z

Madufiuiz ,

..fi.....rmfi

r1.

. has-r”

3s... .. 1
.nw.£....rf... :5
’4)!!! ram»!

L and. . .
$15!: “mm W
.IAJVH‘HE svfivwwrl ( l
J. I.

61.31.
042.. .N.

 

 

n '1 ‘ ..\
'*‘ “a ’1}?

I

F. ‘ ~ J
7105 J

54‘3le I LIBRARY 1

 

A PROFILE OF LEARNER ENGAGEMENT WITHIN THE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By

Leonard A. Savala III

A THESIS

Submitted to
the graduate faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems

2003

ABSTRACT
A PROFILE OF LEARNER ENGAGEMENT WITHIN THE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By

Leonard A. Savala III

This study was conducted to assess the undergraduate student experience within the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) at Michigan State University. The
target population of the study comprised of (N=2,353) CANR undergraduates from the
fall 2002 semester. The researchers for the study to assess undergraduate engagement
designed a questionnaire. The survey was administered via the World Wide Web
(WWW). Findings from this census survey provide data, which depicts the level of

engagement of undergraduate students within the CAN R.

Cepyfight by
LEONARD A. SAVALA III
2003

DEDICATION

There were many endless nights and if it were not for,

my parents Christina and Leonard Savala
my sisters Marisa, Andrea, Felicia
my brother Sergio
and
especially my wife Marcelina Trevino-Savala

For their continued support I may not have completed my work.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following individuals for continued support:

To my major professor Dr. Michael D. Woods and my committee members, Dr. Eddie
Moore and Dr. Theresa Melendez, for their continued support for this research and
educational process.

Special words of appreciation go to Dr. Kirk Heinze and the ANRECS department for
providing financial support to ensure that this research project was completed. Likewise,
a sincere appreciation is extended to the MSU Graduate School for providing funding to
support this study.

To Rudy Hernandez for all of your support as a friend and a mentor I thank you. Most of
all my heartfelt gratitude is extended to my wife and family for their continued
encouragement to pursue my personal goal and my fraternity brothers for their continued
support during my graduate studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. x
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY

Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
Statement of the problem .......................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 4
Need for the Study .................................................................................. 4
Overview of Study .................................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms ................................................................................ 5
Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 6
Assumptions ........................................................................................ 6
Limitations ........................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER H

LITERATURE REVIEW

Review of Literature ................................................................................ 8
Supportive Campus Environment .................................................................. 14
Student Interaction with Faculty Members ...................................................... 14
Active and Collaborative Learning ............................................................... 15
Level of Academic Challenge ..................................................................... l6
Enriching Educational Experiences ............................................................... 16
CHAPTER HI

RESEARCH METHODLOGY

Design of Study ...................................................................................... 18
Population and Sample ............................................................................. l8
Instrumentation ...................................................................................... 19
Data Collection ...................................................................................... 22
Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 24

vi

Chapter IV

FINDINGS

Participant demographics .......................................................................... 26
Involved in class-based activities ................................................................. 35
Student-Faculty interaction ........................................................................ 36
Participated in out of class activities ............................................................. 38
Interact with diverse populations ................................................................. 38
Engaging in mental activities ..................................................................... 40
Engaging in reading and writing .................................................................. 41
Activities involved in before graduation ......................................................... 42
Number of hours committed to each week ...................................................... 43
Knowledge, Skills and personal development ................................................... 44
Involvement in academic program ............................................................... 47
Quality of academic relationships ................................................................ 48
Evaluation of educational experience ............................................................ 49
Desire to pursue degree ............................................................................ 49
Influence to pursue degree ......................................................................... 50
Chapter V

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIGNS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary ............................................................................................. 5 1
Conclusions .......................................................................................... 52
Recommendations .................................................................................. 55
Recommendations for further research ........................................................... 57
APPENDICES

Appendix A

Undergraduate Web version Questionnaire ..................................................... 58
Appendix B

INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO STUDY POPULATION .................................. 68
1ST EMAIL LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS ................................................... 69
2nd EMAIL LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS .................................................... 70
3rd EMAIL LETTER To PARTICIPANTS .................................................... 71
FINAL LETTER TO ADDRESS NON-RESPONDENT S ................................... 72
Appendix C

Survey F lyer ......................................................................................... 73
Bibliography ........................................................................................ 74

vii

LIST OF TABLES

3.0 Coefficient Alpha Reliability results ........................................................ 22
3.1 Questionnaires by date received .............................................................. 25
4.0 Participant demographics- ethnic background .............................................. 27
4.1 Participant demographics-classification in college ........................................ 28
4.2 Participant demographics-enrollment status ................................................. 28
4.3 Participant demographics- ANR background .............................................. 29
4.4 Participant demographics-primary degree seeking ......................................... 30
4.5 Participant demographics-dual degree and specialization ................................. 31
4.6 Participant demographics-college attendance .............................................. 31
4.7 Participant demographics-degree acceptance ............................................... 32
4.8 Participant demographics-ANR experience ................................................. 32
4.9 Participant demographics-career choice ..................................................... 33
4.10 Participant demographics-parental education level ....................................... 34
4.11 Involved in class based activities ........................................................... 36
4.12 Student-Faculty related activities ........................................................... 37
4.13 Out of class activities ........................................................................ 38
4.14 Interaction with diverse populations ....................................................... 39
4.15 Cognitive development ...................................................................... 40
4.16 Engaging in reading and writing ............................................................ 42
4.17 Pre-graduation involvement ................................................................. 43
4.18 Commitment of time ......................................................................... 45
4.19 Knowledge, skills and personal development ............................................. 46

viii

4.20 Academic program emphasis ............................................................... 47

4.21 Supportive relationships ..................................................................... 48
4.22 Evaluation of educational experience ...................................................... 49
4.23 Desire to pursue degree ....................................................................... 49
4.24 Influence degree enrollment ................................................................. 50

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

4.0 Undergraduate respondents by gender ..................................................... 27
4.1. Breakdown of community size of respondents ............................................ 33
4.2. MSU undergraduate students by place of residency ...................................... 34

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

State and land grant institutions experienced tremendous changes in the early 90’s
and as a result, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grand Colleges
(NASULGC) enlisted the support of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to examine the future
of public higher education. The Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-
Grant Universities has published numerous documents (NASULGC, 1997, 1998)
detailing the changes that need to take place in order for Land—Grand Colleges of
Agriculture (LGCA) to continue to exist.

A 1997 watershed document by the Commission, entitled The Student Experience
(NASULGC, 1997), outlines a set of principles to guide academic reform (p. 7). The
Commission further discussed the implications of these principles on the student
experience: “[w]e believe that by means of those principles your institutions and ours can
make sure the student experience includes several things for every student. In terms of
education development, these principles meant that every student should have access: 1)
to the courses required to graduate on schedule, in term and sequence required; 2) a
meaningful set of experiences encouraging analysis and reflection, including seminar-
style courses and courses requiring written evidence of independent though; 3)
appropriate academic advising and career counseling; and, perhaps most significant, 4)
direct experience with process of discovery, i.e., with undergraduate research” (p.20).
The Commission then published a document, entitled Returning to Our Roots Student
Access (NASULGC, 1998), which called for institutions to be more flexible and user

friendly for students. The Commission further stated “[a]ccess, per se, is not the issue;

academic success is. Access is the part of our work; meaningful engagement of our
students with our communities remains the challenge” (1998, p.35).

Many of the Commission’s documents scrutinize State and Land-Grant
Universities (SLGU) for many of the current failures of students. The Commission
further reiterated that in order to change the current problems facing SLGU required
active faculty engagement. The Kellogg Commission’s report Return to our roots:
Student access (NASULGC, 1998) stated that “[fjaculty need to take responsibility for
reviewing curriculum and instructional approaches, modifying both, if need be, to meet
the diverse needs of students fi'om different backgromds” (1998, p. 49).

While numerous documents continue to examine the changes of LGCA (Board on
Agriculture National Research Council, 1992; NASULGC, 1997, 1998), Meyer’s (1998)
document, The Historical Trek of the Land Grant College of Agriculture, Past, Present
and Future, explains “Ihe trek ahead for these institutions will have many zigs and zags.
The development of leaders and colleges with the vision and ability to create an
environment for both short and long-term responses to societal concerns will be critical to
their survival. They will need help in escaping from old ideas, which means escaping
fi‘om old organizations built on the past” (p. 15). Meyer further stated in Re-Engineering
the Land-Grant College of A griculture (1997), when referring to LGCAs: “[t]his College
is truly unique within universities. Unfortunately, few colleges or universities have
changed unless felt threatened by outside forces and thought their survival was in
question” (p.16).

Kuh (1988), however, contends that what students do with faculty, peers and the

facilities and what happens to students as a result is more important then the resources

needed. Kuh (2001) further provides benchmarks that determine how effectively colleges
are contributing to learning: 1) academic challenge; 2) active and collaborative learning;
3) student faculty interaction; 4) enriching educational experiences; and 5) supportive
campus environment provide insight into what activities students are actively engaged.
Kuh contends that the benchmarks provide insight into the learning and personal
development of students by evaluating their experiences.

While research on evaluating the student experience has been studied outside of
the agricultural education discipline, it has yet to be evaluated in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources as noted by the 1992 NRC report, entitled Agriculture
and the Undergraduate. Therefore, the focus of this study is on examining the student
experience by means of the benchmarks provided by Kuh (2001). This study depicts how
the undergraduate students in the college of agriculture and natural resources evaluate
their learning experience, across gender, ethnicity and experience level.

Statement of Problem

Research has indicated that the student experience in undergraduate education has
become incoherent and ineffective (Reagan et al. 1987). According to Boyer (1987),
“[t]he disciplines have fi'agmented themselves into smaller and smaller pieces, and
undergraduates find it diffith to see patterns in their courses or to relate what they learn
to life” (p. 3).” A majority of the research on student experience has been studied outside
of the agriculture and natural resources discipline. Although agricultural education has
focused on variety of subject matter, topics within undergraduate education
(Radhakrishna & Xu, 1997) researchers within the discipline have yet to evaluate the

college experience by means of the five benchmarks proposed by Kuh (2001).

Purpose of Study
The researcher’s purpose in this study was to assess the undergraduate experience
within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources across. To achieve the
aforementioned purpose the following objectives guided this study:
1. To measme the level of academic challenge that CANR students encounter;

2. To assess the level of opportunity that CANR students have to experience active
and collaborative learning;

3. To ascertain the level of student-faculty interaction;

4. To measure CANR student level of participation with enriching educational
experiences; and

5. To assess CANR students level of awareness of various supportive campus
environments.

Need for the Study

The necessity for this study is based on the absence of descriptive studies
assessing undergraduate student experience within the CANR. The survey of
undergraduate engagement will provide the CANR with immediate feedback on how to
improve various aspects of institutional performance. This study provides feedback on
what experiences students perceive as beneficial to their success within CANR. In
addition, this study also depicts the shortcoming, which allows the CANR to strategize on
how to provide a meaningful student experience. The results of the survey can be used to
help CANR improve the quality of their performance and offer data for making informed
decisions about the quality of the institution. Institutions of higher education need valid,
credible, and usable information about the undergraduate experience so that
administrators, faculty members, and others can see how their students stack up against

similar missions and academic programs (Kuh, 2000).

Overview of Study

This study was concerned with conducting a descriptive study to examine the
impact of the student experience within the CANR at Michigan State University (MSU).

A web-based census survey guided by Dillman’s (2000) Total Design Method
was used to collect data in this study. A web-based questionnaire was used to survey
CAN R undergraduates asking how they perceived their learning experience. The
questionnaire consisted of n=414 of questions and took 20 minutes to complete.
Definition of Terms

Level of academic challmge—Challenging intellectual and creative work is
central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote high
levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and
setting high expectations for student performance (Kuh, 2001).

Active and collaborative leaming—Students learn first-hand how experts think
about and solve practical problems by interacting with faculty members inside and
outside the classroom. As result, their teachers become role models, mentors, and guides
for continuous, life-long learning (Kuh, 2001).

Studentflculty interaction—Students learn more when they are intensely
involved in their education and are asked to think about and apply what they are learning
in different settings. Collaborating with others in solving problems or mastering difficult
material prepares students to deal with the messy, unscripted problems they will
encounter daily during and after college (Kuh, 2001).

Enriching educational experiences—Complementary learning opportunities inside

and outside classrooms augment academic programs. Experiencing diversity teaches

students valuable things about themselves and others. Technology facilitates

collaboration between peers and instructors, internships, community service, and senior

capstone courses provide opportunities to integrate and apply knowledge (Kuh, 2001 ).
Supportive campus environment—Students perform better and are more satisfied

at colleges that are committed to their success and cultivate working and social relations

among different groups on campus (Kuh, 2001).

Operational Definition of Terms

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Proms/Departments: The diverse

 

departments that degrees are offered from within the CANR at MSU.

Underggaduates: Persons who have not completed the requirements for a degree from
with the CANR at MSU.

Abbreviations

AN R Agriculture and Natural Resources

MSU Michigan State University

CANR College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Land-Grand Colleges

SLGU State and Land-Grant Universities
WWW World Wide Web
Assumptions

This study focuses on the student experience with CANR at MSU. Five
assumptions are made concerning the undergraduate questionnaire.
1. All respondents will understand the questionnaire’s directions and truthfully answer

each question.

2. Undergraduates fi'om the CANR will fill out the questionnaire.

3. Respondents will express their opinions and attitudes truthfully and without restraint.
4. The target population received the email asking for their participation.
5. The target population had access to the Internet.
6. The participants assessed only their experiences within CANR only and not MSU as
whole.

Limitations

The population of this study is limited to CANR undergraduates in the Fall
semester of 2002. This study assumes that the undergraduates were able to assess only
the experiences within the CANR and did not evaluate their experiences outside of
CANR. No attempt was made to evaluate the learning experiences outside of the CANR.
Chapter summary

This chapter has set the stage for the study. Chapter two discusses the literature
available on student development assessment, level of academic challenge; active and
collaborative learning; student faculty interaction; enriching educational experiences; and
supportive campus environment. Chapter three examines the assessment tool used to
evaluate the student experience with CANR. Chapter four presents the results of this
study. Chapter five further discusses the conclusions and recommendations drawn from

the results.

CHAPTER H
REVIEW OF LITERTURE

Much of the literature on student development assessment (Jones,1938;
McConnell, 1934; Pressy, 1946; Chickering,l969; Clark, Heist, McConnell, Trow, &
Young, 1972; Heath,1968) provided the foundation from which current research has been
directed. A major difficulty experienced by institutions throughout the brief history of
assessment has been the relative lack of direction that its results provide about exactly
where to invest resources in order to obtain desired results (Ewell & Jones, 1996).

The following Specific topics are reviewed: (a) student development theories; (b)
student development assessment tools; (c) supportive campus environment; ((1) student
interaction with faculty members; (e) active and collaborative learning; and (t) enriching
educational experience.

There have been numerous theories that explain the development of people
throughout the lifecycle. These theories relate to student experience in that they explain
how individuals overcome personal challenges and growth issues.

The psychosocial theory described how individuals resolve challenges and
personal growth issues at different stages or periods during the life cycle with the
development of identity being central (Banta & Associates, 2002). It has been the work
of Chickering (1969) that has provided a means of measuring how a person resolves
challenges and personal growth issues. Chickering developed the seven “vectors of
development” which are developing confidence, managing emotions, developing
autonomy, establishing identity, developing fleeing interpersonal relationships,

developing purpose and developing integrity. In use currently to measure the seven

“vectors of development” are The Student Development Task and Lifestyle Inventory
(Prince, Miller, & Winston 1974; Winston, 1990); Iowa Student Development
Inventories (Hood, 1986); and Sue’s Minority Identity Development Model (Sue & Sue,
1990)

The cognitive-structural theory described the processes by which people move
from fairly simplistic, dualistic (“right or wrong”) judgments and reasoning abilities to
more complicated, reflective understandings and constructions of reality (Banta &
Associates, 2002). Whereas, the person-environment interaction theory holds that
individual performance is optimized when one’s needs and abilities are congruent with
demands of the environment (Strange & Banning, 2001).

The typology model, which sorts individuals into categories according to their
similarities and differences related to how they manage and cope with common
developmental task inherent in the collegiate setting (Banta & Associates, 2002). An
assessment tool used to evaluate this area of research is the Myers-Briggs (Myers &
Myers, 1995) and Kolb (Ballou, Bowers, Boyatzis & Kolb, 1999; Boyatzis & Kolb,
1991). The research of Kuh, Hu, and Vesper (2000) discovered eight dominant groups of
undergraduates some of whom were very engaged in educationally purposeful activities.

The theory of involvement (Astin, 1984) further explained the importance of
student involvement. Student involvement refers to the amount of physical and
psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience (Astin, 1984).

The involvement theory has five basic postulates (Astin, 1984):

1. Involvement refers to the investment of physical and psychological energy in
various objects. The objects may be highly generalized (the student experience) or
highly specific (preparing for a chemistry examination).

2. Regardless of its object, involvement occurs along a continuum; that is, different
students manifest different degrees of involvement in a given object, and the same
student manifests different degrees of involvement in different objects at different
times.

3. Involvement has both quantitative and qualitative features. The extent of a
student’s involvement in academic work, for instance, can be measured
quantitatively (how many hours the student spends studying) and qualitatively
(whether the student reviews and comprehends reading assignments or simply
stares at the textbook and day dreams).

4. The amount of student learning and personal development associated with any
educational program is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of student
involvement in that program.

5. The effectiveness of any educational policy or practice is directly related to the
capacity of that policy or practice to increase student involvement.

The theory of student involvement encourages educators to focus less on what
they do and more on what the student does: how motivated the student is and how much

time and energy the student devotes to the learning process (Astin, 1984).

10

The term “indicator” has been used for many years to describe a relevant, easily

calculable statistic that reflects the overall condition of an enterprise or the progress of a

particular set of events (Bmstein, Oakes, & Guiton, 1992).

Ewell and Jones (1996) stated that indicators of instructional delivery are

particularly useful for three main purposes:

1.

To quickly compare relative performances across units, institutions or
settings.

To monitor what is happening with a particular unit, institution or setting over
time.

To explicitly examine the effects of intervention or policy change—either

settings or over time.

Some important advantages of indicators are that they:

Can help mobilize concerted action
Can help the institution communicate its goals explicitly to potential students
and the public

Can support and reinforce academic planning directed toward continuous

improvement

Educational leaders should also recognize that indicators systems also have important

negative aspects, which include:

Their tendency to create false incentives for action
Their tendency to focus attention on information gathering itself, rather than
action to change conditions

Their frequent inability to tell outsiders what they really what to know.

11

A new category, which much of the research in this study focuses on, is process
indicators measures. Process indicators are a method to examine if students are doing the
things that produce the desired outcome. The benefits of process indicators are that unlike
assessment instrument that focus mostly on outcomes, process indicators are inexpensive
to develop and are considered easy to administer. Another benefit of process indicators is
that they produce results that can be used immediately to inform policy decisions, which
could lead to enhanced student learning (Banta & Associates, 1993; Ewell & Jones,
1996).

Process indicators represent the extent to which students engage in the activities
that predict desired learning and personal development outcomes GBanta & Associates,
2002). The research by Banta and Associates (1993) and Ewell and Jones (1996) further
showed that process indicators are precursors to increased levels of student learning and
development. To date the best-known set of process indicators are the “Seven Principles
for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” (Chickering & Garnson, 1987); the seven
principles are:

1. Encourages contacts between students and faculty

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students

3. Uses active learning techniques

4. Gives prompt feedback

5. Emphasizes time on task

6. Communicates high expectations

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

12

To increase student engagement in good educational practices, faculty members
must be willing to embrace the philosophy under girding “The Seven Principles” which
emphasizes the centrality of student learning and what learners do as contrasted with
instruction and what teachers do (Barr & Tagg, 1995).

The research on the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education
provided a direct correlation between the principles and aspects of programs that had
shown clear improvement. Outcomes had risen dramatically in programs where student-
faculty involvement had increased; there were more collaborative learning experiences;
expectations had risen; immediate feedback was given, learning was active-not passive-
experience, students were treated as individuals; and the diversity of talents was
understood and respected. Outcomes also improved when learning communities existed
outside the classroom and students had increased the amount of time devoted to studying
(Banta & Associates, 1993). Regardless of the assessment tools utilized (portfolios, tests,
or any other measures of student products), linking the program to Chickering and
Gamson’s seven principles and constantly ask the question “How can we improve?” the
kind of needed to effect genuine improvement (Banta & Associates, 1993). A set of
indicators tied to important institutional practices provides clear guidance for action
(Ewell & Jones, 1996).

Assessment tools use to assess student engagement include:

0 College Student Experiences Questionnaire (Pace & Kuh, 1998)
o The College Student Report (Kuh, 1999)

o UCLA’s College Student Survey

13

The conceptual foundation for this assessment approach is consistent with Astin’s
“Theory of Involvement” (1984), Pace’s concept of “quality of effort” (1982) and
involving Colleges Framework by Kuh et al. (1991).

Supmrtive Campus Environment

The campus environment includes all the conditions and influences, such as
physical, chemical, biological and social stimuli, that affect the growth and development
of living things (Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1973). An
institution’s physical, social, and organizational environments can be discouraging,
confusing, and alienating, or orderly, predictable, coherent, and encouraging (Corbally,
1989; Snyder, 1971). In this area of research Purkey and Smith (1982) discussed the
theory that student achievement is influenced by factors referred to as social inputs, social
structure and social climate. Kuh (2001) further stated the importance of a campus
environment. A critical component to student learning is the institutional environments
that are perceived by students as inclusive and affirming and where expectations for
performance are clearly communicated and set at reasonably high levels (Education
Commission of the States, 1995; Kuh et al., 1991)

Student Interaction with Facgljy Members

After relationships with peers, relationships with faculty members are most
important for students (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991,
p.620) reported “A large part of the impact of college is determined by the extent and
content of one’s interactions with major agents of socialization on campus, namely,
faculty members and student peers. The influence of interpersonal interaction with these

groups is manifest in intellectual outcomes as well as in changes in attitudes, values,

14

aspirations and a number of psychosocial characteristics.” Chickering and Reisser (1993)
further stated “[w]hile students may ultimately bear the responsibility for involving
themselves in academic pursuits, the faculty member who speaks with passion and invites
active learning, who adapts the structure of the class to the interests and abilities of the
students and whose articulate dynamism has students looking forward to every class does
much to awaken dormant cognitive skills. With an engaging teacher, students learn that
beyond the content lies the power of the knowledge-seeker.” Chickering and Gamson
(1987) emphasized that professors who encourage student contact both in and out of
classes enhance student motivation intellectual commitment, and personal development.
In addition, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p.620) stated “the educational impact of a
college’s faculty is enhanced when their contacts with students extend beyond the formal
classroom to informal nonclassroom settings.”
Active and Collaborative Learning

The research on active learning within the college classrooms is so convincing
that college professors cannot ignore the importance of active learning. Participation in
learning is a concrete experience that can yield many benefits for higher education (Boud,
Cohen, & Walker, 1993). Tinzmann and others (1990) stated, “Effective communication
and collaboration are essential to becoming a successful learner. It is primarily through
dialogue and examining different perspectives that students become knowledgeable,
strategic, self-determined, and empathetic. Moreover, involving students in real-world
tasks and linking new information to prior knowledge requires effective communication
and collaboration among teachers, students, and others. Indeed, it is through dialogue and

interaction that curriculum objectives come alive.”

15

Level of Academic Challenge

If undergraduate students are to develop their ability to think at higher levels of
cognition, they must be challenged to do so by both professors’ in-class instructional
techniques, and by the academic challenges provided throughout the course (McCormick
& Whittington, 2000). Studies have shown that efl‘ective use of academic challenges can
increase student achievement (F oyle & Baily, 1985; Ziegler, 1986) and can contribute to
challenging both students’ progression through the though processes and their
development of thinking skills (Cooper, 1989; Meyers, 1986; Terenzini, Springer,
Pascarella & Nora, 1995). However, there are few studies which have examined the
cognitive level of academic challenges or which provide a system for assessing academic
challenges (e.g. Newcomb & Trefz, 1987; Pickford & Newcomb, 1989; Ratclifl', Jones,
Guthrie & Oehler, 1991). A rigorous course gives students the opportunities to reach the
higher levels of cognitive learning, achieve academic excellence, and actively participate
in the learning process (Miller & Shih, 1999).

Enrichgg’ Educational Expgriences

The impact of the college experience on student is increased when they are more
actively engaged in various aspects of college life (Kuh et al., 1991). Evidence shows that
student’s reports about their college experiences such as the frequency with which they
participate in various educationally purposeful activities are reliably associated with
general cognitive gains (Ewell & Jones 1993, 1996; NCHEMS 1994). The studies show
that the more time and effort students invest in the academic and social opportunities
available in the college environment, the greater will be their academic achievement and

personal growth, their satisfaction with college, and their persistence in college (National

16

Institute of Education, 1984; Astin, 1985; Pace, 1989). Encounters with others who have
diverse backgrounds and strongly held opinions create the contexts for an increased
tolerance and integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991)
emphasized the importance of ‘socializing agents’ - the people with whom students
come into contact - as playing a critical role in identity and ego development dming
college. Citing a number of studies, they suggest “it is the diversity of individuals
(particularly other students) that developmentally challenges students’ conceptions of
themselves and that requires adaptation and commitment to certain attitudes, values,
beliefs, and actions” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 190). Kuh (2001) further stated
that an “enriching educational experiences provides complementary learning
opportunities inside and outside classrooms augment academic programs. Experiencing
diversity teaches students valuable things about themselves and others. Technology
facilitates collaboration between peers and instructors, internships, community service,
and senior capstone courses provide opportunities to integrate and apply knowledge.”
Chapter summary

This chapter has discussed the literature available on student development. In
addition this chapter further discussed several topics (student development theories,
student development assessment tools, supportive campus environment, student
interaction with faculty members, active and collaborative learning and enriching

educational experience) which have provided a frame for this study.

17

CHAPTER HI
METHODLOGY
Desrgp' of Study

This chapter describes the survey procedures and research methods used in this
study. The following specific topics are described: (a) population, (b) design, (c)
instrumentation, ((1) data collection and (e) data analysis.

The design of this study followed the format of a descriptive survey. This study
specifically examines the undergraduate student experience at MSU in the CANR.
Surveys, a method for collecting data was provided by Dillman (2000). The data-
gathering technique consisted of a web-based questionnaire. In order to accurately assess
undergraduate involvement within CANR, it was critical to adhere to proper research
protocol throughout the study. The University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (U CRIHS) was sent a copy of the instrument, methodology section of the
proposal, cover letter and a study approval application. Approval of the research project
was contingent on minor revision.

Population and Sample

The target population of the study included CANR undergraduates in the Fall
semester of 2002. A student roster of 2,353 undergraduates from all departments within
CANR was obtained from personnel in the Office of Academic and Student Affairs
(OASA) within CANR. Personnel fi'om OASA then requested the information from the
Office of Registrar’s at MSU. The following student data was requested concerning
students first and last name, gender, academic level, academic program, ethnicity, email

address, personal Identification number and local address. The student data was then sent

18

via email as a Microsoft Excel document. Microsoft Excel 2000 software was used in
managing the database. The student database consisted on all undergraduate students
within CANR. Undergraduate students served as the population fi'ame for this descriptive
study. A census sample was used since characteristics of the entire population are a main
concern. The sample was selected by the researcher, consisted of 2,353 undergraduates
and consisted of individuals in 13 departments and 2 schools within the CANR The
participants were emailed a letter asking for their participations in completing the
questionnaire. The email provided a link to a hypertext language version of the
questionnaire.
Instrumentation

The design of the instrument followed recommendations described by Dillman
(2000) in Mail and Telephone Surveys the Total Design Method. The survey instrument
is included in Appendix A. The instrument was an adaptation of The College Student
Report, NSSE's survey instrument (Kuh, 2001) and the Freshmen Agriculture Student
Questionnaire (Dyer, Lacey & Osborne, 1996). The instrument was designed using
Dreamweaver 11.0 software. Title selected for the cover page was College of Agriculture
and Natm'al Resources Undergraduate Involvement Questionnaire (Appendix A). The
title for the front cover was selected based on input provided by one of the reviewers
serving on the panel of experts while gathering input on the face and content validity of
the instrument. The instrumentation for this study was composed of a hypertext language
version of a questionnaire. The instrument included open-ended and closed-ended

questions.

19

22m;

The content of the initial letter sent to participants included a brief comment
asking them to participant in the survey and provided directions on how to access the
questionnaire. In addition the initial email provided participants with the password:
Spartan and were instructed to use lower case letters when accessing the questionnaire.

There were six sections in the undergraduate questionnaire which included the
areas of engaged in college activities, engaged in educational and personal growth,
cognitive development, opinions of academic programs, quality of relationships, program
involvement about CANR, and demographics. These different sections consisted of
Lykert scales ranging from three point, four point, and five point scales.

The first section included questions concerning with activities pertaining to class
coursework. There were 25 questions in this section that were put into a Lykert scale.
This section addresses the various activities that the undergraduates were involved in to
determine the level of engagement within the various activities.

The second section of the undergraduate questionnaire focused on the cognitive
development within the college. There were 6 questions on a five point Lykert scale from
“never” to “always.”

The third section included items about educational and personal growth. The
respondents were asked a series of questions regarding the extent to which CANR has
contributed to their knowledge, skills and personal development in a variety of areas.

There were 7 questions on a five-point Lykert scale from “never” to “always.”

20

The fomth section included items on program involvement. The respondents were
asked how often their department or school emphasized a student support. There were 7
questions on five-point Lykert scale from “never” to “always.”

In the fifth sections students were also asked to rate their quality of relationship
with other students, faculty members, administrative personal and office support staff.

There were 3 questions on a five point Lykert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly

9’

agree.

The fourth section included item of student attitudes and perceptions about
agriculture and natural resources. These sections asked students to rate what had an
influence on them to pursue a degree in the college of agriculture and natural resources.
This section had questions in a five point Lykert scale from “never influenced” to
“always influenced.”

Demographic information was requested including the areas of gender, age,
academic level and major. The respondent selected the answer from given categories.

There were open-ended questions at the end of the questionnaire. The first
question asked the respondents to state some of the positives associated with the college
of agricultme and natural resources. The second open-ended question asked the
respondents to state some of the negatives associated with the college of agriculture and
natural resources. The third open-ended question asked the respondents if they had any
additional comments regarding the college of agriculture and natural resources.

Vali ' and Reliabili
Validity and reliability are two main important factors to recognize when

designing a comprehensive questionnaire. Content and face validity were measured

21

through a panel of experts including faculty, administration and specialist within the
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication System
and The Office of Academic and Student Affair in the College of Agriculture and Natmal
Resources. The questionnaire is an adaptation of National Study of Student Engagement
(Kuh, 2001) and Freshmen Agriculture Student Questionnaire (Dyer, Lacey & Osborne,
1996)

The instrument was tested for scale reliability using Coefficients Alpha
procedures as shown in Table 3.0. The questionnaire, an alpha coefficient of .85 was
determined for the scale pertaining to college activities; .85 for cognitive development;
.91 educational and personal growth; .77 program involvement; and .71 quality of
relationships. These Cronbach Alpha values were considered adequate to establish

reliability for the scales included in this study.

 

 

 

Table 3.0

C oeflicient Alpha Reliability results
Section N of Items Alpha
College activities 25 .85
Cognitive development 6 .85
Educational and personal growth 18 .91
Program involvement 7 .77
Quality of relationships 3 .71

Collection of Data

Pilot test

The scales were pilot-tested for reliability with 30 undergraduates within the
CANR. The pilot test group was given a paper copy of the questionnaire and instructed

on how long it would take to complete the questionnaire.

22

An on-line questionnaire was designed by the researchers, which included an
assortment of questions plus demographics. The questionnaire, written in the HTML
(Hyper Text Markup Language) format, was posted on the W.

The data collection procedure used in this survey followed the recommendations
of Dillman (2000). An initial email was sent to the participants informing them of a study
that would be requesting their participation (Appendix B). Seven days after the initial
email a second email was sent (Appendix B). In the second email a hyperlink was
provided to participants, which directed them to the questionnaire. Once the link was
connected, participants were prompted to enter the password spartan to assess and
complete the questionnaire. Two weeks later a follow-up email (Appendix B) was sent
thanking the respondents who completed the questionnaire. This email also instructed
participants that had not completed the questionnaire to do so. The third email (Appendix
B) was sent out three weeks after the initial email again thanking participants that had
completed the questionnaire and asking those that had not completed the questionnaire to
do so. A fourth and final email (Appendix B) was sent to participant’s four weeks later
instructing participants to complete the questionnaire.

Altogether 414 usable questionnaires were received from the undergraduate
population, resulting in a response rate of 17% percent. The researchers recognized the
need to have a higher response rate to be able to generalize findings to the population.
However, early and late respondents were compared to determine if they differed
significantly on selected variables under study, and no difference were observed. In this
study the research dealt with non-responses using the double dipped sampling

methodology. The double dipped technique further allowed the researcher to compare the

23

respondents and non-respondents. Table 3.1 shows the date questionnaires were received,
the number received for each day, and the response rate by day. The questionnaires were
date and time stamped when respondents completed the questionnaire. As shown the first
questionnaires were received on February 5, 2003 and the last one was received on
March 28, 2003
Data Ana sis

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science
(SPSS). Statistical methods such as means, frequencies, percentages, cross tabs, standard
deviations and t—test were used to analyze the closed -ended questions. The non-response
error was dealt with through a t-test comparing responses from early and late

respondents.

24

Table 3.1
Questionnaires by date received

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Number Eumulatrve Date Number Eumulatrve
Received Received unmng Received Received unmng
total total
2/5/2003 88 88 2/28/2003 1 291
2/6/2003 58 146 3/2/2003 1 292
2/7/2003 7 153 3/5/2003 16 308
2/8/2003 5 158 3/6/2003 20 328
2/9/2003 6 164 3/7/2003 5 333
2/10/2003 10 174 3/8/2003 4 337
2/1 1/2003 7 181 3/9/2003 4 341
2/ 12/2003 6 187 3/ 10/2003 5 346
2/13/2003 2 189 3/1 1/2003 4 350
2/ 14/2003 1 190 3/ 12/2003 1 351
2/15/2003 1 191 3/14/2003 2 353
2/16/2003 2 193 3/17/2003 1 354
2/17/2003 1 194 3/ 18/2003 7 361
2/ 18/2003 1 195 3/19/2003 4 365
2/19/2003 73 268 3/20/2003 7 372
2/20/2003 8 276 3/21/2003 9 381
2/21/2003 3 279 3/22/2003 2 383
2/22/2003 5 284 3/23/2003 2 385
2/23/2003 2 286 3/24/2003 22 407
2/24/2003 1 287 3/25/2003 2 409
2/25/2003 1 288 3/26/2003 2 41 1
2/26/2003 1 289 3/27/2003 1 412
2/27/2003 1 290 3/28/2003 2 414
Total 414
Chapter summary

This chapter has discussed the procedures and research methods used in this
descriptive survey study. In addition this chapter described the population, design,
instrumentation, data collection and data analysis methods used. Furthermore, in order to
accurately assess undergraduate involvement within CANR, it was critical to adhere to

proper research protocol throughout the study.

25

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Survey data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) 11.0. Findings are presented as follows: demographics, involved in class based
activities, student interaction with faculty, participated in out of class activities, interact
with diverse populations, engaging in mental activities, engaging in reading and writing,
activities involved in before graduation, number of hours committed to each week,
knowledge, skills and personal development, involvement in academic program, quality
of academic relationships, and influence to pursue degree.

Questionnaires were sent to a total of 2353 CANR undergraduates. This
represents all of the undergraduate students enrolled in the CANR in the Fall 2002
semester. Of this group, a total of 414 (17 %) responded. It is this group of 414
respondents that was used for the analyses presented in this chapter.

Demographics

Demographic data was collected from respondents relative to: gender, age,
racial/ethnic background, classification in college, were they raised on a farm, complete
high school courses in ANR, members of the FF A or 4-H, international student or foreign
national, degree currently seeking, community size, currently living situation, did parents
graduate from college, start college at MSU or elsewhere. Figure 4.0 depicts
Undergraduate respondents by gender. As shown, males comprised 40.6% (n=168) and

females 59.4% (n=246) of the respondents. An 11 of 414 was obtained.

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RespondentsbyGender

80 ——— I,,, W w— w
a. 60
8
a 40 ._-
‘3‘ 20 L— —— —— —_——

O +——~- A

Female
Gender
n=414

 

 

 

Figure 4.0 Undergraduate Respondents by Gender

Respondents were asked their ethnic background. As shown, in Table 4.0 1%
(n=3 75) of the respondents were White/Caucasian non-Hispanic, 3.4% (n=14)
Black/African American non-Hispanic, 1.2% (n=5) Chicano/Mexican American, .2%
(n=1) Hispanic, .2% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 2.7%(n=11) Asian/Pacific

Islander and 1.7% (n=7) Other.

 

 

Table 4.0

Participant demographics-ethnic breakdown
Ethnic Background 11:4 14 =23 53

f % f %

White/Caucasian non-Hispanic 375 90.6 2071 88.01
Black/Afiican American non-Hispanic 14 3.4 127 5.39
Chicano/Mexican American 5 1.2 14. 0.59
Hispanic 1 .2 25 1 .06
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 .2 20 0.84
Asian/Pacific Islander 11 2.7 77 3.27
Other ’ . » 7 1.7 - -

 

There were 41.1% (n=170) were seniors, 33.6%(n=139), 14.3% (n=59) were

sophomores, 7.5% (n=31) were freshman, and 3.6% (n=15) are other.

27

Table 4.1
Participant demographics-classification in college

 

 

Classification in college f % N %
Freshman 31 7.5 21 1 8.96%
Sophomore 59 14.3 381 16.19%
Junior 139 33.6 806 34.25%
Senior 170 41.1 953 40.50%
Other 1 5 3 .6

(N=2353)

Respondents were asked to report their enrollment status Table 4.2. Finding
indicates that a majority of the respondents 92.3% (n=3 83) were enrolled full-time. In
addition 7.5% (n=3 1) of the respondents were attending school less than full-time.

Table 4.2
Participant demographics—enrollment status

 

F ull-Time Less than Mean
F ull-Time (SD)
f % f %
Thinking about this current academic term, how 1.07

would you characterize your enrollment? 383 92.5 31 7'5 (.26)

 

 

As shown in 4.3, 73.2% (n=303) of the respondents reported “no” when asked if
they were raised on a farm. In addition, 73.2% (n=303) of the respondents reported “no”
when asked if they completed any high school courses in agriculture or natural resources,
while 26.8% (n=111) of the respondents that reported “yes” when asked if they
completed any courses in agriculture or natural resources. Of the respondents that did
complete high school courses 27.1% (n=112) report that these courses didn’t help them

make a decision to study agriculture and natural resources.

28

Table 4.3
Participant demogrghics- ANR background

 

Yes No
f % f %
Were you raised on a farm? 1 11 26.8 303 73.2

Did you complete any high school courses in agriculture
or natural resources?

If, yes do you feel this course helped you make a
decision to study in agriculture and natural resources in 68 16.4 112 27.1

111 26.8 303 73.2

college?

Member of the FFA 71 17.1 343 82.9
Member of 4-H 133 32.1 281 67.9
Student organization within CANR 213 51.4 201 48.6
Student organization not associated with CANR 172 41.5 242 58.5

Student organization not associated with the university 97 23,4 317 76,6
Are you an international student or foreign national? 3 2,00 406 98,0

 

Respondents were asked if they had ever been a member of FFA or 4H. The
respondents reported 82.9% (n=343) that they were members of F FA, 67.9% (n=281) of
the respondents reported that they were members of 4-H. Respondents were asked if they
were a part of a student organization within CANR, not associated with CANR, and an
organization not associated with the university. In addition 51.4% (n=213) of the
respondents reported that they were a part of a student organization within CANR, 58.5%
(n=242) of the respondents were a part of an organization not associated with CANR and,
76.6% (n=317) of the respondents were apart of a student organization not associated
with the university.

Table 4.4 highlights the degree break down of the respondents. Respondents were
asked to report their primary degree that they were seeking within CANR. Findings
indicate that 19% (n=80) of the respondents were majoring in packaging, 17.6% (n=73)
in animal science, 9.4 % (n=39) in agribusiness management. These three degree areas

had the highest number of responses. In addition, the degrees that have the highest yield

29

of student’s college wide were as follows packaging 24.30% (n=572), animal science

12.66% (n=298) and building construction management 10.83% (n=255).

 

Table 4.4

Participant demographic-primary dgree seeking
Degree f % N %
Packaging 80 19.3 572 24.30
Animal Science 73 17.6 298 12.66
Agribusiness Management 39 9.4 130 5.52
Fisheries and Wildlife 29 7.0 155 6.58
Horticulture 29 7.0 1 83 7.77
Agriscience 24 5.8 56 2.37
Environmental Studies and Application 24 5.8 87 3.69
Building Construction Management 22 5.3 255 10.83
Crop and Soil Sciences 20 4.8 86 3.65
Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources 16 3.9 110 7.67
Food Industry Management 14 3.4 214 9.09
Foresz 10 2.4 47 1.99
Food Science and Human Nutrition 9 2.2 40 1.69
Agriculture and Natural Resources 8 1.9 54 2.29
No preference in Agriculttu'al and Natural Resources 6 1.4 19 0.80
Environmental Economics and Policy 5 1.2 33 1.40
Entomology 4 1.0 1 1 0.46
Biosystems Engineering 1 .2 - -
Environmental Soil Science 1 .2 2 0.08
Other 1 0.04
Total 414 100.0 2353 100.0

 

(f= Frequency N = Population)

Respondents were asked if they were seeking a dual degree and a specialization.

Findings indicate that 88.6% (n=3 67) of the respondents reported “no” when asked if

they pursuing a dual degree. In addition, 63% (n=261) of reported “no” when asked if

they were pursuing a specialization.

30

Table 4.5
Participant demographic-dual degree and specialization

 

Mean
Yes No (SD)
f % f %
' 9
Are you seeking a dual degree. 47 11.4 367 88.6 (1.3819)
. . . . 9
Are you seeking a specialization. 153 37.0 261 63.0 (146:)

 

(1=yes, 2=no)

Respondents were asked where they started college at MSU or elsewhere.
Findings indicate that a majority of the respondents 70.5% (n=292) started their college
experience as MSU. 24.2% (n=100) of the respondents started college at a community or

junior college.

Table 4.6
Participant demographics-college attendance
Started Vocational- Community
Other at technical junior
MSU school college
f % f % f % f %

19 4.6 292 70.5 2 .5 100 24.2

 

Did you start college at MSU or
elsewhere?

Respondents were asked if they started their degree in the CANR or another
college. Findings indicate that 52.2% (n=216) of the respondents started their degree in
CANR, while 47.8% (n=198) of the respondents reported that they transferred into

CANR from another college.

31

Table 4.7
Participant demographics—degree acceptance

 

 

Transferred into
Started in CANR CANR from
another college
f . % f %
Did you start your degree in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources or another 216 52.2 198 47.8

college?

Respondents were asked if the had any work experience in agriculture or natural
resources. Finding indicates that 43.5% (n=180) of respondents did not any experience in
agriculture where 35% (n=145) of the respondents report that they had both paid and
unpaid work experience in agricultme. In addition 59.2% (n=245) of the respondents

reported that did not have any experience in natural resources.

 

Table 4.8
Participant demographics—ANR experience
Paid work Unpaid work 80th pard and
None . . unpaid work
experience experience .
experience

 

f%f%f%f %

Whattype°fexpene°°ed°y°u 180 43.5 65 15.7 24 5.8 145 35.0

have in Agriculture?
What type of experience do you

haveinNaturalResources? 245 59.2 56 13.5 47 11.4 66 15.9

Respondents were asked if they intend to pursue a career in agriculture or natural
resources while 50.2% (n=208) of the respondents intend to pursue a career in
agriculture, 49.8% (n=206) of the respondents report “no” when asked if they were
pursuing a degree in agriculture. In addition 55.3% (n=229) of respondents report “no”

when asked if they would pursue a career in natmal resources.

32

Table 4.9
Participant demographics—career choice

 

 

Mean
Yes No (SD)

% f %
Do you Intend to pursue a career In Agriculture related 208 50.2 206 49.8 1.50
area as a career chOIce (.50)
Do you Intend to pursue a career In Natural Resources 185 44.7 229 55.3 1.55
related area as a career chorce? (.49)

 

Respondents were asked what size of a community they were from. Figure 4.1
depicts the size of the community respondents were from. Findings indicate that a
majority of the respondents 46.1% (n=l9l) were from a small town with a population
less than 10,000 while 26.3% (n=109) of the respondents were from a medium urban

neighborhood of a population between 10,000-99,999.

 

Small town Large metropolitan Suburb of
(less than 10 000) (over 100’000) metropolitan
46 1%, 85% (over 100,000)

19.1%

 

Medium urban
(10,000-99,999)
26.3%

Figure 4.1 Breakdown of community size of respondents

 

 

 

33

Finding further indicated that 19.1% (n=79) of the respondents were from a
suburb of a metropolitan city with a population over 100,000 while 8.5% of the

respondents were from a large metropolitan city with a population over 100,000.

 

Dormitory campus Residence walking

not Fraternity or distance 19.3%
Sorority 38.6%

h

Fratemity/ Sorority
4.1%

 

Residence driving
distance 37.9%

 

 

 

Figure 4.2 MSU undergraduate students by place of residency

Respondents were asked to report their place of residency while attending MSU.
Figure 4.2 depicts MSU undergraduate students by place of residency with 38.6%
(n=160) living within a dormitory or other campus housing (not fratemity/sorority),
37.9% (n=157) live within residence (house, apartment, etc.) within driving distance,
19.3% (n=80) live within residence (house, apartment, etc.) within walking distance and

4.1% (n=17) living within fraternity or sorority housing.

 

Table 4.10
Participant demographics-parental education level
Yes, Father Yes, both Yes,
No mother
only parents
only

 

f%f%f%f%

Dld either ofyour parents graduate from 143 34.5 63 15.2 147 35.5 59 143
college?

(n=412)

34

Respondents were asked if their parents graduated from college Table 4.10.
Findings indicate that 35.5% (n=147) of the respondents reported that both of their
parents had graduated while 34.5% (n=34.5) of the respondents reported that neither of
their parents had graduated. In addition 15.2% (n=63) reported that their father graduated,
14.3% (n=14.3) report that their mother had graduated.

Involved in class based activities

Respondents were asked how often they participated in class activities Table 4.11.
Findings indicate that 73.7%(n=3 05) of the respondents “sometime” to “often” work on a
papers or projects that required integrating ideas or information fiom various sources as
Shown in Table 4.11 Respondents were also asked how often they worked with other
students on projects during class 76.8% (n=318) indicated that “sometime” to “often” do
so. In addition respondents reported that 74.4% (n=308) have “sometime” to “often”
worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments. Finding also
indicate that 78.7% (n=326) of the respondents “sometime” and “often” put together
ideas or concepts fi'om different courses when completing assignments while over 81.9%

(n=339) of the respondents “sometimes” to “never” contribute to class discussions.

35

Table 4.11
Involved in class based activities

 

 

Question Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always 1:52;;
f % f % f % f % f %
Worked on a paper or project
that required integrating ideas 3.55
or information from various 18 4.3 34 8.2 122 29.5 183 44.257 13.8 (.97)
sources
Worked with other students on 3.48
projects during class 23 5.6 25 6.0 145 35.0 173 41.848 11.6 (.96)
Worked with classmates 3 38
outside of class to prepare 18 4.3 54 13.0 130 31.4 178 43.034 8.2 (96)
class assignments '
Put together ideas or concepts
fiom different courses when 3.38
completing assignments or 14 3.4 45 10.9 152 36.7 174 42.029 7.0 (.89)
during class discussions
Worked harder than you
thought you could to meet an 3.11
instructor's standards or 18 4.3 721 7.4 195 47.1 104 25.125 6.0 (.91)
expectations
ASked ““63““ 1” Class 25 6.0 81 19.6 176 42.5 97 23.435 8.5 3'33)
Used an electronic medium to 3 08
discuss or complete an 67 16.2 65 15.7 106 25.6 120 29.056135 (1'27)
assignment. '
Made a class p‘esemat‘on 65 15.7 76 18.4 134 32.4 111 26.828 6.8 (25:15)
Came to class without 2 83
completing readings or 26 6.3 117 28.3 177 42.8 88 21.3 6 1.4 (88)
assignments '
Prepared two or more drafts of 2 78
apaperor assignment before 70 16.9 105 25.4 117 28.3 92 22.230 7.2 (1.18)
turning it in '
Emmi?“ ‘0 class 116 28.0 67 16.2 156 37.7 30 7.2 4510.9 2'57
drscussrons (l .26)

 

(1=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always)

Student- Faculty Interaction

Questions about how often student interact with faculty were asked using a

Lykert-type scale and included items such as used e-mail to communicate with an

instructor, discussed assignments and grades, and discussed class readings Table 4.12.

36

The majority of the respondents 89.6% (n=371) “sometimes” to “always” used e-mail to

communicate with an instructor. Findings also indicate that 74.7% (n=3 09) of the

respondents “sometime” to “often” have received prompt feedback from faculty on

academic performance. When respondents were asked how often do they discuss

assignments and grades with an instructor 64.7% (n=268) reported that they “sometimes”

to “often” interact with instructors while over 76.4% (n=316) of the respondents have

“seldom” to “never” conduct research with a faculty member.

Table 4.12

Studentfaculty related activities

 

 

Question Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always Mean
(SD)
f % f % f % f % f %
Used e-mail to 3 80
communicate with an 12 2.9 31 7.5 103 24.9 149 36.0 119 28. 7 (1°03)
instructor '
Received prompt
feedback from faculty 3.29
on your academic 16 3.9 59 14.3 158 38.2 151 36.5 30 7.2 (.93)
performance
Discussed assignments 3 16
and grades with an 22 5.3 81 19.6 162 39.1 106 25.6 43 10.4 (1'02)
instructor °
Talked about career 2.98
plans with an advisor 11.4 96 23.2 127 30.7 107 25.8 37 8.9 (1.14)
Talked about career 2 76
plans with a faculty 84 20.3 92 22.2 109 26.3 98 23.7 31 7.5 (1'23)
member '
Worked with faculty 2 31
members on activities 150 36.2 96 23.2 79 19.1 68 16.4 21 5.1 (1'25)
other than coursework '
Discussed ideas from
your readings or classes 2.20
with faculty members 115 27.8 152 36.7 102 24.6 41 9.9 4 1.0 (.98)
outside of class
Conducted research 1.77
withafaculty member 257 62.1 59 14.3 50 12.1 31 7.5 17 4.1 (1-16L

 

(1=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always)

37

Table 4.13

 

 

Out of class activities
N . Mean
ever Seldom Sometnnes Often Always (SD)
f % f % f % f % f %
Discussed ideas
from your readings 3 28
or classes with 17 4.1 66 15.9 151 36.5 146 35.3 34 8.2 (96)
others outside of '
class
Tutored or taught 1 98
other students (paid 170 41.1 122 29.5 88 21.3 27 6.5 7 1.7 '
(1.01)
or voluntary)
Participated in a
community-based 1.67
project as part ofa 246 59.4 88 21.3 55 13.3 20 4.8 5 1.2 (.96)
regular course

 

(1=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always)

Participated in out of class activities

Respondents were asked to report how often they participated in outside class
activities Table 4.13. Findings indicate that 71.8% (n=297) “sometimes to “often” discuss
ideas and readings with others out of class. Findings further indicate that 70.6% (n=292)
of the respondents have “seldom” to “never” tutored or taught other students. In addition
80.7% (n=334) of the respondents “seldom” to “never” participate in community based
project as part of a course.
Interact with diverse popIMions

Respondents were asked how often they interacted with diverse populations Table
4.14. Findings indicate that 60.6% (n=251) of the respondents “sometime” to “often” had
conversation with students who were different in terms of religious beliefs, political
opinions, or personal values. When the respondents were asked if they had serious

conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than their own 31.4% (n=l 30)

38

stated “sometimes” while 65.9% (n=273) of the respondents “sometimes” to seldom”

include diverse perspectives in class discussions and writing assignments.

Table 4.14
Interaction with diverse populations

Never Seldom Sometimes Often

f%f%f

Had serious
conversations with
students who are very
different fiom you in
terms of their religious
beliefs, political
opinions, or personal
values

Had serious
conversations with
students of a different 46 11.1 99 23.9 130
race or ethnicity titan

your own

Included diverse

perspectives (different

races, religions,

genders, political 47 11.4 125 30.2 148
beliefs, etc.) in class

discussions and writing

figment?»

317.5 88 21.3 152

%f%

36.7 99 23.9

31.4 92 22.2

35.7 76 18.4

(1=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always)

39

Always
f %

(SD)

3.09
44 10.6 (1.08)

299

47 11.4 (1.16)

2.74

18 4.3 (1.02)

Table 4.15

 

 

Cognitive development

Question Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always Mean
13D)

f % f % f % f % f %

Comprehend facts, ideas, or

methods from your course and 3 97

readings so you can grasp 1 .2 9 2.2 75 18.1 246 59.4 83 20.0 ('70)

meaning, explain and restate '

ideas

Analyze the basic elements of

an idea, experience, or theory, 3 68

such as examining a particular 2 .5 28 6.8 125 30.2 203 49.0 56 13.5 (80)

case or situation in depth and '

considering its components

Applied theories or concepts to 3 59

practical problems or in new 6 1.4 34 8.2 138 33.3 181 43.7 55 13.3 (87)

situations °

Memorized facts, ideas, or

methods from your courses and 3 48

readings so you can repeat 8 1.9 42 10.1 148 35.7 175 42.3 41 9.9 (87)

them in pretty much the same '

form

Making judgments about the

value of information,

arguments, or methods such as 3 38

examining how others gathered 13 3.1 57 13.8 145 35.0 158 38.2 41 9.9 ('94)

and interpreted data and '

assessing the soundness of their

conclusions

Synthesized and organizing

ideas, information, or 3 35

experiences into new, more 11 2.7 61 14.7 150 36.2 156 37.7 36 8.7 ('92)

complex interpretations and
relationships

 

(1=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always)

Engaging in mental activities

Respondents were asked during the school year, to what extent has their

coursework focused on comprehending fact, analyzing ideas, applying theory,

memorizing facts, making judgments and synthesizing and organizing ideas Table 4.15.

Finding indicate that 79.4% (n=329) of the respondents report that their coursework

4O

“often” to always” focuses on the comprehension facts. Respondents further report that
79.2% (n=328) of their coursework “sometimes” to “often” requires them to analyze
basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory. 77% (n=319) of the respondents report
that their coursework “sometimes” to “Often” requires them to apply theory or concepts
to practical problems or in new situations. 78% (n=323) of the respondents report that
their coursework “sometimes” to “often” required them to memorize facts and ideas.
Finding indicate that 73.2% (n=303) of respondents report that their coursework
“sometimes” to “often” required them to make judgments about the value of information,
arguments, or methods such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data.
Lastly, respondents reported that 73.9% (n=306) of their coursework has “sometimes” to
“often” emphasized synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into
new, more complex interpretations and relationships.
Engagjpg in reading and writing

Respondents were asked during the current school year how much reading and
writing have they done Table 4.16. Finding indicate that 67.4% (n=279) of the
respondents have written “between 1 and 10” papers or reports 5 pages or fewer.
Respondents further indicate that 84.3% (n=349) have read “between 1 and 10”
textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings. In addition 80.7% (n=334) of
the respondents report that they have read “between 1 and 4” to “none” books for
personal enjoyment or academic enrichment while 68.8% (n=285) of the respondents
report “none” when asked how many written papers or reports of 20 pages or more have

done during the current school year.

41

Table 4.16
Engaging in reading and writing

 

 

 

None Between 1 Between 5 Betlvxieen Mean
and 4 and 10 and 20 (SD)
f % f % f % f %

Number of written 2 78
papers or reports 5 30 7 .2 136 32.9 143 34.5 105 25.4 ( '90)
pages or fewer '
Number of assigned
textbooks, books, or 2.58
book-length packs of 15 3.6 192 46.4 157 37.9 50 12.1 (.74)
course readings
Number of books
read on your own
(not assigned) for 1.98
personal enjoyment 111 26.8 223 53.9 59 14.3 21 5.1 (.79)
or academic
enrichment
Number of written 1 34
papers or reports of 285 68.8 118 28.5 10 2.4 l .2 ( '53)

20 pages or more
(1=None, 2=Between 1 and 4, 3=Between 5 and 10, 4=Between 11 and 20)
Activitie§ involved in before graduation

Respondents were asked which of the following activities in Table 4.17 do they
planned to be involved in before they graduate. Finding indicate that 88.9% (n=368) of
the respondents stated “yes” they plan to be involved in a practicum, internship, field
experience, or co-op experience. In addition 71.7% (n=297) of the respondents stated
“yes” when ask if they will be doing commrmity service or volunteer work. 43% (n=178)
of the respondents when asking if they will be participating in an independent study or
self-designed course report “no.” The finding further indicate 48.1% (n=199) of the
respondents stated “no” when asked if they will be participating in a learning community,
45.7 % (n=189) will not participate in study abroad, and 64% (n=265) will not participate

in foreign language coursework.

42

Table 4.17
Pre-graduation involvement

 

 

. Mean
Yes No Undecrded (SD)
f % f % f %
Practicum, internship, field 99
experience, or a co-op 368 88.9 21 5.1 25 6.0 ('51)
experience
Commumty servrce or volunteer 297 71.7 57 13.8 60 14.5 .99
work .73)
Work on a research project with 1 17
a faculty member outside of 135 32.6 175 42.3 104 25.1 ( '75)
course or program requirements '
3‘15”“de Study °r self' 131 31.6 178 43.0 105 25.4 1'18
esrgned course (.75)
Participate in a learning
community or some other formal 1 22
program where groups of 108 26.1 199 48.1 107 25.8 ( 272)
students take two or more classes '
together
Study abmad 139 33.6 189 45.7 86 20.8 (1,225)

“fig“ language ”mew“ 83 I 20.0 265 64.0 66 15.9 is?)
(0=Undecided 1=Yes, 2=No)
Number of hours committed to each week

Respondents were asked how many hours in a typical 7 day week do they spend
involved the activities shown in Table 4.18. Findings indicated that 64.1 % (n=265) of
the respondents will spend between “6 and 20” hours a week relaxing and socializing. In
addition 78.3% (n=324) of the respondents spend between “1 and 15” hours a week
preparing for class. Findings further indicate that 61.4% (n=254) of the respondents will
not work any hours off campus. While, 78.5% (n=325) of the respondents will spend
between “1 and 10” hours a week commuting to class. When respondents were asking

how many hours will they spend during a week involved in community service 65%

(n=269) will not spend any time in such activities.

43

Knowlgdga, skilla arid mun] devalopment

Respondents were asked how their educational experience has contributed to their
knowledge, skills and personal development in the following areas listed in Table 4.19.
Finding indicate that 94.2% (n=3 90) of the respondents “sometimes” to “always” report
that their educational experience has emphasized working efi’ectively with others.
Findings firrther indicate that 92.7% (n=321) of respondents report that their educational
experience has “sometimes” to “always” focus on acquiring job or work-related
knowledge and skills. While 79.9% (n=331) of the respondents report that their
educational experience has “sometimes” to “often” provided them with a board and
general education. Findings depict that 70.2% (n=291) of the respondents report that their
educational experience “sometimes” to “often” has helped them to write clearly and
effectively. When respondents were asked if their educational experience has helped
them solve complex real-world problems 70.5% (n=292) report “sometimes” to “often”.
In addition, 60.4% (n=250) of respondents report that their educational experience has
“sometimes” to “seldom” helped them understand people of other racial groups. 64%
(n=265) of respondents report that their educational experience has “sometimes” to
“seldom” helped them understand people of other ethnic backgrounds while 83.8%
(n=347) of the respondents report that their educational experience has “sometimes” to

“never” contributed to their understanding people of other sexual-orientations.

44

 

we.

E.

3;

vod

mm;

om;

mm.—

Nv. ~

02..

SN

mmd

Sam

86

$4“

:4 5 ad S

v; c v; c

h; n _.m 2

0+ 3 a; w

sxsx

m.m

ad 2 9m

Qm 2 Na

wd vm 0.3

Wm mm WE

ax:

mm

mm

mm

34

cm

\

mé 3

men 2

we mm

”2 mm

mam am

New o3

s \

Qm

w.w~

m.m_

NS

WE

wém

inn

..\6

@—

mm

an

em

mm

3:

me

\

39:8 no

is 42 one o3. $3628 mans;

835m b58800

6% SN mfl 8 nan 63355860

Qwv SN w.mm 2:

NH om v.3 vmm

wé cm 5% fm

0.3 E m. N

odm mm o;

6\o

38
.EoEEo>0w Seesaw
£53852. menace
.meeuefiqmmcov
836.8 33an
when. E wfifinmomfimm
3950
be than .8.“ wee—83.
3950
no than new medic?
Aged
28088 So»
8 @838 83258
.550 28 made?
$338 .3553
mam—o 8m magnum
A20 .wfimmaoxo
.meeaa .5
v 32895 meg—38m
e5 mafia—om

\ s \

 

dd

502

+3 omém

3.5 3-3

2.:

3-0

m; o
m5.:\e camsasfieb
a ~ .v 033.

45

AmmaBEHm .mofiOuv .mogwoaomum .EoEomnN co>oZuS

 

 

v: mom 3. 2 9.: 3 3m 2: man 5 man NQ Souscoc93xom bfiomo 230a Esauvab
92 and E : oi 3 SN 3 «.3 § «.2 v2 223% 182350 .28” @8339»
2: m2 on S q: 2. Sn «2 2a m: ”.2 S Aéoagxoz €=£§§<
£82”: $258303 3:50 .880 we Bacon @5383:
. . . . . . . as»
o: o: co 3 :2 3 w mm 3; com o: m: 8 2?. 53039356308852“. 28a 2938::
o: SN 3 8 SN 3 3m 3; SN 2: n2 8 basaassoCo 03:03 2: 933880
«2 N2 ad a 3m 3 a: as 0.2 S 2. o... 823 namesaio 38 38382238
3. man Nd mm 3; 3; Rm ”3 5.2 8 3. 2 @285 283-325358 038
3. 8m as a 3m 5 33 OS of S E 2 boéoomouabaosaca
8. 2% t: 5. 0.2 oz 2* o: v: 5. Z : roéoéoufibagofiam
2: 2% mi 3 En 02 EN m2 we 8 2 5 2380354202:
5. Rm 3 o... 3% .2: 52 w: «a a 2 m meozoa 3:353 ”a?
2: *2 <2 Q. mum on in a: 3m 2 9m 2 m_§m§e§2%_o>on
8. 3m 02 cm 3: § 2a m: as em 2 m asofioaaofiéea as 3338 E5
5. c2 NS 8 v.8 m2 3m «.2 3 mm 3 w 53 so» 8 338$» .33
S. m; m: 8 3:. 8_ a: as 3 2 S n baoiaaufibagfiog
an. 3.5 5.2 8 .5. 8m 2; we 3 2 5. m 8:838 35an Bosaoig<
a. 8.». 98 a 3. 3m :8 a 2 a 3 a 23.3% 02.2305. 33.22838 €3.33...
3. 3m ZN a E. 3 «E z: 3 2 S h eoaoefibozsomisa
.x. x .x. x .x. x .x. x .x. \
Gm 582 9832 auto 883088 Sow—om 85 Z

 

Emfigzgmn Ngcmxmmhzc £5“. .thmESON
a _ .v 033.

46

Table 4.20

 

 

Academic program
Questlon Never Seldom Sometimes Ofien Always 12%;)?
f % f % f % f % f %

came” intemShip 5 1 2 26 6 3 73 17 6 167 40 3 143 34 5 4'01
opportunities ' ° ' ' ° (.94)
Providing the support 3 79
you need to help you 9 2.2 26 6.3 100 24.2 186 44.9 93 22.5 ( '93)
succeed academically '
Involvement in 3.69
student organizations 10 2.4 41 9.9 105 25.4 168 40.6 90 21.7 (.99)
Attending campus
events and activities 3 20
(special speakers, 28 6.8 72 17.4 148 35.7 123 29.7 43 10.4 (1'05)
cultural performances, '
athletic events, etc.)
Encouraging contact
among students from 2 76
different economic, 51 12.3 128 30.9 130 31.4 81 19.6 24 5.8 '

. . (1.08)
soc1al, and racial or
ethnic backgrounds
Providing the support 2 76
you need to thrive 53 12.8 116 28.0 148 35.7 72 17.4 25 6.0 °

. (1.07)
somally
Helping you cope
with your non— 2 40
academic 95 22.9 143 34.5 108 26.1 50 12.1 18 4.3 (1'09)
responsibilities (work, '
family, etc.)

 

(1=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always)

Involvement in academic program

Respondents were asked to what extent their department emphasized the areas

listed in Table 4.20. Findings indicate 74.8% (n=310) of respondents report that their

department emphasized career and internship opportunities. A majority of the

respondents 91.6% (n=3 79) report that their department “sometimes” to “always”

provided the support needed to succeed academically. 66% (n=273) of the respondents

report their department “sometimes” to “ofien” emphasized involvement in student

47

organizations. Findings also indicate 74.6% (n=309) of the respondents report that their
department “sometimes” to “never” encouraged contact among students from different
economic, social, and racial or ethnic grounds. In addition 83.5% (n=346) of the
respondents report their department “sometimes” to “never” help students cope with non-
academic responsibilities.

Table 4.21
Sipportive relationships

Strongly . Strongly Mean
di Disagree Neutral Agree (SD)

f % f % f % f % f %
Your relationships with

 

other student were 3 .7 6 1.4 47 11.4 217 52.4 141 34.1 $7148)
supportive '
Your relationships with 4 11
Faculty Members were 6 1.4 9 2.2 60 14.5 196 47.3 143 34.5 (83)
supportive '
Your relationships with

Administrative 3.78
Personnel and Offices 7 1.7 17 4.1 126 30.4 173 41.8 91 22.0 (.89)
were supportive

 

(1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Qu_alitv of aLademic relationships

Respondents were asked to rate their quality of relationship with people in their
department Table 4.21. Finding indicate 86.5% (n=358) of respondents “agree” to
“strongly agree” that the relationships in their departments with other students were
supportive. 81.8% (n=339) of respondents “agree” to “strongly agree” that the
relationships with faculty member were supportive. In addition, 72.2% (n=299) of the
respondents report “neu ”to “agree” when asked if relationships with administrative

personnel and office staff were supportive.

48

Table 4.22
Evaluation of educational experience

 

 

. Mean
Poor Falr Good Excellent (SD)
f % f % f % f %
How would you evaluate your 2.94
educational experience thus far 6 1.4 89 21.5 241 58.2 78 18.8 (.67)

 

(1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Excellent)

Elaluation of educational experience
Respondents were asked to evaluate their education experience and 79.7%

(n=330) reported that their experience was rated from “good” to “ air” Table 4.22.

 

 

Table 4.23

Desire to pursue degree
Definitely Probably Probably Definitely Mean
no no yes yes (SD)
f % f % f % f %

If you could start over again,

3’0““ y‘m pursue the same 18 4.3 42 10.1 177 42.8 177 42.8 3'24

egree you are now (.80)
pursuing?

 

(1=Definitely no, 2=Probably no, 3=Probably yes, 4=Definitely yes)

Desire to purse degrle

Respondents were asked if they were to start school all over again would they
pursue the same degree Table 4.23. Findings indicate that 85.6 % (n=354) of the
respondents report “probably yes” to “definitely yes” in that they would pursue the same

degree again.

49

Table 4.24
Influence degree enrollment

 

 

Never Seldom Sometime Ofien Always Mean

Influenced Influenced Influenced Influenced Influenced (SD)

f % f % f % f % f %
Career 3.62
cm) .ties 22 5.3 42 10.1 102 24.6 155 37.4 93 22.5 (1.10)
Positive reputation 3.10
ofcollege faculty 73 17.6 57 13.8 88 21.3 146 35.3 50 12.1 (1.29)
mauve 158 38.2 74 17.9 67 16.2 77 18.6 38 9.2 (214339)
Teacher/C°““S“"”139 33.6 80 19.3 99 23.9 71 17.1 25 6.0 (214237)
“lend 177 42.8 63 15.2 83 20.0 68 16.4 23 5.6 (212371)
Mm“ 180 43.5 84 20.3 78 18.8 52 12.6 20 4.8 221'1254)
Agncume 228 55.1 64 15.5 52 12.6 39 9.4 31 7.5 1'99
teacher (1.31)
Financial 1.89
a. (”scholarship 217 52.4 91 22.0 52 12.6 43 10.4 11 2.7 (1.13)
Emmet/S‘s“ 264 63.8 60 14.5 49 11.8 26 6.3 15 3.6 (11'7112)

(1=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Sometime, 4=Often, 5=Always)

Influence to pursue degree

Respondents were asked what influenced them the most to pursue a degree in the

CANR Table 4.24. Findings indicate that 84.5% (n=350) of the respondents report

“career opportunities” as an influence “sometimes” to “always.” In addition 68.7%

(n=284) of respondents report “positive reputation of college faculty” as an influence

“sometimes” to “always.” Respondents report 63.8% (n=264) that a mentor “seldom

influenced” to “never influenced” them to pursue a degree in CAN R. Findings further

indicate 70.6% (n=292) of the respondents report “seldom” to “never” influenced by an

“agriculture teacher” when pursuing a degree in the CANR.

50

CHAPTERV

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary

The purpose of this study was to assess the undergraduate experience within the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. To achieve this purpose the following
objectives guided this study:

1. To measure the level of academic challenge that CANR students encounter;

2. To assess the level of opportunity that CANR students have to experience active
and collaborative learning;

3. To ascertain the level of student—faculty interaction;

4. To measure CANR student level of participation with enriching educational
experiences;

5. To assess CANR student’s level of awareness of various supportive campus
environments.

The population of this study consisted of 2,353 CANR undergraduates in the fall
2002 summer fiom all departments and schools within the college.

The instrumentation for the study was a web based questionnaire. Participants
were provided with the hyperlink to web site where the questionnaire was located.
Participants were asked to enter MSU Personal Identification Number the password
Spartan that was provided to them in the initial mail. The instrument included both open-
ended and closed questions. The instrument was an adaptation of The College Student
Report, NSSE's survey instrument (Kuh, 2001) and the Freshmen Agriculture Student

Questionnaire (Dyer, Lacey and Osborne, 1996). Content and face validity was measured

51

through a panel of experts including faculty, administration and specialist within the
within the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and
Communication System and The office of Academic and Student Affair in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.

There were four emails sent to the participants. The first email was sent to all
undergraduates in the CANR and informed them that in the weeks ahead there would be a
survey requesting their participation. The second included an email cover letter with a
link to the questionnaire. A follow-up email letter thanking the respondents and asking
those who had not completed the questionnaire sent out two weeks after the second
mailing. The third and final mailing was sent out asking those who had not responded to
do so three weeks after the initial email.

Altogether, 414 usable questionnaires were received from the undergraduate
population resulting in a response rate of 17 percent. The researchers identify the need to
have a higher response rate to be able to generalize findings to the population.

In this study the research dealt with non-responses using the double dipped sampling
methodology. The double dipped technique further allowed the researcher to compare the
respondents and non-respondents.

Conclusions

Conclusions are limited to CANR undergraduates in the fall 2002 and are based
on findings from this study.

1. To measure the level of academic challenges that CANR student’s encounter.
Questions were asked concerning the undergraduate’s opinion of the academic challenge

that they encounter within the CANR Findings indicated that undergraduate

52

“sometimes” worked harder than they thought they could to meet an instructor’s
standards or expectations. Undergraduates further reported that they often are challenged
to think critically and analytically. Undergraduates often work on papers or projects that
required integrating ideas or information from various sources. Undergraduates report
that their coursework often requires them to 1) comprehend facts; 2) analyze basic
elements of an idea, experience, or theory; 3) apply theory or concepts to practical
problems or in new situations; 4) memorize facts and ideas; 5) make judgments about the
value of information, arguments, or methods; 6) and synthesize or organize ideas,
information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships. In
addition, undergraduates report that CANR frequently provided the support needed to
help you succeed academically.

2. To assess the level of opportunity that CANR students have to experience active
and collaborative leaning. ‘

Undergraduates report that they are often presented with the opportunities to work
with other students on projects during class while a majority of undergraduates will not
participate in a practicum, internship, field experience, or a co-op experience. In addition
the majority will not participate in community service or volunteer work nor will they
participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of
students take two or more classes together. In addition a majority of the undergraduates
will never participate in a community-based project as part of a regular course.

3. To ascertain the level of student—Jaculty interaction.
A majority of the undergraduate students continue to utilize email to interaction with

faculty. Undergraduates further reported that they often receive prompt feedback fi'om

53

faculty on their academic performance. In addition undergraduates often discuss
assignments and grades with instructors. The majority of undergraduates report that they
had a supportive relationship with faculty members within CANR while undergraduates
seldom work with faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation,
student life activities, etc.). Undergraduates rarely discuss ideas from readings or classes
with faculty members outside of class nor do they talk about career plans. The majority
further indicate that they never conducted research with a faculty member.

4. To measure CAN R student level of participation with enriching educational
experiences;

Undergraduate sometimes go to class without completing readings or
assignments. In addition they seldom prepare two or more drafts of a paper or assignment
before turning it in. A majority of undergraduates rarely have the chance to give a class
presentation. Findings further indicated that undergraduates hardly ever tutor or teach
other students (paid or voluntary). The Undergraduate majority also spend between 1 and
15 hours a week preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, and other activities
related to your academic program) and 0 to 5 horns participating in extra curricular
activities (organizations, campus publications, student government, etc.).

Undergraduates will engage in writing 1 to 10 papers or reports of 5 pages or
fewer in a school year. They will also engage in reading 1 to 10 assigned textbooks,
books, or book length packs of course readings while a majority of undergraduates were
not actively in a study abroad experience nor were they engaged in independent study or
self-designed course. In addition the undergraduate majority were not engaged in student

organization not associated with CANR or student organization not associated with the

54

university while a majority of students were engaged in a student organization within
CANR. Undergraduates report that their departments will frequently encourage them to
attend campus events and activities (special speakers, cultural performances, athletic
events, etc.). In addition their departments will sometimes encourage them to interact
with students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds.

5. To assess CANR student’s level of awareness of various supportive campus
environments.

Undergraduates reported that they sometimes had serious conversations with
students who are very different form themselves in terms of their religious beliefs,
political opinions, personal values, race, or ethnicity than their own. In addition
undergraduates infrequently include diverse perspectives (different races, religions,
gender, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions and writing assignments.
Undergraduates reported that CANR has slightly contributed to their knowledge, skills
and personal understanding of people of other racial and ethnic groups. The majority
reports that CANR has rarely helped them understand people of other sexual-orientations.
In addition tmdergraduates report that CANR sometimes provides the support needed to
thrive socially while the majority of undergraduates report that CANR rarely helps you
cape with non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.).

Recommendations

In the area of educational experience a majority of the respondents indicated that
they lack experience in agriculture or natural resources. In addition a majority of the
respondents were not raised on a farm nor did respondent take high school courses in

agriculture or natural resources. Findings further indicate that the majority of respondents

55

were not apart of F F A or 4-H. Recommendations are to encourage students to seek
opportunities to gain educational experience in agriculture and natural resources.

In the area of community service a majority of the respondents are involved in
community service or volunteer work. In addition, they will not perform a community-
based project as part of a regular course. In addition students will not spend any time in
community service work not for pay on campus. Recommendations are to develop
additional commrmity based course projects for students to be engaged.

Respondents reported that they perceive their relationships with faculty members,
administrative personnel and office staff as supportive while respondents report that they
were rarely provided the support needed to thrive socially or help cope with non-
academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.). Recommendations are to facilitate
discussion with respondents to better understand the resources needed by students.

Respondents reported that the CANR has provided them with the experience to
work effectively with others. In addition, respondents report that they seldom included
diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class
discussions and writing assignments. In addition respondents report that CANR rarely
provides them with the knowledge needed to understand people of other ethnic
background or sexual orientations. Recommendations include emphasizing and

encouraging diverse perspective in classroom discussions.

56

Recommendations for Further Research
Additional areas of research may consist of:
1. Utilizing this study as bases in which to analyze futm‘e levels of involvement of
agriculture and natural resources students.
2. Further evaluations of undergraduate to ascertain how student involvement can
lead to a higher quality institution.
3. A follow-up study of CANR undergraduates focusing on the impact of

institutional engagement.

57

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Dear Students,

Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion of undergraduate education within
the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Instructions: The survey will take
approximately 30 minutes to complete. Please read each question carefully before

selecting your answers. Place an X in the box that best represents your answer.

College Activities Items

 

1.

In your experience in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources (CANR) during the current school year, about how
often have you done each of the following?

.raaaN
umPIGS
sampauros

uarjo

8.48le

 

Asked questions in class

 

Contributed to class discussions

 

Conducted research with a faculty member

 

Made a class presentation

 

9.9-99‘s»

Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning
it in

 

Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or
information from various sources

 

Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders,
political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions and writing assignments

 

Came to class without completing readings or assignments

 

Worked with other students on projects during class

 

Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class
assignments

 

Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when
completing assignments or dming class discussions

 

_
a

Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)

 

Participated in a community-based project as part of a regular
course

 

P

Used an electronic medium (list-serv, chat group, Internet, etc.) to
discuss or complete an assignment.

 

Used e-mail to communicate with an instructor

 

Discussed assignments and grades with an instructor

 

Talked about career plans with an advisor

 

 

”-9139

Talked about career plans with a faculty member

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

 

 

 

lillvllhllflh . .

 

\e. T... \

 

In your experience in the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources during the current school year, about how often have
you done each of the following?

.raaeN
movies
samyamos

uago
SKBMIV

 

Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members
outside of class

 

. Received prompt feedback from faculty on your academic

performance (written or oral)

 

Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s
standards or expectations

 

. Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework

(committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.)

 

. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of

class (students, family members, coworkers, etc.)

 

Had serious conversations with students of a different race or
ethnicity than your own

 

. Had serious conversations with students who are very different from

you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal
values

 

 

 

 

 

.N

During the current school year, to what extent has your
coursework emphasized the following mental activities in your
department or school within CANR?

.reAaN
maples

souryauros

umo
SKBMIV

 

. Memorized facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings

so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

 

. Comprehend facts, ideas, or methods from your course and

readings so you can grasp meaning, explain and restate ideas

 

. Analyze the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such

as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering
its components

 

. Synthesized and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into

new, more complex interpretations and relationships

 

. Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or

methods such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data
and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

 

 

Applied theories or concepts to practical problems or in new
situations

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

 

 

. During the current school year, about how much
reading and writing have you done pertaining to
coursework within Department or School within
CANR?

01 P“
g uaamag

won
7 ["18
I mama
oz PM It

uaamag

 

Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length
packs of course readings

 

. Number of books read on your own (not assigned) for
personal enjoyment or academic enrichment

 

. Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more

 

 

. Number of written papers or reports 5 pages or fewer

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Which of the following have you done or do you plan to do before

you graduate?

sax
0N
papiaapun

 

a. Practicum, internship, field experience, or a co-op experience

 

b. Community service or volunteer work

 

c. Participate in a learning community or some other formal
program where groups of students take two or more classes

together

 

(1. Work on a research project with a faculty member outside of

course or program requirements

 

e. Foreign language coursework

 

f. Study abroad

 

 

g. Independent study or self-designed course

 

 

 

 

 

. About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-
day week doing each of the following?

# of hours per week

 

I
91'“
01'91
SZ‘IZ
0992

+082

 

Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, and
other activities related to your academic program)

 

. Community service working not for pay on campus

 

c. Participating in extra curricular activities

(organizations, campus publications, student
government, etc.)

 

. Relaxing and socializing (watching TV, partying,
exercising, etc.)

 

 

. Providing care for dependents living with you
(parents, children, spouse, etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

 

 

 

f. Commuting to class

 

g.

Working for pay on campus

 

 

h.

 

Working for pay off campus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Educational and Personal Growth

 

6.

To what extent has your experience in the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources contributed to your
knowledge, skills and personal development in the
following areas?

Jason

ruoplas
samyaruos

“330

SKBMIV

 

Acquire a broad general education

 

Acquire job or work-related knowledge and skills

 

Write clearly and effectively

 

Speak clearly and effectively

 

Think critically and analytically

 

Analyze quantitative problems

 

Using computing and information technology

 

Fiat-5.99.0571»

Work effectively with others

 

_e
a

Vote in local, state, or national elections

 

I—ae

Learn effectively on your own

 

yr .

Understand yourself

 

_
I

Understand people of other racial (Black, Caucasian, Asia
etc.)

 

B

. Understand people of other ethnic backgrounds (French,

African, Polish, Mexican etc.)

 

Understand people of other sexual-orientations

 

Solve complex real-world problems

 

Contribute to the welfare of your community

 

Develop a personal code of values and ethics

 

 

new???

Develop leadership skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

 

 

Opinions about your Program

 

7. To what extent does your department or school within
CANR emphasize each of the following?

uago
SKBMIV

.raAaN
"109138
samparuos

 

a. Involvement in student organizations

 

b. Providing the support you nwd to help you succeed
academically

 

c. Encouraging contact among students fiom different economic,
social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds

 

(1. Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities
(work, family, etc.)

 

e. Providing the support you need to thrive socially

 

f. Attending campus events and activities (special speakers,
cultural performances, athletic events, etc.)

 

 

 

g. Career, internship opportunities

 

 

8. Mark the box that best represents the quality of your
relationships with people in your department or school
within CANR.

[WMN
aarfiv

86.066
33.183er

Klfiuosrs

 

a. Your relationships with other student were supportive

 

b. Your relationships with Faculty Members were supportive

 

 

c. Your relationships with Administrative Personnel and

 

 

 

 

 

Offices were supportive

 

 

9. How would you evaluate your educational experience thus far within CANR?
CI Poor
Cl Fair
Cl Good
CI Excellent

 

10. If you could start over again, would you pursue the same degree you are now
pursuing?

Cl Definitely no
CI Probably no

CI Probably yes
Cl Definitely yes

 

 

62

Student Attitudes and Perceptions about A 'culture and Natural Resources

 

11. What influenced you most to pursue a
degree in the College of Agriculture
and Natural Resources?

paauanuul
.raaaN
pacuanuul
moplas
paauanuul
amyemos
paouanuul
“9130

pasuanuul

sfiemlv

 

a. Career opportunities

 

. Financial aid/scholarship

 

. Positive reputation of college faculty

 

 

. Relative

 

b
c
d. Mentor
e
f.

Teacher/Counselor

 

g. Agriculture teacher

 

h. Brother/Sister

 

i. Friend

 

 

 

 

 

 

j. Other (please specify)

 

 

Student Background and Characteristics Demographics

 

12. Age:

 

13. Gender: (Check One): Male Female

 

14. Ethnic

WHITE/CAUCASIAN NON-HISPANIC
BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN NON-HISPANIC
CHICANO/MEXICAN AMERICAN

HISPANIC

AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER (ASIAN AIWERICAN)
MULTIRACIAL

ClClClElDCICI

 

15. Are you an international student or foreign national? Yes

No

 

16. What is your current classification in college?
Cl Freshman
C] Sophomore
CI Junior
C] Senior
D Other specify

 

 

 

63

 

 

 

17. What size community did you come from? (Choose one)

D Large metropolitan (over 100,000)

El Suburb of metropolitan city of over 100,000
El Medium urban (10,000-99,999)

13 Small town (less than 10,000)

 

18. Were you raised on a Farm? Yes No

 

19a Did you complete any high school courses in agriculture or natural resources?
Yes No

19b. If yes, do you feel this course helped you make a decision to study in agriculture
and natural resources in college? Yes No

 

20. Have you ever been a:

 

 

a. Member of the FFA Yes No

b. Member of the4-H Yes No

21. Are you a member ofa:

a. Student organizations within CAN R Yes No

b. Student organization not associated with CANR Yes No

c. Student organization not associated with the university Yes No

22. Which of the following best describes where you are living now while attending
college?

Residence (house, apartment, CO-OP etc.) within walking distance of the
institution

Residence (house, apartment, CO—OP etc.) within driving distance

Fraternity or sorority

Dormitory or other campus housing (not fraternity/sorority)

 

 

23. Did either of your parents graduate from college?

No

Yes, father only
Yes, both parents
Yes, mother only
Don’t know

 

 

 

24. Did you start college at MSU or elsewhere?

Started here at MSU
Vocational-technical school
Community or junior college
4-year college other than this one
Other: Specify

 

 

N

5. Did you start your degree in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
or another college?

Started in CANR
Transferred into CANR from another college

 

N

6. What type of experience do you have in Agriculture? (Check one)

None

Paid work experience

Unpaid work experience

Both paid and unpaid work experience

 

N

7. What type of experience do you have in Natural Resources? (Check one)

None

Paid work experience

Unpaid work experience

Both paid and unpaid work experience

llll

 

 

 

28. Do you intend to pursue a career in Agriculture related area as a career choice?
Yes No
29. Do you intend to pursue a career in Natural Resources related area as a career
choice?
Yes No
30. Thinking about this current academic term, how would you characterize your
enrollment?
Full-time Less than full-time

 

 

65

 

 

31. What is your primary degree that you are seeking with in the College of Agriculture

and Natural Resources? (Please check the box that applies)

Agribusiness Management
Agriculture and Natural Resources Communications
Animal Science
Biosystems Engineering
Building Construction Management
Agriscience
Crop and Soil Sciences
Entomology
Environmental Economics and Policy
Environmental Soil Science
Environmental Studies and Application
Fisheries and Wildlife
Food Industry Management
Food Science and Human Nutrition
Forestry
Horticulture
Packaging
Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
Plant Pathology
No preference in Agricultural and Natural Resources
Other specify

llHlllllHllH

 

 

u
N

. Are you seeking a dual degree? Yes No
If yes, in what program?

 

 

U)
U)

. Are you seeking a specialization Yes No
If yes, which

 

 

 

w

4. In your opinion what are some of the positives associated with The College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources?

 

 

 

35. In your opinion what are some the negatives associated with The College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources?

 

 

36. Additional comments regarding The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources?

 

67

 

Appendix B: Email Cover letters

INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO STUDY POPULATION

January 31, 2003

Dear CANR Students,

Welcome back. All of us in the Office of Academic and Student Affairs would
like to wish you the best for this Spring Semester. I want to inform you about an
important study that will be taking place in the weeks ahead. In one week, Leonard
Savala, an ANR graduate student, and Dr. Michael Woods, professor in the department
of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication Systems, will ask
for you participation in completing the Undergraduate Student Involvement
questionnaire. The questionnaire is part of their study to evaluate student involvement
within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Your input will be extremely
valuable to the College in evaluating undergraduate student engagement. The
questionnaire will be entirely online. When they email you the web page link to the
questionnaire, please take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire. Participants will
be entered into a drawing to receive one of three-palm pilots that will be given away at
the completion of the study.

This study will be very helpful to the College. Please take a few minutes to
complete it when you are contacted. If you have any questions or comments please
contact Leonard Savala (savalale@msu.edu) 517/ 353-1835 or Dr. Michael Woods
(mwoods@m§u.edu) 517/355-6580 ext.202.

Thank you and have a great semester,
Eunice Foster

68

lSf EMAIL LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS

February 5, 2003

Dear Student,

Who knows more than you do about the learning environment and opportunities needed
by future undergraduate students? But it’s usually administrators, university faculty, and
others who make the big decisions about an undergraduate education. What has been
missing is the undergraduate students perspectives and opinions of what actually happens
inside and outside of the classroom and what they think about their educational
experience. The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources undergraduate
questionnaire takes about 20 minutes to complete. What you and other undergraduates
say will help the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources to improve the level of
engagement with students. Please take a few minutes to visit the website and complete
and return the survey. There will be three palm pilots given away at the completion of the
study. Therefore, please make sure you complete the questionnaire to be eligible for the
giveaway.

If you are using Pilot via telnet to check your mail please highlight and save the
following address http://www.jsri.msu.edu/siquestionnaire/ Once you have saved the address,
paste it in your web browser (Internet explorer, Netscape Navigator, etc.). Once you have
located the page, please enter your MSU Student PID number and the password:
spartan to access the questionnaire. We ask that if you choose not to participate in the
study that you still access the questionnaire and tell us why.

If you are using Pilot Web Mail (TWIG) or any other email provider, Click on the
hyperlink address http://www.jsri.msu.edu/siquestionnaire/ where you will then be prompted to
enter your MSU Student PH) number and the password: spartan to access the
questionnaire. We ask that if you choose not to participate in the study that you still
access the questionnaire and tell us why.

If you have any questions about the survey, please email either Leonard Savala
(savalale@msu.edu) or Michael Woods Ph.D. (mwoods@msu.edu) or call 517/355-6580
ext.202

Sincerely,

Leonard Savala

69

2"EMAIL LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS

February 19, 2003

Dear Students,

I would like to remind you that your participation is needed in filling out the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Undergraduate Student Involvement Questionnaire. If
you have completed the questionnaire thank you for participation. If you have not
completed the questionnaire please do so at your earliest convenience. Your participation
in this survey is greatly needed. I have provided the web address along with the password
in order for you to access the site. The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
undergraduate questionnaire takes about 20 minutes to complete. There will be three
palm pilots given away at the completion of the study. Therefore, please make sure you
complete the questionnaire to be eligible for the giveaway.

If you are using Pilot via telnet to check yom' mail please highlight and save the
following address http://www.jsri.msu.edu/siquestionnaire/ Once you have saved the address,
paste it in your web browser (Internet explorer, Netscape Navigator, etc.). Once you have
located the page, please enter your MSU Student PID number and the password: Spartan
to access the questionnaire. If you choose not to participate we ask that you still access
the questionnaire and tell why.

If you are using Pilot Web Mail (TWIG) or any other email provider, Click on the
hyperlink address http://www.jsri.msu.edu/siquestionnaire/ where you will then be prompted to

enter your MSU Student PID number and the password: spartan to access the
questionnaire. We ask that if you choose not to participate in the study that you still
access the questionnaire and tell us why.

If you have any questions about the survey, please email either Leonard Savala

(savalale@msu.edu) or Michael Woods Ph.D. (mwoods@_rpsu.edu) or call 517/355-6580
ext202

Sincerely,

Leonard Savala

70

3'” EMAIL LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS

March 3, 2003

Dear Students,

This is a frnal remind to ask you for your participation in filling out the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Undergraduate Student Involvement Questionnaire. If
you have completed the questionnaire, please accept our sincere thank you for
participation. If you have not completed the questionnaire please do so today. Your
participation in this survey is greatly needed. We are especially grateful for your help
because we believe your response will be very useful in determining the level of
engagement of undergraduate students.

If you are using Pilot via telnet to check your mail please highlight and save the
following address http://www.jsri.msu.edu/siquestionnaire/ Once you have saved the address,
paste it in your web browser (Internet explorer, Netscape Navigator, etc.). Once you have
located the page, please enter your MSU Student PID number and the password: Spartan
to access the questionnaire. If you choose not to participate we ask that you still access
the questionnaire and tell why you have chosen not to participate.

If you are using Pilot Web Mail (TWIG) or any other email provider, Click on the
hyperlink address http://www.j sri.msu.edu/siquestionnaire/ where you will then be prompted to
enter your MSU Student PID number and the password: Spartan to access the
questionnaire. We ask that if you choose not to participate in the study that you still
access the questionnaire and tell us why.

If you have any questions about the survey, please email either Leonard Savala
(savalale@msu.edu) or Michael Woods Ph.D. (mwoods@msu.edu) or call 517/355-6580
ext.202

Sincerely,

Michael D. Woods, Ph.D. Leonard Savala
Assistant Professor Research Assistant
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources ANRECS
Education

71

FINAL LETTER TO ADDRESS NON-RESPONDENTS
March 20, 2003
Dear Academic Advisors,

Currently, Leo Savala and I are in the process of collecting data for a study entitled
"College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Undergraduate Student Involvement:
Across Gender, Ethnicity and Experience Level." The objective of this study is to
provide CANR undergraduate students with the opportunity to reflect on and assess their
educational experience, including how and where they spend their time, the types of
assignments they complete, and the nature and quality of their interaction with faculty
and other students.

Specifically, we are asking if you would please send out the email below to your

students. Note that we are asking that you would personalize the email to address

students fi-om your respective programs. This study has been endorsed by Dr. Foster,
Associate Dean of Academics and retains UCRIHS approval. Your assistance is greatly
appreciated. Should you have questions, please contact either myself (mwoods@msu.edu
or 355.6580) or Leo Savala (savalale@msu.edu).

Again, thank you for your time and assistance with this much needed study.
Best regards,
Michael Woods

Assistant Professor
ANRECS

72

Appendix C: Posted Flyer

College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources Undergraduate Student
Involvement Questionnaire

Undergraduate Students,

Who knows more than you do about the learning environment and opportunities needed
by future undergraduate students? The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
undergraduate questionnaire takes about 20 minutes to complete. What you and other
undergraduates say will help the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources to
improve the level of engagement with students. Please take a few minutes to visit the
website and complete and return the survey. There will be three palm pilots given away
at the completion of the study. Therefore, please make sure you complete the
questionnaire to be eligible for the giveaway.

h_ttp://www.jsri.msu.edu/siquestionnaire/

If you have any questions about the survey, please email either Leonard Savala
(savalale@msu.edu) or Michael Woods Ph.D. (mwoods@msu.edu) or call 517/355-6580
ext202

73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

References Cited

Astin, AW. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin. AW. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of priorities
and practices in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ballou, R., Bowers, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, DA. (1999). Fellowship in lifelong
learning: An executive development program for advanced professionals. Journal
of Management Education, 1999, 23(4), 338-3 54.

Banta, T. W., & Associates (1993). Making a diflerence: Outcomes of a decade of
assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Banta, T. W., & Associates (2002). Building a scholarship of assessment. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to leaming--A new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change, 13-25.

Boud, D., Cohen, R. & Walker, D. (Eds). (1993). Using experiencefor learning.
Buckingham: SHRE and Open University Press.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1991). Assessing individuality in learning: The learning
skills profile. An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology,
11(3-4), 279-295.

Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass, Inc.

Burstein, L., Oakes, 1., & Guiton, G. (1992). Education indicators. In M.C. Alkin (Ed),
Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 409-418). New York:
MacMillan.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

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. 2nd ed. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

74

Clark, B., Heist, P., McConnell, M., Trow, M., & Young, G. (1972). Students and
colleges: [interaction and change. Berkeley: University of California, Center for
Research and Development in Higher Education.

Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership, 4 7(2).

C orball y, J. E. (1989). Preserving a quality environment for learning: Second
international symposium, pp. 5-9. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New
York: Wiley and Sons.

Dyer, J. E., Lacey, R., & Osborne, E.W. (1996). Attitudes of university of Illinois college
of agriculture freshmen toward agriculture. Journal of A gricultural Education
37(3), 43-51.

Education Commission of the States (1995). Making quality count in undergraduate
education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Ewell, P. T., & Jones, DP. (1993). Actions matter: The case for indirect measures in

assessing higher education's progress on the national education goals. Journal of
General Education, 42, 123-48.

Ewell, P. T., & Jones, DP. (1996). Indicators of good practice in undergraduate
education: A handbook for development and implementation. Boulder, C 010. :
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

Foyle, H. C., & Baily, G. D. (1985). Homework in the classroom: Can it make a
diflerence in student achievement? Paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference
of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Chicago.

Heath, D. H. (1968). Growing up in college: Liberal education and maturity. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hood, AB. (1986). The Iowa student development inventories. Iowa City, Iowa: Hitech
Press.

Jones, VA. (1938). Attitudes of college students and changes in such attitudes during
four years in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 29, 14-35.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. (1997).

Returning to our roots: The student experience. Washington, D. C.: National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

75

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. (1998).
Returning to our roots: Student access. Washington, D. C.: National Association
of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges
and universities. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report, No. 1.
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J ., & associates (1991). Involving colleges:
Encouraging student learning and personal development through out-of-class
experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D. (1999). The college student report. National survey of student engagement,
center for postsecondary research and planning. Bloomington: Indiana
University.

Kuh, G. D., Hu, 8., & Vesper, N. (2000). 'They shall be known by what they do': An
activities-based typology of college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 41, 228-244.

Kuh, G. D. (2001) Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the national
survey of student engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17, 66.

McConnell, T. (1934). Changes in scores on the psychological examination of the
American council on education from freshman to senior year. Journal of
Education Psychology, 25 , 66-69.

McCormick, D. F ., & Whittington, M. S. (2000). Assessing academic challenges for their

contribution to cognitive development. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(3),
1 14-122.

Meyer, J. H. (1997). Re-engineering the land grant college of agriculture. University of
California Printing Services, Davis.

Meyer, J. H. (1998). The historical trek of the land grant college of agriculture: Past,
present and future. University of California Printing Services.

Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching students to think critically. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Miller, G., & Shih, C. (1999). A faculty assessment of the academic rigor of on-and off-
campus courses in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(1), 57-65.

Myers, 1. B., & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Palo
Alto, Calif.: Davies-Black.

76

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (1994). A preliminary study
of the feasibility and utility for national policy of instructional good practice
indicators in undergraduate education. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems.

National Institute of Education, Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in
American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the
potential of A merican higher education. Washington, DC: US. Government
Printing Office.

National Research Council. (1992). Agriculture and the undergraduate. [Proceedings of
the Board on Agriculture, National Research Council] Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

Newcomb, L. H., & Trefz, M. K. (1987). Levels of cognition of student tests and
assignments in the college of agriculture at The Ohio State University.
Proceedings of the Central Region 41st Annual Research Conference in
Agricultural Education, Chicago, IL.

Pace, C. R. (1982). Achievement and the quality of student effort. Washington, DC:
National Commission on Excellence in Education.

Pace, C. R. (1989). The undergraduates: A report of their activities and progress in
college in the 19903. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University
of California, Los Angeles.

Pace, C. R., & Kuh, G. D. (1998). College student experiences questionnaire.
Bloomington, Ind.: Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college qflects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pickford, J. C., & Newcomb, L. H. (1989). Relationship of cognitive level of instruction
to students’ cognitive level of achievement. NAC TA Journal. 33(2), 56-59.

Pressy, S. L. (1946). Changes from 1923 to 1943 in the attitudes of public school and
university students. Journal of Psychology, 21, 173-188.

Prince, J. S., Miller, T. K., & Winston, R B., Jr. (1974) Student developmental task
inventory. Athens, Ga: Student Development Associates.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1982). Highlights from research on effective schools.
Educational Leadership, 40, 67.

77

Radhakrishna, R. B., & Xu, W. (1997). A review of subject matter topics researched in
agricultural and extension education. Journal of Agricultural Education. 38 (3),
59-69.

Ratcliff, J. L., Jones, E. A., Guthrie, D. S., & Oehler, D. (1991). The effect of coursework
patterns, advisement, and course selection on the development of general learned
abilities of college graduates. Final Report. University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University, Center for the Study of Higher Education.
Research in Higher Education. 36(1), 23-39.

Reagan, G., Clausen, W., Clay, M.E., Demana. F., Fechheimer, H., Grant, D., Grant. K.,
Krasniewski, R.., et al. (1987). The Ohio State University interim report of the
special committee for undergraduate curriculum review. Columbus, OH: The
Ohio State University.

Snyder, B. R. (1971). The hidden curriculum. New York: Knopf.

Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning
environments that work. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally diflerent: Theory and practice.
(2nd ed.) New York: Wiley.

Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting
the development of students’ critical thinking skills. Research in Higher
Education. 36(1), 23-39.

Tinzmann, M.B., Jones, B.F., Fennimore, T.F., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990).
The collaborative classroom: Reconnecting teachers and learners,
videoconference 3. Restructuring to promote learning in America ’s schools, a
guidebook. Elrnhurst, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 931).

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (1973). The ecosystem model:
designing campus environments. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education.

Winston, R. B. (1990). The student developmental task and lifestyle inventory: An
approach to measuring students' psychosocial development. Journal of College
Student Development, 31(2),]08-120.

Ziegler, S. (1986). Homework. Ontario: Toronto Board of Education.

78

General References

References Consulted
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Atkinson, D., Morten, G., & Sue, D. (1993) Counseling American minorities: A cross-
cultural perspective. Madison, Wis.: Brown & Benchmark.

Banks, J. A. (1993). The cannon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural
education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4-14.

Bonwell, C. C., & Sutherland, T. E. (1996). The active learning continuum: Choosing
activities to engage students in the classroom In Sutherland, T. E., and Bonwell,
C. C. (Eds.), Using active learning in college classes: A range of options for
faculty, New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 67

Cross, W. E., Strauss, L., & Fhagen-Smith, P.(1999). Afi'ican American identity
development across the life span: Educational implications. In R. Sheets & E.
Hollins (eds.), Racial and ethnic identity in school practices. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Delworth, G. Hanson and Associates (eds) (1980). Student services: A hanfiook for the
Profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N. J ., F omey, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F.(1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

F eldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the
quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a difflrent voice: Psychological theory and women's development.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Havemann, E., & West, P. (1968). They went to college. Orlando, F 1a.: Harcourt Brace,
1952.

Holland, J. L. (195 8). Vocational preference inventory (vpi): Professional manual.
Odessa, Fla: Psychological Assessment Resources.

79

Holland, J. L. (1994). The self-directed search (sds): Professional manual. Odessa, Fla.:
Psychological Assessment Resom'ces.

Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Jacob, P. E. (1957). Changing values in college: An exploratory study of the impact of
college teaching. New York: Harper Collins.

Katz, J ., & Korn, H. A.(1968). No time for youth: Growth and constraint in college
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding
and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the ideas
of Justice. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.

Kuh, G. D. (1981). Indices of quality in the undergraduate experience. AAHE-
ERIC/Higher Education Research Report, No. 4. Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.

Kuh, G. D., & Stage, F. K. (1992). Student development theory and research. In B. R.
Clark and G. Neave (eds.), Encyclopedia of Higher Education. New York:
Pergamon.

Kuh, G. D., Vesper, N., & Krehbiel, L. (1994). Student learning at metropolitan
universities. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research, 10 (pp. 1-44), New York: Agathon.

Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in
students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, J. H. (1995) Transforming the land grant college of agriculture for the twenty-
first century. University of California, Davis.

Moos, R. H., & Brownstein, R. (1977). Environment and utopia: A synthesis. New York:
Plenum.

Moos, R. H., & Gerst, M. (1976). University residence environment scale manual. Palo
Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R. H., & Insel, P. M. (1974). Issues in social ecology: Human milieus. Palo Alto,
Calif.: National Press Books.

80

Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. (1976). Classroom environment scale manual. Palo Alto,
Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: J ossey—Bass.

National Survey of Student Engagement (2000). The NSSE 2000 report: National
benchmarks of ejfective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning

Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change. Orlando, F 1a.: Dryden Press

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:
A scheme. Austin, Tex.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rodgers, R. F. (1989). Student development. In U. Delworth, G. R. Hanson and
Associates (eds.), Student services: A hancflrook for the profession (2nd ed) San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sanford, N. (ed.). (1962). The American college: A psychological and social
interpretation of the higher learning. New York: Wiley.

Shaw, J. D. (2000). Applicability of baxter magolda's epistemological reflection model to
black and latino students. University of South Florida, Dissertation Abstracts.

Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context. New York: Wiley.

The Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education (1984).
Involvement in learning. Washington, DC: US. Department of Education.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
(2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

White, R. W. (1952). Lives in progress. Orlando, Fla: Dryden Press.

81

IIIt'llBlilllllflllI