encouraged to visit and enjoy college life. Organizations and offices sponsor many events across campus ranging from carnivals to movies. Greek Week - Week in the spring where all Greeks can show their talents in the academic, sports and other arenas. This week allows Greeks to come together as one group to build spirit. Get Acquainted Dav - Get acquainted day kicks Off the school year on the first Wednesday of classes by providing minority students the Opportunity to meet with faculty, staff, and returning students in a picnic-style atmosphere. Legends of the Dafl— Tours of campus during the week of Halloween that tells the scary stories of CMU's history. True Love at the Warriner Seal - Legend has it that if you kiss your true love in front of the sea] at Midnight, marriage will soon follow. Warriner Circle - During Exams many students avoid walking across the brick circle in Warriner mall. Superstition has it if you walk across the circle, you will fail your exam. Cymbal Crash - The cymbal crash is a cheer one may see the students doing in the stands. This started in the 1970's when one lone Cymbal player crashed his cymbals back and forth. Eventually the entire student section joined in. 198 Cannon Shot After Football Score - After every touchdown that Central scores, the ROTC students shoot a cannon to signify we are winning the battle. CMU Block Party Hosted by Merrill Hall - Get your hotdogs, hamburgers and a great time here. This event typically takes place in mid-April and draws about 500 students from around campus. There is food, games and music. Take Back the Night March - Each year in the spring, men and women across campus come together to demonstrate against dating violence, domestic violence, and sexual assault. The participants form a march across the campus and community and also have speeches and poems read to the audience by survivors and allies. Be My Neighbor DAY - This event is associated with Earth day and promotes volunteerism for the parks and environment. There are several volunteer opportunities for students to be involved in such as a playground project, little league field beautification, and Chippewa River Cleanup, plus many more. Say Hey Week - Week-long events that unite campus and encourage people to say "Hey" to each other. This is a joint effort Of SGA and. RHA to give back to the students. Earth Day - A day to celebrate our Earth. Several student groups plan activities such as planting trees, and informational sessions to become more educated about our Earth and how to preserve it. Alumni Tent - Before the homecoming game, there is a tent set up for returning alumni. Hotdogs and brats are served by the Maroon Coat Society, the class officials. 199 APPENDIX 0 Origin of Survey Questions 200 APPENDIX G Origin of Survey Questions F Indicates Focus Groups L Indicates Literature B Indicates Both Focus Groups and Literature SURVEY ON FACTORS THAT CONN_E_CT STUDE_NTS TO A UNIVERSITY AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE FACTORS ARE PRESENT AT C.M.U Several days ago, we wrote you about the attached survey. We need your help! Could you please take some time from your busy schedule to fill out this survey? Your Opinions are extremely important to us! As discussed in your letter, experts have indicated that there are many factors which help students feel "connected" to a university. Examples of what we mean by "connected to a university" could be: feeling like you belong at a university, feeling like you can relate to a university or feeling like the University cares about you. We want to know if you agree with these factors of connectedness and whether you experience them at CMU. You may be assured that your answers will remain confidential. Once we receive your survey, fl will separate the cover from your answers. Space is provided on the last page for any general comments you may have. Please use the enclosed envelope to return the survey by Januagy 4, 2001. Questions can be directed tO georg1sl@cmich.edu or Sharon George, 111 Bovee U.C.; phone number 517.644.5848. As a participant in this survey, we are Offering you the Opportunity to be involved in a special drawing. If you return the completed survey by January 4l 2001, your name will be entered into a drawing for the Opportunity to win one Of three $50 gift certificates from CMU's University Center Bookstore. Many thanks for your assistance. 201 Circle one answer for each question listed below. Demographics 01. What is your student class standing? A. Freshmen B. Sophomore C. Junior D. Senior E. Non-degree student 02. What is your age? A. 18 or younger B. 19 or 20 C. 21 or 22 D. 23 or 24 E. 25 or Older 03. What Is your gender? A. Female B. Male 04. Which ethnic group best describes you? A. White B.African-American C. Hispanic D. Native American ' E. Asian-Pacific F. Multi—Racial G. Other 05. Did you start college at CMU or did you transfer here from another college! university? A. Started at CMU B. Transferred from another college/ university 06. How many semesters have you lived In a residence ball? A. None B. One C. Two D. Three E. Four F. Five or more 07. About how many hours a week do you spend studying or preparing for classes? A. 10 hours or less 8. 11 to 15 C. 16 to 20 D. 21 tO 25 E. 26 hours or more 08. During the school year, about how many hours a week do you spend working at a job (paid employment)? A. None, I am not employed (except during holiday or vacation) B. 10 hours or less C. 11 to 15 D. 16 to 20 E. 21 to 25 F. 26 hours or more 09. Where do you work? A. On campus B. Off campus C. Both on campus and Off campus D. Not working at ajOb 10. DO you receive any type of federal, state, or college-sponsored student financial-aid? (scholarships, grants, workstudy) A. Yes B. NO 11. What Is your overall cumulative grade point average? A. 1.99 or below B. 2.00 — 2.49 C. 2.50 — 2.99 D. 3.00 — 3.49 E. 3.50 — 4.00 202 12. Did either of your parents or guardians graduate from a college! university? A. No B. Yes, both parents or guardians C. Yes, mother or guardian only D. Yes, father or guardian only Circle “A” for YES or “B” for NO to indicate your answer: Caring Community Student Organization and Activity Participation in Order of Positive Response Indicate which Of the following student activities you have participated in at CMU: Yes No Academic clubs related to your major or minor. 13 A B Fraternity/Sorority. 14 A B Intramural sports at the SAC. 15 A B Student Government, Program Board, On the Fly. I6 A B Political activities. 17 A B Theatre productions or performing arts such as orchestra. 18 A B Religious clubs and activities. 19 A B Ethnic or cross-cultural activities or clubs. 20 A B Residence Hall programs. governance. 2t A B Media activities (e.g., CM Life, campus radio stations). 22 A B Service organizations or volunteer activities. 23 A B Intercollegiate athletics. 24 A B In the first column (gold), indicate how important the following factors are for you to feel connected to a university. In the second column (gray), tell us how true these factors are based on your experience at CMU. Circle your answers on the survey provided. Educationally Purposeful Communig Faculty Characteristics and Teaching Factors in Order of Importance \ 4°d\QO Se 0000 «406 46‘1“?" 946‘ How Important Is It that faculty demonstrate the following teaching or personal characteristics for you to feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on importance not whether it is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CMU faculty? Know your name. 8 25 A B C D 26 A B C D E Are warm. friendly and smile. B 27 A B C D E 28 A B C D E Show they care about outside factors beyond your control that effect 8 29 A B C D E 30 A B C D E your school work. Give you the opportunity to get to know them. F 3! A B C D E 32 A B C D E ' interact with students at events outside of class. B 33 A B C D E 34 A B C D E Respond to your email. F 35 A B C D E 36 A B C D E Are passionate about the subject matter. B 37 A B C D E 38 A B C D E Are fluent in the English language. F 39 A B C D E 40 A B C D E Follow the syllabus and clearly state class expectations. 8 4t A B C D E 42 A B C D E Give clear answers to your questions. F 43 A B C D E 44 A B C D E Make sure you understand the material. 8 45 A B C D E 46 A B C D E Make comments on your tests and papers so that you know how to B 47 A B C D E 48 A B C D E improve. Use technology to aid teaching skills (i e.. power point notes on the L 49 A B C D E 50 A B C D E Internet. or communicate by establishing a Iistserv for the class). Conduct group work so everyone in the group is responsible for the work 8 St A B C D E 52 A B C D E and graded accordingly. Use learning methods that enable you to get to know your classmates. B 53 A B C D E 54 A B C D E Include learning methods such as volunteer experiences. L 55 A B C D E 56 A B C D E Share personal experiences regarding subject matter. B 57 A B C D E 58 A B C D E Relate subject matter tO your everyday experiences. B 59 A B C D E 60 A B C D E Relate test information to what you covered in class. B 6| A B C D E 62 A B C D E Have high expectations for your academic performance. 8 63 A B C D E 64 A B C D E 203 Educationally Purposeful Community General Academic Factors in Order of Importance \ x c «$89096 °° a“; sf ° “9 4° \, ‘0 00‘ 406 4" «825° 0° 4§§ How important are the following items in helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on importance not whether it is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CMU? Small class size Mder 25 students). 65 A B C D E 66 A B C D E Faculty teaching in person (present in a classroom) and not through 67 A B C D E 68 A B C D E instructional television. the computer. or through some other electronic means. Comfort with your computer skills for researching and 69 A B C D E 70 A B C D E completing class assignments. Understanding how your University Program classes (general studies) 7i A B C D E 72 A B C D E relate to your overall education. Open Community Factors in Order of Importance \ (89‘ ~ 9‘30 c a? o‘ t of 0"" s” \ Q°6b -6‘ do & 6" a 6’0 e9 46*“ ‘3?) \>(‘\ 40 46‘ « +6, 00 45‘ How important are the following Items in helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer an importance not whether it is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CMU? You are encouraged to explore a wide range Of views and opinions. L 73 A B C D E 74 A B C D E You have freedom to express ideas in class. F 75 A B C D E 76 A B C D E You are treated with respect by other students when expressing your L 77 A B C D E 78 A B C D E viewpoints. You are treated with respect by faculty when expressing your 8 79 A B C D E 80 A B C D E viewpoints in class. You are encouraged to treat others with respect when they express L 81 A B C D E 82 A B C D E viewpoints different from your own. You are encouraged to consider viewpoints different from your own. L 83 A B C D E 84 A B C D E Faculty and staff convey to students that hateful speech L 85 A B C D E 86 A B C D E (i.e., racist. sexist. etc.. ) comments can hurt people. You are encouraged to improve your abilities to communicate and relate L 87 A B C D E 88 A B C D E with Others. You are encouraged to constructively express both emotions and ideas L 89 A B C D E 90 A B C D E when in disagreement. 204 Disciplined Community Factors in Order of Importance s $88“ \s axe s“ as“ a i. s ‘96 9° 0° 6‘ 0“ ed 0’0 6° 49° 6* \ a, ) ~\ 4 ’S 0 4 How Important are the following items in helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on importance not whether it is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CMU? Students are expected to take responsibiiiy for their behavior. L 91 A B C D E 92 A B C D E Rules are enforced so that students can successfully co-exist L 93 A B C D E 94 A B C D E on campus. Students do not tolerate cheating by other students. 8 95 A B C D E 96 A B C D E Faculty do not tolerate students cheating. B 97 A B C D E 98 A B C D E Rules are enforced concerning alcohol and drugs. B 99 A B C D E 100 A B C D E Caring Community Friendship and Caring Factors in Order of Importance \ \ (0° 0‘ 61‘ Joe," we 4." (95° (3’ «xx? 0 «9‘ 6’0 02;? 4° «taboé 4°66" €06 «#09 968450 How Important are the following items in helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on Importance not whether it is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CMU? Friendships with faculty. B ID] A B C D E 102 A B C D E Friendships with staff. 8 103 A B C D E 104 A B C D E Friendships with other students. B 105 A B C D E 106 A B C D E A friendly campus. 8 107 A B C D E 108 A B C D E Knowing that you matter to other students. 8 109 A B C D E 110 A B C D E Knowing that you matter tO faculty and staff. 8 III A B C D E II2 A B C D E Staff members help you with personal problems. B 113 A B C D E 114 A B C D E A campus that feels like 'home' to you. 8 HS A B C D E Il6 A B C D E Opportunities to develop significant, intimate. long-term F 117 A B C D E 118 A B C D E relationships with another student. Faculty and staff work together to give you a good educational experience. L 119 A B C D E 120 A B C D E Faculty and staff do not send you all over campus for answers to F IZI A B C D E 122 A B C D E yourquesuons. A university that gives you a voice In administrative decisions that 8 I23 A B C D E 124 A B C D E affect you. A university that teaches you how to be a good citizen. L 125 A B C D E 126 A B C D E A university that teaches you how to participate in government activities. L 127 A B C D E 128 A B C D E A university that teaches you to be aware of societal issues I. 129 A B C D E I30 A B C D E and challenges. A university that makes volunteer experiences easy to obtain. L 131 A B C D E 132 A B C D E 205 Celebrative Communigy Tradition Factors in Order of Importance How important are the following items in helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on Importance not whether it is true about CM How true are the following statements about CMU? A campus that is attractive and beautiful 8 133 A B C D E 134 A B C D E Classroom and academic facilities which are comfortable, 8 135 A B C D E 136 A B C D E attractive and modern In regards to technology capabilities and laboratory faculties. . Strong school spirit. B 137 A B C D E [38 A B C D E Winning athletic teams B 139 A B C D E 140 A B C D E Knowledge about campus events and aClIVIlieS B 141 A B C D I: 142 A B C D E Caring Communig Internet Communication Factors in Order of Importance is 6‘ s :89 6&9,» 696‘ a x s» \5 .o Ae‘x‘odo‘xo" 00‘ 406 46“ §¢¢75§¢§ifi How important Is the Internet to feeling connected for communicating? I] How true Is It that you use the lntemet for communicating? With faculty. L I43 A B C D E 144 A B C D E With staff. L l45 A B C D E 146 A B C D E With friends and family. F 147 A B C D E 148 A B C D E Just Communigy Factors in Order of Importance \ Note: For the following section only, In the gray column {9‘s \ f \0 indicate your level of participation rather than how true each g? 6, :éf 445" 94", $3 ‘ ~ :9“ ' o :9 statement is about CMU. 496$ 0°, “0690‘ p S‘fifl" pt How Important are the following experiences In helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on Importance not whether It is true about CMU.) To what extent are you participating In these experiences at CMU? Interacting with people from other cultures. L 149 A B C D E 150 A B C D E Becoming aware of international' issues or events L 151 A B C D E 152 A B C D E religious values that differ from your own L 153 A B C D E 154 A B C I) E Leamlng to develop productive work relationships with both men L 155 A B C D E 156 A B C D E Being a highly functioning member' In a multicultural society. L 157 A B C D E 158 A B C D E Being tolerant of gays and lesbians L 159 A B C D E 160 A B C D E Understanding ethnic and racial differences. L 161 A B C D E 162 A B C D E Understanding sexual assault and gender violenc L 163 A B C D E 164 A B C D E Understanding students who come from different6 socio- economic L 165 A B C D E 166 A B C D E Understanding students who are older than you. L 167 A B C D E 168 A B C D E 206 Caring Community Opportunities for Friendship Factors in Order of Importance \ \i‘d‘f 9° 6‘ 4°d\ \bé 46“st 46 $9 $9 How important are the following CMU opportunities in helping you develop new friends? Did you use. or are you using these CMU opportunities to make new friends? Leadership Camp. 8 169 A B C D E 170 A B C Leadership Safari. 8 171 A B C D E 172 A B C Campus 81 Community Life Orientation. B 173 A B C D E 174 A B C Eclipse Leadership Program. B 175 A B C D E 176 A B C Residence Hall Activities. 8 177 A B C D E 178 A B C Classes! Courses. 8 179 A B C D E 180 A B C Activities at the SAC. B 181 A B C D E 182 A B C Student Organizations. 8 183 A B C D E 184 A B C Off-Campus parties with alcohol. 8 185 A B C D E 186 A B C Greek System. B 187 A B C D E 188 A B C Religious Meeting/Activities. B 189 A B C D E 190 A B C Volunteer Experiences. 8 191 A B C D E 192 A B C Social events. 8 193 A B C D E 194 A B C If you ARE NOT making new friends at CMU, complete questions 195-201. If you ARE making new friends at CMU, skip to question # 202. Caring Community Reasons Given for Not Developing new Friendships in Order of Importance '9 I 9 You have not developed new friendships at CMU because: You work too many hours. F 195 A B C D B You are too busy studying. F 196 A B C D E Students are not friendly. F 197 A B C D E You live off-campus. F 198 A B C D E You are too shy. L 199 A B C D E You don't want to be at CMU. L 200 A B C D B You are not here to make friends. F 201 A B C D E 207 “‘31-'31“;qu Celebrative Communig Campus Event Factors in Order of Involvement and Knowledge gob ~xo 0° a" 0 0° J9 $06 0515“ \S‘pir“ s.° Indicate your involvement and/or knowledge of the following CMU campus traditions. Leadership Camp. 202 A B C Leadership Safari. 203 A B C New Student Convocation. Campus & Community Life Orientation. 204 A B C Get Acquainted Day. 205 A B C Family/ Parents Weekend. 206 A B C Homecoming Game and Events. 207 A B C CMU Vs WMU Football Game (“Western Weekend“). 208 A B C Black History Month. 209 A B C Pow Wow. 210 A B C Siblings Weekend. 211 A B C Greek Week. 212 A B C Be My Neighbor Day. 213 A B C Take Back the Night March. 214 A B C Earth Day. 215 A B C Gentle Friday. 216 A B C Celebrative Community Campus Tradition Factors in Order of Involvement and Knowledge 6 s c? at" it“? s 49° 0 4.9 9° Indicate your knowledge of the following CMU campus traditions. Cymbal Crash During the Alma Mater. 217 A B Senior Send-Off. 218 A B Marching Band Circling the Tree after a Football Game. 219 A B Legends of the Dark. 220 A B True Love at the Warriner Seal. 221 A B Warriner Circle. 222 A B Cannon Shot After Football Score. 223 A B 208 Celebrative Community Entertainment Factors in Order of Involvement and Knowledge \¢:{9° \ 6‘ 60° 406‘s 9 of“ 4° How important are the following activities in helping you feel connected to a university? Famous lecturers. 8 224A B C D E Majorconcerts. 8 225A B C D E Famous musicals. 8 226A B C D E General social activities to meet people. 8 227A B C D E General Questions 228. Overall, how important are campus traditions in helping you feel connected to CMU? A. Very important 8. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant 229. Overall, how connected do you feel to CMU? A. Very Connected B. Connected C. No Opinion D. Disconnected E. Very Disconnected 230. Overall, how Important is feeling connected to CMU a factor in your academic success (graduation from CMU)? A. Very important B. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant 231. Overall, how Important is feeling connected to CMU a factor in your preparation for a career? A. Very important B. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant 232. Overall, how Important is feeling connected to CMU a factor in your personal growth? A. Very important B. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant 233. Overall, how important is developing friendships with your peers a factor in feeling connected to CMU? A. Very important 8. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant 209 "" ‘3" fl " 234. From the list below, rank in order of importance, the three most Influential people in your life at CMU: A. Your friend(s) B. CMU professor(s) C. CMU staff D. Your work/ volunteer supervisor E. Your significant other F. Your parent(s) or guardian(s) G. Sibling(s) First Most Important (Circle One): A B C D E F G Second Most Important (Circle One): A B C D E F G Third Most Important (Circle One): A B C D E F G .‘4 235. How important is involvement in student organizations in helping a student feel I' connected to CMU? i” A. Very important B. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very :" Unimportant If you have any general comments about developing community on campus and feeling more connected to CMU, please use the back of this page: THANK YOU! 210 APPENDIX H Survey 211 APPENDIX H Survey CODE _ SURVEY ON FACTORS THAT CONNECT STUDENTS TO A UNIVERSITY AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE FACTORS ARE PRESENT AT C.M.U Several days ago, we wrote you about the attached survey. We need your help! Could you please take some time from your busy schedule to fill out this survey? Your opinions are extremely important to us! As discussed in your letter, experts have indicated that there are many factors which help students feel "connected" to a university. Examples of what we mean by "connected to a university" could be: feeling like you belong at a university, feeling like you can relate to a university or feeling like the University cares about you. We want to know if you agree with these factors of connectedness and whether you experience them at CMU. You may be assured that your answers will remain confidential. Once we receive your survey, w_e will separate the cover from your answers. Space is provided on the last page for any general comments you may have. Please use the enclosed envelope to return the survey by Januaty 4I 2001. Questions can be directed to georg1sl@cmich.edu or Sharon George, 111 Bovee U.C.; phone number 517.644.5848. As a participant in this survey, we are offering you the opportunity to be involved in a special drawing. if you return the completed survey by Januaty 4, 2001, your name will be entered into a drawing for the opportunity to win one of three $50 gift certificates from CMU's University Center Bookstore. Many thanks for your assistance. Return completed survey to: Central Michigan University 111 Bovee U.C. Mt. Pleasant, Ml 48859 212 Circle one answer for each question listed below. 01. What is your student class standing? A. Freshmen B. Sophomore C. Junior D. Senior E. Non-degree student 02. What is your age? A. 18 or younger B. 19 or 20 C. 21 or 22 D. 23 or 24 E. 25 or older 03. What Is your gender? A. Female B. Male 04. Which ethnic group best describes you? A. White B. African-American C. Hispanic D. Native American E. Asian-Pacific F. Multi-Racial G. Other 05. Did you start college at CMU or did you transfer here from another college] university? A. Started at CMU B. Transferred from another college/ university 06. How many semesters have you lived in a residence hall? A. None B. One C. Two D. Three E. Four F. Five or more 07. About how many hours a week do you spend studying or preparing for classes? A. 10 hours or less B. 11 to 15 C. 16 to 20 D. 21 to 25 E. 26 hours or more 08. During the school year, about how many hours a week do you spend working at a job (paid employment)? A. None, I am not employed (except during holiday or vacation) B. 10 hours or less C. 11 to 15 D. 16 to 20 E. 21 to 25 F. 26 hours or more 09. Where do you work? A. On campus 8. Off campus C. Both on campus and off campus D. Not working at a job 10. Do you receive any type of federal, state, or college-sponsored student financial-aid? (scholarships, grants, workstudy) A. Yes 8. No 11. What Is your 9ye_ra_ll cumulative grade point average? A. 1.99 or below 8.2.00 - 2.49 C. 2.50 — 2.99 D. 3.00 — 3.49 E. 3.50 - 4.00 12. Did either of your parents or guardians graduate from a college! university? A. No B. Yes, both parents or guardians C. Yes, mother or guardian only D. Yes, father or guardian only 213 Circle “A” for YES or “B” for NO to indicate your answer: Student Organization and Activity Participation in Order of Positive Response Indicate which of the following student activities you have participated in at CMU: Academic clubs related to your major or minor. Fraternity/Sorority. Intramural sports at the SAC. '< 8 Z c 13 14 15 Student Government, Program Board, On the Fly. Political activities. Theatre productions or performimrts such as orchestra. 16 17 18 Religious clubs and activities. Ethnic or cross-cultural activities or clubs. Residence Hall programs, governance. 19 20 21 Media activities (e.g., CM Life, campus radio stations). Service organizations or volunteer activities. Intercollegiate athletics. 22 23 24 >>>>>>>>>>>> wwwwwwwwwwwm in the first column (gold), indicate how important the following factors are for you to feel connected to a university. In the second column (gray), tell us how true these factors are based on your experience at CMU. Circle your answers on the survey provided. .of, a”; s a 9° .33.. 406:?)6; 4.9 °x5°§¢°é 46$: 3"? scfiéy How important Is it that faculty demonstrate the following teaching or personal characteristics for you to feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on importance not whether it is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CMU faculty? Know your name. 25 A B C D E 26 A B C D E Are warm, friendly and smile. 27 A B C D E 28 A B C D E Show they care about outside factors beyond your control that effect 29 A B C D E 30 A B C D E your school work. Give yoo the opportunity to get to know them. 31 A B C D E 32 A B C D E Interact with students at events outside of class. 33 A B C D E 34 A B C D E Respond to your email. 35 A B C D E 36 A B C D E Are passronate about the subject matter. 37 A B C D E 38 A B C D E Are fluent in the English language. 39 A B C D E 40 A B C D E Follow the syllabus and clearly state class expectations. 41 A B C D E 42 A B C D E Give clear answers to your questions. 43 A B C D E 44 A B C D E Make sure you understand the material. 45 A B C D E 46 A B C D E Make comments on your tests and papers so that you know how to 47 A B C D E 48 A B C D E improve. Use technology to aid teaching skills (1.9., power pomt, notes on the 49 A B C D E 50 A B C D E Internet, or communicate by establishing a Iistserv for the class). Conduct group work so everyone in the group is responsible for the work 51 A B C D E 52 A B C D E and graded accordingly. Use learning methods that enable you to get to know your classmates. 53 A B C D E 54 A B C D E Include learning methods such as volunteer experiences. 55 A B C D E 56 A B C D E Share personal experiences regarding subject matter. 57 A B C D E 58 A B C D E Relate subject matter to your everyday experiences. 59 A B C D E 60 A B C D E Relate test information to what you covered in class. 61 A B C D E 62 A B C D E Have high expectations for your academic performance. 63 A B C D E 64 A B C D E 214 £32,, “32 o0 satieflfis 1:0in so“... 6* £4» E How Important are the following items in helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on importance not whether it is true about CMU.) How true are the followlng statements about CMU? Small class sizeflder 25 students). 65 A B C D E 66 A B C D E Faculty teaching in person (present in a classroom) and not thr0ugh 67 A B C D E 68 A B C D E instructional television, the computer. or through some other electronic means. Comfort with your computer skills for researching and 69 A B C D E 70 A B C D E completing class assignments. Understanding how your University Program classes (general studies) 71 A B C D E 72 A B C D E relate to your overall education. 6&6? ‘ 06 28“" 40d\ ‘36) 0661106 46“ «9°. (956? 6:69? How important are the following items in helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on importance not whether it is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CMU? You are encouraged to explore a wide range of views and opinions. 73 A B C D E 74 A B C D E You have freedom to express ideas in class. 75 A B C D E 76 A B C D E You are treated with respect by other students when expressing your 77 A B C D E 78 A B C D E viewpoints. You are treated with respect by faculty when expressing your 79 A B C D E 80 A B C D E viewpoints In class. You are encouraged to treat others with respect when they express 81 A B C D E 82 A B C D E viewpoints different from your own. You are encouraged to consider viewpoints different from your own. 83 A B C D E 84 A B C D E Faculty and staff convey to students that hateful speech 85 A B C D E 86 A B C D E (i.e., racist. sexist. etc.. ) comments can hurt people. You are encouraged to improve your abilities to communicate and relate 87 A B C D E 88 A B C D E with others. You are encouraged to constructively express both emotions and ideas 89 A B C D E 90 A B C D E when in disagreement. \ if e 959° \ «0 How important are the following items In helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on importance not whether it is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CM U? Students are expected to take responsibility for their behavior. 91 A B C D E 92 A B C D E Rules are enforced so that students can successfully co-exist 93 A B C D E 94 A B C D E on campus. Students do not tolerate cheating by other students. 95 A B C D E 96 A B C D E Faculty do not tolerate students cheating. 97 A B C D E 98 A B C D E Rules are enforced concerning alcohol and drugs. 99 A B C D E 100 A B C D E 215 ‘L f \ Que; \. - d - “ff 0 f «9" sf 4‘ e .9649 ‘56 .9649 4'53 «$.596ftézs How Important are the following Items In helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on Importance not whether It Is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CMU? Friendships with faculty. 101 A B C D E 102 A B C D E Friendships with staff. 103 A B C D E 104 A B C D i: Friendships with other students. 105 A B C D E 106 A B C D E Afriendlyc mpus 107 A B C D E 108 A B C D E Knowing that you matter to other students. 109 A B C D E 110 A B C D E Knowing that you matter to faculty and staff 111 A B C D E 112 A B C D E Staff members help you with personal problems. 113 A B C D E 114 A B C D E Acampus that feels like 'home' to 115 A B C D E 116 A B C D E Opportunities to develop significant, intimate. long-term I 17 A B C D E 118 A B C D E relationships with another student. Faculty and staff work together to give you a good educational experience. 119 A B C D E 120 A B C D E Faculty and staff do not send you all over campus for answers to 121 A B C D E 122 A B C D E our questions. A university that gives you a voice In administrative decisions that 123 A B C D E 124 A B C D E A university that teaches you how to be a good citizen. 125 A B C D E 126 A B C D E A university that teaches you how to participate in government activities. 127 A B C D E 128 A B C D E A university that teaches you to be aware of societal issues 129 A B D E 130 A B C D E A university that makes volunteer experiences easy to obtain. 131 A B C D E 132 A B C D E K 0‘ o .43 °‘<° a “\ \ $8, {8 d’ A“? x) 4S f ‘9 «8‘ is. .88». one. .2st How important are the following items In helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on importance not whether It is true about CMU.) How true are the following statements about CMU? A campus that is attractive and beautiful. 133 A B C D E 134 A B C D E Classroom and academic lacrlities which are comfortable. 135 A B C D E 136 A B C D E attractive and modern in regards to technology capabilities and laboratory facilities. Strong school spirit. 137 A B C D E 138 A B C 8 Winning athletic teams. 139 A B C D E 140 A B C D E Knowledge about campus events and activities. 141 A B C D E 142 A B C E \ 0‘ 4‘ «eye \ Q06”; 3.6“ y 4 4‘? Med 406:: 6° 40‘40 46“ «(546° first How Important Is the Internet to feeling connected for communicating? How true Is It that you use the Internet for communicating? With faculty. 143 A B C D E 144 A B C D E With staff. 145 A B C D E 146 A B C D E With friends and family. 147 A B C D E 148 A B C D E 216 Note: For the following section only, In the gray column \ K o \0 indicate your level of participation rather than how true each ef‘fflé® - 4st" . $6? \ e ' 6 statement Is about CMU 4°dt§£es°deé Se‘syc’oé. e" 1.6' How Important are the following experiences In helping you feel connected to a university? (Base this answer on importance not whether it Is true about CMU.) To what extent are you participating in these experiences at CMU? interacting with people from other cultures. 149 A B C D E 150 A B C D E Becoming aware of international issues or events. 151 A B C D E 152 A B C D E Understanding religious values that differ from your own. 153 A B C D E 154 A B C D E Learning to develop productive work relationships with both men 155 A B C D E 156 A B C D E and women. Being a highly functioning member In a multicultural society. 157 A B C D E 158 A B C D E Being tolerant of gays and lesbians. 159 A B C D E 160 A B C D E Understanding ethnic and racial differences. 161 A B C D E 162 A B C D E Understanding sexual assault and gender violence. 163 A B C D E 164 A B C D E Understanding students who come from different socio-economic 165 A B C D E 166 A B C D E backgrounds. Understanding students who are older than you. 167 A B C D E 168 A B C D E o‘ \ Q00?" o‘ if” x to ($9 ®£O° 4° \(° \)°\ 46“.;O 4s? 1,50 13° How important are the following CMU opportunities in helping you develop new friends? Did you use. or are you using these CMU opportunities to make new friends? Leadership Camp. 169 A B C D E 170 A B C Leadership Safari. 171 A B C D E 172 A B C Camus 8- Community Life Orientation. 173 A B C D E 174 A B C Eclipse Leadership Program. 175 A B C D E 176 A B C Residence Hall Activities. 177 A B C D E 178 A B C Classes! Courses. 179 A B C D E 180 A B C Activities at the SAC. 181 A B C D E 182 A B C Student Organizations. 183 A B C D E 184 A B C Off-Campus parties with alcohol. 185 A B C D E 186 A B C Greek System. 187 A B C D E 188 A B C Religious Meeting/Activities. 189 A B C D E 190 A B C Volunteer Experiences. 191 A {B C D E 192 A B C Social events. 193 A [B C D E 194 A B C If you ARE NOT making new friends at CMU, complete questions 195-201. If you ARE making new friends at CMU, Sklp to question # 202. «00 @° 49 °'\ @Qiae $96300 \* ‘9 1 9° 0‘ ‘9 You have not developed new friendships at CMU because: You work too many hours. 195 A B C D E You are too busy studying. 196 A B C D E Students are not friendly. 197 A B C D E You live off-campus. 198 A B C D B You are too shy. 199 A B C D B You don't want to be at CMU. 200 A B C D E You are not here to make friends. 201 A B C D E 217 ‘46“ \\ Kc? 0‘ 9° 0° «9 \§6§l§g¥:§°@ Indicate your involvement and/or knowledge of the following CMU campus traditions. Leadership Camp. 202 A B C Leadership Safari. 203 A B C New Student Convocation. Canyus 8. Community Life Orientation. 204 A B C Get Acquainted Day. 205 A B C Family/ Parents Weekend. 206 A B C Homecoming Game and Events. 207 A B C CMU Vs WMU Football Game ("Western Weekend“). 208 A B C Black History Month. 209 A B C Pow Wow. 210 A B C Siblings Weekend. 211 A B C Greek Week. 212 A B C Be My NeiMr Day. 213 A B C Take Back the Night March. 214 A B C Earth Day. 215 A B C Gentle Friday. 216 A B C 6‘ 00K 0&0 069 Os 6“ +9 4.5 #0 Indicate your knowledge of the following CMU campus traditions. Cymbal Crash During the Alma Mater. 217 A B Senior Send-Off. 218 A B MarchiniBand Circlingthe Tree after a Football Game. 219 A B Legends of the Dark. 220 A B True Love at the Warriner Seal. 221 A B Warriner Circle. 222 A B Cannon Shot After Football Score. 223 A B if e «90“? $91; 385% 4° \. 9033‘“ 406 How Important are the following activities in helping you feel connected to a university? Famous lecturers. 224 A B C D E Major concerts. 225 A B C D E Famous musicals. 226 A B C D E General social activities to meet people. 227 A B C D E 218 General Questions 228. Overall, how important are campus traditions in helping you feel connected to CMU? A. Very important 8. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant 229. Overall, how connected do you feel to CMU? A. Very Connected 8. Connected C. No Opinion D. Disconnected E. Very Disconnected 230. Overall, how important ls feeling connected to CMU a factor In your academic success (graduation from CMU)? A. Very important B. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant [14 231. Overall, how important ls feeling connected to CMU a factor in your preparation for a career? A. Very important B. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant 232. Overall, how Important is feeling connected to CMU a factor In your personal growth? A. Very important 8. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant 233. Overall, how important is developing friendships with your peers a factor in feeling connected to CMU? A. Very important 8. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant 234. From the list below, rank In order of importance, the three most Influential people in your life at CMU: A. Your friend(s) B. CMU professor(s) C. CMU staff D. Your work/ volunteer supervisor E. Your significant other F. Your parent(s) or guardian(s) G. Sibling(s) First Most Important (Circle One): A B C D E F G Second Most Important (Circle One): A B C D E F G Third Most Important (Circle One): A B C D E F G 235. How important Is involvement in student organizations in helping a student feel connected to CMU? A. Very important 8. Important C. No Opinion D. Unimportant E. Very Unimportant If you have any general comments about developing community on campus and feeling more connected to CMU, please use the back of this page: THANK YOU! 219 APPENDIX I Letter to Survey Participants 220 APPENDIX I Letter to Survey Participants in CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY «Sex» «First» «Middlcl» «Last» Ill Bovee U. C. «Addl » 517. 774. I345 «AddZ» georglsI@/nail.cmich.edu «C ity», «State» «Zip» Dear «First», Several authors have written articles and books about the importance of students having a sense of community during their time on a college campus. The literature states that community-building characteristics are also important to the development of strong learning environments. We are interested in learning more about student opinions and experiences related to developing community at Central Michigan University (CMU). Specifically. we are interested in what factors you believe are important to feeling connected to a university. Examples of what we mean by “connected" could be: feeling like you belong at a university, feeling like you can relate to a university, or feeling like a university cares about you. We are also interested in how true these factors are to you based on your experience at CMU. To this end. you have been selected to participate in a study. which will provide the University information about factors that are important to you and your peers. At first glance. you may think it will take a long time to complete the survey. but it can be answered in 15 to 25 minutes. lnfonnation you provrde will remain confidential. Your response is very important to us. The potential benefits of participation include providing information which could assist us in understanding what the climate should be like at a public university. The information obtained from you and other students will help administrators. faculty members, student leaders and others improve the conditions that contribute to your learning and development and to the quality of the experience of those who will come after you. The results of this will be submitted to the CMU administration and be used for dissertation work at Michigan State University. The survey will be sent during the semester break to your home residence. Your prompt. but thoughtful response and return is appreciated. The researcher, Sharon George, will be happy to discuss the overall results with you or provide a written executive summary of the results upon request. Questions can be directed to her by calling 517.774.1345. We are offering a drawing for three 550 gift certificates from the U.C. Bookstore. If your survey is returned by the specified date, your name will be entered in the drawing. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Sharon George Bruce Roscoe, Ph.D. Researcher Dean of Students MOUNT PLEASANT. MICHIGAN 48859 221 APPENDIX .I E-Mail Reminder to Participants 222 APPENDIX J E-Mail Reminder to Participants Subject: Survey Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:10:27 -0500 From: "Sharon George" Organization: Central Michigan University To: Sharon George During the semester break, the survey entitled: "Survey on Factors that Connect Students to a University and the Extent to which the Factors are Present at CMU" was sent to your permanent address. We need your help! Please take the time to complete the survey and return it to the address listed on the front page. If you misplaced the survey and are willing to fill it out, email us (student.life@mail.cmich.edu) your local address and we will send you a new one. This is your opportunity to give CMU your feedback. Thank you in advance. Sharon George Researcher 223 APPENDIX K Demographic Factors and General Question Responses 224 APPENDIX K Demographic Factors and General Question Responses Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU (#228) Table 18 Class standing and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI. VU Totals Class # (%) # (%) # (%) Freshmen 12(66.7) 3(16.7) 3(16.7) 18 Sophomore 110(72.8) 26(17.2) 15(9.9) 151 Junior 72(61.0) 27(22.9) 19(16.1) 118 Senior 76(62.3) 29(23.8) 17(13.9) 122 TOTAL 270(66.0) 85(20.8) 54(13.2) 409 Table 19 Gender and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, 1 NO UI, VU Totals Gender #(%) # (%) # (%) Female 203(65.9) 65(21.1) 40(13.0) 308 Male 67(65.7) 20(19.6) 15(14.7) 102 TOTAL 270(65.9) 85(20.7) 55(13.4) 410 Table 20 Ethnic Group and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Ethnic Group # (%) # (%) # (%) White 243(68.8) 64(18.1) 46(13.0) 353 Other 29(492) 21 (35.6) 9(15.3) 59 TOTAL 272(66) 85(20.6) 55(13.3) 412 225 Table 21 Semesters in the Residence Hall and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Semesters in Hall # (%) # (%) # (%) None 21 (42.9) 14(28.6) 14(28.6) 49 One 16(50.0) 8(25.0) 8(25.0) 32 Two 91(68.9) 24(18.2) 17(12.9) 132 Three 53(80.3) 10(15.2) 3(4.5) 66 Four 76(67.9) 27(24.1) 9(8.0) 112 Five or More 14(70.0) 2(10.0) 4(20.0) 20 TOTAL 271(65.9) 85(20.7) 55(13.4) 411 Table 22 Hours per Week Studying and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Study Hours # (%) # (%) # (%) 10 or less 62(59.0) 26(24.8) 17(16.2) 105 11 to 15 112(67.1) 37(22.2) 18(10.8) 167 16 to 20 63(75.9) 12(14.5) 8(9.6) 83 21 to 25 22(59.5) 8(21.6) 7(18.9) 37 26 or more 11(68.8) 2(12.5) 3(18.8) 16 TOTAL 270(66.2) 85(20.8) 53(13.0) 408 Table 23 Hours per Week Worked and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO Ul, VU Totals WorkinfltLHours # (%) # (%) # (%) None 101(68.2) 33(22.3) 14(9.5) 148 10 or less 53(74.6) 9(12.7) 9(12.7) 71 11 to 15 37(56.1) 17(25.8) 12(18.2) 66 16 to 20 43(66.2) 16(24.6) 6(9.2) 65 21 to 25 19(61.3) 5(16.1) 7(22.6) 31 26 or more 18(60.0) 5(16.7) 7(23.3) 30 TOTAL 271 (65.9) 85(20.7) 55(13.4) 411 226 Table 24 Work Location and #228, Level of Importance of Campus Traditions in Helping Students Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Work Location # (%) # (%) # (%) On Campus 77(70.0) 20(18.2) 13(11.8) 110 Off Campus 84(59.6) 33(23.4) 24(17.0) 141 Both on and Off Campus 16(69.6) 3(13.0) 4(17.4) 23 Not Working 93(68.4) 29(21.3L 14(10.3) 136 TOTAL 270(65.9) 85(20.7) 55(13.4) 410 Level of Connectedness to CMU (#229) Table 25 Class Standing and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU Level of Connectedness VC, C NO UC, VUC Totals Class # (%) # (%) # (%) Freshmen 11(61.1) 3(16.7) 4(22.2) 18 Sophomore 119(78.8) 15(9.9) 17(11.3) 151 Junior 89(75.4) 19(16.1) 10(8.5) 118 Senior 89Q3.0) 18(14.8) 15(12.3) 122 TOTAL 308(75.3) 55(13.4) 46(11.2) 409 Table 26 Gender and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU Level of Connectedness VC, C NO U'C, VUC Totals Gender fl/o) # (%) # (%) Female 234(76.0) 39(12.7) 35(11.4) 308 Male 73(71.6) 17(16.7) 12Q1.8) 102 TOTAL 307(74.9) 56(13.7) 47(11.5) 410 Table 27 Ethnic Group and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU Level of Connectedness VC, C NO UC, VUC Totals Ethnic Group # (%) # (%L # (%) White 268(75.9) 46(13) 39(11) 0.353 Other “(69.5) 10(16.9) 8(13.6) 59 TOTAL 309(75) 56(3.6) 47(11.4) 0.412 227 ' mgr-Kr. Table 28 Semesters in the Residence Hall and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU Level of Connectedness VC, C NO UC. VUC Totals Semesters in Hall # (%) # (%) # (%) None 24(49.0) 13(26.5) 12(24.5) 49 One 23(71.9) 5(15.6) 4(12.5) 32 Two 99(75.0) 19(14.4) 14(10.6) 132 Three 56(84.8) 6(9.1) 4(6.1) 66 Four 92(82.1) 8(7.1) 12(10.7) 112 Five or More 14(70.0) 5(25.0) 1(5.0) 20 TOTAL 308(74.9) 56(13.6) 47(11.4) 411 Table 29 Hours per Week Studying and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU Level of Connectedness VC, C NO UC. VUC Totals Study Hours # (%) # (%) # (%) 10 or less 70(66.7) 20(19.0) 15(14.3) 105 11 to 15 131(78.4) 19(11.4) 17(10.2) 167 16 to 20 64(77.1) 12(14.5) 7(8.4) 83 21 to 25 29(78.4) 4(10.8) 4(10.8) 37 26 or more 12(750) 4(25.0) 16 TOTAL 306(75.0) 55(13.5) 47(11.5) 408 Table 30 Hours per Week Worked and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU Level of Connectedness VC, C NO UC. VUC Totals Working Hours # (%) # (%) # (%) None 116(78.4) 19(12.8) 13(8.8) 148 10 or less 59(83.1) 3(4.2) 9(12.7) 71 11 to 15 47(71.2) 15(22.7) 4(6.1) 66 16 to 20 49(75.4) 8(12.3) 8(12.3) 65 21 to 25 19(61.3) 9(29.0) 3(9.7) 31 26 or more 18(60.0) 2(6.7) 10(33.3) 30 TOTAL 308(74.9) 56(13.6) 47(11.4) 411 228 Table 31 Work Location and #229, Level of Connectedness to CMU Level of Connectedness VC, C NO UC, VUC Totals Work Location # (%) # (%) # (%) On Campus 90(81.8) 10(9.1) 10(9.1) 110 Off Campus 90(63.8) 28(19.9) 23(16.3) 141 Both on and Off Campus 20(87.0) 2(8.7) 1(4.3) 23 Not Working 107(78.7) 16(11.8) 13(9.6) 136 TOTAL 307(74.9) 56(13.7) 47(11.5) 410 Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor In Academic Success (#230) ii Table 32 Class standing and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success -' Level of Importance VI, 1 NO Ul, VU Totals Class # (%) # (%) # (%) Freshmen 12(66.7) 5(27.8) 1(5.6) 18 Sophomore 117(77.5) 16(10.6) 18(11.9) 151 Junior 87(73.7) 14(11.9) 17(14.4) 118 Senior 90(73.8) 11(9.0) 21(17.2) 122 TOTAL 306(74.8) 46(11.2) 57(13.9) 409 Table 33 Gender and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success Level of Importance VI, 1 NO UI, VU Totals Gender # (%) # (%) # (%) Female 231 (75.0) 35(11.4) 42(13.6) 308 Male 75(73.5) 12(11.8) 15(14.7) 102 TOTAL 306(74.6) 47(11.5) 57(13.9) 410 Table 34 Ethnic Group and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Ethnic Group # (%) # (%) # (%) White 263(74.5) 42(11.9) 48(13.6) 353' Other 45(763) 5(8.5) 9(15.3) 59 TOTAL 308(74.8) 47(11.4) 57(13.8) 412 229 Table 35 Semesters in the Residence Hall and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success Level of Importance VI, I NO Ul, VU Totals Semesters in Hall # (%) # (%) # (%) None 25(51.0) 12(24.5) 12(24.5) 49 One 24(75.0) 4(12.5) 4(12.5) 32 Two 97(73.5) 13(9.8) 22(16.7) 132 Three 56(84.8) 7(10.6) 3(4.5) 66 Four 93(83.0) 7(6.3) 12(10.7) 112 Five or More 12(60.0) 4(20.0) 4(20.0) 20 TOTAL 307(74.7) 47(11.4) 57(13.9) 411 Table 36 Hours per Week Studying and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Study Hours # (%) # (%) # (%) 10 or less 69(65.7) 20(19.0) 16(15.2) 105 11 to 15 134(80.2) 12(7.2) 21(12.6) 167 16 to 20 61(73.5) 9(10.8) 13(15.7) 83 21 to 25 30(81.1) 3(8.1) 4(10.8) 37 26 or more 11(68.8) 3(18.8) 2(12.5) 16 TOTAL 305(74.8) 47(11.5) 56(13.7) 408 Table 37 Hours per Week Worked and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success Level of Importance VI, 1 NO UI. VU Totals Workim Hours # (%) # (%) # (%) None 116(78.4) 14(9.5) 18(12.2) 148 10 or less 57(80.3) 7(9.9) 7(9.9) 71 11 to 15 49(74.2) 7(10.6) 10(15.2) 66 16 to 20 47(72.3) 8(12.3) 10(15.4) 65 21 to 25 18(58.1) 7(22.6) 6(19.4) 31 26 or more 20(66.7) 4(13.3) 6(20.0) 30 TOTAL 307(74.7) 47(11.4) 57(13.9) 411 230 Table 38 Work Location and #230, Level of Importance of Feeling Connected to CMU a Factor in Academic Success Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Work Location # (%) # (%) # (%) On Campus 83(75.5) 13(11.8) 14(12.7) 110 Off Campus 98(69.5) 20(14.2) 23(16.3) 141 Both on and Off Campus 19(82.6) 4(17.4) 23 Not Working 106(77.9) 14410.3) 16(11.8) 136 TOTAL 306(74.6) 47(11.5) 57(13.9) 410 Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU (#233) Table 39 Class Standing and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, l NO UI, VU Totals Class # (%) #i%) # (%) Freshmen 15(83.3) 3(16.7) 18 Sophomore 136(90.1) 11(7.3) 4(2.6) 151 Junior 111(94.1) 5(4.2) 2(1.7) 118 Senior 110L902) 5(4.1) 7(5.7) 122 TOTAL 372(91.0) 24(5.9) 13(3.2) 409 Table 40 Gender and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO Ul, VU Totals Gender # (%) # (%) # (%) Female 280(90.9) 19(6.2) 9(2.9) 308 Male 92(902) 6(5.9) 4(3.9) 102 TOTAL 372(90.7) 25(6.1) 13(3.2) 410 231 Table 41 Ethnic Group and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Ethnic Group # (%) # (%) # (%) White 322(91.2) 21 (5.9) 10(2.8) 353 Other 52(88.1) 4(6.8) 3(5.1) 59 TOTAL 374(90.8) 25(6.1) 13(3.2) 412 Table 42 Semesters in the Residence Hall and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO Ul, VU Totals Semesters in Hall #(%) # (%) # (%) None 40(81.6) 6(12.2) 3(6.1) 49 One 25(78.1) 5(15.6) 2(6.3) 32 Two 123(93.2) 4(3.0) 5(3.8) 132 Three 63(95.5) 3(4.5) 66 Four 104(92.9) 6(5.4) 2(1.8) 112 Five or More 18(90.0) 1(5.0) 1(5.0) 20 TOTAL 373(74.7) 25(6.1) 13(3.2) 411 Table 43 Hours per Week Studying and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO Ul, VU Totals Study Hours # (%) # (%) # (%) 10 or less 92(87.6) 10(9.5) 3(2.9) 105 11 to 15 161(96.4) 2(1.2) 4(2.4) 167 16 to 20 73(88.0) 7(8.4) 3(3.6) 83 21 to 25 33(89.2) 3(8.1) 1(2.7) 37 26 or more 12(75.0) 2(12.5) 2(12.5) 16 TOTAL 371(90.9) 24(5.9) 13(3.2) 408 232 Table 44 Hours per Week Worked and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, 1 NO UI, VU Totals Working Hours # (%) # (%) # (%) None 137(92.6) 8(5.4) 3(2.0) 148 10 or less 65(91.5) 5(7.0) 1(1.4) 71 11 to 15 59(89.4) 3(4.5) 4(6.1) 66 16 to 20 61(93.8) 1(1.5) 3(4.6) 65 21 to 25 26(83.3) 5(16.1) 31 26 or more 25(83.3L 3(10.0) 2(6.7) 30 TOTAL 373(90.8) 25(6.1) 13(3.2) 411 Table 45 Work Location and #233, Level of Importance of Developing Friendships with Peers a Factor in Feeling Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Work Location # (%) # (%)— # (%) On Campus 99(90.0) 5(4.5) 6(5.5) 110 Off Campus 122(86.5) 14(9.9) 5(3.5) 141 Both on and Off Campus 23(100) 23 Not Working 128(94.1) 6(4.4) 2(1.5) 136 TOTAL 372(90.7) 25(6.1) 13(3.2) 410 Level of Importance of Involvement In Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU (#235) Table 46 Class Standing and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO Ul, VU Totals Class # (%) # (%) # (%) Freshmen 10(55.6) 7(38.9) 1(5.6) 18 Sophomore 116(76.8) 20(13.2) 15(9.9) 151 Junior 87(73.7) 21(17.8) 10(8.5) 118 Senior 83(68.0) 25(20.5) 14(11.5) 122 TOTAL 296(72.4) 73(17.8) 40(9.8) 409 233 Table 47 Gender and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, l NO UI, VU Totals Gender # (%) # (%) # (%) Female 226(73.4) 56(18.2) 26(8.4) 308 Male 70(68.6) 18(17.6) 14(13.7) 102 TOTAL 296(72.2) 74(18.0) 40(9.8) 410 Table 48 Ethnic Group and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Ethnic Group # (%) # (%) # (%) White 254(72) 66(18.7) 33(9.3) 353 Other 43(72.9) 9(15.3) 7(11.9) 59 TOTAL 297(72.1) 75(18.2) 40(9.7) 412 Table 49 Semesters in the Residence Hall and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, l NO UI, VU Totals Semesters in Hall # (%) # C/o) # (%) None 27(55.1) 12(24.5) 10(20.4) 49 One 20(62.5) 11(34.4) 1(3.1) 32 Two 100(75.8) 17(12.9) 15(11.4) 132 Three 50(75.8) 11(16.7) 5(7.6) 66 Four 83(74.1) 21(18.6) 8(7.1) 112 Five or More 17(85.0) 2(10.0) 1(5.0) 20 TOTAL 297(72.3) 74(18.0) 40(9.7) 411 234 Table 50 Hours per Week Studying and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Study Hours #fi/o) # (%) # (%) 10 or less 67(63.8) 24(22.9) 14(13.3) 105 11 to 15 127(76.0) 29(17.4) . 11(6.6) 167 16 to 20 66(79.5) 9(10.8) 8(9.6) 83 21 to 25 24(64.9) 8(21.6) 5(13.5) 37 26 or more 11(68.8) 3(18.8) 2(12.5) ' 16 TOTAL 295(72.3) 73(17.9) 40(9.8) 408 Table 51 Hours per Week Worked and #235, Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO UI, VU Totals Working Hours # (%) # (%) # (%) None 107(72.3) 29(19.6) 12(8.1) 148 10 or less 60(84.5) 8(11.3) 3(4.2) 71 11 to 15 46(69.7) 6(9.1) 14(21.2) 66 16 to 20 49(75.4) 13(20.0) 3(4.6) 65 21 to 25 15(48.4) 13(41.9) 3(9.7) 31 26 or more 20(66.7) 5(16.7) 5(16.7) 30 TOTAL 297(72.3) 74(18.0) 40(9.7) 411 Table 52 Work Location and #235. Level of Importance of Involvement in Student Organizations in Helping Feel Connected to CMU Level of Importance VI, I NO Ul, VU Totals Work Location # (%) # (%) # (%) On Campus 89(80.9) 12(10.9) 9(8.2) 110 Off Campus 91 (64.5) 30(21.3) 20(14.2) 141 Both on and Off Campus 19(82.6) 4(17.4) 23 Not Working 97(71.3) 28(20.6) 11(8.1) 136 TOTAL 296(72.2) 74(18.0) 40(9.8) 410 235