1:3 . urn V
ﬁm V ..
.. RWWWMF .

m1: k......z..n.3....

. . dyer. 45.3. r

n w. 4.. {a} ‘

.I 1 \l

. O
..
Shauna
Pow?
. urmmwwu «aw... #1 i
:.. aw: :Cnm: unﬁnﬁm . ....: ,
FE”? .111. ...$Am:u.t.u%‘a .4 n.
as}: .r: 1.. ”lvfu.é... ..
ﬁr imam»? .ﬁpmamam.
: . “ml .5:

7 in. 4.... .
I

.
v
0

$4...-
a“...
.5:

..
. “35.5.“... i
5...)...» if...
2...»... {53... :
Mean .99.:

-. 3",

15;...) . .
.. Jun .
.5. . .
t . . . 5.39.5.
: , .8: $.55... .
.. 684...: ._w.. u ..
.Hv...a:h.. x192“. ..

F“:
33413:?”
3:31 ,
5 ' 4--
5.29%:

m,

(9

z !
.urivnt‘vxdur

1.20::4: .
«n

A full .
1 4.5:], .

1.: It:
3:.- st: .3... :
ﬁll: :p\$b)\vls
{viiutw‘} .le‘zul
i}? at! 15. 0CA.13‘
. o 3:“... v.9)..L
1y . .....l.{.
an!

.
‘a
4:!
.

‘b
’:

:33.
. 55’

‘33...

3!.» : . .A
ﬁrth.)
Jar!

 

, $9.13.: . . ..... , .
4.2."... 5.; .E..EVE.....§....»...J I .
)1 .5...) true. . . so“) : . .
1. txﬂmmamvﬁum: , . :1:.) $34.“.
. Lee ,I

 

_.- YHESLEI

3
Q0“ LIBRARY
l Michigan State,
University 4

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

COLLEGE STUDENTS’ REASONS TO ATTEND COLLEGE
AND LEARNING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

presented by

Jennifer P Hodges

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature

K’l ﬁlo"?

 

Date

MSU is an afﬁrmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

o.--.-.---.---—-—-—.-.---~---.--n--.--.-.-.-.-.—.-.—.-.-.—.—._.—.-.-.-.-._.-.—.—.-—--.-.-.-.-._---------—-—o-—

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

 

DAIEDUE

DAIEDUE

DAIEDUE

 

BMM b 2010

 

P921933?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd—p.1

COLLEGE STUDENTS’ REASONS TO ATTEND COLLEGE
AND LEARNING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

By

Jennifer P. Hodges

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

2007

ABSTRACT

COLLEGE STUDENTS’ REASONS TO ATTEND COLLEGE
AND LEARNING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

By
Jennifer P. Hodges

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the potential relationship
between reasons for attending college and participation in a learning community. I was
particularly interested in investigating the processes by which students shaped their own
educational environments through the choices they made regarding curricular, co-
curricular, and extra-curricular opportunities and the role reasons for attending college
played in those processes. The speciﬁc focus of the study was the question: What
relationship, if any, exists between Michigan State University College of Natural Science
students’ reasons to attend college and whether or not they participate in the Lyman
Briggs School (LBS), a residential learning community. I used a mixed method approach,
utilizing both a survey and semi-structured interviews.

The primary purpose of the survey was to explore the importance that participants
placed on 30 speciﬁc reasons for attending college and whether or not those reasons were
related to participation in a residential learning community. Factor analysis suggested
ﬁve subscales of reasons for attending college: Individual Development, Civic
Leadership, Personal Connections, Default—Indifferent, and Expectation-Driven.
Demographic characteristics were examined for signiﬁcant differences in learning
community participation. There were no differences in participation based on sex,
racial/ethnic identiﬁcation, or social class. Degree aspiration and parent’s educational

attainment did show a signiﬁcant difference between those who chose to participate in a

learning community program and those who did not. Both the individual survey questions
and the subscales were examined to determine if any of these items was related to the
decision to participate in a learning community program. Five individual items were
signiﬁcantly different.

The 23 semi-structured interviews resulted in four themes about the purpose of
college: preparing for life after college, broadening horizons, meeting new people, and
taking advantage of the opportunity in order to be a role model to others. The ﬁrst theme
had ﬁve components: determining their calling, learning to be an adult/ growing up,
acquiring general knowledge needed for life after college, gaining the credential
necessary for their chosen career, and learning speciﬁc skills/knowledge. The participants
also talked about how their ideas about the purpose of college were shaped by parents
and other family members, high school teachers and counselors, peers, higher education
institution official representatives, the media, and current college students.

In addition to talking about their goals for college, participants also shared their
reasons for participation in a number of different curricular, co-curricular, and extra-
curricular activities. These decisions were shaped by not only their reasons for attending
college, but also by the perceptions they had about the value of the opportunities and the
formulas they had developed for being a college student and for preparing for medical
and/or graduate school. Regarding participation in the learning community, participants
said that the LBS provided prestige, educational beneﬁts, and logistical beneﬁts. Non-
participants expressed concern about not experiencing diversity of thought, the perceived

difficulty of the LBS program, and the extra courses that would be involved.

Copyright by
JENNIFER P. HODGES

2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

An endeavor as signiﬁcant as pursing a doctoral degree is not simply one
individual’s journey but the culmination of interactions with and support provided by
colleagues, ﬁ'iends, students, faculty, and family. My successﬁil completion of this
journey, my dissertation, could not have been possible without the support and
encouragement of the individuals I acknowledge here.

First, I want to thank my committee: Kristen Renn, Jim Fairweather, Geoff
Habron, and Matt Wawrzynski. I especially want to recognize the role Kris played in my
development as a scholar. She encouraged me to take full advantage of opportunities to
stretch my research wings beyond the capacity I thought possible. She is an inspiring
mentor and a much valued ﬁ'iend. I am also indebted to Jim for his thoughtful comments
on my papers and projects from my ﬁrst course in the program to my last.

I am grateful for my cohort who shared my journey through classes and
intellectual discussions over countless cups of coffee. I would not be the person I am
today without the ﬁ'iendships I formed with my cohort mates. I am particularly thankful
for Melissa McDaniels and all of our nerdy discussions about theoretical frameworks (or
is it conceptual frameworks) and other occasionally haughty topics.

A number of my colleagues and friends at Michigan State and beyond encouraged
me along the way by helping me balance my professional and personal obligations with
my doctoral adventures. I extend a hearty thank you to Julie Amon, Bernadette Friedrich,

Anne Homak, Nancy Lange, Amy Radford-Popp, and Mary Woemer. I am indebted to

Philip Strong and Steve Poulios for assistance with contacting professors and gaining
access to students.

Several faculty members provided me with access to their classes in order to
recruit participants. I am very appreciative of their willingness to support my research. I
also thank the 600)— students who took the time to complete my survey. I am particularly
grateful to the 23 students who shared their goals and expectations for college with me
during the interview portion of my study.

Finally, none of this would have been possible without the love and
encouragement of my family. Although they can’t always explain what I do for a living
and often wonder why I seem to have spent most of my life in school, I have beneﬁted
from their support and their pride in me. I am particularly thankful for my mom, Judy
Parker, and my dad, John Hodges. They have supported me in all of my academic

endeavors and provided the foundation for my success.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLE ..................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ _ ........ xi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Measuring Students’ Reasons for Attending College ................................. 4
Linking Students’ Reasons for Attending College to Student Learning
Outcomes ........................................................................................... 6
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 9
Research Design .......................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2
Introduction ................................................................................................. 12
Students’ Reasons for Attending College ................................................... 12
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................... 26
Learning Communities ............................................................................... 33
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 3
Introduction ................................................................................................. 38
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 38
Research Approach ...................................................................................... 39
Research Design .......................................................................................... 40
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 66
CHAPTER 4
Introduction ................................................................................................. 68
Scale Analysis ............................................................................................. 68
Reasons for Attending College Proﬁles ...................................................... 75
Difference Exploration ................................................................................ 82
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 88
CHAPTER 5
Introduction ................................................................................................. 90
Participant Description ................................................................................ 91
The Purpose of a College Education ........................................................... 93
The Perception of the Lyman Briggs School as a Learning Environment.. 107
Formulas for Reaching College Goals ........................................................ 114
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 125

vii

CHAPTER 6

Introduction ................................................................................................. 126
A Model of the Relationship between Reasons for Attending and
Participation .................................................................................... 127
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 147
CHAPTER 7
Introduction ................................................................................................. 148
The Findings from Phase 1: The Survey .................................................... 149
The Findings from Phase 2: The Semi-Structured Interviews .................... 153
Limitations ................................................................................................... I63
Implications for Practice ............................................................................. 165
Areas for Future Research .......................................................................... 169
Conclusions ................................................................................................. 171
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Survey Instrument ............................................................... 172
Appendix B — Interview Protocol ............................................................... 175
Appendix C — Survey Consent Form .......................................................... 176
Appendix D — Interview Consent Form ...................................................... 177
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 178

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 F irst-Year, F irst-Time Student Demographics .......................................... 47
Table 2 CEM 141 Fall 2006 enrollment ................................................................. 49
Table 3 Survey Respondent Demographics ............................................................ 52-53
Table 4 Survey Respondents, First-Year, First-Time Students .............................. 55-56
Table 5 Survey Items by Category .......................................................................... 59
Table 6 Internal Consistency of Initial Subscales ................................................... 69
Table 7 Comparison of Eigenvalues and Parallel Analysis .................................... 70
Table 8 Pattern Matrix for Five Factor Solution ..................................................... 71
Table 9 Structure Matrix for Five Factor Solution ................................................. 72
Table 10 Component Correlation Matrix ................................................................ 73
Table 11 F actored Subscales with Coefﬁcient Alpha ............................................. 74
Table 12 Individual Development Subscale ........................................................... 77
Table 13 Civic Leadership Subscale ....................................................................... 78
Table 14 Personal Connections Subscale ............................................................... 78
Table 15 Default-Indifferent Subscale .................................................................... 79
Table 16 Expectation-Driven Subscale ................................................................... 79
Table 17 Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Scores, Full Sample .......................... 80
Table 18 Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Scores, Cluster 1 .............................. 81
Table 19 Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Scores, Cluster 2 .............................. 81
Table 20 Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Scores, Cluster 3 .............................. 81

ix

Table 21 Learning Community Participants and Non-Participants by Cluster

Group ........................................................................................................... 82
Table 22 Degree Aspiration .................................................................................... 84
Table 23 Mother’s Level of Education ................................................................... 85
Table 24 Father’s Level of Education ..................................................................... 85
Table 25 Individual Item Comparisons for ﬁrll sample .......................................... 86
Table 26 Individual Item Comparisons for LBS and CNS non-participants .......... 87
Table 27 T-test results ............................................................................................. 88
Table 28 Interview participant demographics ......................................................... 92

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A Model of the Relationship between Reasons to Attend College and

Participation ......................................................................... 129
Figure 2. Julie’s participation in LBS ...................................................................... 131
Figure 3. Drew’s non-participation in LBS ........................................................... 131
Figure 4. Bryan’s non-participation in LBS ............................................................ 132
Figure 5. Maggie’s participation in LBS ................................................................. 132
Figure 6. Kathie’s participation in LBS ................................................................... 133
Figure 7. Maggie’s participation in LBS ................................................................. 133
Figure 8. Mingmei’s participation in LBS ............................................................... 134
Figure 9. Maggie’s participation in LBS ................................................................. 135
Figure 10. Ildi’s non-participation in LBS ............................................................... 135
Figure 11: Maggie’s decision to attend MSU .......................................................... 136
Figure 12: Anya’s participation in volunteer activities ............................................ 137
Figure 13. Kevin’s plan to participate in research activities .................................... 137
Figure 14. Charlie’s plan to be a Mentor ................................................................. 138
Figure 15. Jasmin’s decision to participate in the Indian student organization ....... 139
Figure 16. Anya’s participation in Service .............................................................. 139
Figure 17. Anne’s non-participation in Service ....................................................... 140

Figure 18. Natalie’s willingness to explore the social aspects of the residence
hall ............................................................................................................... 140

Figure 19. Mingrnei’s participation in the PA program ........................................... 141

xi

Figure 20. Anne’s non-participation in Study Abroad ............................................. 142

Figure 21. John’s decision to not pursue an engineering major .............................. 142
Figure 22. Ildi’s explanation for not participating in Study Abroad ....................... 143
Figure 23. Kathie’s search for involvement activities ............................................ 144
Figure 24. Bryan’s attendance at an opera .............................................................. 144
Figure 25. Heather’s attendance at the Women’s Leadership Conference ............. 145
Figure 26. Dan’s participation in the sailing club ................................................... 145
Figure 27. Drew’s participation in Study Abroad ................................................... 147

xii

CHAPTER 1
Introduction

When students come to college they are faced with a number of choices regarding
their education. Prior to matriculation, students make choices about which institutional
characteristics are most important to them (e.g., size, cost, academic selectivity) with
input from a variety of sources, such as family, educators, peers, and information from
higher education institutions (Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999). Much of the research on
college choice has focused on who chooses to attend college and how factors leading to
college attendance impact retention and degree completion (e.g., Cabrera, Burkum, & La
Nasa, 2003; Tinto, 1993). Not as much is known about how students’ reasons for
attending college affect their learning and development.

Even after students have made their choices regarding whether to attend college
and where to attend, they still have a number of decisions to make that will shape how
they experience college. Although institutional policies sometimes restrict their options
(e. g., on-campus residence requirements, remedial courses, ﬁnancial aid requirements),
students shape their own educational environments through the choices they make
regarding curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular opportunities. Astin (1993b)
referred to this phenomenon as “self-produced environmental experiences” (p. 83).

Research on the impact of college on students has often focused on Astin’s (1984)
proposition that the amount of student learning is proportional to the quantity and quality
of student involvement (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991 , 2005). Astin (1984) posited that
“the effectiveness of educational policy or practice is directly related to the capacity of

that policy or practice to increase student involvement” (p. 308). Similarly, recent

research by Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, and Whitt (2005a, 2005b) has focused on how
institutions can promote student engagement, deﬁned as “the amount of time and effort
students put into their studies and other activities that lead to the experiences and
outcomes that constitute student success” (2005a, p. 4).

Increased interest in how institutions can encourage students to engage more
purposefully in the college experience has led to a variety of suggestions about how to
enhance the quality of undergraduate education. These recommendations have focused on
the outcomes of a college education as well as on how institutions should structure the
delivery of educational opportunities. The Association of American Colleges and
Universities (AAC&U) (2002, 2005) argued that fostering liberal education outcomes is
the best way to prepare students for the future. The American College Personnel
Association (ACPA) and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(N ASPA) advocated for an integration of curricular and co-curricular learning that would
lead to transforrnative education (Keeling, 2004). Chickering and Gamson (1987)
proposed that good practice in undergraduate education encourages student-faculty
contact, cooperation among students, and active learning; gives prompt feedback;
emphasizes time on task; communicates high expectations; and respects diverse talents
and ways of learning.

These recommendations have spurred a number of pedagogical innovations and
programmatic initiatives such as: collaborative learning, active learning, experiential
education, service learning, online and hybrid courses, study abroad programs, and
learning communities (Keeling, 2004; Poindexter, 2003; Schoem, 2002; Steffes, 2004).

Cross (1998). noted that learning community programs are especially popular because

they provide a space for the social construction of knowledge, they allow for more
faculty-student interaction, and they help institutions “meet their missions of educating
students for lives of work and service” (p. 11). The efﬁcacy of any of these strategies for
enhancing undergraduate educationis contingent on students’ participation and quality
involvement.

Bloomer and Hodkinson (1997, 1999, 2000) posited that students’ approaches to
college, such as decisions about participating in speciﬁc learning opporttmities, are
inﬂuenced by their ideas about the purpose of college. A greater understanding of how
students construct their reasons for attending college and how those reasons inﬂuence
their choices regarding involvement in the college experience could help educators
develop a more nuanced understanding of why a common learning experience might
result in a variety of learning outcomes.

Students’ views about the purposes of postsecondary education have been referred
to by a number of labels such as: motivations (e.g., Cote & Levine, 1997), goals (e.g.,
Stark, Shaw, & Lowther, 1989), purposes (e.g., Bloomer & Hodkinson, 2000), aspirations
(e.g., Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999), expectations (e.g., Miller, Bender, Schuh, &
Associates, 2005), dispositions (e.g., Terenzini & Reason, 2005), and reasons (e.g., Pryor
et al., 2005). Throughout this dissertation, I will use the phrases reason for attending
college or reason to attend college to represent all of these terms. When referring to
speciﬁc studies, I will use the term chosen by the researcher. In the remainder of this
chapter, I will introduce information regarding students’ reasons for attending college,

discuss how students’ reasons for attending interact with their learning outcomes, and

propose the use of an ecology lens to explore the potential relationship between reasons
for attending college and participation in a learning community.
Measuring Students’ Reasons for Attending College

Since 1966 the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) has surveyed
ﬁrst-time, full-time ﬁ'eshmen at American colleges and universities about their values,
attitudes, and attributes to produce the annual The American Freshmen National Norms.
Each year between 350,000 and 400,000 students ﬁ'om approximately 700 institutions
participate in the survey (Sax, 2003). Included in the annual survey are questions about
how important various reasons were in students’ decisions to go to college. Survey
participants are also asked about the importance of a number of general life goals.

Two pairs of questions often receive notice in the trends reports that CIRP
produces every ﬁve years. From the question about reasons for deciding to go college, the
answers for To be able to make more money and To ﬁnd my purpose in life are often
contrasted. From the question about general life goals the answers for Being very well oﬁr

ﬁnancially and Developing a meaningful philosophy of life are often contrasted. When
the survey began in 1966, both To ﬁnd my purpose in life and Developing a meaningful
philosophy of life were viewed by students as much more important than To be able to
make more money and Being very well oﬂﬁnancially (Astin, Parrott, Korn, & Sax, 1997;
Astin, Oseguera, Sax, & Korn, 2002). Since the late 19703, the answers have reversed in
priority. For 2005, 71% of students marked T o be able to make more money as essential
or very important while only 51.7% marked To ﬁnd my purpose in life as essential or
very important (Pryor et al., 2005). The gap between Being very well oﬂﬁnancially and

Developing a meaningful philosophy of Iiﬁ: is even wider, 74.5% and 45% respectively.

Sax (2003) noted that trends in the National Norms are a reﬂection of not only
changes in college students but also changes in American society. In a report
commissioned by the AAC&U, Hart (2004) found that parents ranked the following
outcomes of college as most important: sense of maturity, critical thinking skills,
communication skills, problem-solving skills, and computer skills. The general public
agreed that a sense of maturity was most important, but expressed that leadership skills
and civic responsibility were also of high importance. Although business executives
(potential employers of college graduates) agreed with parents that critical thinking skills,
communication skills, problem-solving skills, and computer skills were of high
importance, they also expected that the college experience would instill strong work
habits, self-discipline, teamwork skills, and cultural/global awareness (Hart, 2004).

Hart (2004) found that students were focused on outcomes they felt would best
serve them in future career success: sense of maturity, time-management skills, strong
work habits, self-discipline, and teamwork skills. Though these student expectations
mirror the more concrete outcomes employers are seeking, students do not seem to
embrace the liberal education expectations that are endorsed by both employers and
educators. It is not surprising that college students are commonly focused on developing
career skills they think will beneﬁt them in their immediate future. In a longitudinal study
of the ambitions and educational plans of teenagers, Schneider and Stevenson (1999)
found that “Most young people are worried about their futures and believe attaining a

college degree is critical for ﬁnding a ﬁrst real job” (p. 4).

Linking Students’ Reasons for Attending College to Student Learning Outcomes

Although efforts to collect data regarding students’ expectations of college
outcomes are not uncommon, most research regarding institutional effectiveness has
focused on whether students have adopted the institution’s values and objectives
regarding their education (Stark, et al., 1989). For example, Kuh, et al. (2005a, 2005b)
recommended that to enhance student engagement institutions should strive to create an
environment of shared responsibility for educational quality and student success based on
a “shared commitment to the institution’s mission” (2005a, p. 36). Educators disagree
about the usefulness of incorporating students’ goals because those goals are perceived to
be career focused rather than intellectually focused (Stark & Lattuca, 1997). Tagg (2004)
noted that students put more energy into personally selected goals, but educational goals
prescribed by others are given priority through external mechanisms such as grading and
certiﬁcation. Because students’ goals can contribute to their success or failure, Stark and
Lattuca recommended that faculty at least be aware of, and ideally try to create a bridge
between, students’ learning goals and their teaching goals.

Utilizing Astin’s (1993b) input-environment-output (I-E-O) model as a
framework, cote and Levine (1997, 2000) conceptualized motivation for college
attendance as an input variable. They posited that motivation for college attendance,
shaped by prior experiences with family, earlier educational environments, and the
workplace, could be used as an input factor to predict college outcomes. They detailed
ﬁve categories of motivation for college attendance: careerism-materialism, personal-
intellectual development, humanitarian, expectation—driven, and default. They found that

goodness of ﬁt between a student’s motivation for college and the institution’s goals was

a better predictor of skills acquisition and academic achievement than intelligence,
measured by IQ (2000).

Bloomer and Hodkinson (Bloomer, 1996, 1997; Bloomer & Hodkinson, 1997,
1999, 2000) proposed the concept of learner dispositions to shed light on how students
shape their educational experiences. Learner dispositions are shaped by the social,
cultural, political, economic, and other contexts within which the learning experiences
occur and are composed of: learners’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge, their views
about the purpose of postsecondary education, the values they place on particular areas of
study and learning experiences, their assessment of their abilities based on prior learning
experiences, and their approaches to learning. Learner dispositions inﬂuence the learner’s
choice of learning opportunities with which to engage as well as the strategies to utilize
in those various learning opportunities (Bloomer & Hodkinson, 1999).

Conceptual Framework

Astin (1993b) noted that understanding the effects of “self-produced
environmental experiences” (p. 83) on students’ learning outcomes presents a challenge
to researchers because the variety of environmental experiences produced is as diverse as
the number of students at an institution. Renn and Arnold (Renn 2003, 2004; Rem &
Arnold, 2003) recommended the use of Bronfenbrenner’s (1976, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995)
human ecology model of development, the process-person-context-time (PPCT) model,
to study the processes that shape the college student experience. Renn (2004) noted that
in the PPCT model, “the environment and the individual shape — and are shaped by — one

another; the model represents a dynamic, shifting relationship of reciprocal inﬂuence” (p.

29). Bronfenbrenner’s model provides a ﬁamework for studying not only the outcomes of
the college experience, but also the processes that shape those outcomes.

In the PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1973, 1989, 1993), the person is made
up of the characteristics of the person, the person’s subjective view of the situation, and
the reciprocity between the person and the environment. Consequently, the impact of
college on students cannot be understood without considering how the students conceived
the educational environments with which they interacted. Prior to attending college,
students’ conception of the college environment is shaped by various aspects of the
contexts in which they grew up, such as family, prior educational experiences, and the
workplace (Cété & Levine, 1997).

Bronfenbrenner (1976, 1979, 1989, 1993) conceptualized the context as a
hierarchy of systems at four levels moving from proximal to distal: the microsystem, the
mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem. The contexts Cété and Levine (1997)
noted, family, previous educational experiences, and the workplace, are examples of
microsystems. Bloomer and Hodkinson (1997, 1999, 2000) focused on macrosystems, the
larger social, cultural, political, economic contexts within which learners interact.
Learning community programs represent mesosystems because the structures of the
programs allow for students’ different microsystems to interact. The forces that prompt
institutions to develop innovative pedagogies and educational programs, such as
institutional missions and calls for accountability, are examples of exosystems.

The process aspect of this study is focused on how students’ characteristics
interact with the structures created by the higher education environment to result in the

outcome of participation in a learning community. Bronfenbrenner (1989, 1993)

introduced the concept of developmentally instigative characteristics (DIC) to explore
how a person’s characteristics evoked certain responses from the environment that might
enhance or impede development. Similarly, learner dispositions inﬂuence the likelihood
that a student will interact with various aspects of the educational environment (Bloomer
& Hodkinson, 1997, 1999, 2000). Institutions provide students with a variety of learning
opportunities that can potentially result in desired student learning outcomes.
Bronfenbrenner (1989) referred to these types of opportunities as ecological niches or
“regions in the environment that are especially favorable or unfavorable to the
development of individuals with particular personal characteristics” (p. 194).
Purpose of the Study

Examining all aspects of learner disposition or all ecological niches in the higher
education environment was outside the scope of the current study. Instead I focused on
reasons for attending college and the decision to participate in a learning community
program. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential relationship between
reasons for attending college and participation in a learning community. In addition, both
the processes through which students develop their reasons for attending college and how
students perceive the value of learning community participation were explored. Although
the context of this study was learning communities, the ﬁndings may also shed light on
students’ decisions regarding participation in other pedagogical innovations and
programmatic initiatives.

Speciﬁcally, this study was designed to address the following research question:
What relationship, if any, exists between Michigan State University College of Natural

Science students’ reasons to attend college and whether or not they participate in the

Lyman Briggs School, a residential learning community? In order to explore the potential
relationship, I also investigated the following:
A. What are the proﬁles of reasons for attending college among ﬁrst-year students
enrolled in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University?
B. Are there differences between those students who chose to participate in the
College of Natural Science’s residential learning community program, the Lyman
Briggs School, and those who chose not to participate in terms of their reasons for
attending college?
C. Through what processes do students develop their reasons for attending college?
D. How do students perceive the impact learning community participation will have
on their ability to achieve their reasons for attending college?
Research Design
The research design I used for this study is a sequential exploratory, mixed
method design (Creswell, 2003; Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003;
Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). Phase one of the study involved a survey that focused on
how relevant a variety of reasons for attending college are to the participants.
Demographic data were also gathered through the survey. Phase two involved semi-
structured interviews that focused on the processes used by the participants in
constructing their reasons for attending college and their perceptions of the usefulness of
the learning community opportunity.
The remainder of this dissertation consists of a literature review, the methodology
used, the ﬁndings from both the survey and the semi-structured interviews, a proposed

model of the, relationship between reasons and participation, and implications of the

10

ﬁndings. Chapter 2 is an overview of the literature related to students’ reasons for
attending college. Chapter 3 consists of information regarding the methodology used for
this study and includes an explanation of the conceptual ﬁ'amework, a discussion of the
research approach, and a description of the study design. In Chapter 4, I present the
ﬁndings ﬁom the survey. Chapter 5 contains the ﬁndings from the semi-structured
interviews. In Chapter 6, I propose a model of the relationship between reasons to attend
college and participation in curricular and co-curricular programming. The ﬁnal chapter
contains the implications of this study, a discussion of the limitations of the study, and

areas of future inquiry.

11

CHAPTER 2
Introduction

This literature review includes four sections. The ﬁrst section contains an
overview of the research related to traditional age college students’ reasons for attending
college. The next section consists of a discussion of the use of Bronfenbrenner’s (1976,
1979, 1989, 1993, 1995) human ecology model as a lens through which to study students’
reasons for attending college. The third section covers the growing utilization of learning
communities in American higher education. In the ﬁnal section, I describe the purpose of
this study.

Students’ Reasons for Attending College

Although there is a plethora of research on students’ experiences in college (e.g.,
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005), students’ reasons for attending college are not often
the speciﬁc focus of research on American college students. Instead, information about
students’ reasons is incorporated within research on topics such as college choice (e.g.,
Cabrera & La Nasa, 2000) and peer cultures (e.g., Astin, 1993a). In this section of the
literature review, I will explore research in which students’ reasons for attending college
was included. This includes research on college choice, societal views about the purpose
of college, and typologies of peer culture. I will ﬁnish this section with an exploration of
studies that have connected students’ reasons for attending college to the outcomes of
their college experiences.

Students’ views about the purposes of postsecondary education have been referred
to by a number of labels such as: motivations (e.g., Cété & Levine, 1997), goals (e.g.,

Stark, Shaw, & Lowther, 1989), purposes (e.g., Bloomer & Hodkinson, 2000), aspirations

12

(e.g., Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999), expectations (e.g., Miller, Bender, Schuh, &
Associates, 2005), dispositions (e.g., Terenzini & Reason, 2005), and reasons (e.g., Pryor
et al., 2005). Throughout this literature review, I will use the phrases reason for attending
college or reason to attend college to represent all of these terms. When referring to
speciﬁc studies, I will use the term chosen by the researcher.

College Choice

In order to understand the relationship between students’ reasons for attending
college and the choices they make within the college environment, it is important to
consider the processes that shaped their initial interest in going to college. Hossler,
Schmit, and Vesper (1999) explored how parents and students negotiated the decision to
apply to and attend college. During an eight year longitudinal study, they surveyed close
to 5000 families. In addition, they interviewed 56 of the families surveyed. The
longitudinal design allowed them to examine students’ aspirations for college attendance
as ninth graders and then compare those aspirations with educational achievements four
years after high school graduation.

Hossler et al. (1999) looked at four stages of college choice: predisposition,
search, choice, and actualization. They found that students had developed stable
postsecondary education plans by the time they had completed ninth grade and that those
plans were most strongly shaped by parents. During the search stage, which takes place
primarily during the sophomore and junior years, students made decisions about the
institutional characteristics that were most important to them (e.g., size, cost, academic
selectivity). In this stage, students were primarily inﬂuenced by external sources of

information such as teachers, guidance counselors, and college admissions personnel.

l3

During the choice stage, the realities of cost and high school performance played a
signiﬁcant role in determining the schools to which students eventually applied. Once
students were offered admission, the most important factor in whether students actually
went to college, the actualization stage, was strong support and encouragement ﬁ'om their
parents.

College Choice of Speciﬁc Populations

Much of the recent research on college choice has built on the work of Hossler et
al. (1999) and has focused on the college going choices of high-risk populations such as:
underrepresented minorities, ﬁrst-generation college students, and low socioeconomic
status (SES) students (e.g., Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2003; Cabrera & La Nasa,
2000; Hamrick & Stage, 2004). These studies have considered not only how high-risk
students entered the college going pipeline but also how these students faired once in
college. Research has consistently found that SES is one of the best predictors of degree
attainment.

Perna (2000) suggested that research which included social and cultural capital in
addition to economic factors would provide a better understanding of the full impact of
SES. She posited that social capital and cultural capital can both contribute to a student’s
success in college. Social capital includes networks of information regarding resources,
norms, values, and expected behaviors which enable a person to achieve their goals
(Coleman, 1998). Cultural capital involves the factors that make up a person’s social
class (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990).

From the research on college choice, there is evidence that parents, previous

schooling, and SES have an impact on whether and how students matriculate into

14

postsecondary education. In addition, students’ social capital and cultural capital equip
them with cues about what to expect and how to act within the college environment. The
next section explores the messages that students receive from society about the reasons
for attending college.

Societal Views on the Purpose of College

As college attendance and college costs have grown, a variety of constituents
have weighed in on the role that postsecondary education should play in American
society. For example, in September 2005 the Secretary of Education created the
Commission on the Future of Higher Education to devise a comprehensive national
strategy for higher education’s future (Field, 2005a; Ofﬁce of the Secretary, 2005a). The
commission was charged with focusing on issues such as access, affordability,
accountability, work-force preparedness, quality, and global competitiveness (Field,
2005b; Ofﬁce of the Secretary, 2005b).

The federal government is not alone in its efforts to determine the appropriate
outcomes of college attendance. The Association of American Colleges and Universities
(AAC&U) (2002, 2005) suggested that in order to prepare students for the future,
institutions of higher education should foster liberal education outcomes, including:
knowledge of human cultures and the natural and physical world; intellectual and
practical skills; individual and social responsibilities; and integrative learning. In
Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004), the American College Personnel Association
(ACPA) and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (N ASPA)
advocated for transformative learning which would result in student learning outcomes in

the following areas: cognitive complexity; knowledge acquisition, integration, and

15

application; humanitarianism; civic engagement; interpersonal and intrapersonal
competence; practical competence; and persistence and academic achievement.

Attempts have also been made to determine what parents, the general public,
employers, and students themselvesfeel are the most important outcomes of higher
education. In a report commissioned by the AAC&U, Hart (2004) found that parents
ranked the following outcomes of college as most important: sense of maturity, critical
thinking skills, communication skills, problem-solving skills, and computer skills. The
general public agreed that a sense of maturity was most important, but expressed that
leadership skills and civic responsibility were also of high importance. Although business
executives (potential employers of college graduates) agreed with parents that critical
thinking skills, communication skills, problem-solving skills, and computer skills were of
high importance, they also expected that the college experience would instill strong work
habits, self-discipline, teamwork skills, and cultural/global awareness (Hart, 2004).

Hart (2004) found that students were focused on outcomes which they felt would
best serve them in future career success: sense of maturity, time-management skills,
strong work habits, self-discipline, and teamwork skills. Though these student
expectations mirror the more concrete outcomes employers are seeking, students do not
seem to embrace the liberal education outcomes that are endorsed by both employers and
educators. It is not surprising that college students are commonly focused on developing
career skills they think will beneﬁt them in their immediate future. In their longitudinal
study of high school students’ goals and expectations, Schneider and Stevenson (1999)
found that “Most young people are worried about their futures and believe attaining a

college degree is critical for ﬁnding a ﬁrst real jo ” (p. 4).

16

Ii

Ir

I(

h.

i1

 

 

The Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s (CIRP) annual survey of ﬁrst-
time, full-time freshmen at American colleges and universities has found similar results.
In 2005, when students were asked about their reasons for attending college, three of the
top four responses were related to future employment: To be able to get a better job, To
be able to make more money, and To get training for a speciﬁc career (Pryor et al.).
Interestingly, the reason that received the largest percentage of essential or very
important responses was To learn more about things that interest me.

Educators disagree about the usefulness of incorporating students’ goals into
curricular and pedagogical planning because those goals are perceived to be career
focused rather than intellectually focused (Stark & Lattuca, 1997). Stark, Shaw, &
Lowther (I 989) noted that most research regarding institutional effectiveness has focused
on whether students have adopted the institution’s values and objectives regarding their
education. For example, Kuh, et al. (2005a, 2005b) recommended that to enhance student
engagement institutions should strive to create an environment of shared responsibility
for educational quality and student success based on a “shared commitment to the
institution’s mission” (2005a, p. 36). Tagg (2004) noted that students put more energy
into personally selected goals, but educational goals prescribed by others are given
priority through external mechanisms such as grading and certiﬁcation. Because students’
goals can contribute to their success or failure, Stark and Lattuca recommended that

faculty at least be aware of, and ideally try to bridge between, the fact that students’

learning goals may differ from their teaching goals.

17

Typologies of Collegiate Peer Groups

Since the 19608, typologies of student peer culture have been created to examine
and explain the impact of peer cultures on student learning and development (Renn &
Arnold, 2003). Several of these typologies have used reasons for attending college as one
of the characteristics for classiﬁcation or group membership (e.g., Astin, 1993a;
Katchadourian & Boli, 1985). One of the most widely cited is that of Clark and Trow
(1966). Clark and Trow were interested in the impact of social structures on student life
and relationships, and viewed “the college peer group as the locus for a set of processes
which intervene between the larger social systems and the outcomes of college
education” (p. 18). Clark and Trow deﬁned four subcultures of college students based on
their orientations to college emerging from two variables: identiﬁcation with their college
and involvement with ideas.

Students who had a high level of identity with their college and were highly
involved with ideas were classiﬁed as Academics. Collegiates, on the other hand,
identiﬁed with their college but were not very involved with ideas; they were focused on
campus fun and had little interest in demanding academic pursuits. The two groups who
did not identify with their college were the Nonconformists and the Vocationals.
Nonconformists were involved with the ideas they encounter both within the classroom
and ﬁom the larger society. The Vocationals had a low level of involvement with ideas;
they were attending college to gain useful job skills and credentials (Clark & Trow,
1966)

By examining recent research that has referenced the typology above (e.g., Astin,

1993a; Kuh, Hu, & Vesper, 2000; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2004), it would appear that

18

Clark and Trow (1966) were only concerned with peer culture, but like the models of
Tinto (1993), Weidman (1989), and Terenzini and Reason (2005), Clark and Trow were
also focused on the impact of the larger organizational culture of college campuses. After
outlining the four orientations, Clark and Trow posited that students are not only
inﬂuenced by the peer subcultures on a college campus, but also by the institutional
mission, the objectives of faculty and administrators, and the structural aspects of the
institution, such as size, authority structure, and selectivity.
Careerism and Intellectualism

In the late 19703, college students’ reasons for attending college started to shiﬁ
from being primarily intellectually focused to being predominantly career focused (Astin,
Parrott, Korn, & Sax, 1997; Astin, Oseguera, Sax, & Korn, 2002). Curious about this
trend and the impact it was having on their students, Katchadourian and Boli (1985)
designed a study to explore the “meaning and signiﬁcance of intellectualism and
careerism for college students themselves” (p. 4). They were interested in the factors that
shaped students academic and career attitudes and how those attitudes impacted major
and career choices.

Katchadourian and Boli (1985) developed a typology of academic orientation
based on students’ reasons for attending college, the characteristics students desired in a
major, and the characteristic students desired in a career. The four types, Careerists,
Intellectuals, Strivers, and the Unconnected, were developed based on students’ rankings
of items related to careerism and intellectualism. Katchadourian and Boli’s typology is

different from Clark and Trow’s in that the variables, careerism and intellectualism, were

19

not considered mutually exclusive. For example, the Striver is a person who scored high
on both careerism and intellectualism.

Katchadourian and Boli (1985) found that parents, teachers, peers, and academic
background all contributed to the academic and career attitudes of students at Stanford.
Through their longitudinal design, they were able to explore how students’ academic
orientations shaped their college experiences. Careerists were less likely to change their
career plans and interact with faculty; they engaged in fewer extracurricular activates and
had average grades. Intellectualists were more likely to interact with faculty and
participate in study abroad; they earned higher grades and were more satisﬁed with their
college experience. Shivers were focused on both achieving career success and taking
advantage of intellectual opportunities; they were active in both extracurricular activities
and special academic projects. The Unconnected were more likely to stop out and were
less involved in extracurricular activities; they had average grades and were less satisﬁed
with their college experience.

Other Typologies

Several recent typologies have been developed using statistical techniques, such
as factor analysis and cluster analysis, to reduce large sets of survey data into student
categories (Astin, 1993a; Kuh, Hu, & Vesper, 2000; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2004). Astin
used data gathered through the CIRP annual survey of freshmen and deﬁned seven
student types: the Scholar, the Social Activist, the Artist, the Hedonist, the Leader, the
Status Striver, and the Uncommitted student. Kuh, et al. (2000) used data gathered from
the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) and identiﬁed 10 student

groupings “based on the nature of the college activities in which they engaged” (pp. 236-

20

23 7). The outcomes of both of these studies corroborated the results of other studies
designed to delineate student peer groups.

Luo and Jamieson-Drake (2004) built on Astin’s (1993a) work by utilizing CIRP
data in conjunction with an exit survey. Their intent was to develop a typology which
could be used to predict student learning outcomes and guide institutional decision
making. They identiﬁed ﬁve student types, all of which paralleled at least one of Astin’s
groups. Utilizing the exit survey data, they were able to show that, by type: students
displayed different interests in college activities, reported different levels of skill
development, and expressed differing levels of satisfaction with the institution. Luo and
Jamieson-Drake (2004) noted that recent studies (e.g., Astin, 1993a; Kuh et al., 2000)
“left students’ actual behaviors during their collegiate years unexamined or failed to take
students’ precollege characteristics into account” (p. 8).

Millennials

The typologies mentioned above were constructed by considering college
students’ values, attributes, attitudes, and actions. Another way to conceive peer groups is
by their generational cohort (Coomes & DeBard, 2004). The current generation of
traditional age college students is commonly referred to as the Millennial generation
(Howe & Strauss, 2000, 2003; Strauss & Howe, 1991). This generation was born
between 1982 and 2002 and ﬁrst hit college campuses in 2000. In his conversation with
Lowery (2001), Strauss described the Millennials as more sheltered and protected than
previous generations, traditional yet comfortable with ﬂash approaches, pressured to

succeed, and team oriented.

21

Coomes (2004) pointed out that technological advances such as cell phones,
blogs, and instant messaging have allowed Millennials to experience relationships and
connections in a different way than previous generations. Howe and Strauss (2003) noted
that institutions of higher education will need to consider the following when working
with Millennials: that they have a close relationship with their parents; that they are
extremely focused on grades and performance; that they have been brought up in very
busy and scheduled environments; that they are conventionally minded and prefer
regulated environments; and that although they are ethnically diverse and majority
female, they are less interested than previous generations in questions of racial and
gender identity.

Whether based on generational cohort or attitudes and values, typologies of
college students have been used to examine how students interact with the college
environment. Several of these typologies (e.g., Astin, 1993a; Katchadourian & Boli,
1985) have speciﬁcally included reasons to attend college as a classiﬁcation
characteristic. Some (e. g., Kuh, Hu, & Vesper, 2000; Luo & Jamieson—Drake, 2004) have
grouped students by their actions once on campus. In the next section, I will explore how
reasons to attend college have been utilized to explore college outcomes.

Connecting Motivations and Learning Outcomes

As evidenced by the research discussed above, students arrive at college with a
variety of reasons for attending. These reasons are shaped by their interactions with
family, their prior educational experiences, and their peers. Although considerable

research on college impact has included demographic factors (e. g., Pascarella &

22

Terenzini, 1991, 2005), not as much is known about the inﬂuence reasons for attending
college have on college outcomes.
Motivation as an Input Variable

Utilizing Astin’s (1993b) input-environment-output (l-E-O) model as a
ﬁamework, Cote and Levine (1997, 2000) conceptualized motivation for college
attendance as an input variable. They posited that motivation for college attendance,
shaped by prior experiences with family, earlier educational environments, and the
workplace, could be used as an input factor to predict college outcomes. Building on
typologies of college students (e.g., Astin, 1993a), the work of Yankelovich (1972), and
some of Coté’s previous research (1984), they developed the Student Motivation for
Attending University (SMAU) Scale. The SMAU includes ﬁve categories of motivation
for college attendance: careerism-materialism, personal-intellectual development,
humanitarian, expectation-driven, and default.

Cote' and Levine (1997, 2000) suggested that in order for learning outcomes to be
successfully obtained, students and the learning environment must meet halfway in a
bilateral relationship. They also noted that particular student characteristics, such as an
interest in intellectual development, may evoke a particular response from the learning
environment, such as increased attention from faculty. To test this notion, they explored
whether intelligence or motivation was a better predictor of skills acquisition and
academic achievement. They found that goodness of ﬁt between a student’s motivation
for college and institutional goals was a better predictor of skills acquisition and

academic achievement than intelligence, measured by IQ (Cote' & Levine, 2000).

23

When compared with other student typologies, it is interesting to note that Cote
and Levine (1997) did not include a collegiate or social motivation in the SMAU. This
type of motivation for college might be characterized as having a strong identiﬁcation
with their college, being interested in sports and student organizations, and being heavily
involved in co- and extra-curricular activities (Clark & Trow, 1966; Horowitz, 1987;
Kuh, et al., 2000). This motivational characteristic could very well have an impact on
potential student learning outcomes. Cote and Levine’s (1997, 2000) ﬁndings show the
utility of considering motivation for college, a component of learner disposition, as an
important input variable when assessing student learning outcomes.

Learner Disposition

From 1995 to 1997 Bloomer and Hodkinson (1997, 1999) conducted a
longitudinal study of the experiences of British students as they transitioned into post-16
education (i.e., postsecondary education). The study took place amid increased calls for
accountability of educational outcomes and return on investment in Further Education
(FE), similar to those American institutions of higher education are experiencing today.
Bloomer and Hodkinson used a sociological lens to explore students’ goals for college
attendance. They posited that students’ views about the purpose of postsecondary
education contributed to their learner disposition.

Learner dispositions are shaped by all aspects of a learner’s life and inﬂuence the
learner’s choice of learning opportunities with which to engage as well as the strategies to
utilize in those various learning opportunities (Bloomer & Hodkinson, I999). Bloomer
and Hodkinson focused on students’ perceptions of their learning experiences and how

those perceptions were shaped by the social, cultural, political, economic, and other

24

contexts within which the learning experiences occurred: “Learning and dispositions to
learning are seen in terms of their relationship with other material and cultural
phenomena, including the meaning which learners attribute to those phenomena”
(Bloomer & Hodkinson, 2000, p. 591).

The concept of learner disposition (Bloomer, 1996, 1997; Bloomer & Hodkinson,
1997, 1999, 2000) can be broken down into two components, perceptions of learning and
approaches to learning. Perceptions of learning are shaped by: learners’ beliefs about the
nature of knowledge, their views about the purpose of postsecondary education, the value
they place on particular areas of study and learning experiences, and their personal
assessment of their abilities based on prior learning experiences. Bloomer and
Hodkinson’s (1997, 1999) ﬁndings regarding beliefs about the nature of knowledge are
consistent with the ﬁndings of cognitive development theorists such as Perry (1999) and
Baxter Magolda (2002). Also, their ﬁndings regarding personal assessment of abilities
are consistent with Bandura’s (1997) work on academic self-efﬁcacy.

Bloomer (1996) introduced the term studentship to describe the ways in which
learners approached learning opportunities. Similar to the phenomenon of self-produced
environmental experiences (Astin, 1993b), through studentship learners “act upon the
learning opportunities offered to them by making their own curriculum” (p. 141, italics in
original). He found that students’ values, beliefs, and expectations regarding what, how,
and why to learn were often in contradiction with those presented by the instructors in
their courses. When those contradictions occurred, students’ responses took the following
forms: strategic compliance, retreatism (absenteeism), rebellion (petty disruptions), or

innovation. Innovation involved students devising novel ways of achieving the learning

25

they desired outside of the requirements of the course. When students’ expectations
corresponded with those of the instructor, students conformed to expectations and
objectives of the instructor. This ﬁnding reinforces Stark and Lattuca’s (1997)
recommendation that educators attend to students’ learning goals to create a bridge
between institutional and student expectations of college outcomes.

Although some of the components of learner disposition, such as cognitive
development, have already been explored within the context of American higher
education, the concept of learner disposition is tmique in its attempt to situate learners’
perceptions and approaches within their habitus, the social conditions through which the
learners themselves develop (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Bloomer, 1996, 1997; Bloomer
& Hodkinson, 1997, 1999, 2000). A learner’s habitus is shaped by a number of external
inﬂuences mentioned previously, such as peers, family, and previous schooling. In
addition, broader social, cultural, and economic issues shape habitus.

In this section of the literature review, I provided an overview of the literature
related to students’ reasons for attending college. This included research related to
college choice, society’s views on the purpose of college, and typologies of college
student peer culture. A common theme among this research was that students’ ideas about
college were shaped by their families and their prior learning experiences. In the next
section, I will present a theoretical lens through which to explore how these forces shape
students’ reasons for attending college.

Theoretical Framework
Research on the impact of college on students has examined several aspects of the

college experience, such as the transition to college (e. g., Tinto, 1993), outcomes of a

26

college education (e.g., skill acquisition, cognitive development, psychosocial
development), and peer inﬂuences on the college experience (e.g., Renn & Arnold,
2003). While much evidence has been gathered to show that college impacts students
(e.g., Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005), little is known about the processes that
culminate in college outcomes. Renn and Arnold recommended the use of an ecology
model of student development, based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1976, 1979, 1989, 1993,
1995) process-person-context-time (PPCT) model, to explore the processes, as well as the
outcomes, of students’ interactions with the college environment. The model has
primarily been used in the study of children’s development in a variety of setting such as
daycare, family, and school, but it has also recently been applied to the collegiate context
(Renn, 2003, 2004; Renn & Arnold, 2003).
Person

In his early iterations of the ecology model, Bronfenbrenner’s (1976, 1979)
consideration of the person in his model was focused on the person’s subjective view of
the situation and the reciprocity between the person and the environment: “The impact of
the setting cannot be understood without some information on how the setting, and its
various elements, were perceived by the participants” (1976, p. 8). Consequently, the
impact of college on students cannot be understood without considering how the students
conceive the educational environment. This concept is similar to Bloomer and
Hodkinson’s (2000) contention that learner dispositions shape the meaning which
learners attribute to their learning experiences.

In later iterations, Bronfenbrenner (1989, 1993) expanded his view of the person

and acknowledged that the characteristics of the developing individual should be

27

considered more explicitly in examining the impact of interactions with the environment.
He stressed that the characteristics of the person (e.g., personality, cognitive
development, psychosocial development) constitute both the product and partial producer
of development processes: “Personal characteristics are distinguished in terms of their
potential to evoke response from, alter, or create the external environment, thereby
inﬂuencing the subsequent course of the person’ psychological growth” (1989, p. 203).
Astin (1993b) viewed this prospect of self-produced environmental experiences as
a challenge in studying the outcomes of a college education. The PPCT model allows for,
in fact requires, inclusion of self-produced environmental experiences as part of the
process. Cote and Levine’s (1997, 2000) ﬁnding that students with a personal-intellectual
development motivation for college attendance received more attention from faculty than
those with other types of motivations illustrates the impact of self-produced
environmental experiences. Bronfenbrenner referred to these personal attributes that
shape developmental processes as developmentally instigative characteristics.
Developmentally instigative characteristics inﬂuence the likelihood of interaction
between the person and two aspects of the environment: the people present in the
environment and the physical and the symbolic features of the enviromnent.
Bronfenbrenner (1989, 1993) outlined four types of developmentally instigative
characteristics. The ﬁrst type, stimulus attributes, consists of “personal qualities that
invite or discourage reactions from the environment of a kind that can disrupt or foster
processes of psychological growth” (1993, p. 11). The second type is selective
responsivity, “individual differences in reaction to, attraction by, and exploration of

particular aspects of the physical and social environments” (1993, p. 12). Structural

28

proclivities relate to “the tendency to engage and persist in progressively more complex
activities” (1993, p. 12). Participation in a residential learning community could be
considered a more complex way to interact with the college environment than not
participating. The last type, directive beliefs, are beliefs “about the relation of the self to
the environment” (1993, p. 13). This last concept is related to the concepts of locus of
control and self-efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1997).

Process

Bronfenbrenner (1976, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995) used the term proximal processes
to describe the reciprocal interactions between the person and the environment that have
the potential to impact development. In order to impact development, these interactions
should occur on a regular basis over an extended period of time, be progressively more
complex, and involve reciprocal interactions between the developing person and the other
people, objects, or symbols in her or his environment (Renn, 2004). Both the person and
the environment play an active role in constructing proximal processes.

Bronfenbrenner noted that “developmentally instigative characteristics do not
determine the course of development; rather, they may be thought of as ‘putting a spin’
on a body in motion. The effect of that spin depends on the other forces, and resources, in
the total ecological system” (Bronfenbrenner, 1993, p. 14, italics in original). In
postsecondary education, students’ personal qualities may impact the attention and
responses they receive from faculty, peers, and administrators. The students may or may
not engage in learning opportunities they perceive as challenging based on their structural

proclivity and sense of self-efﬁcacy. Educators attempt to inﬂuence this engagement

29

through providing both challenges (forces) and supports (resources) (Sanford, 1962,
1967)

Institutions intentionally provide challenges and supports through both individual
interactions between students and institutional agents (e.g., faculty, academic advisors,
resident advisors) and through institutional structures such as academic curriculum,
residential learning communities, intramural sports, and greek life. Bronfenbrenner
(1989) referred to these types of opportunities as ecological niches or “regions in the
environment that are especially favorable or unfavorable to the development of
individuals with particular personal characteristics” (p. 194). Within the collegiate
environment, learning communities could be considered ecological niches created for
particular groups of students based on characteristics such as their academic interests,
their residential locations, or their year in school.

Central to the process component of the PPCT model is the reciprocity involved
in the person-environment interaction. Proximal processes not only affect the person, but
also the environment. Renn (2004) noted that “this ongoing mutual accommodation
manifests itself in changes in the individual and changes to the environment” (p. 33). For
example, as the characteristics of the American college student have evolved (i.e., more
non-traditional age students needing additional education), the landscape of higher
education has evolved to include online options (e. g. the University of Phoenix). In turn,
institutions have adapted pedagogies for online learning and these pedagogies impact the

learning and development of students.

30

Context

Interactions between the student and various aspects of the environment happen
within a context. Bronfenbrenner (1976, 1979, 1989, 1993) conceptualized the context as
a hierarchy of systems at four levels moving from proximal to distal: the microsystem,
the mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem. He noted that studies that do not
consider the context implicitly presume that “the characteristics of the person have the
same meaning irrespective of the culture, class, or setting in which they are observed, or
in which the person lives” (1989, p. 202). A microsystem is an immediate setting
containing the person, such as a family, peer group, residence hall, or major. Each
microsystem provides opportunities for the person to interact with others persons who in
turn belong to multiple microsystems.

The mesosystem is composed of the interactions among an individual’s various
microsystems. Studies of the mesosystem allow for the consideration of not only the
additive effects of researching more than one microsystem, but also the synergism of two
or more elements. Experiences in one environment may inﬂuence a person’s behavior
and development in another (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979, 1989, 1993). Residential
learning communities provide a mesosystem for a student’s residential and classroom
microsystems to interact. A student may receive a number of messages (forces and
resources) about reasons for attending college ﬁom his/her multiple microsystems. How a
student makes meaning of those messages contributes to the student’s developmentally
instigative characteristics, which in turn shape her/his interactions with the college

environment.

31

The two outer systems are made up of environments with which the person does
not directly interact, but that still impact the interactions that take place within the micro-
and mesosystems. The exosystem contains events that “indirectly inﬂuence processes
within the immediate setting in which the developing person lives” (Bronfenbrenner,
1989, p. 24). For example, external calls for accountability which lead to the creation of
learning community programs or faculty reward structures which may or may not
encourage participation in residential learning communities.

The macrosystem includes the characteristics of the culture, subculture, or other
social structure within which the micro—, meso-, and exosystems reside. Bronfenbrenner
(1993) suggested that developmental processes are likely to differ substantially by
macrosystem and that culture should be represented in research designs rather than being
controlled for. Bloomer and Hodkinson (I997, 1999, 2000) incorporated the
macrosystem by focusing on how learner dispositions are shaped by the social, cultural,
political, economic, and other contexts within which the learning experiences occurred.

Time

The ﬁnal aspect of the PPCT model, time (chronosystem), has two components:
the timing of biological and social transitions within the individual’s lifespan and the
historical time period within which the person lives (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). As noted
above, the current generation of traditional age college students, the Millennials (I-Iowe &
Strauss, 2000, 2003 ), have different characteristics than previous generations. Renn
(2004) noted that the chronosystem is particularly pertinent to research on college
students because of the evolution of access to higher education throughout American

history.

32

 

 

The process-person-context—time (PPCT) model provides a unique lens for
studying the experiences, learning, and development of college students. The model
builds on the foundation of person-environment interaction theory (Lewin, 193 5) by
focusing on the processes that enhance or impede development. The PPCT model
provides a ﬁamework for exploring the “differential outcomes of students who appear to
be similar... [and] the similar outcome of students who appear to be very different from
one another” (Renn, 2004, p. 47). For this study, I will focus on just one of the many
ecological niches in the higher education environment, learning communities.

Learning Communities

As mentioned above, within the PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979, 1989,
1993, 1995) learning community programs could be thought of as ecological niches.
Cross (1998) noted that learning community programs are popular because they provide a
space for the social construction of knowledge, they allow for more faculty-student
interaction, and they help institutions “meet their missions of educating students for lives
of work and service” (p. 11). One of the challenges of understanding the impact of
learning community programs is that the term is used to describe a variety of types of
programs ﬁ'om clustered classes to residential living-learning programs (Taylor, Moore,
MacGregor, & Lindblad, 2003). In this section, I will provide a description of the
landscape of learning community programs, explore the research on the impact of
learning communities on students learning outcomes, and discuss why students opt to

take advantage of learning community opportunities.

33

 

The Landscape of Learning Community Programs

Learning community programs have experienced phenomenal grth in the last
25 years. Smith, MacGregor, Matthews, and Gabelnick (2004) noted that by 2000 over
500 institutions had adapted the learning community approach to their institutions. Smith
et al. offered this deﬁnition for learning communities, “a variety of curricular approaches
that intentionally link or cluster two or more courses, often around an interdisciplinary
theme or problem, and enroll a common cohort of students” (p. 20). Curricular settings in
which learning communities are used include: general education, ﬁrst year initiatives,
honors programs, developmental education, within the major, and within vocational and
professional programs.

Shapiro and Levine (1999) noted that there was no common deﬁnition of what
constituted a learning community program. Instead they enumerated characteristics
shared by learning community initiatives, such as: small cohorts of students, integration
of curriculum, academic and social support networks, socialization to the expectations of
college, faculty collaboration, focus on learning outcomes, and community-based
academic support. Shapiro and Levine (1999) also described four general conﬁgurations
of learning communities: paired or clustered courses, cohorts in larger courses, team-
taught programs, and residence-based programs.

The Impact of Learning Communities

Learning community programs exist at almost every type of postsecondary
institution, public and private, two-year and four-year, urban and rural, and residential
and commuter (Smith et al., 2004). Taylor et al. (2003) reviewed 32 formal research

studies and 119 assessment reports to discern what conclusions could be drawn about

34

learning community impact. They found that, regardless of institutional characteristics,
learning community programs had a positive impact on retention, GPA, and both student
and faculty satisfaction. Taylor et al. noted that synthesizing the various research studies
and assessment reports was challenging because of the diversity of program missions and
conﬁgurations, and because of the range of methodologies used. They also commented
on the lack of multi-institutional and national level studies.

An ongoing, multi-institutional study, funded by the Association of College and
University Housing Ofﬁcers International (ACUHO-I) has begun to address the need for
multi-institutional research on residential learning communities. The National Study of
Living-Leaming Programs (N SLLP) began with a pilot study in 2003 and full scale data
collection in 2004. The project is currently accepting participants for the next phase of
data collection. Thirty-four institutions participated in 2004, representing over 270
different programs. Both living-learning program participants and non-participants were
invited to complete a survey about their college experiences. Ahnost 24,000 students
responded, a 33% response rate. Approximately 51% of respondents were living-learning
program participants and 49% were non-participants (Inkelas et al., 2004).

Preliminary analysis of the study data indicated that students in living-learning
programs were more likely to have positive peer interactions, perceive a positive
residence hall climate, have a smoother transition to college, achieve academically, and
be retained. They also had higher levels of civic engagement and lower levels of binge
drinking. Surprisingly, there was no signiﬁcant difference between participants and non-
participants in cognitive development, self-conﬁdence, and appreciation of racial/ethnic

diversity. Inkelas et al. (2004) speculated that “It is possible that these higher order

35

psychosocial and cognitive indicators become more evident as long-term outcomes, and
since this sample is predominated by ﬁrst-year and sophomore students, the impact of
L/L programs is not yet perceivable” (p. V-l).
Why Students Choose to Participate

The case for the expansion of learning community programs seems to operate
under the assumption that increased offerings will automatically translate into increased
student participation and with increased participation, increased learning outcomes.
Although there is a growing body of research that supports the claim that learning
community participation has a positive impact on college outcomes, not all researchers
agree that learning communities are the best option for every student (Talburt & Boyles,
2005). Jones, Levine Laufgraben, and Morris (2006) examined the assumption that
learning community participation beneﬁts all students by exploring the reasons why
students enrolled in learning communities and how students perceived the usefulness of
various activities included in the learning community programs. They found that
students’ reasons for registering for a learning community inﬂuenced how they perceived
the helpfulness of the learning community experience. They recommended that faculty
and those who evaluate learning communities be aware of the potential impact that
students’ goals and reasons for registering can have on the outcomes of learning
community participation.

Not much is known about the factors that shape a student’s decision to participate
in a learning community. Few studies have focused speciﬁcally on the reasons students
participate in learning communities, although some researchers have included reason for

participation as a component in their research designs (e.g., Jones, et al., 2006). Some

36

reasons for learning community participation that have been explored include:
convenience of scheduling, inclusion of required courses, interest in the learning
community topic, opportunity to build connections with other students, support for the
transition to college, additional support for difficult courses, and recommendation of
advisor or peer (Jones et al., 2006; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith et al., 2004). These
reasons are primarily focused on speciﬁc aspects of the learning community program.
Less is known about how students perceive the contribution learning communities could
make to their ability to reach their goals. A more nuanced understanding of the decision
to participate in a learning community may further educators’ understanding of the
differential outcomes of learning community participation.
Purpose of the Study

Students’ arrive at college with a variety of ideas about the purpose of
postsecondary education and the value of speciﬁc learning experiences. The literature on
college choice and collegiate peer groups shows that these ideas are shaped by parents,
previous schooling, peers, work experiences, and the broader social and cultural contexts
in which they were raised. The purpose of this study was to explore what relationship, if
any, exists between students’ reasons to attend college and whether or not they participate
in a residential learning community program. Although the context of the current study
was learning communities, the ﬁndings may also shed light on students’ decisions
regarding participation in other pedagogical innovations and programmatic initiatives.

In the next chapter, I provide information regarding the methodology I used for
the current study. The chapter also includes a discussion of the research approach and a

description of the study design.

37

CHAPTER 3
Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology I used for the current
study. The chapter includes a discussion of the research approach and a description of the
study design. The description of the study design includes a description of the research
site and details about both the quantitative and the qualitative components of the study.
The details of each component include information about the sampling procedures, the
data collection, the instrument development, and an overview of the data analysis.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore what relationship, if any, exists between
Michigan State University College of Natural Science students’ reasons to attend college
and whether or not they participate in the Lyman Briggs School, a residential learning
community. I used a mixed method approach, utilizing both a survey and semi-structured
interviews. Although the context of this study was learning communities, the ﬁndings
may also shed light on students’ decisions regarding participation in other pedagogical
innovations and programmatic initiatives. In order to explore the potential relationship, I
also investigated the following:

A. What are the proﬁles of reasons for attending college among ﬁrst-year students
enrolled in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University?
B. Are there differences between those students who chose to participate in the
College of Natural Science’s residential learning community program, the Lyman
Briggs School, and those who chose not to participate in terms of their reasons for

attending college?

38

C. Through what processes do students develop their reasons for attending college?
D. How do students perceive the impact learning community participation will have
on their ability to achieve their reasons for attending college?
Research Approach

I used the process-person—context-time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner, 1976,
1979, 1989, 1993, 1995) as a framework for this study. The research design I used in this
study is a sequential exploratory, mixed method design (Creswell, 2003; Creswell, Plano
Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003; Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). In mixed method
research, the researcher mixes or combines qualitative and quantitative techniques,
methods, approaches, concepts or language in a single study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,
2004). Mixed method research is often criticized by paradigmatic purists because the
approach does not support the superiority of either the objective scientiﬁc method or the
constructivist interpretive approach (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). The mixed method
approach is focused on matching research methods and paradigms to the research
questions posed by recognizing that both qualitative and quantitative methods are useful
and important (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie; Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, & Perez-Prado, 2003).

I view the viability of mixed method design for this study from both a pragmatic
and a dialectical position. Pragrnatists focus on the practical consequences of ideas in
order to determine what actions to take next within real-world situations (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Their focus is on combining methods in order to ﬁnd the best
answer to the questions at hand. Creswell (2003) noted that “pragrnatists agree that
research always occurs in social, historical, and political contexts” (p. 12), thus the

pragmatic position toward mixed method is congruent with the PPCT model.

39

The dialectical position focuses on the synergistic beneﬁt of integrating
qualitative and quantitative approaches. Mixing paradigms leads to “a fuller
understanding of human phenomena” (Rocco et al., 2003, p. 21). For example, ﬁom the
dialectic perspective using both forced-choice questions on a survey as well as open-
ended questions provides a fuller view of the phenomenon in question than either
objective or subjective questions could if used independently.

The focus of the current study was the potential relationship between reasons for
attending college and participation in a learning community program. The purpose was
not to determine the most prevalent reason for attending college or to test a hypothesis
regarding speciﬁc reasons and their impact on participation. The intention was to explore
the potentially reciprocal interaction between reasons for attending college, perceptions
of the value of the learning community opportunity, and participation. The research
design can be represented as “quan—)QUAL” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004;
Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003), meaning that the quantitative portion was completed
prior to the qualitative portion but the primary theoretical drive (Morse, 2003) was
inductive.

Research Design

As mentioned above, I utilized a sequential exploratory, mixed method design for
this study. Phase one of the study involved a survey that focused on how relevant a
variety of reasons for attending college are to the participants. Demographic data were
also gathered through the survey. Phase two involved semi-structured interviews that
focused on the processes used by the participants in constructing their reasons for

attending college and their perceptions of the usefulness of the learning community

40

opportunity. In this section, I will describe the research site for this study, give an
overview of the research design, and provide details regarding sampling, data collection,
instrument construction, and data analysis for both the survey and the interviews.

. Research Site

This research was conducted at Michigan State University (MSU). MSU is a
large, land-grant institution of approximately 45,000 students. Roughly, 35,500 of those
students are undergraduates. Each year approximately 7,000 ﬁrst-year undergraduates
matriculate. Almost all ﬁrst-year students attend full-time (98%) and live on campus
(90%). Most are ﬁom Michigan (85%). Less than 1% of ﬁrst-year students are 25 years
of age or older and only 5% of undergraduate students are 25 years of age or older
(Ofﬁce of Planning and Budgets, 2006). By all accounts, MSU represents a traditional
undergraduate institution.

President Lou Anna K. Simon has instigated a strategic plan for MSU “to become
recognized worldwide as the United States’ leading land-grant research university for the
let century” (MSU Board of Trustees, 2005, p. 1). One of the strategic imperatives of
the President’s plan is to Enhance the Student Experience. One of the key
recommendations proposed by the task force charged with creating a plan for the
accomplishment of this strategic imperative was to enhance the ﬁrst year experience by
focusing on learning communities (Enhancing the student experience task force, 2006).
Consequently, the university has experienced a renewed interest in the impact of
residential learning communities. Currently about 20% of ﬁrst-year students at MSU

participate in residential learning communities each year.

41

In the 2006-2007 academic year, MSU offered 10 residential learning
communities. The institution refers to these programs as Living-Learning Programs.
Three of these programs are by invitation only and geared toward high achieving
students, the Honors College, Academic Scholars, and the Broad Residential Option for
Academic Distinction (for College of Business students). Two of the programs are
degree-granting. James Madison College is a degree-granting, residential college with its
own faculty and courses taught within the residence hall. Similarly, the Lyman Briggs
School (LBS), within the College of Natural Science, is degree-granting and offers
courses within the residence hall. The ﬁve remaining programs are each organized
around a particular theme or disciplinary focus: the Residential Initiative on the Study of
the Environment, the Residential Options In Arts and Letters, the Residential Option for
Science and Engineering Students, Connections (a program for students who have not
declared a major), and the Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience.

The Lyman Briggs School (LBS) was chosen as the focus of this study because of
its size, its relationship to the College of Natural Science, and its programmatic structure.
Living-Learning Programs at MSU range in size from 24 to 625 ﬁrst-year students. The
LBS is one of the largest Living-Learning Programs at MSU, with a ﬁrst-year enrollment
of 625 students for Fall 2006. The LBS is currently a part of the College of Natural
Science (CNS). Approximately 40% of ﬁrst-year CNS students participate in the LBS
(Ofﬁce of Planning and Budgets, 2006). Any undergraduate who is admitted to MSU can
enroll in the LBS as long as space remains available. Students indicate their interest by

choosing one of the LBS majors on their admission applications.

42

The LBS is a degree-granting, residential learning community program located in
Hohrres Hall. Classrooms, laboratories, and faculty and staff ofﬁces are located within
the hall. The LBS offers degree programs parallel to those offered in the CNS. LBS
faculty are typically on a 75% contract with LBS and 25% with their disciplinary
department. During the ﬁrst two years in the program, students take their prerequisite
courses through LBS. Students take most of their upper-level courses through the home
department of their academic major. Not all students graduate in their initial LBS major'.
Of those who do not graduate in LBS, approximately one-third switch to another major
offered by the CNS, and the rest choose majors ﬁ'om across the other 10 academic
colleges with Social Science and Engineering receiving the most students outside of CNS
(Philip Strong, personal communication, February 4, 2007).

The LBS is marketed to all students interested in “studying the natural sciences
and their impact on society” (Lyman Briggs School, 2006, 1! l). A majority of students
who enter MSU in both the CNS generally and the LBS speciﬁcally are interested in
pursuing professional degrees in ﬁelds such as general medicine, veterinary medicine,
dentistry, and nursing (Debra Dotterer, personal communication, August 8, 2006; Philip
Strong, personal communication, May 31, 2006). Students who consider themselves “pre-
med” have been described as extremely motivated but academically narrow (Church,
Berg, & Robinson, 2006; Engel, 2005). Although much research has indicated that pre-
med students are cynical about the value of liberal education and are overly competitive
(e. g., Brieger, 1999), other studies have found that pre-med students have a positive
attitude toward liberal education and are cooperative rather than competitive (e.g,

Conrad. 1986; Simmons, 2005). Research has also shown that pre-med students are

 

’ Exact data about the percentage of students who leave LBS were not available.

43

concerned about admission to medical school and often have misconceptions about the
attributes and skills medical schools consider in the admission process (Brieger, 1999;
Glicksman, 2000).

The LBS can be categorized as an alternative college within a large traditional
institution (Smith et al., 2004). It has a speciﬁc academic focus in the sciences and, as
mentioned above, attracts a large number of pre-med students in addition to students
interested in science generally. As noted in Chapter 2, most of the research on residential
learning communities has been focused on general outcomes such as retention and GPA
(Taylor et al., 2003). A few recent studies have examined programs speciﬁcally designed
for science and engineering students. These studies have focused on: the differential
impact of active learning pedagogies on engineering learning community participants and
non-participants (Castro-Cedeno, 2005), the GPA and retention rates of students in an
agriculture learning community (Kelsey & Sexten, 2003), and students’ achievement and
retention in math-based majors (Howell, 2006). The research on learning communities in
science and engineering disciplines has been focused primarily on program components
and outcomes as opposed to students’ reasons for attending college and their reasons for
participating in the learning community.

Two recent studies of discipline speciﬁc learning communities have included
reasons for participation in their research designs. Dabney, Green, and Topalli (2006)
found that a criminal justice learning community was appealing to students because it
eased their anxiety about transitioning to college, provided a ﬁarnework for getting
academic assistance, and gave them a “ready-made pool of prospective friends” (p. 64).

Light (2005) found that students signed up for an engineering and biotech science

44

learning community because of the expectation that it would make forming study groups
easier and be a way to make good “academic” friends (p. 23). Students’ reasons for
participation in discipline speciﬁc programs appear to be focused on gaining tools for
academic achievement and meeting people with similar interests during the ﬁrst year of
college.

Although students can participate in the LBS for their entire undergraduate career
(i.e., graduate with a degree from the LBS), students indicate their interest in the LBS on
their admission applications. Thus, students in their ﬁrst year at MSU are the population
for this study. Learning community programs are often used “to create a more coherent
and connected curriculum, promote student success, and create community, particularly
for ﬁrst-year students” (Levine Laufgraben, 2005). Though the LBS program as a whole
could be categorized as a Curriculum-Based Program, a program that focuses on a
particular area of study or research, for ﬁrst-year students it could also serve as a
Transition Program (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003).

Overview of the Research Design

Because the components of this study were conducted sequentially, I will describe
the sampling, data collection, instrument design, and data analysis for the survey and for
the semi-structured interviews in separate sections below. After each phase is described, I
will discuss how the quantitative and qualitative data were synthesized to address the
primary research question. In mixed method research, the data can be analyzed separately
to answer different aspects of the research question and/or be combined to creating a
more intricate answer to the research questions (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). I used

both of these approaches.

45

Phase I : Survey

The population for the current study was ﬁrst-year students in the College of
Natural Science at MSU. The College of Natural Science (CNS) is one of the largest
undergraduate colleges at MSU, with typically around 1500 ﬁrst-year students each year
(22% of the ﬁrst-year class). As mentioned above, approximately 40% of CNS students
are enrolled in the college’s residential learning community, the Lyman Briggs School
(LBS). The ﬁrst-year class of the CNS and the LBS appears to be similar to that of MSU
as a whole in percentage of females (57%) and males (43%). The CNS has a slightly
higher percentage of Asian American and American Indian students than the overall
MSU ﬁrst-year population and a slightly lower percentage of Blacks/Aﬁican Americans
and Chicano/Hispanics (Office of Planning and Budgets, 2006). Detailed information
about the demographics of the 2006 ﬁrst-year class at MSU and within the CNS and the

LBS is provided in Table 1.

46

Table 1
F irst- Y ear, F irst- Time Student Demographic

 

MSU CNS LBS
Variable 7244 1 594 625
Sex
Female ' 4101 56.6% 904 56.7% 358 57.3%
Male 3 143 43.4% 690 43 .3% 267 42.7%
Racial/Ethnic Identiﬁcation
White/Caucasian 5546 76.6% 1,214 76.2% 503 80.5%
Black/African American 638 8.8% 126 7.9% 33 5.3%
Chicano/Hispanic/Latino 228 3.1% 39 2.4% 16 2.6%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 46 0.6% 18 1 . 1% 8 1.3%
Asian American/Paciﬁc Islander 431 5.9% 155 9.7% 50 8.0%

Other/Blank 92 1.3% 18 1.1% 11 1.8%
International Student 263 3.6% 24 1.5% 4 0.6%
College

Undergraduate University Division 1,000 13.8%
Agriculture & Natural Resources 254 3.5%

 

Arts & Letters 383 5.3%
Business 1,129 15.6%
Communication Arts & Sciences 447 6.2%
Education 322 4.4%
Engineering 661 9.1%
James Madison College 334 4.6%
Nattual Science (includes LBS) 1,594 22.0% 1594 100.0% 625 100.0%
Nursing 223 3.1%
Social Science 721 1 0.0%
Veterinary Medicine 176 2.4%
Survey Sampling

The survey was distributed to ﬁrst-year students in the CNS through introductory
chemistry courses. Almost all CNS students take an introductory chemistry course in the
ﬁrst semester of their ﬁrst year (Philip Strong, personal communication, May 31, 2006;
Steve Poulios, personal communication, June 1, 2006). The surveys were distributed

through two of the four courses that satisfy the introductory chemistry requirement: CEM

47

141 (General Chemistry) and LBS 171 (Principles of Chemistry I). The other two courses
that satisfy the requirement, CEM 151 (General and Descriptive Chemistry) and CEM
181H (Honors Chemistry I), were not utilized because of advice regarding the potential
of accessing those courses (Debra Dotterer, personal communication, August 8, 2006).
Students must be a member of the LBS to enroll in LBS 171. Thus, all students
enrolled in LBS 171 are from the CNS. In the fall 2006 semester, 469 students were
enrolled in LBS 171. CEM 141 is open to students from any college. In the fall 2006
semester, 37% of the students enrolled in CEM 141 were from the CNS. Of the 2086
students enrolled in CEM 141, 1511 (72%) were ﬁrst-year students. Of the ﬁrst-year
students, 620 (41%) were from the CNS. Detailed demographic information about the

enrollment in CEM 141 is presented in Table 2.

48

Table 2
CEM 141 Fall 2006 enrollment

 

 

First Year CNS 1”
All Students Students years
Variable 2086 1 5 1 1 620
Sex
Female 1094 52.4% 770 51.0% 355 57.3%
Male 992 47.6% 741 49.0% 265 42.7%
Racial/Ethnic Identiﬁcation
White/Caucasian 1657 79.4% 1190 78.8% 458 73.9%
Black/African American 152 7.3% 106 7.0% 45 7.3%
Chicano/Hispanic/Latino 41 2.0% 26 1.7% 15 2.4%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 18 0.9% 11 0.7% 8 1.3%
Asian American/Paciﬁc Islander 151 7.2% 129 8.5% 78 12.6%
Other/Blank 24 1.2% 17 1.1% 4 0.6%
International Student 43 2.1% 32 2.1% 12 1.9%
College
Undergraduate University Division 106 5.1% 78 5.2%
Agriculture & Natural Resources 182 8.7% 65 4.3%
Arts & Letters 31 1.5% 15 1.0%
Business 46 2.2% 30 2.0%
Communication Arts & Sciences 26 1.2% 11 0.7%
Education 113 5.4% 36 2.4%
Engineering 399 19.1% 361 23.9%
James Madison College 3 0.1% 1 0.1%
Natural Science (includes LBS) 763 36.6% 620 41.0%
Nursing 200 9.6% 171 l 1.3%
Social Science 115 5.5% 30 2.0%
Veterinary Medicine 97 4.7% 93 6.2%
Lifelong Education 5 0.2% 0 0.0%
Survey Data Collection

After IRB approval was obtained, I contacted the four CEM 141 lecturers and

three LBS 171 professors and arranged to distribute the surveys at the end of a class

period. The survey was distributed during the second and third weeks of classes. The

surveys were available at the end of the lecture and students had one week to return them.

49

The survey was printed on an Optical Character Reader (OCR) type answer sheet (aka,
a bubble sheet) and scored at the MSU scoring office. I chose to use a paper-and-pencil
form of survey distribution rather than an online, electronic form because of concerns
about return rate. Poulios (2005) achieved an 84% response rate using an OCR form
distributed through an academic course. Electronic surveys conducted by the Department
of Residence Life at MSU typically achieve just under a 20% response rate (Nancy
Lange, personal communication, May 18, 2006).

In his study, Poulios (2005) offered an incentive of extra credit points for survey
participation. During the IRB process, I was advised against this type of incentive.
Instead a drawing for one of four $50.00 bookstore gift certiﬁcates was offered as
incentive. A small percentage of students returned the survey at the end of the course in
which they received it. Umbach (2005) recommended contacting participants multiple
times and also using rrrixed-modes of survey distribution. So, I created an on-line version
of the survey. Students enrolled in CEM 141 and LBS 171 received an email reminder
about returning the survey they had received the previous week which included a link to
the online version of the survey.

I collected 643 surveys, 466 ﬁom the CEM 141 class and 177 from the LBS 171
class. Of the surveys collected, 301 were the OCR version and 342 were completed
online. Thirty-three (33) surveys were unusable due to duplicates (from the online
returns) or errors in ﬁlling out the OCR form. Of the remaining 610 surveys, 60
respondents indicated that they were 17 or younger. Due to IRB requirements, these
surveys could not be used for data analysis. .That left me with 550 usable surveys. The

focus of this study is ﬁrst-year students. As noted above, not all students enrolled in CEM

50

141 are ﬁrst-year students and consequently not all of the survey respondents were ﬁrst-
year students. Three hundred and eighty-three ﬁrst-year students returned usable surveys.

The response rate for the LBS 171 class was 38% (177/469), but only 149 were
usable. The overall response rate for the CEM 141 class was 22% (466/2086), but only
401 were usable. For ﬁrst-year students enrolled in CEM 141, the return rate was 18%
(273/1511) for all students and 18% (111/620) for CNS students (but only 241 and 95
respectively were usable). Combining the two courses, LBS 171 and CEM 141, the
overall return rate for all ﬁrst-year students enrolled was 22% (443/ 1980) and for CNS
ﬁrst-year students was 26% (288/ 1 089).

The return rate was considerably less than what Poulios (2005) achieved (84%)
but slightly more than that achieved by similar surveys of ﬁrst-year students at MSU
(20%). I speculate that this was due in part to the type of incentive offered for
participation. Perhaps students perceived extra credit points as more valuable than the
chance to win a $50.00 bookstore gift certiﬁcate. Also, Poulios worked for the chemistry
department and may have been perceived as an authority ﬁgure whereas I had no ofﬁcial
connection to the course or the students. Porter (2004) noted that “people are more likely
to comply with a request when it comes from an authority viewed as legitimate” (p. 8).

When compared to the ﬁrst-year students enrolled in CEM 141 and LBS 171, a
higher percentage of female and White students returned surveys and a lower percentage
of men and students of color returned surveys. Porter (2004) found that in surveys of
college students “females, whites, and ﬁrst- and second-year students are more likely to
respond to surveys than are other student groups” (p. 6). Although my survey respondent

sample is consistent with surveys of college students, the lower percentage of males and

51

students of color should be taken into consideration when interpreting and applying the

ﬁndings.

Survey Respondent Description

Of the 550 usable surveys, 383 were ﬁlled out by ﬁrst-year students 18 years of

age or older. Although only 244 (64%) of the 383 ﬁrst-year respondents were from the

College of Natural Science (CNS), all 383 surveys were used in the analysis presented in

Chapter 4 because roughly two-thirds of Lyman Briggs School (LBS) participants who

do not graduate in LBS graduate in a major outside of the CNS (Philip Strong, personal

communication, February 4, 2007). Detailed information about respondent demographics

is available in Table 3.

 

 

Table 3
Survey Respondent Demographics
At least 18
Initial years old First-year
Variable 610 550 383

Sex
Female 413 67.7% 364 66.2% 246 64.2%
Male 195 32.0% 184 33.5% 136 35.5%
Trans 1 0.2% 1 0.2% 1 0.3%
No Answer 1 0.2% 1 0.2% 0 0.0%

Racial/Ethnic Identiﬁcation
White/Caucasian 493 80.8% 448 81.5% 319 83.3%
Black/African American 21 3.4% 18 3.3% 5 1.3%
Chicano/Hispanic/Latino 8 1 .3% 8 1 .5% 5 1.3%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 5 0.8% 5 0.9% 3 0.8%
Asian American/Paciﬁc Islander 37 6.1% 30 5.5% 26 6.8%
Multiracial 1 1 1.8% 10 1.8% 7 1.8%
Other 1 1 1.8% 9 1.6% 9 2.3%
International Student 5 0.8% 4 0.7% 0 0.0%
I Prefer Not to Answer 16 2.6% 15 2.7% 8 2.1%
No Answer 3 0.5% 3 0.5% 1 0.3%

52

Table 3 (cont’d)

College

Undergraduate University Division 62 10.2% 55 10% 30 7.8%
Agriculture & Natural Resources 38 6.2% 38 6.9% 10 2.6%
Arts & Letters 3 0.5% 3 0.5% 0 0.0%
Business 4 0.7% 4 0.7% 0 0.0%
Communication Arts & Sciences 3 0.5% 2 0.4% 0 0.0%
Education 19 3.1% 19 3.5% 4 1%
Engineering 56 9.2% 54 9.8% 47 12.3%
James Madison College 3 0.5% 2 0.4% 0 0%
Natural Science (includes LBS) 341 55.9% 297 54% 244 63.7%
Nursing 29 4.8% 27 4.9% 24 6.3%
Social Science 21 3.4% 21 3.8% 0 0.0%
Veterinary Medicine 31 5.1% 28 5.1% 24 6.3%
No Answer 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

 

The 383 ﬁrst-year students who responded to the survey included 246 females
(64.2%), 136 males (35.5%), and 1 transgender student (0.3%). The respondents reported
their racial/ethnic identiﬁcation as follows: 319 White (83.3%), 5 African American
(1 .3%), 5 Hispanic/Latino (1.3%), 3 American Indian (.8%), 26 Asian American (6.8%),
7 Multiracial (1.8%), 9 Other (2.3%), and 9 provided no answer to this question. When
compared with the overall MSU ﬁrst—year class of 2007, the sample includes a higher
percentage of female, White, American Indian, and Asian American students and a lower
percentage of Male, Black/Aﬁican American, and Hispanic/Latino students. The
university does not report percentage of Multiracial students, although students are
provided the option to mark more than one race on their applications.

The majority of the students who responded to the survey were from the College
of Natural Science (63.7%). The colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2.6%),
Education (1 .0%), Engineering (12.3%), Nursing (6.3%), Veterinary Medicine (6.3%),

and the Undergraduate University Division (7.8%) were also represented. The most

53

commonly reported degree aspiration was Medical Degree (43.9%). Only 7.6% indicated
they planned to pursue only a Bachelor’s Degree and 13.8% were not sure of the highest
degree they planned top eventually pursue. About one-third of respondents (34.7%)
indicated that they planned to pursue a graduate degree.

Most participants indicated that their social class growing up was either Upper-
middle or Professional class (41.3%) or Middle-class (43.9%). Only 4.7% indicated they
grew up Wealthy, 8.2% marked Working-class, and 1.8% Low income or Poor. Most
participants (72.3%) indicated that both of their parents had completed at least a
Bachelor’s Degree. Some (15.4%) marked that neither parent had completed a college
degree. A small number of participants (7.6%) had at least one parent who had completed
a Medical Degree. Table 4 provides the demographic variables broken down by the
following categories: LBS participant, other learning community participant, and non-

learrring community participant.

54

Table 4

Survey Respondents, F irst- Y ear, F irst-Time Students

 

 

Other LC
LBS Program No Program

Variable 149 20 214

Sex
Female 99 66.4% 4 20.0% 143 66.8%
Male 50 33.6% 16 80.0% 70 32.7%
Trans 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.5%
No Answer 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Racial/Ethnic Identiﬁcation
White/Caucasian 128 85.9% 14 70.0% 177 82.7%
Black/African American 1 0.7% l 5.0% 3 1.4%
Chicano/Hispanic/Latino 2 l .3% 0 0.0% 3 1.4%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 2 0.9%
Asian American/Paciﬁc Islander 10 6.7% 1 5.0% 15 7.0%
Multiracial 2 l .3% l 5.0% 4 l .9%
Other 2 1.3% 0 0.0% 7 3.3%
International Student 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
I Prefer Not to Answer 2 1.3% 3 15.0% 3 1.4%
No Answer 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

College
Undergraduate University Division 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 30 14.0%
Agriculture & Natural Resources 0 0.0% 1 5.0% 9 4.2%
Arts & Letters 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Business 0 0.0% O 0.0% 0 0.0%
Communication Arts & Sciences 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Education 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 1 .9%
Engineering 0 0.0% 15 75.0% 32 15.0%
James Madison College 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Natural Science (includes LBS) 149 100.0% 4 20.0% 91 42.5%
Nursing 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 24 1 1.2%
Social Science 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Veterinary Medicine 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 24 11.2%
No Answer 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

55

Table 4 (cont’d)

 

 

Other LC
LBS Program No Program
Variable 149 20 214
Social Class
Wealthy 8 5.4% 0 0.0% 10 4.7%
Upper-middle/Professional 64 43.0% 6 30.0% 87 40.7%
Middle-class 68 45.6% 10 50.0% 89 41.6%
Working-class 5 3.4% 4 20.0% 22 10.3%
Low income or poor 2 1.3% 0 0.0% 5 2.3%
No Answer 2 1.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.5%
Degree Plan
Bachelor’s Degree 3 2.0% 4 20.0% 22 10.3%
Master’s Degree 23 15.4% 5 25.0% 54 25.2%
Doctorate 15 10.1% 6 30.0% 28 13.1%
Medical Degree 83 55.7% 2 10.0% 83 38.8%
Law Degree 0 0.0% 1 5.0% l 0.5%
Don’t Know Yet 25 16.8% 2 10.0% 26 12.1%
Mother’s Education
No HS Diploma 0 0.0% 1 5.0% 2 0.9%
High School Diploma/GED 17 1 1.4% 5 25.0% 39 18.2%
Some College but No Degree 15 10.1% 2 10.0% 27 12.6%
Associate’s Degree 13 8.7% 4 20.0% 27 12.6%
Bachelor’s Degree 47 31.5% 2 10.0% 72 33.6%
Master’s Degree 41 27.5% 5 25.0% 26 12.1%
Doctorate 3 2.0% 0 0.0% 3 1 .4%
Medical Degree 4 2.7% 0 0.0% 3 1.4%
Law Degree 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 1.4%
Don’t Know Yet 9 6.0% 1 5.0% 12 5.6%
Father’s Education
No HS Diploma 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 3.3%
High School Diploma/GED 20 13.4% 2 10.0% 41 19.2%
Some College but No Degree 11 7.4% 1 5.0% 21 9.8%
Associate’s Degree 15 10.1% 2 10.0% 16 7.5%
Bachelor’s Degree 34 22.8% 10 50.0% 57 26.6%
Master’s Degree 28 18.8% 2 10.0% 43 20.1%
Doctorate 1 1 7.4% 1 5.0% 3 1.4%
Medical Degree 15 10.1% 1 5.0% 10 4.7%
Law Degree 5 3.4% 0 0.0% 6 2.8%
Don’t Know Yet 10 6.7% 1 5.0% 10 4.7%

 

56

Survey Instrument Development

The purpose of the survey instrument was to explore the importance students
placed on a number of reasons for attending college. In addition, the survey asked about
current involvement in various programs available to ﬁrst-year students at M SU.
Participants were also asked about their future plans regarding the programs offered by
the institution. Demographic items were included as well. Please see Appendix A for the
complete survey instrument.

As noted in Chapter 2, many studies have included questions regarding students’
reasons for attending college (e.g., Hart, 2004; Pryor et al., 2005; Stark, Shaw, &
Lowther, 1989). The items included in this study were based primarily on those used by
Coté and Levine (1997) for The Student Motivation for Attending University Scale
(SMA U). This scale included 23 questions that fell into ﬁve categories: Careerism-
Materialism, Personal-Intellectual Development, Humanitarian, Expectation-Driven, and
Default. After comparing the SMAU categories to a number of college student typologies
(Astin, 1993a; Clark & Trow, 1966; Horowitz, 1987; Katchadourian & Boli, 1985) and
general surveys of college student attitudes (Hart, 2004; Johnson & Duffett, 2005; Pryor
et al., 2005; Stark, et al., 1991; Stark, et al., 1989; Thomson, 2006), I decided that the
categories should be modiﬁed to better represent the literature on college students.

When compared with college student typologies (Astin, 1993a; Clark & Trow,
1966; Horowitz, 1987; Katchadourian & Boli, 1985; Kuh, et al., 2000), it is interesting to
note that Coté and Levine (1997) did not include a collegiate or social motivation in the
SMAU. This type of motivation for college might be characterized as having a strong

identiﬁcation with their college, being interested in sports and student organizations, and

57

being heavily involved in co- and extra-curricular activities, for example Clark and
Trow’s Collegiate group or Horowitz’s College Men. To determine speciﬁc items to
include to represent this category, I examined the questions used on several surveys and
research studies including: the Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s annual
survey of ﬁrst-time, full-time freshmen (Pryor etal., 2005), Katchadourian and Boli’s
study of careerism and intellectualism, the Student Goals Exploration inventory (Stark, et
al., 1991; Stark, et al., 1989), Hart’s (2004) study of attitudes toward liberal education
outcomes, the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (Kuh et al., 2000), and the
National Study of Student Engagement (Kuh et al., 2005a. 2005b).

This examination led to the ﬁnal survey instrument used in this study, which
included 30 items representing six categories of reasons to attend college (See Table 5).
The categories of reasons for attending college were: Career Preparation, Personal-
Intellectual Development, Civic-Humanitarian Engagement, College-Social Experience,
Expectation-Drive, and Default-Indifferent. Participants were asked to mark how

important or true each item is for them on a six-point Likert scale.

58

Table 5

 

Survey Items by Category
Career Preparation
0 To achieve personal success
0 To be able to make more money
0 To get into an interesting and satisfying career
0 To prepare for graduate or professional school

0 To achieve a position of hijher status in society
Personal-Intellectual Development

0 To discover what kind of person I really want to be

0 To gain a general education and appreciation of ideas

0 To learn more about things that interest me

0 To develop an in-depth understanding of a speciﬁc ﬁeld of study

0 To understand the complexities of life in the modern world
Civic-Humanitarian Engagement

0 To be able to contribute to the welfare of others

0 To be able to contribute to the improvement of the human condition

0 To develop skills to work effectively with different kinds of people

0 To prepare for a life of meaningful participation in society

0 To become an informed citizen and voter
College-Social Experience

0 To establish meaningful relationships

0 To enjoy my college years before assuming adult responsibilities

0 To become actively involved in student life and campus activities

0 To meet new people

0 To take advantage of leadership opportunities on campus
Expectation-Driven

0 My parent(s) would be very disappointed in me if I didn’t get a college degree
I basically had no choice but to come to college, it was expected of me

0 To achieve a high GPA

o A mentor/role model encouraged me to go to college

0 To meet family expectations
Default-Indifferent

o I often ask myself why I’m in college
I am in college because I could not ﬁnd a job
To get away from home
I am in college because I didn't know what I wanted to do after high school
I am in college because there was nothing better to do

59

Pilot Testing of the Survey Instrument

A pilot version of the survey instrument was distributed to 16 volunteers. The
volunteers were all undergraduate students who lived on-campus and worked for the
Department of Residence Life. After the students ﬁlled out the survey, they were asked
about whether the list of reasons made sense and seemed comprehensive. The volunteers
were asked to suggest any reasons they thought were missing and to comment about any
reasons that seemed redundant. No additional reasons were suggested. One volunteer
voiced concern about the reason A mentor/role model encouraged me to go to college.
This question was not changed because the other 15 volunteers thought the question was
clear. The volunteers were also asked about whether any of the demographic questions
seemed inappropriate. No concerns were voiced about the demographic questions.
Survey Data Analysis

The ﬁndings from the analysis of the survey data are presented in detail in
Chapter 4. In this section, I will provide a brief overview of the data analysis that was
conducted. The survey data analysis served several purposes: to examine the scale items
used, to proﬁle survey respondents based on their reasons for attending college, and to
explore the differences between learning community participants and non-participants.

Scale Analysis. To assess the internal consistency of the Reasons to Attend
College scale, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the original scale and subscales. To
explore the possibility of alternative subscales, principle components analysis was used.
Direct Oblirnin oblique rotation was used to extract factors. Cronbach’s alpha was then

calculated on the new subscales.

60

Proﬁling Survey Respondents. Two approaches to proﬁling the participants
regarding their reasons for attending college were used. First I examined the participants’
raw answers to see which reasons were deemed most important and least important.
Using the factor score generated during the scale analysis, I then used hierarchical cluster
analysis to sort the respondents into groups based on their survey responses. This
approach was utilized because it correlates respondents rather than reasons with each
other.

Exploring Diﬂerences. Chi-square test for independence was used to explore
whether groups based on the demographic categories of sex, racial/ethnic identiﬁcation,
social class, degree aspiration, and parent education were more or less likely to
participate in a learning community program. Chi-square was used because I was
exploring the relationship between two categorical variables. Signiﬁcant differences were
found for the categories of degree aspiration, mother’s education, and father’s education.
These demographic categories were further explored using the Mann-Whitney U test.

In addition to exploring differences in learning community participation by
demographic category, both the individual questions in the RAC scale and the subscales
were examined for statistical differences between learning community and non-learning
community participants. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine the individual
reasons because the answer choices were on an ordinal, and not interval, scale. In
comparing the learning community participants to non-participants, the subscales were

examined using independent—samples t-tests.

61

Phase 2: Semi-Structured Interviews

The purpose of the semi-structured interviews was to explore students’ reasons
for attending college and the processes through which they developed their reasons. In
addition, students’ perceptions of the value of the LBS opportunity were discussed. Semi-
structured interviews were used so that each interview had a consistent framework but
also allowed for the investigation of each individual’s perceptions and experiences (Miles
& Huberrnan, 1994). The interview protocol begins with general questions about the
participant’s reasons for attending college and how they had developed those reasons.
The questions then become more speciﬁc about the curricular and co-curricular
opportunities available at MSU, including the LBS. The interview protocol can be found
in Appendix B.
Sampling

Participants for the semi-structured interview phase of this study were chosen
using a purposeful, maximum variation sampling approach (Glesne, 1999; Isaac &
Michael, 1995; Miles & Huberrnan, 1994). Maximum variation sampling allows for the
exploration of the uniqueness between diverse members of a population as well as the
search for common patterns among them. Variation was sought on four criteria: gender,
racial or ethnic identiﬁcation, learning community participation, and reason for attending
college cluster (resulting hour the survey data analysis mentioned above).

Only LBS participants and non-learning community participants who ﬁlled out
the survey were recruited for interviews. CNS students who are not in LBS but are in
another learning community were not included because they did not represent maximum

variation from the LBS students. Within the two groups (LBS and non-LBS), I strove for

62

variation on the remaining criteria: gender, racial or ethnic identiﬁcation, and reason for
attending college cluster. Participants were recruited via email, which they had provided
on their survey form.

The concepts of sufﬁciency and saturation (Jones, 2002; Ortiz, 2003) were used to
determine the number of participants. The number of participants is sufﬁcient when the
range of experiences within the population is reﬂected. Saturation is achieved when
participant information begins to be redundant. I recruited 23 students to participate in the
interviews.

Interview Data Analysis

The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded for themes. Inductive
reasoning was used to analyze the interview data. Because I was investigating the
processes students’ utilized for developing their reasons, the reasons themselves, and the
relationship between those reasons and participation in a residential learning community,
my analysis went through several iterations. In my initial examination of each transcript,
I was most interested in understanding the story each student had to tell. I used memoing
(Miles & Huberrnan, 1994) to construct a conceptual idea of the processes each student
used to make sense of the opportunities MSU provided her/him. I was also paying special
attention to the levels of contexts (i.e., microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem,
macrosystem) (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979, 1989, 1993) within which the student was
interacting.

In my second analysis of each interview transcript, I used a constant comparative
approach to build codes (Boyatzis, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The constant

comparative approach involves building codes by looking at each unit of data and

63

comparing it with existing categories and either adding it to a category or using it to
create a new category. This approach seemed appropriate because although categories of
reasons to attend college exist in the literature, codes pertaining to the relationship
between these reasons and participation in learning communities do not exist. I then used
axial and selective coding to group the data into themes.

The themes that emerged focused not only on the research question at hand, the
potential relationship between reasons and participation, but also on other aspects of the
college experience. These additional codes included areas such as career and major
selection, and experiences in the classroom. I included in the ﬁndings only the themes
that shed light on the potential relationship between reasons and participation. The other
data could be used in future studies (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of areas of future
research).

Trustworthiness

I relied on two methods of establishing the trustworthiness of my analysis,
member-checking and peer debrieﬁng. Member-checking involves providing interview
participants the opportunity to examine and comment on the accuracy of descriptions and
themes in order to check for accuracy (Creswell, 2003; Glesne, 1999). I sent a summary
of the themes from the semi-structured interview to two of the participants who had
expressed interest during their interviews in learning about my ﬁndings. I asked them to
share any comments they had about the themes. Neither recommended any changes be
made.

A researcher not involved with this project was recruited to act as a peer

debriefer, a person who reviews the study and checks for accuracy of themes and ﬁndings

(Creswell, 2003). This colleague was chosen because she had been involved in a research
project centered around learning communities at MSU and was familiar with the LBS.
The peer debriefer coded four interviews (2 LBS participants and 2 non-participants). Her
coding of the interviews largely agreed with my own. The only difference was the
emphasis the peer debriefer placed on the role of parents in shaping students’ reasons and
participation. After reviewing additional transcripts, we decided that this emphasis was
not as prevalent in the other participants’ transcripts and the original coding scheme was
sufﬁcient.
Role of the Researcher

In qualitative research, it is important to consider the role of the researcher
because the researcher is the primary data collection and analysis tool. Glesne (1999)
recommended that qualitative researchers be aware of and examine their subjective lenses
within each research setting. The subjective lens that was most salient for me in this
research was my academic advisor lens. If my academic advisor self had been allowed to
speak, I would have challenged the participants about their reasons for attending college
and their perceptions of the value of the learning community opportunity. As an academic
advisor, I would have felt compelled to try to help students develop a more complex way
of making sense of their educational opportunities. Many times during the interviews, 1
also felt the advising inclination to help students work through their choices about
majors, careers, and future involvement in curricular and co-curricular activities. I chose
to keep my academic advisor self internal during the interviews in order to maintain open
communication with the participants. 1 did not want to shut down my participants by

challenging them on their current opinions.

65

Synthesizing the Interview and Survey Data

One of the strengths of maximum variation sampling is that it allows for
exploration of both differences and similarities. The primary characteristic of variation
that guided my synthesis of the datalis LBS participation or non-participation. I used both
the survey and interview data to shed light on the relationship between reasons for
attending college and participation in the LBS and other co-curricular opportunities. I
found that both the survey and interview data contributed to my understanding of the
processes by which students came to participation in the various opportunities MSU
makes available to them. In sequential exploratory mixed method research, the
quantitative data and results can be used “to assist in the interpretation of qualitative
ﬁndings” (Creswell, 2003, p. 215). Thus, I included select survey ﬁndings within the
discussion of the interview themes. Both survey and interview data were also used to
build the model presented in Chapter 6.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I provided a description of the methodology 1 used for this study.
The research approach and study design were discussed. Details about the sampling
procedures, the data collection, the instrument development, and an overview of the data
analysis were provided for both the survey portion of the study and the interview portion
of the study.

In the next four chapters, I present the ﬁndings from this study, propose a model,
discuss implications for practice and future research, and address the limitations of the
study. Chapter 4 includes details about the ﬁndings from the survey portion of the study.

In Chapter 5, I present the ﬁndings from the semi-structured interviews while

66

interweaving data from the survey. Chapter 6 contains a proposed model of the
relationship between reasons for attending college and learning community participation.

In Chapter 7, I suggest implications for practice and future research.

67

CHAPTER 4
Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present the ﬁndings from Phase 1 of this study,
the survey data collection. The purpose of the survey portion of this study was to explore
the importance students placed on 30 reasons for attending college. In addition, the
survey asked about current and future involvement in a number of programs offered by
MSU. Demographic items were also included. Please see Appendix A for the complete
survey instrument.

1 used the survey data to explore the potential relationship between reasons to
attend college and learning community participation as well as the sub-questions: What
are the proﬁles of reasons for attending college among ﬁrst-year students enrolled in the
College of Natural Science at Michigan State University? and Are there differences
between those students who chose to participate in the College of Natural Science’s
residential learning community program, the Lyman Briggs School, and those who chose
not to participate in terms of their reasons for attending college? I will present the survey
ﬁndings in three sections: scale analysis, reasons for attending proﬁles, and difference
exploration. Each section will include a brief description of the analysis performed and
details about the ﬁndings.

Scale Analysis

The Reasons to Attend College (RAC) Scale consisted of 30 items divided into

six subscales: Career Preparation, Personal-Intellectual Development, Civic-

Hurnanitarian Engagement, College-Social Experience, Expectation-Drive, and Default-

68

Indifferent. This section includes an analysis of both the original scale and subscales as
well as an exploration of alternative subscales.
Internal Consistency of Original Subscales

To test the internal consistency of the overall scale and subscales, I used
Cronbach’s coefﬁcient alpha. The results of this initial test of internal consistency are
located in Table 6. The overall internal consistency was .87. Four of the six subscales had
an acceptable internal consistency with an alpha of at least .70. For the Expectation-
Driven subscale, if the item A mentor/role model encouraged me to go to college is
dropped, the resulting alpha is .71. For the Default-Indifferent subscale, if the item To get

away ﬁom home is dropped, the resulting alpha is .66.

 

 

Table 6

Internal Consistency of Initial Subscales

Subscale a level
Career Preparation .72
Personal-Intellectual Development .73
Civic-Humanitarian Engagement .76
College-Social Experience .77
Expectation-Drive .67/ .71
Default-Indifferent .59/ .66

 

Exploratory Factor Analysis
To explore the possibility of alternative subscales, I conducted a factor analysis
using principle components analysis. To determine the appropriateness of using factor
analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s
test of sphericity were calculated. An acceptable KMO of .85 indicated factorability.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity (12 = 4152.33, p = .000) indicated rejection of the null

hypothesis that all correlation coefﬁcients are 0.

69

To determine the number of factors to be extracted, 1 utilized eigenvalues,
screeplot, and parallel analysis. Seven components had eigenvalues greater than 1. These
seven components explained a total of 58.54% of the variance. The screeplot indicated
retaining two to ﬁve components. Parallel analysis suggested ﬁve components (see Table
7). Based on these results, I used Direct Oblirrrin oblique rotation to examine the results
of two-, three-, four-, ﬁve-, and six-component solutions. I chose the Direct Oblirnin
oblique rotation because the components were likely to be highly related due to the nature
of the questions and Varimax orthogonal rotation assumes that the components are
independent.

Table 7
Comparison of Eigenvalues and Parallel Analysis

 

Actual eigenvalue Criterion value from

 

Component number ﬁ'om PCA parallel analysis Decision
1 7.21 1.55 Accept
2 3.12 1.48 Accept
3 1 .91 1 .42 Accept
4 1.70 1.37 Accept
5 1.35 1.33 Accept
6 1.18 1.29 Reject
7 1.10 1.25 Reject

 

After analyzing the results of the two-, three-, four-, ﬁve-, and six-component
solutions, the ﬁve factor solution was chosen. One item, A mentor/role model encouraged
me to go to college, was not included in any of the factors because its single-factor
loading was less than .30. Tables 8, 9, and 10 provide the pattern matrix, structure matrix,

and the component correlation matrix respectively for the ﬁve factor solution.

70

Table 8
Pattern Matrix for Five Factor Solution

 

 

Component
1 2 3 4 5

2. To be able to contribute to the welfare of others 0.76 -0.09 0.17 -0.10 -0.11
8. To be able to contribute to the improvement of the

human condition 0.72 0.02 0.04 -0.02 0.18
12. To take advantage of leadership opportunities on

campus 0.70 0.07 -0.04 0.14 -0.05
20. To prepare for a life of meaningful participation in

society 0.5 1 0.05 0.13 -0.04 0.35
16. To understand the complexities of life in the

modern world 0.47 0.16 -0.10 0.17 0.31
14. To develop skills to work effectively with different

kinds of people 0.46 -0.08 -0.04 0.20 0.26
26. To become an informed citizen and voter 0.35 0.12 0.11 0.27 0.14
7. A mentor/role model encouraged me to go to

college 0.25 0.21 0.16 0.13 -0.03
29. I often ask myself why I'm in college -0.16 0.79 -0.10 0.04 0.04
23. 1 am in college because 1 could not ﬁnd a job -0.02 0.77 -0.1 l 0.03 -0.05
1 l. I am in college because there was nothing better to

do 0.05 0.67 0.14 -0.09 0.1 1
5. I am in college because I didn‘t know what I wanted

to do after high school 0.18 0.52 0.04 0.05 -0. l 7
19. To meet family expectations 0.08 -0.03 0.79 0.20 0.01
1. I basically had no choice but to come to college, it

was expected of me 0.02 -0.02 0.77 -0.07 -0.07
13. My parent(s) would be very disappointed in me if I

didn't get a college degree 0.04 0.00 0.75 0.01 0.16
6. To meet new people 0.04 —0.07 -0.08 0.79 -0.02
30. To establish meaningful relationships 0.00 -0.04 0.02 0.75 0.11
24. To enjoy my college years before assuming adult

responsibilities -0.07 0.08 0. 1 5 0.68 0.03
17. To get away from home -0.11 0.05 0.06 0.63 -0.07
18. To become actively involved in student life and

campus activities 0.50 -0.05 0.00 0.50 -0. 10
4. To discover what kind of person I really want to be 0.22 0.04 -0.1 l 0.43 0.11
21. To be able to make more money -0.34 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.76
22. To develop an in-depth understanding of a speciﬁc

ﬁeld of study 0.13 -0.03 -0.09 —0.12 0.75
9. To achieve personal success -0. 12 -0.25 0.03 0.13 0.66
27. To achieve a position of higher status in society 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.06 0.64
10. To learn more about things that interest me 0.20 -0.09 -0.27 0.05 0.54
28. To gain a general education and appreciation of

ideas 0.24 0.1 1 0.03 0.03 0.53
15. To prepare for graduate or professional school 0.28 -0.18 0.02 -0.10 0.48
3. To get into an interesting and satisfying career 0.11 -0.25 —0.11 0.13 0.45
25. To achieve a high GPA 0.11 -0.06 0.25 0.16 0.42

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component. Rotation Method: Oblimin w/ Kaiser Normalization. 13 iterations.

71

Table 9
Structure Matrix for Five Factor Solution

 

 

Component
1 2 3 4 5

2. To be able to contribute to the welfare of others 0.77 0.03 0.15 0.25 0.39
8. To be able to contribute to the improvement of the

human condition 0.73 0.12 0.08 0.34 0.19
12. To take advantage of leadership opportunities on

campus 0.72 -0.02 0.21 0.1 1 0.13
20. To prepare for a life of meaningful participation in

society 0.63 0.04 0.24 0.25 0.51
16. To understand the complexities of life in the

modern world 0.62 0.07 0.12 0.62 0.21
14. To develop skills to work effectively with different

kinds of people 0.61 0.14 0.05 0.41 0.46
26. To become an informed citizen and voter 0.59 -0.08 0.07 0.39 0.46
7. A mentor/role model encouraged me to go to

college 0.49 0.18 0.23 0.45 0.32
29. 1 often ask myself why I'm in college 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.26 0.07
23. 1 am in college because 1 could not ﬁnd a job —0.1 1 0.76 0.06 0.12 -0.13
1 1. 1 am in college because there was nothing better to

do -0.01 0.75 0.05 0.12 -0. 18
5. I am in college because I didn't know what I wanted

to do after high school 0.1 1 0.67 0.29 0.09 0.02
19. To meet family expectations 0.17 0.57 0.15 0.15 -0.18
1. I basically had no choice but to come to college, it

was expected of me 0.24 0.17 0.83 0.35 0.19
13. My parent(s) would be very disappointed in me if I

didn't get a college degree 0.18 0.14 0.77 0.18 0.27
6. To meet new people 0.07 0.14 0.75 0.04 0.01
30. To establish meaningful relationships 0.26 0.07 0.14 0.78 0.33
24. To enjoy my college years before assuming adult

responsibilities 0.26 0.05 0.04 0.78 0.22
17. To get away from home 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.71 0.21
18. To become actively involved in student life and

campus activities 0.07 0.17 0.15 0.59 0.07
4. To discover what kind of person 1 really want to be 0.37 0.08 0.01 0.51 0.28
21. To be able to make more money 0.32 —0.18 -0.01 0.12 0.75
22. To develop an in-depth understanding of a speciﬁc

ﬁeld of study 0.1 1 -0.33 0.07 0.24 0.70
9. To achieve personal success -0.06 -0.01 0.23 0.24 0.68
27. To achieve a position of higher status in society 0.25 0.1 1 0.31 0.30 0.66
10. To learn more about things that interest me 0.43 0.05 0.15 0.28 0.61
28. To gain a general education and appreciation of

ideas 0.35 -0.21 -0.19 0.21 0.60
15. To prepare for graduate or professional school 0.40 -0.26 0.06 0.09 0.57
3. To get into an interesting and satisfying career 0.26 -0.32 -0.08 0.23 0.55
25. To achieve a high GPA 0.32 -0.05 0.32 0.34 0.54

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component. Rotation Method: Oblimin w/ Kaiser Normalization.

72

Table 10
Component Correlation Matrix

 

Component 1 2 3 4 5
1 1.000 .044 .123 .301 .309
2 .044 1.000 .209 .164 -.156
3 .123 ' .209 1.000 .161 .121
4 .301 .164 .161 1.000 .283
5 .309 -.156 .121 .283 1.000

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component. Rotation Method: Oblimin w/ Kaiser Normalization.

Internal Consistency of F actored Subscales

The ﬁve components, subscales, described above were named: Individual
Development, Civic Leadership, Personal Connections, Default-Indifferent, and
Expectation Driven. To test the internal consistency of each new subscale, I used
Cronbach’s coefﬁcient alpha. Four of the ﬁve subscales had an acceptable internal
consistency with an alpha of at least .70. Table 11 provides the alpha for each subscale as
well as the questions that make up each subscale.

The combination of items in the Individual Development subscale is interesting in
that the items included bring together two categories, Careerism and Intellectualisnr, that
have previously been examined as contrary to one another (e. g., Clark & Trow, 1966;
Katchadourian & Boli, 1985). For example, Katchadourian and Boli split their
participants into four types based on students’ rankings of items related to careerism and
intellectualism: Careerists, Intellectuals, Strivers, and the Unconnected. The Individual
Development subscale includes both career-focused items, such as To be able to make
more money and To get into an interesting and satisfying career, as well as intellectual
items, such as To learn more about things that interest me and To gain a general

education and appreciation of ideas. This ﬁnding will be explored further in Chapter 7.

73

Table 11
F actored Subscales with C oeﬂicient A Ipha

 

Individual Development (a = .82)

To achieve personal success

To be able to make more money

To get into an interesting and satisfying career

To learn more about things that interest me

To develop an in—depth understanding of a speciﬁc ﬁeld of study
To gain a general education and appreciation of ideas

To achieve a high GPA

To prepare for graduate or professional school

0 To achieve a position of higher status in society

 

Civic Leadership ((1 = .82)
0 To be able to contribute to the welfare of others
To be able to contribute to the improvement of the human condition
To develop skills to work effectively with different kinds of people
To prepare for a life of meaningful participation in society
To take advantage of leadership opportunities on campus
To understand the complexities of life in the modern world
0 To become an informed citizen and voter

 

Personal Connections ((1 = .76)

0 To establish meaningful relationships
To enjoy my college years before assuming adult responsibilities
To become actively involved in student life and campus activities
To meet new people
To get away from home
0 To discover what kind of person I really want to be

 

Default-Indifferent (o. = .66)
o I often ask myself why I’m in college
0 1 am in college because I could not ﬁnd a job
0 I am in college because I didn't know what I wanted to do after high school
0 I am in college because there was nothing better to do

 

Expectation-Driven (a = .74)
0 My parent(s) would be very disappointed in me if I didn’t get a college degree
0 I basically had no choice but to come to college, it was expected of me
0 To meet family expectations

The Civic Leadership, Personal Connections, Default-Indifferent, and

Expectation-Driven subscales are consistent with previous survey research on students

reasons for attending college (e.g., Astin 1993a; Coté & Levine, 1997; Stark, Shaw, &

74

Lowther, 1989). The Civic Leadership subscale is focused on contributing to society
through leadership and participation. The Personal Connections subscale includes items
focused on relationships and identity. The Default-Indifferent subscale represents a lack
of direction. The Expectation-Driven includes items that illustrate an external motivation
for attending college.

Reasons for Attending College Proﬁles

To explore the proﬁles of students’ reasons for attending college, I ﬁrst examined
the participants’ aggregate answers to examine which reasons were deemed most
important and least important. The percentage of respondents who marked either
Essential or Very hnportant is provided by subscale in Tables 12 through 16 and is
broken down by the following categories: LBS participant, other learning community
participant, and non-learning community participant. In addition, I performed a
hierarchical cluster analysis to examine whether individuals fell into different groups
based on the similarity of their survey answers.

The ﬁve reasons marked as Essential or Very Important by the largest percentage
of respondents were all from the Individual Development subscale: To achieve personal
success (87.4%), To get into an interesting and satisjying career (87.2%), To develop an
in-depth understanding of a specific ﬁeld of stuay (76.0%), To learn more about things
that interest me (75.7%), and To be able to make more money (72.4%). Both the other
learning community participant group and the non-participant group had the same items
as their top ﬁve, although in a slightly different order. For the LBS participant group, To

be able to make more money, was not one of the top ﬁve reasons. Instead, To prepare for

75

graduate or professional school, was in the top ﬁve with 82.5% of LBS participants
marking it Essential or Very Important.

The reasons with the largest percentage of respondents marking Not True were all
from the Default-Indifferent subscale (this subscale used Not True to Absolutely True
instead of Not Important to Essential): I am in college because I could not ﬁnd a job
(84.3%), I often ask myself why I’m in college (67.6%), I am in college because there was
nothing better to do (62.9%), and I am in college because I didn’t know what I wanted to
do after high school (60.3%). Both the LBS group and the non-participant group had very
similar answers to these four questions. Interestingly, the other learning community
participant group appeared more unclear about their purpose for being in college. For the
question, I often ask myself why I’m in college, 35.0% of respondents marked Not True
(in contrast to 75.8% for LBS and 65.0% for non-participants) and 20.0% marked
Absolutely or Very True. Similarly, only 40.0% of non-participants marked I am in
college because I didn ’t know what I wanted to do after high school as Not True. This

item was Not True for 62.4% of LBS participants and 60.7% of non-participants.

76

Tables 12 through 16 provide the percentage of respondents who answered Not

Important (N I) and Essential or Very Important (E or V1) for each question within each

subscale.

Table 12

Individual Development Subscale

To achieve personal
success

To get into an
interesting and
satisfying career

To develop an in-
depth understanding
of a speciﬁc ﬁeld of
study_

 

All Participants
E or VI

NI

0.8%

2.1%

_‘ “1.0%

To learn more 3E1?"

things that interest
me

 

To be able to make
more money

To prepare for

graduate or
professional school

To achieve a high
GPA

 

1.3%

_l_-_3%__.

87.4%

87.2%

76.0%,

“745.7%

__.1 3%

NI
1.3%

2.0%

LBS
E or VI

86.6%

87.9%

79.2%

N1
0.0%

Other LC Program
E or VI

90.0%

No Program

NI
0.5%

Eoer

87.9%

 

5.0%

0.0%

80.0%

75.0%

1 .9%

0.9%

87.4%

73.9%

 

0.7%

79.2%

0.0%

80.0%

1.9%

72.9%

 

 

72.4%

 

2.1%

4.2%

72.3%

58.2%

0.7%

5 .4%

o._7%__63.7%

82.5%
53.0%

0.0%

85.0%

1.9%

77.1%

 

10.0%
5.0%

45.0%
45.0%

2.3%

3.3%

67.8%
63.1%

 

To achieve a position
of higher status in
society _
To gain a general
education and
appreciation of ideas

_____ __2.-9%

2.3%

52.2%

51.5%

3.4%

2.0%

48.3%

46.3%

5.0%

10.0%

50.0%

55.0%

2.3%

l .9%

55.2%

54.7%

Table 13
Civic Leadership Subscale

All Participants
NI E or VI

To prepare for a life
of meaningful
participation in
society
To develop skills to
work effectively with
different kinds of
people
To be able to
contribute to the
improvement of the
1 human 99nditi0L
To be able to
contribute to the
“welfare of others
To understand the
complexities of life in
the modern world 2.6%

1.3% 54.0%

43.9%

g “35.5%

 

34.7%

 

To become an
informed citizen and

voter 27.4%

‘ 0.0%

45_:9__%___ _

LBS

N1

E or VI

55.7%

NI

5.0%

Other LC Program
E or VI

45.0%

No Program

N1

1.9%

 

0-0"/9___4§_-3%_

2.7%

4.7% .

2.0%

11.4%

51.6%

39.6%

10.0% ,__.,___,___35£°/LL 1.9%

 

E or VI

53.7%_

 

_. 11.67%

20:0‘y;_4_(£)%1_ .. _4_.2%_3§-&/g -,

10.0%

 

33.6% _

22.9%

5.0%

59%» .3_o_:0%

2.8%

35.9%

150% ____ 6-§.%___3__4-§%_._

 

35.0%

7-§_°/9

 

To take advantage of
leadership
opportunities on
campus

10.4% 16.4%

Table 14
Personal Connections Subscale

All Participants
NI E or VI

To discover what
kind of person 1

really want to be 5.2%

 

To establish
meaningful
relationships

4.7% 43.3%

7.4%

NI

4.7%

21.5%

LBS
E or VI

4931/2 ..______4_-0%_§_2£%_ __

36.3%

15.0%

NI

o.o%__4_o.0% _

15.0%

15.0%

Other LC Program
E or VI

12.1%

 

13.1%

No Program

NI

6.5%

E or VI

 

50.0%

3.7%

47.7%

 

4.2% 36.5%

To meet new people
To become actively
involved in student
life and campus
_activities

414% 28.2%

49%

6.0%

28.9%

302%.; 099/

5.0%

15.0%

3513/0—

0 -.—._

3.7%

3.3%

28.9%

414%.

29._9°_@_

48:13/0—

 

 

To get away from

home 21 . 1%

 

To enjoy my college
years before
assuming adult -
responsibilities

1 1.7% 25.6%

2734*

13.25%

12.8%

78

B3_-§%__ Ll__5Q%__ 490%. 3,3:4%i__3_1-:_§312_

16.8%

10.0%

25.0%

11.2%

31.8%

Table 15

Default-Indiﬂerent Subscale *

 

 

 

 

 

All Participants LBS Other LC Program No Program
NI E or N1 E or NI E or VI NI E or
V1 V1 VI
1 am in college
because 1 could not
ﬁnd ajob 84.3% 2.3% 88.6% 1.4% 80.0% 0.0% 81.8% 3.3%
I often ask myself
Mﬂllegemmﬂéi/e . __ 6-§% m. 7§;§%LL_‘1;Z% __3_5__-0‘_’/9 200% 65_.-_Q%L_6_-§%_

1 am in college
because there was

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nothing better to do 329% 6.7% 61;£’/_<L__ 143/g __ 65.0% 32% 94.9% 7.9%
I am in college
because I didn't know
what I wanted to do
after hi school 60.3% 5.7% 62.4% 6.0% 40.0% 0.0% 60.7% 6.1%
‘These four items used the scale Not True to Absolutely True instead of Not Important to Essential
This scale is in order by percentage of Not True responses
Table 16
Expectation-Driven Subscale
All Participants LBS Other LC Program No Program
Nl E or VI NI E or VI N1 E or V1 NI E or VI
My parent(s) would
be very disappointed
in me if I didn’t get a
college Qgree 6.3% 48.8%___ _7.4% _ __ 46.9% 15.0% 40.0% 4.7% 51.0% _
I basically had no
choice but to come to
college, it was
58169199, of me 21 .9%W36. 1% 18.8% 36.2% 15.0% 30.0% 24.8% 36.55%m
To meet family
expectations 7.0% 36.0% 6.7% 36.9% 15.0% 25.0% 6.5% 36.5%

 

In addition to examining the aggregate percentage for each item, I also calculated

a subscale score for each respondent on each subscale. For each item a participant could

receive a score from 0 to 5 based on their answer choice. The subscale score was

calculated by adding together the scores for the items within that subscale. Descriptive

data for each subscale is provided in Table 17.

79

Table 17

Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Scores, Full Sample

 

 

N Min Max Mean Std. Dev
Individual Development 383 5.00 45.00 35.34 6.75
Civic Leadership 383 4.00 35.00 20.55 6.43
Personal Connections 383 1.00 30.00 16.71 5.86
Expectation-Driven 383’ .00 15.00 8.56 3.96
Default-Indifferent 383 .00 20.00 2.57 3.32

 

After looking at the scores for the entire sample, I then used cluster analysis to
sort the respondents into groups based on their survey responses. This approach was
utilized because it correlates respondents rather than reasons with each other. I chose
hierarchical cluster analysis because I had a small number of cases (less than 1,000) and I
did not have a predetermined number of cases for which I was looking (N orusis, 2003). I
used the factor scores for the ﬁve subscales generated during the factor analysis as the
criterion for determining the similarity of respondents. Using Ward’s method, the
agglomeration schedule indicated a three cluster solution.

For all three clusters, the ﬁve subscales were ranked in the same order of
importance with Individual Development being the most important and Default-
Indifferent being the least. In comparison to the other clusters, participants in the ﬁrst
cluster reported a medium level of importance for the items in the Individual
Development, Civic Leadership, and Personal Connections subscales. They also seemed
to be the least externally motivated (lowest scores on the Expectation-Driven and
Default-Indifferent subscales). Participants in the second cluster reported that items in all
ﬁve subscales were of relatively high importance. These students appeared to be the most
externally motivated (highest scores on the Expectation-Driven and Default-Indifferent

subscales). The third cluster included participants who ranked the items in the Individual

80

Development and Civic Leadership subscales relatively low in importance while ranking

Personal Connections, Expectation-Driven, and Default-Indifferent at a medium level of

importance. Descriptive statistics for each of the three clusters are provided in Tables 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

through 20.

Table 18
Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Scores, Cluster 1

N Min Max Mean Std. Dev
Individual Development 147 22.00 45.00 34.12 5.74
Civic Leadership 147 4.00 31.00 19.23 5.78
Personal Connections 147 1.00 27.00 14.12 5.04
Expectation-Driven 147 .00 14.00 5.33 2.99
Default-Indifferent 147 .00 7.00 l. 1 1 1.63
Table 19
Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Scores, Cluster 2

N Min Max Mean Std. Dev
Individual Development 121 23.00 45.00 40.3 1 3.75
Civic Leadership 121 13.00 35.00 26.51 4.48
Personal Connections 121 5 .00 30.00 21 .35 5.07
Expectation-Driven 121 2.00 15.00 11.30 2.87
Default-Indifferent 121 .00 1 8.00 3 .49 4.03
Table 20
Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Scores, Cluster 3

N Min Max Mean Std. Dev
Individual Development 1 15 5 .00 45 .00 31 .67 7.36
Civic Leadership 115 5.00 24.00 15.97 3.69
Personal Connections 115 4.00 24.00 15.13 4.66
Expectation-Driven 115 00 15.00 9.81 3.08
Default-Indifferent l 15 00 20.00 3.46 3.45

 

I used the chi-square test for independence to explore whether members of certain

clusters were more likely to participate in a learning community program. The proportion

of learning community participants and non-participants in each cluster approached

81

signiﬁcance (12 = 1.18, df = 2, p = .55) with the highest percentage of learning
community participants in Cluster 1 and the lowest percentage in Cluster 3. Table 21
provides information about the proportion of learning community participants and non-
participants in each cluster.

Table 21
Learning Community Participants and Non-Participants by Cluster Group

 

 

Participants Non-Participants Total
Cluster 1 41.1% 36.0% 38.4%
Cluster 2 30.2% 32.7% 31.6%
Cluster 3 28.4% 31.1% 30.0%

 

Difference Exploration

I used statistical techniques that explore relationships and compare groups to
explore the question Are there differences in the proﬁles of reasons for attending college
between those who chose to participate in the College of Natural Science’s residential
learning community program, the Lyman Briggs School, and those who chose not to
participate? Demographic data pertaining to sex, racial/ethnic identiﬁcation, social class,
degree aspiration, and parent education were explored to determine if any of these factors
were related to learning community participation. For the purpose of comparing groups,
the 383 participants were grouped in two ways: those who were participating in any
learning community program (not just LBS) and those who were participating in no
learning community program; and LBS participants, other learning community
participants, CNS non-participants, and non-participants from other colleges. I examined
both individual questions in the RAC scale and the subscales for statistical differences

between learning community and non-learning community students.

82

Demographic Factors

Chi-square test for independence was used to explore whether groups based on
the demographic categories of sex, racial/ethnic identiﬁcation, social class, degree
aspiration, and parent education were more or less likely to participate in a learning
community program. Chi-square was used because I was exploring the relationship
between two categorical variables. Chi-square test for independence indicated that there
was no difference between female and male2 students’ rates of participation in learning
communities (x2 = 1.32, df = l, p = .25). There was also no difference between White and
non-White (because of the small number of students in several racial/ethnic categories,
non-white students were grouped together) students’ rates of participation in learning
communities ()8 = .17, df = 3, p = .68). Social class differences did not affect the
likelihood of participation in a learning community (78 = 4.0, df = 4, p = .40).

Degree aspiration (x2 = 11.92, df = 5, p = .04) and both mother’s (x2 = 15.79, df =
9, p = .03) and father’s (x2 = 14.94, df = 9, p = .04) educational attainment did show a
signiﬁcant difference between those who chose to participate in a learning community
program and those who did not. To explore these relationships further, I used the non-
parametric Mann-Whitney U Test to determine which level of degree aspiration was
more likely than others to result in participation in a learning community program.
Students who were not sure of their degree aspirations (p = .02) were more likely to
participate than students who plan to pursue a bachelor’s degree. Students who planned to
pursue a medical degree (p = .01) were more likely to participate than students who plan
to pursue a bachelor’s degree. Students who planned to pursue a medical degree (p = .01)

were also more likely to participate than students who planned to purse a master’s degree.

 

2 The one transgender student was not included in this analysis.

83

There were no other signiﬁcant differences resulting from the Mann-Whitney U Test.

Table 22 shows the percentages of learning community participants and non-participants

 

 

by degree aspiration.
Table 22
Degree Aspiration '
LC Non-
participants participants

Bachelor's 4.1% 10.3%
MA/MS 16.6% 25.2%
PhD 12.4% 13.1%
MD 50.3% 38.8%
JD 0.6% 0.5%
Don't Know 16.0% 12. 1%

 

To explore the impact of mother’s and father’s level of education, I used the
Mann-Whitney U Test. Students whose mothers had completed a Master’s degree were
more likely to participate in a learning community than those whose mothers had
completed High School or Less (p = .00), some college (p = .01 ), an Associate’s degree
(p = .01), or a Bachelor’s degree (p = .00). Students whose fathers had completed a PhD
or JD were more likely to participate in a learning community than those whose fathers
had completed High School or Less (p = .00), some college (p = .03), a Bachelor’s
Degree (p = .05), or a Master’s degree (p = .03). Also, students whose fathers had
completed a Medical degree were more likely to participate than those whose fathers had
completed High School or Less (p = .01). There were no other signiﬁcant differences
resulting from the Mann-Whitney U Test. Table 23 shows the percentages of learning
community participants and non-participants by mother’s highest level of education.
Table 24 shows the percentages of learning community participants and non-participants

by father’s highest level of education.

84

Table 23

Mother ’s Level of Education

 

 

 

 

 

LC Non-
participants participants

HS or less 13.6% 19.2%
Some College 10.1% 12.6%
Associate's 10.1% 12.6%
Bachelor's 29.0% 33.6%
MA/MS 27.2% 12. 1%
MD 2.4% 1.4%
PhD/JD 1.8% 2.8%
Don't Know 5.9% 5.6%
Table 24

Father ’3 Level of Education

LC Non-
participants participants
HS or less 13.0% 22.4%
Some College 7.1% 9.8%
Associate's 10.1% 7.5%
Bachelor's 26.0% 26.6%
MA/MS 17.8% 20.1%
MD 9.5% 4.7%
PhD/JD 10.1% 4.2%
Don‘t Know 6.5% 4.7%
Reasons to Attend College

The ﬁrst 30 questions on the survey were a list of reasons to attend college.

Participants were asked to indicate how important or true each reason was for them.

These 30 questions were then factored into ﬁve subscales. Both the individual questions

and the subscales were examined to determine if any of these items was related to the

decision to participate in a learning community program. I used the Mann-Whitney U test

to examine the individual reasons because the answer choices were on an ordinal, and not

85

interval, scale. In comparing the learning community participants to non-participants, the
subscales were examined using independent-sample t-test.
Individual Items

I used the Mann-Whitney U Test to explore the differences between learning
community participants and non-participants regarding their answers to the 30 items on
the RAC scale. For the sample of 383 ﬁrst-year students, ﬁve items were signiﬁcantly
different. Learning community participants ranked To be able to contribute to the human
condition as more important than did non-participants. Non—participants ranked To
achieve personal success, To be able to make more money, To enjoy my college years
before assuming adult responsibilities, and To achieve a high GPA as more important
than did learning community participants. Table 25 contains mean rank, Mann-Whitney

U, the Z-value, and the P-value for the sample of 383.

 

 

Table 25
Individual Item Comparisons for full sample
Mann-
LC Mean Non-LC Whitney
Rank Mean Rank U Z p
To be able to contribute to the
human condition 205.34 181 .46 15,828 -2.14 .03
To achieve personal success 178.97 202.29 15,880.5 -2.37 .02
To be able to make more money 178.54 202.63 15,8085 -2.25 .02
To enjoy my college years before
assuming adult responsibilities 177.8 203.21 15,684 -2.27 .02
To achieve a high GPA 179.64 201.76 15,994 -2.01 .05

 

When only LBS participants and CNS non-participants were compared, four
items were signiﬁcantly different. CNS non-participants ranked To meet new people, To
enjoy my college years before assuming adult responsibilities, To achieve a high GPA,

and To achieve a position of higher status in society as more important than did LBS

86

participants. Table 26 contains mean rank, Mann-Whitney U, the Z-value, and the P-

value for the LBS/CNS non-participant comparison.

 

 

 

Table 26
Individual Item C omparisons for LBS and CNS non-participants
Mann-
LC Mean Non-LC Whitney
Rank Mean Rank U Z p
To meet new people 112.89 132.96 5646 -2.22 .03
To enjoy my college years before
assuming adult responsibilities 110.4 137.03 5275 —2.93 .00
To achieve a high GPA 112.38 133.8 5569.5 -2.41 .02
To achieve a position of higher
status in society 111.9 134.59 5497.5 -2.53 .01
RAC Subscales

I conducted an independent-samples t-test to compare the subscale scores on each
of the ﬁve subscales for learning community participants and non-learning community
participants. For the sample of 383 ﬁrst-year students, there was no signiﬁcant difference
in scores for participants and non-participants on any of the subscales. When only current
CNS students were compared, there was also no signiﬁcant difference in scores for
participants and non-participants on any of the subscales. Table 27 contains the mean,
standard deviation, t-value, p-value, and magnitude of difference for each subscale. Data
are presented for the comparison between learning community participants and non-

participants as well as LBS and CNS non-participants.

87

Table 27
T-test results

 

 

 

 

 

eta
Non-LC t(3 83) p squared
Subscales M SD M SD
Individual Development 35.02 6.20 35 .59 7.16 -0.82 .41 .003
Civic Leadership 20.82 6.26 20.34 6.57 0.72 .47 .003
Personal Connections 16.26 5.59 17.06 6.06 -l .33 .19 .003
Default-Indifferent 2.41 2.89 2.69 3.62 -0.80 .43 .003
Expectation-Driven 8.43 4.02 8.66 3.92 -0.56 .58 .003
eta
LBS CNS non-LC t(240) p squared
M SD M SD
Individual Development 35.23 6.13 36.42 6.82 -1.40 .16 .004
Civic Leadership 21.15 6.17 20.96 6.92 0.22 .82 .004
Personal Connections 16.13 5.45 17.41 5.90 -1.70 .09 .004
Default-Indifferent 2.31 2.92 2.56 3 .65 -.59 .56 .004
Expectation-Driven 8.53 3.96 9.46 3 .94 -1 .77 .08 .004
Conclusion

In this chapter I presented the ﬁndings from the survey data collection. The

primary purpose of the survey was to explore the importance that participants placed on

30 speciﬁc reasons for attending college and whether or not those reasons were related to

participation in a residential learning community. Factor analysis suggested ﬁve

subscales of reasons for attending college: Individual Development, Civic Leadership,

Personal Connections, Default—Indifferent, and Expectation-Driven. In many ways, these

subscales are similar to previous research. One way in which the results differ from

previous research is the combination of Career-focused and Intellectual-focused items

into one factor. This ﬁnding will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

In addition to the scale analysis, this chapter included the aggregate responses by

subscale for individual RAC items and information about how participants could be

sorted into groups or clusters. I examined these clusters to determine if difference in

88

cluster had any impact on learning community participation. In addition, demographic
characteristics were examined for signiﬁcant differences in learning community
participation. The learning community participants and non-participants were found to be
signiﬁcantly different on very few items or demographic characteristics. Thus, the survey
alone does not shed much light on the question What relationship, if any, exists between
Michigan State University College of Natural Science students’ reasons to attend college
and whether or not they participate in the Lyman Briggs School, a residential learning
community.

This result is not altogether surprising based on Bloomer and Hodkinson’s (1997,
1999, 2000) assertion that reasons for attending college is only one interacting dimension
that shapes learner disposition. Similarly, the conceptual ﬁamework for this study,
Bronfenbrenner’s (1976, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995) process-person-context-time (PPCT)
model, suggests a reciprocal interaction between the person and the environment that
could potentially shape participation. In the next chapter, the data collected through semi-
structured interviews is examined to further explore the potential relationship between

reasons and participation and the processes by which those relationships take place.

89

CHAPTER 5
Introduction

Phase 2 of this study involved 23 semi-structured interviews that took place
between the 12th and 14th week of classes. The interview questions (see Appendix B for
the interview protocol) were designed to explore the potential relationship between
reasons to attend college and learning community participation as well as the sub-
questions: Through what processes do students develop their reasons for attending
college? and How do students perceive the impact learning community participation will
have on their ability to achieve their reasons for attending college? Because both learning
community participants and non-participants were included in the interviews, the
interview questions also probed how students perceived the usefulness of other curricular
and co-curricular activities. The purpose of this chapter is to present the ﬁndings from
these interviews.

Bloomer and Hodkinson’s (1997, 1999, 2000) concept of learner disposition and
Bronfenbrenner’s (1976, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995) process-person-context-time (PPCT)
model were used as frameworks for organizing the interview data. Learner dispositions
inﬂuence the learner’s choice of learning opportunities with which to engage as well as
the strategies to utilize in those various learning opportunities (Bloomer & Hodkinson,
1999). Learner disposition is composed of perceptions of learning and approaches to
learning. Perceptions of learning are shaped by: learners’ beliefs about the nature of
knowledge, their views about the purpose of postsecondary education, the value they
place on particular areas of study and learning experiences, and their personal assessment

of their abilitiesbased on prior learning experiences. For this study, I focused on how

90

students’ views about the purpose of college (i.e., reasons to attend college) and the value
they placed on a speciﬁc learning experience, the Lyman Briggs School (LBS), shaped
their approaches to learning (i.e., participation in the LBS). The PPCT model provides a
ﬁamework for exploring the reciprocal nature of the interaction between the person and
the environment.

After a description of the survey participants, 1 will present the participants’ views
about the purpose of higher education and how they formed those views. Next their
perceptions of the value of the LBS as a learning experience will be explored. A theme
that emerged ﬁ'om the semi-structured interviews was that of formulas for reaching these
goals. This chapter will end with a discussion of these formulas. The only thematic area
of the interview data in which I observed differences between the LBS participants and
the non-participants was their perceptions of the value of the LBS as a learning
experience. So, I only note LBS participation in that section.

Participant Description

Twenty-three ﬁrst-year College of Natural Science students participated in the
interviews. I used maximum variation sampling (Glesne, 1999; Isaac & Michael, 1995;
Miles & Huberrnan, 1994). Variation was sought on four criteria: gender, racial/ethnic
identiﬁcation, learning community participation, and reason for attending college cluster.
Fifteen of the participants were Lyman Briggs School (LBS) participants, seven were not
a member of a residential living-learning program, and one was living on an Honors
College ﬂoor. Fifteen of the participants were female and eight were male. Fourteen of
the participants were White, seven were Asian American, one was Hispanic/Latina, and

one marked other as her racial/ethnic identiﬁcation. Of the 15 LBS participants, 10 were

91

female and 5 were male. The racial/ethnic identiﬁcation of the LBS participants was 11

White, 3 Asian American, and 1 Hispanic/Latina. Of the Non-LBS group, ﬁve were

female and three were male. The racial/ethnic identiﬁcation of the Non-LBS group was

three White, four Asian American, and 1 other. Ten participants were from cluster 1, ﬁve

from cluster 2, and eight from cluster 3. Table 28 provides additional demographic

information about the interview participants.

 

 

 

Table 28
Interview participant demographics
Race/ Clu Social Degree
Name Sex Ethnicity ster Class Aspiration Morn Ed Dad Ed
Non-LBS
Ildi F White 2 Working Medical Master’s Bachelor's
Anne F Asian Am 3 Middle Master's Bachelor's Bachelor's
Upper-mid/
Sona F Asian Am 3 Professional PhD Bachelor's Master's
Upper-mid
Jasmin F Asian Am 3 Professional Medical Bachelor's Master's
Anya F Other 1 Working Master's Bachelor's Bachelor’s
Upper-mid
Bryan M White 3 Professional PhD Bachelor's Bachelor's
Upper-mid/
Charlie M White 2 Professional PhD Bachelor's Bachelor's
Drew M Asian Am 1 Middle Medical High School Master's
LBS
Lisa F White 1 Middle Medical Bachelor's Master's
Cassie F White 2 Working Don't Know Some college Bachelor's
Julie F White 1 Working Medical Master's Bachelor’s
Upper-mid/
Kathie F White 1 Professional Medical High School Some college
Natalie F White 3 Working Bachelor's Bachelor's Bachelor's
Jamie F White 1 Working PhD Master's Some college
Heather F White 3 Middle Don't Know Bachelor's Bachelor's
Maggie F Hispanic 3 Middle Medical High School High School
Vun F Asian Am 2 Middle Medical Master’s PhD
Mingrnei F Asian Am 1 Middle Don't Know Master's PhD
Dan M White 1 Middle PhD High School Master's
Doug M White 1 Middle Medical High School Some college
Upper-mid/
John M White 2 Professional Master's Master's High School
Kevin M White 3 Middle Don't Know Some college High School
' Upper-mid/
Chung M Asian Am 1 Professional Medical Associate's Associate's

 

92

The Purpose of a College Education

Although participants had already responded to a list of reasons for attending
college on the survey they had ﬁlled out in September, I was interested in exploring
which aspects of those reasons were particularly salient for them now that they had been
in college for at least 12 weeks. Participants were asked about both the general purpose of
college as well as their speciﬁc college goals. Their responses resulted in four themes:
preparing for life after college, broadening horizons, meeting new people, and taking
advantage of the opportunity in order to be a role model to others. For each theme, related
survey questions will also be discussed. I did not observe differences between the LBS
participant group and the non-participant group regarding the purpose of college, and
thus the responses will be presented together without noting whether or not the
respondent is an LBS participant. This section will end with a discussion of how the
participants formed their reasons for attending college.

Preparing for Life after College

For most traditional age students, college is their last stretch of continuous formal
education before entering the “real world.” So, it is not surprising that students would
identify preparation for life after college as one of the primary reasons for attending
college. Participants identiﬁed ﬁve components of preparation for life after college:
determining their calling, learning to be an adult/growing up, acquiring general
knowledge needed for life after college, gaining the credential necessary for their chosen

career, and learning speciﬁc skills/knowledge.

93

Determining a Calling

Although most (17) of the interview participants indicated an interest in a pre-
professional track (i.e., Pre-medical, pre-dental, pre-veterinary), several students had not
yet declared a major and viewed college as an opportunity to explore the possibilities.
Sona noted, “I want to experience as much as possible, like new things. . . to actually
ﬁgure out what I want to do for the rest of my life.” Most students connected this
exploration to ﬁnding a career path that would be both lucrative and also something in
which they were truly interested. When asked about the general purpose of college Ildi
answered:

I guess in today’s world it would be to get a degree and get a job but for me it’s

more to gain more knowledge about things and what I’m interested in, so I guess I

would get it two ways, ﬁnancially and then for knowledge.
When asked about his speciﬁc goals for college, Kevin replied, “I would like to have
something that I can say, ‘This is what I’m good at. This is what I’m interested in and
really want to do.”’

The theme Determining a Calling can be compared to several survey questions.
Two related questions are from the Individual Development subscale: To learn more
about things that interest me and To get into an interesting and satisjying career. These
two items were marked essential or very important by 75.7% and 87.2% of respondents
respectively. A question from the Personal Connection subscale, To discover what kind of
person I want to be (49.3%), could also be related to this theme. Two items from the
Default-Indifferent subscale might also relate to this theme: I often ask myself why I’m in

college (6.5%) and I am in college because I didn't know what I wanted to do aﬁer high

94

school (5.7%). The survey data reinforce the importance of Determining 0 Calling as a
reason to attend college.
Learning to be an Adult/Growing Up

Although the premise that college is a time of maturing and taking on adult roles
is not uncommon in student development theory research (i.e., Chickering & Reisser,
1993), I was surprised that over half (1 3) of participants mentioned this as a speciﬁc
purpose of college. For participants, learning to be an adult involved becoming
independent and being able to take care of themselves. For some this was a general idea,
“I don’t know, kind of growing as a person, an intermediate step between being
completely dependent on somebody and being completely independent” (Julie). For
others this involved speciﬁc skills and knowledge, “I can cook a few things. I've done my
laundry for years” (Bryan). In spite of its predominance in the interviews, this theme was
not well represented by the items on the survey.
Acquiring General Knowledge for Life after College

A theme that emerged from both the question about the general purpose of college
as well as participants’ speciﬁc goals was the accumulation of knowledge as preparation
for life after college. For some this was directly connected to preparing for the work
world, “To become more experienced and broaden your horizons in order to do better in a
job, and try and get an education to get into a job that needs speciﬁc education” (Charlie).
Other participants had an interest in exploring general ideas that were related to their
career interests, “Beyond medicine and med school, I’m also very interested in just
scientiﬁc concepts in general” (Doug). Mingrnei articulated a cognitive development (i.e.,

Perry, 1999) outcome of college:

95

To learn more knowledge, I guess, and I guess to really get into serious studying,

like where you actually think about — you use your mind in classes and stuff to

prepare for whatever job — It might not be speciﬁc job training, but just ways of

thinking that help you.

Two of the survey items related to the theme Acquiring General Knowledge for
Life after College are from the Individual Development subscale: To learn more about
things that interest me and To gain a general education and appreciation of ideas. These
two items were marked essential or very important by 75.7% and 51 .5% of respondents
respectively. Two items ﬁom the Civic Leadership subscale are also related: To
understand the complexities of life in the modern world (34.7%) and To become an
informed citizen and voter (27.4%). This theme is not as strongly reinforced by the
survey data as Determining a Calling, although a couple of the items were essential or
very important to more than half of the respondents.
Getting the Credential Necessary for Their Chosen Career

Consistent with previous research on reasons to attend college (i.e.,
Katchadourian & Boli, 1985), students viewed a college degree as a necessary credential
for future employment and success. Drew viewed college attendance as a determinant of
success, “I mean cause if you go to college there’s a very good chance that you’ll succeed
whereas if you don’t there’s a slim chance.” Maggie was more speciﬁc about the impact
of the credential:

I believe the purpose is to actually get an education and be able to go somewhere

in life, you know, have a decent lifestyle, make a good amount of money, ‘cuz,

96

you know, if you’re looking at nowadays, you’re hardly gonna get anything with

a high school graduation diploma.

Bryan focused on the speciﬁc credential he needed for his career choice, “I'm personally
at college because I want to be a professor. So, I'm gonna be at college for a very long
time.” Similarly, Doug mentioned, “I’m planning to go to med school after college, so
obviously you have to be in college to get there.”

All four survey items that are related to this item are ﬁ'om the Individual
Development subscale: To achieve personal success, To be able to make more money, T o
prepare for graduate or professional school, and To achieve a position of higher status in
society. On the ﬁrst three items, a high percentage of survey respondents (87.4%, 72.4%,
and 72.3% respectively) marked essential or very important. Only 52.2% marked
essential or very important for the last item, To achieve a position of higher status in
society.

Learning Specific Skills or Knowledge

Beyond the credentialing aspect of college, participants mentioned developing
both general and speciﬁc skills and knowledge for their professional life after college.
Heather noted that “taking the classes kind of prepares you for the business world and
being able to get a job that would be more professional, so it’s kind of a career prep.”
Julie connected the purpose of college to speciﬁc job preparation, “You wouldn’t want
somebody who didn’t know what they were doing operating on you or doing your taxes.”
When discussing her own goals for college, Jasmin said:

but going to college to further your education and what you’re more interested

in and, you know, kind of specialize in what you’re interested in doing. Like I

97

want to become a doctor, so you have to go to college because you need to learn

more.

This theme is not directly represented on the survey, although there are many
questions that talk about general skills or knowledge needed for professional life after
college. For example, To develop skills to work eﬂectively with diﬁerent kinds of people
and To develop an in-depth understanding of a specific ﬁeld of study. Only 45.9% of
respondents marked the ﬁrst item essential or very important, while 76% marked the
second item essential or very important.

Broadening Horizons

As noted above, some students thought about exploring general knowledge as a
part of preparation for their lives after college. Consistent with Astin’s (1993a) Scholars,
Katchadourian and Boli’s (1985) Intellectualist, and Clark and Trow’s (1966) Academics,
several participants also mentioned an interest in taking advantage of their time in college
to explore new ideas for the sake of exploring new ideas, to broaden their horizons. When
explaining the purpose of college, Julie responded, “Well, I could use the economics
excuse and say that it’s to increase human capital, but probably more to broaden
horizons.” Ildi mentioned, “I know what I’m interested in but I also like learning other
things just to be more open minded.” When asked to explain what she meant by learning
new things, Jamie responded, “To broaden my scope of what the world can offer: what’s
in the books, and what’s not in the books, you know.” Sona noted, “So it’s ﬁrn to learn
new things on the side when it’s not like required to know it, when you don’t have to be
tested on it or anything.” Charlie provided an example of how he had experienced this

purpose of college, “I’m in a Social Differentiation and Inequality ISS [Integrative

98

Studies in Social Science] class, and they often talk about the liberalizing effects of
college.”

Because this theme is similar to Acquiring General Knowledge for Life aﬁer
College, the related survey items are the same: To learn more about things that interest
me (75.7%), To gain a general education and appreciation of ideas (51 .5%), To
understand the complexities of life in the modern world (34.7%), and To become an
informed citizen and voter (27.4%). It is interesting that as the items become less self-
focused (from things that interest me to complexities of the modern world) fewer survey
respondents marked essential or very important.

Meeting New People

The importance of social integration (Tinto, 1993) to a student’s college
experience is not a new concept. The participants put a new spin on the idea by deﬁning
it as one of the main purposes of a college education. Seventeen (17) people speciﬁcally
mentioned meeting new people in their answer to what is the purpose of college.
Although 74% of the interview participants mentioned meeting new people as one of the
purposes of college, only 36.5% of survey respondents marked it as essential or very
important on the survey and 43.3% marked To establish meaningful relationships as
essential or very important. The interview participants’ explanations of the importance of
meeting new people fell into four categories: to make new ﬁiends, as a way to develop
life skills, as a strategy for success, and as a mechanism for broadening their horizons.

John explained, “That's a good part of college, meeting new ﬁiends and
everything.” Lisa commented, “I expect that I would have a great time and meet a whole

bunch of people.” When asked about her speciﬁc goals for college, Julie said, “Well, I’d

99

like to make some ﬁiends, which I already have.” Many participants expected these to be
lasting ﬁiendships. Vun explained, “just developing long-lasting relationships.”

A few participants wanted to meet new people in order to build social skills, break
out of their shells, and be able to adjust to meeting new people in the future. Julie
mentioned:

I hope to come out not feeling like I’m a ﬁsh out of water in my new job when I

ﬁnally start a career... I see it as a way to get ready for what comes later for the

future, the work world and, I don’t know, you make — you work on forming
relationships, and your social skills.
This is similar to the survey question To develop skills to work eﬂectively with diﬂerent
kinds of people. Almost half (45.9%) of survey participants marked this item essential or
very important.

Meeting new people was also seen as a strategy for both academic and social
integration (Tinto, 1993). Natalie explained:

I think your ﬁrst year especially, I think is a lot about making connections with

people around you, both professors and fellow students because I had a roommate

who just dropped out. About a month ago now, and she just didn’t make the
connections here and she would just stay in the room the whole time kind of
thing. So I just think the relationships that you make are so essential in success
here. In a big school, you need to feel like you’re at home.

Several participants mentioned that one of their goals for college was to meet new

people as a way to expand their exposure to diverse ways of thinking and being. Charlie

100

explained, “Meeting more people, more experiences, kind of experiencing diversity in all
sorts of ways.” Julie pointed out:

I love the international atmosphere, and everybody’s kinda laid back and open,

and you can just sit on a bus and talk to the person next to you and they don’t

think you’re weird, and I really like that. . . and if you walk past the International

Center, you can hear 10 different languages. It’s really cool.
Several students contrasted the opportunities to meet new people on campus to that in
their home towns. Vun explained, “It’s just different than like what you’re used to from
back home, everyone’s just different like perspectives and like backgrounds, so — it’s
nice.” Heather noted, “You get to meet a lot of people from a lot of different cities, they
have different opinions on stuff, you get to participate in different things that weren’t
available at home or anything.”

Taking advantage of the opportunity in order to be a role model

Although most participants viewed attending college as an automatic next step
after a high school, a few had considered a number of other options. Most, but not all, of
these participants could be considered ﬁrst-generation college students (neither parent
earned a college degree). For some of these students, college was viewed as a way to ﬁnd
an alternative to the lifestyle modeled by other family members. Kevin explained:

Looking at my family, I see what can happen when you don’t have a college

education. My aunt and uncle, my mom’s brother — my mom’s brother and sister-

in-law, aren’t the most well off. He works in a factory, a milk carton factory and I

think he’s in parchment or something like that. And she works in a middle school

library, and they get by, but it’s just — for me, it was a matter of I didn’t want to

101

be a manual worker. . . So, for me, college was — it wasn’t just something, it
wasn’t just the next step. But to me, it was — the purpose of it was more than just
the next step.

Dan did not feel pressured to go to college; be viewed it as one of many options:
As far as my parents being disappointed if I didn't get a college degree — they — I
don't know if disappointed would be the word. They wouldn't be like, very
pleased about it, but if I found something else that I really liked, then they would
support me in it... There's not that high of an expectation [in my family], I guess.
A lot of people have gone to college, but I mean, the only — the ﬁrst person to
complete college in my family was my dad. Like, in my history of the family. So
like, other people have gone, but no one had ever really ﬁnished before him. So
there's not a long-lasting expectation or some kind of lineage going on there...
My dad, he equally supported me to go to the Marine Corp. And I ﬁnally decided
on college cuz there's just a lot more things that I wanted to know that I really
didn't think I could learn in the military.

Kathie felt supported, although not pressured, to pursue a college education:
My parents are really — I guess they’re really proud of what I want to do. I’m the
ﬁrst generation college student, so they basically didn’t — they said, “Whatever
you want to do is ﬁne.” So, they were pretty excited that’s the route I’m trying to
get to.

A few students mentioned that their pursuit of a college education made them a role

model for others in their family. Cassie explained:

102

I think the expectations are — like have gone up, because I have like, my uncle
calling me, the one whose kids don’t go to college, and saying how proud he is of
me, because he realizes that his kids don’t have the same drive. Because I asked
my cousin, he’s a junior in high school, I asked him, “Are you getting ready for
the tests?” “Where do you want to think about applying?” He’s like, “I don’t want
to go at all.” So, I know that when I got my acceptance letter, my uncle was proud
of me, saying, like, “I’m pretty sure my kids won’t get this, so I’m glad you are.”

So, I think that has like, driven me even more, so I don’t go the same way that

they are.

Talking about her two little brothers, Cassie added:

Yeah, that’s why it’s expected more of me, so I can —- because then I can help my

little brothers. They still look up to me, so I have to go somewhere good where

they know it’s respectable, and show them what’s right.

This theme is most related to the Default-Indifferent and Expectation-Driven
subscales. The four items in the Default-Indifferent subscale received the highest
percentage of not important/not true responses of any questions on the survey. Relevant
to this theme, 67.6% marked I oﬁen ask myself why I ’m in college as not true and 60.3%
marked I am in college because I didn't know what I wanted to do after high school as not
true. Although about half (48.8%) of respondents marked My parent(s) would be very
disappointed in me if I didn ’t get a college degree as absolutely or very true, only 36.0%
marked To meet family expectations as essential or very important. These survey
responses do not seem consistent with this theme. This could be a function of social class

and parent education. A higher portion of the interview participants are from Working

103

Class families than is present in the survey participants. Also, a higher percentage of the
interview participants were ﬁrst-generation college students.
Messages about the Purpose of College

When asked how they had formed their reasons for attending college, many
participants had a hard time conring up with an answer. Julie replied, “Just off the top of
my head.” Perhaps for some students this was due to the fact that college was something
expected or automatic as Julie ﬁnther explained, “So, I don’t know, for me, it was always
just assumed that I’d come.” Whether students felt that college was automatically the
next step after high school, or as was mentioned above, college was something to take
advantage of because others had not had the chance, students heard messages about the
purpose of college from a number of different constituents. Consistent with previous
research (i.e., Bloomer & Hodkinson, 1997, 1999, 2000; Céte' & Levine, 1997; Hossler,
Schmit, & Vesper, 1999) students’ ideas about the purpose of college were shaped by
parents and other family members, high school teachers and counselors, peers, and higher
education institution official representatives. In addition, participants mentioned
messages they had heard from the media and from current college students.

From parents and from high school teachers and counselors, the messages about
college focused on academic rigor and studying and the impact of college on career
opportunities. Heather commented, “My parents were kind of like, ‘Oh, you’re gonna
have to study a lot. You’re gonna have to work really hard to get good grades, and you
want to make sure you do that.’” Drew explained, “I think it’s like, you know, with my
parents, it’s always been, ‘You need to get into college, then you need to get into medical

college.’ And there’s never been anything else.” Participants also described messages

104

from their parents about setting priorities, that academics should be more important than
other pieces of the college experiences. Describing what her parents told her about
college, Jasmin said:

Work, study, nothing else. Noﬁiends. They were like, “You don’t need ﬁiends.”

You know, like they were joking, but it was, “It’s going to be really hard and you

need to study and keep your head straight. Don’t get involved in too much.”
Kathie mentioned the contrast between the messages she had heard and what she now
thought after being exposed to the college experience:

I think before I got here it was more like, it’s kind of drilled into you in high

school that you’re going there to get ready for your job and that’s it. But then you

get here and there’s so much more to it than that, I think. There’s so many things
that you do outside the classroom, that’s only a portion of your time, and I think
that’s what a lot of focus is put on, when you’re kind of being steered in the
direction of coming to college, I think. So, I think in that way, it’s different.

The messages participants received from university representatives, current
college students, peers, and the media focused more on the social aspects of the college
experience. For some the importance of meeting people and taking advantage of positive
new experiences was most salient. Jasmin explained, “You hear about like I guess a
couple new ﬁiends that they made, but then you kind of just formulate in your own head,
‘Oh, well, they meet all these people.”’ Doug mentioned:

I was in a college preparatory program called Upward Bound in high school and

they let us tour colleges and stuff like that so really the expectations I had were

105

generally positive because you know I had the university fed, kind of sugar
coated, this is what college is going to be like.
For others the pros and cons of partying was the primary message. Heather mentioned, “I
heard about the partying. Deﬁnitely.” When discussing what he had heard from current
college students and the university about social life at MSU, Kevin explained:
Some were kids who went to college at a local community college or Western
[Michigan University]. I’m ﬁ'om around Kalamazoo, and they just said, “Oh,
yeah, went to Michigan State at a party this weekend.” Also, in AOP [summer
orientation], they show you a video of welcome week, just literally kids laying on
the sidewalk, drunk. I mean, they even said, “This is what it’s probably gonna be
like here in opening week.” So, I got different viewpoints from not only my
friends, also from AOP.
A few participants mentioned similar ideas about the college experience that they had
formed from media coverage of college students. Kevin mentioned, “Frankly, I expected
just parties, non-stop parties, because that’s the image you get of college, I mean, on the
majority of television shows.” Ildi explained:
It’s just the stereotype. . . A lot of it is the media and how they portray college.
Because you always hear about college parties, everyone’s partying but it’s not
like that. .. The media only concentrates on the bad aspects you know. You know
the killings, or the getting raped or something. They don’t concentrate on
anything good. I guess it isn’t newsworthy.
In this section of the interview ﬁndings, 1 presented participants’ ideas about the

purpose of college and their individual goals for college participation. Their reasons fell

106

into four themes: preparing for life after college, broadening horizons, meeting new
people, and taking advantage of the opportunity in order to be a role model to others. In
many ways, the four themes described above are consistent with previous research on
students’ reasons for attending college (e.g., Astin, 1993a; Cote & Levine, 1997;
Katchadourian & Boli, 1985). Because much of the previous research has been
quantitative, the interview data provide a more nuanced understanding of students’
reasons than the previous research and this study’s survey responses. In order to explore
how these reasons might shape participation in the LBS residential learning community, I
examined not only participants’ reasons but also the value the participants’ placed on the
residential learning community experience.
The Perception of the Lyman Briggs School as a Learning Environment

This section will explore interview participants’ views about the value of LBS
participation. Although the participants’ ideas about the purpose of college were similar
across the LBS and non-LBS groups, their views about the value of the LBS experience
were different. First, I will share the LBS participants’ perceptions of the value of the
LBS experience. Next, the views of the non—participants will be explored. I will also
discuss dissenting views (i.e., LBS participants who don’t plan to stay in LBS, and non-
participants who wish they’d signed up) within each group.

LBS Students ’ Reasons to Participate

The 15 LBS participants shared a number of reasons for their participation in the
residential learning community. These reasons centered around three main themes: the
prestige of the LBS program, the educational characteristics of the program, and the

logistical characteristics of the program. The prestige of the program was often discussed

107

in relation to the choice between Michigan State University (MSU) and the University of
Michigan (U of M). The educational characteristics of the program included the
intentional focus on the sciences, being surrounded by like-minded students, and getting
the best of both worlds (i.e., a small community experience on a large campus). The
logistical characteristics included the smaller class size, the convenience of having
classes in their residence hall, and living with students who are also in the same courses.
The Prestige of Participating in LBS

Because there are two large research institutions in the state of Michigan, many
participants were looking at both the U of M and MSU as an option for college. Several
participants commented that LBS added to the educational opportunities at MSU in a way
that exceeded the opportunities available at the U of M. Doug noted, “I chose MSU
mainly because of Briggs and because of the Honors College. I thought that those two
things paired together would give me a better opportunity than say U of M or anywhere
else.” Lisa shared:

Well, it’s always been, at least where I’m from, seemed like U of M is better than

Michigan State academically, but then I started looking into the Lyman Briggs

program, and started to realize that it’s actually better for what I’m going into.
The Educational Beneﬁts of LBS

Several students described the educational beneﬁts of participation in the LBS.
The learning experience is perceived as more advanced because of the way courses are
taught and the speciﬁc focus on the sciences. Cassie explained:

It seems like they’re more advanced [LBS courses compared to non-LBS courses]

. .. so we can — like, if we can get it done quicker we can go like, elaborate,

108

through more. Like in my math class, we actually go through science problems

and how they’re applied to biology and my teacher always brings up different

things. If you’re gonna go into this ﬁeld, this is something you should go through.

So, I like that more. Yes, it’s kind of like, it’s interweaving everything. I like how

it’s more science based.

In addition to the teaching style and the focus on the sciences, several participants
mentioned the beneﬁt of being surrounded by like-minded students. Vun explained, “And
it just seems like everyone in this place has the same goals and stuff as you, and like
people aren’t as wild here, I guess.”

Participants described LBS as a small college experience on a large university
campus. John commented, “I ﬁgured I could get the best of both worlds. . . There's
Michigan State all around me, and little Lyman Briggs on the corner of the east side of
campus.” Kathie explained:

Just, basically, the whole small school atmosphere, I thought that I would be more

comfortable in that, because I’m kind of shy, so I thought that I would do better in

a smaller environment, but after talking to some people, you kind of get the small

environment within the larger one, here, especially at Lyman Briggs.
The Logistical Beneﬁts of LBS

Consistent with previous research on students’ reasons for participating in
residential learning communities (Jones et al., 2006; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith et
al., 2004), participants cited reasons such as convenience, small class sizes, and access to
peers. Cassie mentioned, “I really like the idea that I can wake up and go to class, and if 1

need help, I can go across the hall.” Heather explained:

109

The classes are smaller, deﬁnitely. . . You get to have more one on one time with
students, especially because you see them more often. They’ll be in your
chemistry class and your lab class, or your math and different classes like that, so
you’ll see them around because they live in the building. It’s also nicer to have,
like a smaller class because you get more one on one time with professors. They
know your name, they know how you can kind of perform, because some of the
teachers will come up to you in class and kind of check over what you’re working
on and stuff.
Lisa summed up the beneﬁts in this way:
Hopefully I’ll have a better foundation in sciences, because the classes are
smaller, so the professors are really easy to get hold of. So I should be learning
more, or like learning more than I’m memorizing. And I really like the
community, like a living and learning community, because there are many times
that I walk down the hall to get homework help.
Questioning their decision to participate
Almost all of the current LBS participants whom I interviewed were happy with
their decision to join LBS and planned to graduate with an LBS major. Twelve weeks
into the semester, two students were considering leaving the LBS program and
continuing at MSU in another degree program. Natalie expressed that she would have
made a different choice about LBS had she understood how it ﬁt with her interest in
nursing:
I wish that I personally had had someone to tell me that Lyman Briggs isn’t

absolutely necessary for the nursing program, just because it’s kind of like

110

double-majoring for me. So I mean, I’m going to get out of the Briggs program,
but I wish I had had that honesty, I guess.

When asked how long she planned to continue, Natalie responded,
Actually, depending on which courses I need to take for next semester, I mean, I
love living in Holmes because I’ve made ﬁiends here and I’m comfortable now.
But all the classes are unnecessary for me to take them all to graduate from Briggs
so really, I mean, I was thinking now, you know.

Although John said that he appreciated the small school atmosphere and felt that he was

learning more than he might in non-LBS courses, he expressed concern about the impact

the difﬁculty level of LBS would have on his ability to get into medical school:
So, that's pretty good in the learning aspect, but I question the — my question is —
and some people on my ﬂoor that felt this way, too. . . Some people say they think
they would rather take university [classes instead of LBS classes] just for the fact
that, you know, you can pretty much just — smarter people will just always get the
better grade. Here [in LBS], you know, they'll just — You got to think about stuff.
You just might get screwed over just because you signed up for the Briggs
program, you know what I mean? So, like sometimes I feel if I took a normal
university class, you know, it'd be a lot easier. I don't even know how relevant
Briggs is to a degree, anyway... If you apply to some grad school anywhere, are
they gonna know what Lyman Briggs is compared to a normal university?

John was the only LBS participant who was unhappy with his academic experience in

LBS. He was very concerned that even though he might learn more in the LBS classes, he

would be disadvantaged in the medical school admission process because his grades

111

might be lower than other applicants who had taken easier version of the required
coursework. He expressed that it was unfair that no official recognition (such as an
honors notation on a transcript) was given to LBS students to show external audiences the
advanced level of the coursework.
Reasons Not to Participate in LBS

The eight non-LBS participants had differing reasons for their decision regarding
the residential learning community opportunity. In some cases, the non-participants felt
that the characteristics marketed as reasons to participate, such as small class sizes and
living with like-minded peers, would stiﬂe their college experience. Others were
concerned about the perceived difficulty level of the LBS courses and did not want to
take courses that were not speciﬁcally required for their majors. One interviewee did not
pursue the option because she was confused about the opportunity and another wished he
had participated.

Sona was looking for variety in her peer group, rather than homogeneity of
interests:

The Lyman Briggs thing, I didn’t want to do because you’re with people who are

exactly what you want to do, which doesn’t give me a chance to interact with

people who have different opinions, different views and different majors.

Whereas my roommate has forensic science as a major, which is completely

different, and I love learning about like forensic science and all that stuff.

Jasmin was concerned about feeling isolated on one end of campus:

112

I did know about Lyman Briggs, but like a lot of people I knew at Lyman Briggs

hated it. They were like very secluded, were in Hohnes [Hall] and that’s it. And I

didn’t want that. I want to be out and about and seeing stuﬂ’.

The impression that LBS was more difficult and required extra courses was a
negative factor for some students. Anne said, “Isn’t that like honors students?” Ildi
shared:

I did look at it but I talked to people who were in the program and they said for a

pre-med major you end up dropping it after two years because you’re required to

take some courses that don’t really apply to the major I guess. So I was advised
not to.

Two of the non-LBS participants did not speciﬁcally decide against participating
in LBS. Instead their decision making process did not correspond to the timeline for
indicating an interest in participating. Anya had heard about LBS but wanted to wait and
learn more before deciding:

They sent me information about them, but I didn't really understand what they

did. So I said, I'll go in and ﬁnd out more about it throughout my ﬁrst semester,

and yet I haven't learned much about it. I know it’s in Hohnes Hall, that's about it.
Reﬂecting on his decision, Charlie explained that he wished he had participated:

Well, actually I was in mechanical engineering and thought about ROSES

[Residential Option for Science and Engineering Students], but then I kinda got

out of mechanical engineering. . . I wish I would have gone to Lyman Briggs, now

that I got here, and I’m all acclimated. I didn’t really think about it at the time. I

don’t think I really knew anything about ‘em... I had mechanical engineering

113

declared, so I knew about ROSES because I got some stuff in the mail about it,

but once I changed that, I didn’t really think about anything.

This section presented students’ perceptions of the value of participating in the
residential learning community the Lyman Briggs Schools. Participants said that the LBS
provided prestige, educational beneﬁts, and logistical beneﬁts. Non-participants
expressed concern about not experiencing diversity of thought, the perceived difﬁculty of
the LBS program, and the extra courses that would be involved. It is interesting that the
perception of the value of LBS was the only thematic area of the interview data where
differences between the two groups of participants (LBS and non-LBS) were apparent. In
the next section I will discuss the formulas students used for being a college student and
preparing for medical and/or graduate school.

Formulas for Reaching College Goals

As participants discussed their reasons for attending college and their decision
about participation in the LBS and other curricular and co-curricular activities, it became
apparent that one of the factors shaping their actions was the formulas they had
developed for being a college student. In addition participants were utilizing a formula
for preparing for medical and/or graduate school to make decisions that shaped their
educational experiences. The concept of following formulas is not new to research on
college students. Baxter Magolda (2001) found that through college and even into the
post-college years, her participants relied on “external formulas for success in the
absence of their own internal belief system” (p. 41). This section will explain the
components of the participants’ formulas for being a college student and for preparing for

medical and/or graduate school. Similar to the reasons for attending college, the

114

participants’ formulas were not particularly different based on whether or not they were
in the LBS. Thus, the responses will be presented together without noting whether or not
the respondent is an LBS participant.
Formulas for Being a College Student

The interview participants’ formulas for being a college student both reﬂect and
expand upon research on today’s college students. The participants discussed issues of
social and academic integration (Tinto, 1993). They also focused on ﬁnding balance after
experiencing very scheduled high school lives and on wanting to contribute to their local
community, both reﬂective of their being Millennials (Howe & Strauss, 2000, 2003;
Lowery, 2001; Strauss & Howe, 1991). In addition, the participants expressed an
awareness of being in transition and the importance of creating a strong foundation
during their ﬁrst semester for success in the rest of their college career. This is perhaps a
function of higher education’s increased focus on retention and ﬁrst year experience
programs.
Formulas for Social Integration

As discussed above, Meeting New People was mentioned as a speciﬁc purpose of
college by 17 of the participants. This goal for college was reﬂected in the formulas
students had developed for integrating into the MSU social atmosphere. This integration
involved meeting new people and ﬁnding their niche on campus as well as redeﬁning
their relationships with family members. Also, a few participants mentioned an
intentional plan to expand their social group by evading others who had attended their

same high school.

115

Julie’s approach to “dorm life” helped her connect to new people, “I’d say go into
the whole dorm life, like don’t pick a roommate. Leave your door open and kind of just
enjoy yourself.” Jamie explained the process of establishing a close group of college
friends:

Meet a lot of people really fast, because after welcome week everything sort of

settles down. You’re meeting people like crazy for the ﬁrst month and then you

kind of ﬁnd out who your circle is — who you hang around the most, and you
settle down into that. I mean, you still meet people, but not as much, not as at fast
of a rate, as you do during welcome week.

A few students talked about choosing MSU because of its distance from home.
Jamie explained, “It’s far away enough that you have to live on campus but it’s close to
home enough where you can get home for dinner, or an emergency or in a ﬂash.” Maggie
was still adjusting to being away from home:

I think sometimes they [my family] wish that I would stay up here just so I meet

more people and get more involved. But sometimes it’s just hard for me, because

I need to be at home sometimes.

A couple of participants felt that MSU was just an extension of their high school
because so many people they had gone to high school with also attended MSU. Charlie
said, “It’s like [Name of High School] 2, cuz you can’t go anywhere without seeing
anybody. So I really wanted to not do that and meet new people.” Sona explained:

I come from [Name] High School and like Michigan State is called [Name of

High School] Part 2... I have to take like different routes now because I run into

116

them [my classmates] all the time. .. Even on the way here, I ran into an old

ﬁiend.

Formulas for Academic Integration

The participants’ strategies for managing their acaderrrics were similar to the
types of topics often covered in study skills workshops and ﬁrst year transitions courses
(e. g., time management, test taking skills, note taking, etc.). Students also talked about
the importance of ﬁnding guidance and focusing on learning over grades. Participants
looked to older students as well as academic advisor for guidance about their college
careers. Natalie mentioned:

I found it really helpﬁrl to ask students who have been through the nursing

program or who have just been accepted into it just to see like what classes

they’ve been taking and so to plan my course schedule, that way through other
students, has been really helpful and making connections with advisors has been
helpful, too.
Sona was pleased with the easy access to resources, “Just anywhere you go, there’s
always someone to assist you or help you like further yourself in what you want to do
with your life or just like basic problems.”

Participants explained that part of being academically successful is adjusting to a
new way of learning. Drew commented, “You actually have to learn it. If you memorize,
you pretty much well get screwed over.” Natalie explained, “There’s a lot of self-
teaching which I hadn’t really thought much about going into.” Ildi was looking forward

to a change from high school learning, “You go to college to learn and not just like pass it

117

and get your degree.” When explaining her response to the survey question, To achieve a
high GPA, Mingrnei said:

And having a good grade is very important too, but I guess I gave it a low score

because actually you’re learning something. I would be very disappointed if I

don’t get a good grade, but actually really knowing it is more important, I guess.
Millennials

Howe and Strauss (2003) noted that, among other things, Millennials are active in
volunteer activities and have been brought up in very busy and scheduled environments.
These two characteristics were illustrated by the focus participants placed on giving back
and also their rationale for not getting too over-involved but exploring non-academic
involvement. Doug described his reasons for participating in H-STAR, an honors college
recruiting group, “You know that’s just another leadership skill and another chance to
kind of open the doors to high schoolers, the same doors that were opened to me when I
was in that position.” When asked about his interest in being a Mentor (Resident
Assistant), Dan noted, “What would make it a really great time would be making friends
with a lot of other mentors, and in knowing you made a difference.” Lisa explained her
motivation for auditioning to be a squad leader for marching band:

Just from being a freshman this year and seeing how much I’ve improved and

how much like the inﬂuence of this year’s squad leaders, how big of an inﬂuence

that had on me. I would love to have that much of an inﬂuence on somebody else.

Although a few students described schedules full of student group meetings every
night, many viewed college as a time to relax and enjoy not being busy every day of the

week. Kevin explained, “I was a leader all through high school. Between being a captain

118

of a football team or any other teams, or some things in class, it was just, you know, I
want to take a break.” Jamie was excited to have the opportunity in college to explore
out-of-class opportunities, “because the specialized high school [I attended], they
overloaded us with homework, so much so, that’s why I never had a chance to do drama
or sports, or really anything like that.”
Transition Awareness

Another aspect of the participants’ formulas for being a college student was an
awareness of being in transition. Listening to them was like reading a UNV 101
(transition to college/success skills course) textbook. Drew described his college
experience thus far as both the worst and yet best time of his life, “The worst is basically
the transition ﬁom high school to college... Our habits from high school are still there
and we’re trying to get rid of that.” When talking about his choices of which
organizations to be involved in, Doug commented, “I haven’t really been able to maintain
those [sports related activities] as well as my academic based ones mainly because I’m
still a little over my head being in the freshmen year experience.” When asked about
whether she had joined any organizations, Sona responded:

Not yet. I’ve been focusing on school mostly, like they all tell you the ﬁrst 16

weeks are your most important. So, I mean, I have another four years ahead of me

so I ﬁgure if I can just keep my GPA up at this point, then I’ll have all the time in

the world to participate in those types of things.

When discussing her response to the survey item To take advantage of leadership

opportunities on campus, Natalie commented, “I don’t think it’s — I think, for some

119

people, it works, jumping in right away. To establish yourself here ﬁrst, I think that’s
pretty important.” Kevin explained his response, of little importance, by saying:

I guess I picked one for that, of little importance, and it still is a little bit to me,

right now, because I’m a freshman, and I don’t want to just jump on the podium

right away. I just — I want to sit back and see how people do things.

Several students commented that balance was the key to making it through the
transition. Participants also mentioned that a mix of non-academic and academic
activities can be beneﬁcial. Ildi explained, “You either balance or you’ll just fall into the
party scene completely because once you fall behind there’s no coming back really.”
Natalie illustrated the importance of balance talking about family and ﬁiends:

It’s really a balance. Balance was the ﬁrst word that came into my mind.

Balancing ﬁiends and family, for one. Sometimes you get caught up with new

friends and so, I don’t know. You still have to stay connected with family, too,

and that can be kind of difﬁcult because you’re living your own life here.
Doug commented, “You’ve got to have your things that focus on academics. . . And then
you have the things that are totally in their own realm but I think everything is helpful in
its own way.” Anya noted, “And there's also a lot of activities going on, but you don't
want to get overly involved, and you don't want to be involved in nothing as well.”

The participants’ formulas for being a college student included a focus on both
their social lives as well as their academic lives. They talked about balance and not
wanting to be as overly scheduled as they had been in high school. The participants

placed value on giving back to their communities. They also displayed an awareness of

120

being in transition and felt that the transition to college required speciﬁc strategies that
could impact their future at MSU.
Formulas for Getting into Medical School and/or Graduate School

As noted above in the section Preparing for Life After College, most (17) of the
interview participants were interested in pre-professional careers. A few (3) mentioned an
interest in pursuing graduate degrees. These participants shared how they thought their
undergraduate experience would prepare them to reach their goal of further education. As
mentioned above, participants pointed out the importance of the credential of a bachelor’s
degree in continuing their education. High grades and speciﬁes courses were seen as
important pieces of the credential. They also discussed the personality traits and speciﬁcs
skills they hoped to develop to prepare for graduate school, such as learning to work with
different types of people and dealing with stress. In addition, they shared their
impressions of how medical and graduate schools would value service and leadership
activities. Several interviewees also mentioned the importance of hands-on experience.
Grades and Speciﬁc Coursework

Several students expressed concerns about keeping their GPA high enough for
medical school admission. Charlie commented:

I’ve done some research and talked to some academic advisors for medical and

dental schools. I know how tough it is to get in... So if all goes well, I want to get

accepted in dental school. So I’m just trying to get very good grades and fulﬁll all

those requirements, and then pick a major that I enjoy and can fall back on if that

doesn’t work out.

121

Anya equated high grades in the right classes as a sign of thoroughly learning the
material she would need to know for medical or graduate school:
But having a higher GPA, I would say that's probably my top priority, just
because if I take the right classes and have a higher GPA, then I know that I have
the knowledge with that class, and that maybe I can just go on to med school or
go on to graduate school.
Personality Traits and Skills
Having a high GPA and taking speciﬁc coursework were not the only aspects of
students’ formulas for getting into medical and/or graduate school. A few participants
explained the overall traits that they thought medical and/or graduate schools would look
for during the admission process. Lisa said:
I want to look like the ideal, hardworking, intelligent—like overall — good
personality-wise, good with animals, good with people. Good leadership qualities,
good group working qualities. 1 would love to graduate with a four-point, and I
guess just like positive qualities that you would ever think of being like in
someone in the medical ﬁeld, like good bedside manner and stuff like that. I
would hope that they would think that I have either potential to have those
qualities, or already have those qualities.
Several students hoped that college would help them develop skills for interacting with
people in their capacity as health care providers. Jasmin explained:
I think you need to be able to work with people, talk to people, because you’re
going to be meeting new pe0ple right away. You know, you need to be able to

make them feel comfortable and like feel safe enough to open up to you and tell

122

you everything. So you need to be able to establish almost like a relationship or

like a bond right away with a person.
In preparation for a medical career, Cassie hoped that college would help her “to learn
how to deal with stress.” Jasmin explained how her college experience had contributed to
this Skill: 1

Also how to work under stress, especially if you’re a doctor, you need to know

how to work under stress, which I’m learning here. And like I love sleep and

that’s one thing I miss in college because it seems like I don’t sleep here at all.

And so, you know, I’m actually learning how to work without sleep. And I know

doctors do that a lot, too.
Service and Leadership Activities

As noted above, the Millennial generation is said to be very active in service
(Howe & Strauss, 2003). When the interview participants talked about community
service and participation in student organizations as part of their formulas for getting into
medical and/or graduate school, they were both strategic and altruistic. Maggie
mentioned speciﬁcally that participation was a resume builder, “Also, trying to get into a
few clubs, which, obviously, looks better on resumes, and applying to graduate school
and all that stuff.” Doug was looking for organizations that are “designed to prepare you
to get into med school” such as the Pre-Med Association and the Physiology Society.

Dan almost seemed apologetic that he was thinking not only about service, but
also about graduate school, “Another reason, in all honesty, it's just a credential for grad
school.” Lisa mentioned, “I am looking for leadership things, ‘cause like I’m kind of a

little bit focused towards like vet school applications,” and then went on to talk about

123

how she could use that leadership position to beneﬁt others. Charlie shared, “I’m going
on Alternative Spring Break this spring to Georgia to work in a hospital for a week. So,
that should be ﬁrn, give me some experience to put on my application.” Charlie also
mentioned, “I know on the Service Learning website there’s some dentist stuff that I tried
to get into, but it was ﬁlled almost instantly when that opened up this semester.”
Hands-on Experience

Several students had participated in internships and job-shadowing prior to
beginning college and these experiences shaped their motivations for pursuing their
chosen career path. Others commented that hands-on experience was something they
hoped to include in their college experience to conﬁrm their choice. Charlie mentioned,
“You need experience in the ﬁeld to know that that’s what you wanna do.” Drew
explained that an internship would help him discover “what it’s really like inside the ﬁeld
instead of hearing or seeing what people make it out to be like.”

In addition to using hands-on experiences to conﬁrm their motivation toward
medical or graduate school, participants also saw it as a way to prepare for, and be
attractive to, medical and graduate schools. When asked how she could prepare for vet
school, Lisa answered:

The experience, like animal experience. And I haven’t gotten in with the vet

program here, like actual hands-on experience, but I’m going to be working on

that now with my free time. But I do have like a year and a half of hands-on
working with a vet, experience from a job that 1 had in high school. So I was in
there like holding the animals, for the appointments and the surgeries, and various

things.

124

Jamie explained the advantages of hands-on experience:

Where you’re in an environment and you get to see how it happens and see how

people react and how they process their thoughts. How they think on the spot, to

different situations and all that. Being in that whole situation, seeing how people
do it, could probably help me get ready by showing me how I would do it.

In this section I provided details about students’ formulas for being a college
student and for preparing for medical and/or graduate school. The participants’ formulas
for being a college student included strategies related to both the social and academic
aspects of their experience as well as an awareness of being in transition. Their formulas
for getting into medical/graduate school included a focus on earning high grades,
developing skills to work effectively with people, service and leadership activities, and
the importance of hands-on experience.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to present the ﬁndings from the interview phase
of this study. The chapter included a description of the survey participants, a discussion
of participants’ views about the purpose of higher education and how they formed those
views, and an exploration of their perceptions of the value of the LBS as a learning
experience. Also in this chapter, I described the participants’ formulas for being a college
student and for getting into medical and/or graduate school. In Chapter 6, I will present a
model of the relationship between reason for attending college and participation in a

residential learning community or other co-curricular opportunities.

125

CHAPTER 6
Introduction

The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between reasons
for attending college and participation in a learning community. I was particularly
interested in investigating the processes by which students shaped their own educational
environments through the choices they made regarding curricular, co-curricular, and
extra-curricular opportunities and the role reasons played in those processes. Astin
(1993b) referred to this phenomenon of students shaping their education as “self-
produced environmental experiences” (p. 83). I also wanted to examine the role the
environment played in shaping both students’ reasons for attending college as well as the
choices they made in the college environment.

Both the process-person-context-time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner, 1976,
1979, 1989, 1993, 1995) and the concept of learner disposition (Bloomer & Hodkinson,
1997, 1999, 2000) suggest that a person’s subjective view of the situation, or the meaning
that learners attribute to their learning experiences, shape the outcomes of a person-
environment interaction. Consequently, I was intrigued by not only participants’ reasons
for attending college but also their perceptions of the value of the learning community
opportunity. In the interview data, the ﬁnding that perception of the value of LBS as a
learning experience was the only thematic area in which I observed differences between
the LBS participants and the non-participants conﬁrmed the role of a person’s subject
view of the learning experience.

In the previous chapters, 1 presented the ﬁndings from the survey and the

interview phases of this study. In this chapter, I will synthesize these ﬁndings by

126

proposing a model of the relationship between reasons for attending college and
participation in curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular opportunities.
A Model of the Relationship between Reasons to Attend College and Participation

Although the primary focus of this research was learning community
participation, both learning community participants and non-participants were included in
the interviews. Because the interviews were conducted near the end of the students’ ﬁrst
semester, participants had had occasion to make choices regarding participation in not
only the Lyman Briggs School (LBS) but also other curricular and co-curricular
activities. Consequently, the model presented in Figure 1 represents the relationship
between reasons to attend college and participation in a number of different activities.
After a brief description of the model, speciﬁc examples ﬁ'om the interviews will be used
to illustrate how the model can be applied to the participants’ decisions regarding
participation in the LBS. Then I will explore how speciﬁc participants’ stories
demonstrate the connection between reasons to attend college and participation in other
curricular and co-curricular activities.

The model includes six paths to participation. Four of these paths begin with
reasons to attend college. In some cases, participants’ decisions about participation were
directly related to their reasons for attending college. This direct path from reasons can
lead to either participation or non-participation. More often, another factor shaped the
inﬂuence reasons had on participation. Some factors ampliﬁed the impact of reasons on
participation, while others modiﬁed or diminished the impact of reasons on participation.
In several cases, the participants’ decisions regarding participation were a function of

previous experience, interests, and the environment, and were not directly related to a

127

speciﬁc reason for attending college. The gadation of the arrows represents the impact of
the factors with a clear arrow signifying non-participation and a darkened arrow
signifying participation. Following the model, I will use excerpts ﬁ'om the interviews to

illustrate the paths to participation.

128

 

 

 

:ouaﬁozam oz \
38.53—

83333....— mo> ooaoﬂaxm 3030.5

=5qu Haven—gem

 

 

 

 

  

ﬁngm _EEEU
nosomom
moE>uo< 38m
853m medtomm
mzmm ooeoEmom

2223530 “Seam

Benz $5
3an33
83.8w
85.38800 9:534

  
  

   

1: o. 1:. mmWJEIam

  

        
       

 

, :52. a...—

 

 

mooﬁdﬂmnm

 

Evade—gen 02::on
31:58

@5890
2e .8 swag? means .
bacon 302 $582 .
Benton weﬁovaem .

3831 .3585

 

 

owe—BU
Ste 05 .8.“ mam—32m .
Bogerm 382W 3.111.2385

mUE

Esebom ao>tm.nouﬁooaxm .
Euaobﬁﬂénﬁom .
11:388.: 8038880 3535 .
masseuse 25 .

 

 

30892309 “$232: .

3

a

 

 

 

 

 

"833693 93 omozoo 38$ 8 8080M 5353 qﬁaowﬂom 06 me #252 < .~ mSME

129

Participation in the Lyman Briggs School

As I presented in Chapter 5, the 15 LBS participants had a number of reasons for
participating in the residential learning community. These reasons centered around three
main themes: the prestige of the LBS program, the educational characteristics of the
program (e. g., the intentional focus on the sciences and being surrounded by like-nrinded
students), and the logistical characteristics of the program (e.g., smaller class sizes and
the convenience of having classes in their residence hall). The eight non-LBS participants
had a variety of reasons for their decision regarding the residential learning community
opportunity. In some cases, the non-participants felt that the characteristics marketed as
reasons to participate, such as small class sizes and living with like-minded peers, would
stiﬂe their college experience. Others were concerned about the perceived difficulty level
of the LBS courses and did not want to take courses that were not speciﬁcally required
for their majors.
The Direct Path from Reasons to Attend to LBS Participation

The participants’ explanations of how they decided whether or not to participate
in the LBS illustrate three of the paths to participation represented in the Model of the
Relationship between Reasons to Attend College and Participation: the direct path ﬁ'om
reasons to participation; the amplifying effect of factors such as formulas, DICs, and the
environment; and the path not directly related to reasons to attend college. In many cases,
reasons for attending college had a direct impact on a student’s participation in the LBS.
For example, Julie’s choice to participate in the LBS was directly related to her career
goals, “I ﬁgure to get into medical school, it’s probably beneﬁcial to stay in the same

major, especially Lyman Briggs.”

130

Figure 2. Julie’s participation in LBS

 

Item
To prepare for graduate 1"":st n

or professional school

 

 

 

Drew decided against participating in the LBS because of his focus on meeting
new people:

I didn’t really like the fact that Lyman Briggs was centered in one hall, classes

where you are just in that hall. Basically it’s like saying your classmates are the

people that you know in your dorm. I’d like to meet more people and all. Rather

than just stay with the same routine.

Figure 3. Drew’s non-participation in LBS

 

 

 

Reason .
To meet new people Pill-6:13;.“

 

 

 

Bryan’s reason for not participating in LBS was directly related to his desire to study
mathematics in depth:
I looked at it [LBS]... From what I heard it's not as "math-y.". .. Lyman Briggs
felt like I was going to be going through -— well, you're in this great science
program, but that's not what I wanna do. I don't wanna be a scientist. I wanna be
a mathematician. And it's a very ﬁne line, but if you're — if you just love math,
you know where it is, and that Lyman Briggs was barely on the other side of that,

you know.

131

Figure 4. Bryan’s non-participation in LBS

 

Reason

To develop an in-depth
rmderstanding of a
speciﬁc ﬁeld of study

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Amplijying Eﬁrect of Formulas on Participation in LBS
In many instances the formulas that students had developed for being a college
student reinforced their reasons for attending college and resulted in participation in the
LBS. When choosing to participate in the LBS, several participants tied their decision to
the perception that Holmes Hall (where LBS is housed) would provide a good
environment for studying. Maggie commented:
Holmes isn’t a huge party atmosphere. . . And I think I kind of like that better
because I get all my school work done and I don’t -— you know, and that’s what I
was also afraid of because at Michigan State, I hear it’s like the big party school
and I didn’t want that to distract me from my classes. So, I think it helps that I’m
in Holmes, rather than in some other dorm where everyone’s loud and just wants

to party all the time.

Figure 5. Maggie’s participation in LBS

  

 

Ragga
To get a high GPA 1L

 

 

 

 

 

Kathie’s decision to participation in the LBS was ampliﬁed by her concern about feeling

comfortable in the social environment of college:

132

Just, basically, the whole small school atmosphere, I thought that I would be more
comfortable in that, because I’m kind of shy, so I thought that I would do - do
better in a smaller environment, but after talking to some people, you kind of get

the small environment within the larger one, here, especially at Lyman Briggs.

Figure 6. Kathie’s participation in LBS

 
 
 

  
   
   
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor
Reason Formula -
To get a high GPA Social
Integration

The Amplifying Eﬂect of DICs on LBS Participation

In a few cases, the participants’ developmentally instigative characteristics (DICs)
(Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995), personal attributes that shape
developmental processes such as the willingness to engage in increasingly more complex
activities, played a role in the student’s decision to participate in the LBS. As noted in
Chapter 5, LBS courses are perceived as more academically challenging than non-LBS
courses. Maggie welcomed this challenge, “I did hear that it was a little bit harder than
the regular university, but I was willing to challenge myself and I was willing to go

through with it.”

Figure 7. Maggie’s participation in LBS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M r Factor
To get a high GPA Dle
L

 

 

 

133

Mingmei chose to participate in LBS even though she did not have a strong background

in science:
I looked at what it [LBS] was about, and I thought it was cool, because it also
included many different areas, but it kind of focused on the science, even though
I’m not exactly sure about that either. But I didn’t have a lot of science
experiences in my secondary education, I guess, because throughout elementary
school, we just had science classes and electives, and then I had two years in
middle school, and my high school — their English program was very — English

history was very strong, but not so much the sciences, so —

Figure 8. Mingrnei’s participation in LBS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ma r Factor _
To learn more about DICs PM II II
things that interest me P LBS

 

 

 

The Environment and Participation in the LBS
A few students mentioned that they made their decision about LBS participation
based on information or advise they had received from someone within the collegiate
environment. Maggie’s decision to participate in LBS because it would help her prepare
for graduate school was ampliﬁed by the information she received:
When I came in the summer, for like, a tour type thing... I just happened to go to
Lyman Briggs, and then they started talking about how it would be a good place
to go if you were going in a pre-professional program, so then I ﬁgured that I

should probably be a part of Lyman Briggs, it would probably help me out.

134

Figure 9. Maggie’s participation in LBS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m T Factor .
To prepare for graduate Environment _L_P‘l'ﬁ¢i 300'!
or professional school k LBS

 

 

For Ildi, the environment was the sole inﬂuence on her decision not to participate in LBS.
Her decision was not directly connected to her reasons for attending college:
I did look at it [LBS] but I talked to people who were in the program and they said
for a pre-med major it — you end up dropping it after two years because you’re
required to take some courses that don’t really apply to the major I guess. So I

was advised not to.

Figure 10. Idli’s non-participation in LBS

[ Factor 1

Environment J

 

 

 

 

 

In this section, 1 demonstrated how the interview participants’ decisions about
participation in the LBS are represented in the Model of the Relationship between
Reasons to Attend College and Participation (Figure 1). LBS participation followed three
of the six paths to participation: the direct path from reasons to participation; the
amplifying effect of factors such as formulas, DICs, and the environment; and the path
not directly related to reasons to attend college. In the remainder of this chapter, I will use

excerpts from the interviews regarding participation in a variety of other curricular and

135

co—curricular opportunities to illustrate the six paths to participation presented in the
model.
The Direct Path ﬁ'om Reasons to Participation

Reasons for attending college had a direct impact on students’ participation in
opportunities beyond the LBS. For several participants, their decision to attend MSU over
other institutions was directly related to a major or career speciﬁc reason for coming to
college. Dan explained why he chose MSU, “Because I'm majoring in astrophysics and
Michigan State has one of the top three astrophysics programs in the nation for

undergraduates.” Maggie stated, “Well I want to be a vet, and Michigan State has the best
vet program.”

Figure I I. Maggie’s decision to attend MSU

 

Reason . .
To prepare for graduate W

or professional school MSU

 

 

 

When talking about her goals for college, Cassie said, “Just like broaden my
horizons. I really want to do the alternative spring break, or study abroad.” On the survey,
Anya marked To be able to contribute to the welfare of others as essential. This value is
illustrated by the activities in which she has become involved:

Yeah, I started volunteering last week, actually... So I want to continue that, it’s

really fun, or maybe even continue volunteering somewhere else, different kinds

of places. . . 1 think it's kind of nice to help people out, and since I'm not working —

I've always been working, I kind of want to stop working a little bit, kind of

136

experience new things, meeting new people, and contribute. It might help

someone else.

Figure .12. Anya’s participation in volunteer activities

 
 
     
   
 

 

Reason . . .
To be able to contribute m

Volunteer
Activities

 

 

to the welfare of others

 

Kevin expressed an interest in research opportunities as a way to ﬁgure out what he
might want to declare as a major:
What I want to know is if that’s really what I want to do. If I — ‘cuz you know, I
looked at ﬁelds of astronomy, but they didn’t look too appealing. But I think if I
can get my foot in the door and some kind of lab to see, “This is what you’d be
doing.” You might be taking data analysis all the time, doing experiments. Just to

see what it’s like, see if I like spending time in a lab or something like that.

Figure 13. Kevin’s plan to participate in research activities

 

Reason . .
Determining a Calling ELM—12M

Research

 

 

 

The Amplijying Eﬂect of Formulas
In many instances the formulas that students had developed for being a college
student reinforced their reasons for attending college and resulted in participation in a
variety of curricular and co-curricular activities. A few participants mentioned an interest

in getting a job as a Mentor (Resident Assistant). This desire was often related to the

137

concept of giving back as part of the formula for being a college student. Charlie
explained:
I wanted to be a mentor next year. I just really liked the college experience of just
the big campus, meeting people, all the stuff to do, clubs to join, people with your

same interests, and I kind of wanted to share that.

Figure 14. Charlie’s plan to be a Mentor

 
 
 
 
     
   

 

 
 

 

 

M Participation
To be able to contribute Formula - Being a Mentor

to the welfare of others in the

Residence Hall

 

 

 

 

In J asmin’s case, her decision to get involved with an Indian student organization
was shaped by both her formula for integrating socially as well as her formula for
preparing for medical school:

I kind of grew up with all White people and so, like I’m very traditional. Like I

have all my traditions oriented. I speak my language completely ﬂuently. I

actually learned English second... I know about the culture, politics, economics,

everything I know about that, but like I’ve never really lived with Indians. So I

think that [getting involved with the Indian student organization] will also help

me like see more different races which will be good because as a doctor, you’ll

deﬁnitely encounter different things.

138

Figure 15. J asmin’s decision to participate in the Indian student organization

 
     
   
 

 

 

 

 

Rama Participation
To prepare for graduate Formulas Student
or professional school \ Organization

 

 

 

 

The Modifying and Diminishing Effects of Formulas

In some cases, the participants articulated that their actions were driven by their
ideas, or formulas, about how to attain their goals. Although students might be acting on
similar formulas, for example the importance of volunteer experience for admission to
medical school, the resulting participation was not always the same. Both Anya and Anne
were interested in volunteering but had different reactions to the information they learned
about the opportunities that were available. Anya commented:

We have a service learning center website. So I went on there, and then I was

looking at kind of things toward the medical ﬁeld. And a lot of it was taken up, so

I said, why don't I just try something else, so 1 just went to a different category

and found it [the agency for which she is volunteering] there.

Figure I 6. Anya’s participation in Service

 
 
 
 
 

 

  
   
   
 

Factor
Formula for
Med School
Admission

Reason
To prepare for graduate
or professional school

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anne explained her participation in this way:
Yeah, I’ve volunteered like three to four times, and well — that didn’t help me.

The dental school wants me to volunteer in a dentist office. I didn’t do that,

139

though. . . That’s why I stopped doing volunteering, like, that’s not really

necessary for dental school.

Figure I 7. Anne’s non-participation in Service

 

   
 

  
 
   

 

Reason Factor

To prepare for graduate Formula for

or professional school Med School
Admission

 

 

 

 

The Amplifying Eﬂect of DICs

In a few cases, the participants’ developmentally instigative characteristics (DICs)
(Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995), personal attributes that shape
developmental processes such as the willingness to engage in increasingly more complex
activities, also played a role in the actions students took to achieve their goals. When
talking about how she went about meeting new people, Natalie described actions that
required a certain structural proclivity, willingness or comfort level with challenging
situations:

I know like the ﬁrst week and a half or so, I just went down to the cafeteria by

myself every time. Speciﬁcally so that I could look for someone new or a new

group to sit with, so that’s kind of like just going out of your comfort zone a little

bit just to ﬁnd someone new, because there’s so many people.

Figure 18. Natalie’s willingness to explore the social aspects of the residence hall

 

 

 

 

 

Reason Partrc’ '9 tio
To meet new people ’ Residerlrc: Halll

 

 

 

140

Describing the process through which she set up her Professorial Assistantship (PA),

Mingmei also exhibited a willingness to seek out and engage in complex situations:
Every step of the way, it has its advantages, like ﬁrst is ﬁnding your PA. I didn’t
have somebody look for one for me. I just took the list, and I saw the descriptions,
and I called the professors that I wanted to work with, and then we had
interviews. So that was an experience all by itself, and there’s some
troubleshooting in that... And so, it’s a lot of how you think and how you initiate

this learning, so that’ll be important to me.

Figure 19. Mingmei’s participation in the PA program

  

 

Reason
To learn more about
things that interest me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Diminishing Eﬁect of Cognitive Development

In some cases participants exhibited a less complex level of cognitive
development in their decision making regarding participation. They relied heavily on
external authorities. When asked about her plans for the next several years, Anne
mentioned different opportunities she had considered but had already decided against.
For example, Study Abroad:

I want to [do Study Abroad] but I have no time. Because I have my goal already

set, so — So I don’t really have time for all this. That’s my goal in my life [to get

into dental school], so — I really wanna, like, go study abroad, because it sounds

fun. But I can’t.

141

Figure 20. Anne’s non-participation in Study Ahmad

  

   
  

 

   

Factor
Cognitive
Development

M
Broadening Horizons

 

   

Participation
Study Abroad

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Similarly, John decided on his major based on what external authorities, in this case his

mother, had told him about the job market. John still appears to be unsure of his decision,

though:
I was originally going to be an engineer. Engineering market didn't look that
good. So, well my mom is an engineer. She even told me, "I'd rather have you
study — try something else, you know, like, you're gonna get a better job. There's
more demand for, especially some health profession." So I ﬁgured, I’ll just go
with that right now, and see where that takes me. So, right now I'm kind of taking
classes geared towards medicine, but with no real direction. I don't know if I want
to, you know, be a doctor. Or just even study chemistry, or maybe I'll go back to

engineering in the end.

Figure 21. John’s decision to not pursue an engineering major

  

  
  
  

 

 
  
   

 

 

Reason Factor . .
Determining a Calling Cognitive Particrpatlon

Engineering

 

 

 

  

Development

 

 

When asked about his participation in co-curricular activities, John said, “No, I just
bounce back and forth. I really don't know what to go to. It's kind of big, confusing. No

one tells you what to do.” Jasmin found someone to tell her what to do, “I ﬁnally visited

142

my counselor so next semester I’m joining the pre-med health organization, association,
whatever it is.”
The Diminishing Eﬂect of Finances
For several participants, the connection between reasons and participation was
limited by ﬁnances. Ildi explained:
I would love to study abroad but the ﬁnancial aspect kind of — I know that
there’s scholarships and so that’s -— I would love to but ﬁnancially it could be
kind of difficult. Because even if there’s scholarships you still need spending
money, you know, extra meals. So I would love to but I don’t know if that’s going

to be a possibility anytime soon.

Figure 22. Ildi’s explanation for not participating in Study Abroad

Ream m ]
Broadening Horizons Finances )1

  
 

 

 

 

   

Participation
Study Ahmad

 

  

 

 

 

Kathie was interested in several organizations but was limited by her ﬁnancial situation:
So I was going to joining Circle K, but I forgot about the $40 that I don’t have
that they need, so I didn’t join. And actually, I was going to join the Anime Club,

because I’m kind of a nerd. But they wanted $10, which I didn’t have, either.

143

Figure 23. Kathie’s search for involvement activities

 

 

 

 

Regan
To become actively My.
involved in student life Fmances J:

 

and campus activities

 

 

 

The Environment and Participation

Many interviewees mentioned that they were participating in activities that they
had been introduced to in college or by someone within the collegiate environment.
These activities were not necessarily connected to the students’ reasons for attending
college. For example, Bryan mentioned, “I've gone to the Wharton Center a few times.
Actually, I did not expect that I would ever go to an opera. Some of the people on the
ﬂoor dragged me.” Doug shared, “I think one of the biggest things is that I’d never really
been into sports before I came here. And now, I’m at every football game, despite how

bad we lose.”

Figure 24. Bryan’s attendance at an opera

Factor Participation
Environment Opera

Heather’s story about how she decided to attend the Women’s Leadership Conference on

 

 

campus is an example of the reciprocal relationship between the environment and
Heather’s personal characteristics. In this particular situation, the environment provided
the matching stimuli (her friends were gone for the weekend and a leadership program

was offered) to Heather’s goals and her structural proclivity:

144

There were signs kinda posted up — and I guess like I’d been in Girl Scouts and
stuff, so I kinda ﬁgured I should try and ﬁgure out what the leadership thing was.
Plus, that weekend most of my friends were gone, and there wasn’t much to do
and I didn’t want to just sit around. And I was kind of hoping that it would make
me a stronger person by getting out and doing something that I was kind of unsure

about. To kind of get out and go to a conference like that, on my own especially.

Figure 25. Heather’s attendance at the Women’s Leadership Conference

 
 
 
 

 

     
   

 

 

Reason Factor
To take advantage of Environment
leadership opportunities and DICs
on campus

 

 

 

 

Previous Experience and Participation
Many students had become involved in activities similar to those they had been a
part of in high school. For the most part, these activities were not directly tied to the
students’ reasons for attending college. For example, Dan mentioned, “Well, right now
I'm on the sailing team, and it's a lot of fun. And I enjoy sailing. I raced sailboats before I
came here, so I just continued that.” Similarly, Cassie played hockey in high school and
sought out the opportunity at MSU, “I’ve been e-mailing the coach since last year. That

was one of my main reasons for coming here.”

Figure 26. Dan’s participation in the sailing club

  
     
   
 

 

Participation

hm; Student
“CV10“ Organization
Expenence

 

145

Interests and Participation

Similar to the impact of previous experience on participation, students talked
about plans to get involved in certain activities because they were interested in them. This
was particularly true when the interviewees talked about planning to participate in Study
Aboard. Although a couple of students tied the Study Abroad opportunity to one of their
reasons for attending college, such as broadening horizons, most talked about going just
because they were interested. For some, the interest was strong despite the fact that they
perceived no impact on their future careers. Charlie commented:

I don’t really think that it [Study Aboard] ﬁts in and like, as if you’re an

International Relations major or something. I don’t really think it like goes in the

curriculum at all to beneﬁt you academically. I deﬁnitely think it helps just as a

person in growing and experiencing new things. . . And if I did go, I’d want to go

somewhere kinda crazy, like I was looking at Antarctica, which has some science

stuff, and I think that’d be really cool just to go somewhere that not too many

people have been.
Kevin explained his interest, “I’ve never been out of the country. I’ve never been farther
than Mississippi. So, I just want to get out, travel, see the world, see parts of it at least.”
Drew had a speciﬁc skill in mind that he wanted to develop through Study Abroad:

If I do it I’d be a little more ﬂuent in Japanese. It would take out some of the

accent I might have because of being American and all. I mean to other people, to

other Americans who don’t even know the language you might sound ﬂuent but if

you go to the country and study, speak a little there, you’ll be able to ﬁt in. They

won’t be able to tell — I went back — my parents are from Taiwan originally.

I46

Figure 27. Drew’s participation in Study Ahmad

  
 

 

   

Factor Pam ’ ation
Interest Study Abroad

  

 

Conclusion

As the stories shared in this chapter illustrate, the participants’ reasons for
attending college frequently inﬂuenced their decisions regarding participation in
curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular opportunities. Much of the time, the impact
of this inﬂuence was shaped by other factors, including: the formulas the students’ were
following for being a college student and for preparing for medical and/or graduate
school; the students’ developmentally instigative characteristics (DICs) and cognitive
development; people and events within the environment; ﬁnances; previous experiences;
and interests. Reasons could lead to both participation and non-participation. Formulas
both ampliﬁed and diminished the inﬂuence of reasons. In some instances the
environment ampliﬁed the inﬂuence of reasons on participation and in other situations
the environment was shaping participation apart from reasons. Low levels of cognitive
development and lack of ﬁnances often led to non-participation despite reasons. Previous
experience and interests shaped participation independent of reasons.

In the last chapter, I will discuss the implications of the survey and interview
ﬁndings, as well as the model, for practice and future research. I will also address the

limitations of the study.

147

CHAPTER 7
Introduction
The purpose of the current study was to investigate the potential relationship
between reasons for attending college and participation in a learning community. I was
particularly interested in investigating the processes by which students shaped their own
educational environments through the choices they made regarding curricular, co-
curricular, and extra-curricular opportunities and the role reasons for attending college
played in those processes. To give the study boundaries, I focused on one residential
learning community at one institution. The speciﬁc focus of the study was the question:
What relationship, if any, exists between Michigan State University College of Natural
Science students’ reasons to attend college and whether or not they participate in the
Lyman Briggs School, a residential learning community. I used a mixed method
approach, utilizing both a survey and semi-structured interviews. In order to explore the
potential relationship, I also investigated the following:
A. What are the proﬁles of reasons for attending college among ﬁrst-year students
enrolled in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University?
B. Are there differences between those students who chose to participate in the
College of Natural Science’s residential learning community program, the Lyman
Briggs School, and those who chose not to participate in terms of their reasons for
attending college?
C. Through what processes do students develop their reasons for attending college?
D. How do students perceive the impact learning community participation will have

on their ability to achieve their reasons for attending college?

148

In this chapter I will discuss the ﬁndings of the two phases of the study, the
survey and the semi-structured interviews, and the resulting model. I will also address the
limitations of the study. In addition, I will suggest implications for practice and areas for
future research.

The Findings ﬁ'om Phase 1: The Survey

The research design I used for this study was a sequential exploratory mixed
method research design (Creswell, 2003; Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson,
2003; Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). Consequently, the quantitative data and results
were primarily used “to assist in the interpretation of qualitative ﬁndings” (Creswell,
2003, p. 215). Despite the subordinate role the survey data played, the survey did result in
some interesting ﬁndings. In this section, I will compare the factored subscales to those
of previous research. I will also discuss the lack of statistically signiﬁcant differences in
the survey responses between the learning community group and the non-participant
group.

The Subscales in Relation to Previous Research

Using principle components analysis, I extracted ﬁve factors from the Reasons to
Attend College (RAC) scale. Because the scale items were based on previous research, I
was expecting that the factors would be similar as well. The Civic Leadership, Personal
Connections, Default-Indifferent, and Expectation-Driven subscales are consistent with
previous survey research on students reasons for attending college (e.g., Astin 1993 a;
Cote & Levine, 1997; Stark, Shaw, & Lowther, 1989). The combination of items in the
Individual Development subscale is interesting in that the items included bring together

two categories, Careerism and Intellectualism, that have previously been examined as

149

contrary to one another (e.g., Clark & Trow, I966; Katchadourian & Boli, 1985). For
example, Katchadourian and Boli split their participants into four types based on
students’ rankings of items related to careerism and intellectualism: Careerists,
Intellectuals, Strivers, and the Unconnected.

This difference may be due in part to the way I structured my analysis. I did not
structure my study to compare the two areas of Careerism and Intellectualism as
Katchadourian and Boli (I 985) had. I was looking at how the items related to each other
and was speculating that there might be differences between the importance stressed by
the LBS group and the non-participant group. It is interesting to note that the top ﬁve
items for the LBS group and the non-participant group are almost identical, with only one
item being different (LBS had To prepare for graduate or professional school in their top
ﬁve rather than To be able to make more money). In both groups’ top ﬁve items, three are
from a traditional career focus and two are from a more intellectual focus.

Two additional reasons why respondents in my sample may have emphasized
both career and intellectual goals as one concept are: the fact that my sample is made up
of science students and that this generation of college students has an increased access to
information. Kuh, Hu, and Vesper (2000) found that students in their Scientist type spent
more time on school work and reported high gains in both Intellectual Skills and
Vocational Preparation. Holland (1985) classiﬁed those in scientiﬁc ﬁelds as
Investigative. Investigative environments and careers require analytical skills and involve
intellectual activities.

Several students mentioned using online sources and cable television programs to

explore their interests and potential career paths. This increased access to information

150

exposes students to a wider array of career options than in previous generations. Dan
exempliﬁes this effect of access to information and an Investigative vocational
personality (Holland, 1985), in his explanation of why he chose to pursue astrophysics:
Well, I knew I liked science and math just because I enjoyed them. And my
parents eventually got digital cable at home, and one of the channels was the
science channel. And so I watched it a lot... I found myself skipping going out
and doing stuff that normally is fun to watch like, a show on black holes or on
dark matter cuz I really wanted to. I remember one time I was hanging out with
my girlfriend and I said like, no we gotta go home. We were at dinner. We had to
leave kinda early cuz I wanted to see this thing on dark matter. So we watched
that and then I took her out for ice cream to make up for it.
Learning Community Participants and Non-Participants at MS U
One of the sub-questions I explored was, Are there differences between those
students who chose to participate in the College of Natural Science’s residential learning
community program, the Lyman Briggs School, and those who chose not to participate in
terms of their reasons for attending college? I was surprised (and a little bit disappointed)
that none of the RAC subscales showed a signiﬁcant difference between learning
community participants and non-participants. I speculate that this may be due to two
factors: the inclusion of only science students in this study and the increasing academic
preparedness of students admitted to MSU. As mentioned above, this study included only
students interested in science. Previous research (e.g., Holland, 1985; Kuh, Hu, &
Vesper, 2000) has indicated that science students as a group may have similar academic

motivations.

151

According to the MSU Office of Admissions (2006), the Fall 2006 undergraduate
entering class “is the most academically talented in the school’s history” (p. 2). Over the
past 10 years, MSU has experienced a steady increase in the median composite ACT
scores and the median combined SAT scores of its applicants. This high level of
academic preparedness may also impact students’ ideas about the purpose of college and
their goals for college attendance, thus resulting in more similarity among the students
overall regardless of learning community participation.

Five individual items were signiﬁcantly different based on learning cormnunity
participation. Learning community participants (LBS, ROSES, etc.) ranked To be able to
contribute to the human condition as more important than did non-participants. Non-
participants ranked To achieve personal success, To be able to make more money, To
enjoy my college years before assuming adult responsibilities, and To achieve a high
GPA as more important than did learning community participants. Also, four items were
signiﬁcantly different when only LBS participants and College of Natural Science non-
participants were compared (T 0 meet new people, To enjoy my college years before
assuming adult responsibilities, To achieve a high GPA, and To achieve a position of
higher status in society). These differences were not substantiated by the interview data.
This could be a function of the demographics of the interview participants in comparison
to the demographics of the survey participants, particularly in the areas of social class and
parent education. A higher portion of the interview participants are ﬁ'om Working Class
families than is present in the survey participants. Also, a higher percentage of the
interview participants were ﬁrst-generation college students. This is an area that could be

explored in future research.

152

The Findings from Phase 2: The Semi-Structured Interviews

The focus of the semi-structured interviews was the potential relationship between
reasons to attend college and learning community participation as well as the sub-
questions: Through what processes do students develop their reasons for attending
college? and How do students perceive the impact learning community participation will
have on their ability to achieve their reasons for attending college? Because both learning
community participants and non-participants were included in the interviews, the
interview questions also probed how students perceived the usefulness of other curricular
and co-curricular activities. I will use the process-person—context-time (PPCT) model
(Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995) as a framework for discussing the
interview ﬁndings as well as the model I proposed in Chapter 6.

After a brief overview of the themes that emerged from the interviews, I will
discuss the Process and Person aspects of the ﬁndings by examining the impact of
students’ perceptions of the value of LBS as a learning experience. The inﬂuence of
family and peer microsystems, as well as the state of Michigan as an exosystem, will be
also be explored. Finally, I will discuss one aspect of Time: the Millennial cohort
characteristics. At the end of this section, I will also share some observations about the
utility of collecting data about students’ reasons for attending college through a survey
rather than through interviews.

Overview of the Interview Findings

In the interviews, I asked the participants about both the general purpose of

college as well as their speciﬁc college goals. Their responses resulted in four themes:

preparing for life aﬁer college, broadening horizons, meeting new people, and taking

153

advantage of the opportunity in order to be a role model to others. The ﬁrst theme had
ﬁve components: determining their calling, learning to be an adult/growing up, acquiring
general knowledge needed for life after college, gaining the credential necessary for their
chosen career, and learning speciﬁc skills/knowledge. The participants also talked about
how their ideas about the purpose of college were shaped by parents and other family
members, high school teachers and counselors, peers, higher education institution offrcial
representatives, the media, and current college students.

In addition to talking about their goals for college, participants also shared their
reasons for participation (or planned future participation) in a number of different
curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular activities. These areas of participation
included the LBS and other learning community programs, Study Abroad, service and
leadership opportunities, student organizations, research, sports, marching band,
academic majors and nrinors, speciﬁc classes, and jobs. These decisions were shaped by
not only their reasons for attending college, but also by the perceptions they had about the
value of the opportrmities and the formulas they had developed for being a college
student and for preparing for medical and/or graduate school. The only thematic area of
the interview data in which I observed differences between the LBS participants and the
non-participants was their perceptions of the value of the LBS as a learning experience. I
did not observe differences between the LBS participant group and the non-participant
group regarding the purpose of college or the formulas for being a college student and for

preparing for medical and/or graduate school.

154

Process and Person

Both the PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995) and the
concept of learner disposition (Bloomer & Hodkinson, 1997, 1999, 2000) suggest that a
person’s subjective view of the situation, or the meaning that learners attribute to their
learning experiences, shapes the outcomes of a person-environment interaction. This
concept was clearly illustrated by the different perceptions that LBS participants and the
non-participants had of the value of participation in LBS. LBS participants said that the
LBS provided prestige, educational beneﬁts, and logistical beneﬁts. Non-participants
expressed concern about not experiencing diversity of thought, the perceived difﬁculty of
the LBS program, and the extra courses that would be involved.

What is particularly interesting about these perceptions is that in several instances
the same characteristic of the LBS was seen as a positive attribute by participants and a
negative attribute by non-participants. This phenomenon is represented in the model (in
Figure 1) by the fact that reasons to attend college, and other factors, can lead to both
participation and non-participation. For example, the location of the program and being
surrounded by like-minded peers were cited as reasons to participate as well as reasons to
not participate. It was also notable that the perception that LBS provided a more intense
academic experience was seen as both a negative and a positive. Although this aspect was
appealing to most of the LBS participants, one student was drinking about leaving the
program because of this characteristic and several non-participants mentioned that this
was a reason to not participate.

The LBS and other learning community programs at MSU are intentionally

structured to provide the educational and logistical beneﬁts several of the students

155

mentioned. Bronfenbrenner (1989) referred to these types of opportunities as ecological
niches or “regions in the environment that are especially favorable or unfavorable to the
development of individuals with particular personal characteristics” (p. 194). The
developmentally instigative characteristics (DICs) of the participants and non-participants
in this study, such as their willingness to engage in increasingly more complex activities
(i.e., participate in a program that is perceived to be more academically challenging),
seem to shape learning community participation in addition to the students’ perceptions
of the value of the LBS. The impact of DICs is also represented in the model.
Context

Bronfenbrenner (1976, 1979, 1989, 1993) conceptualized the context as a
hierarchy of systems at four levels moving ﬁ'om proximal to distal: the microsystem, the
mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem. Within this study, two microsystems
and one exosystem had a noteworthy impact on the themes that emerged. The inﬂuence
of both family and peer microsystems was a consistent part of the interviewees’ stories.
Also the role of the state of Michigan as an exosystem seemed to shape students’ reasons
to attend college and participation.
Parent and Family Inﬂuence

The participants articulated a more direct inﬂuence from parents and other family
members when discussing their ideas about the purpose of college and their goals for
college than when discussing their participation in curricular, co-curricular, and extra-
curricular prograrns. When I was constructing the model, I considered adding
parents/family as a factor in both the amplifying and diminishing categories. As I

reviewed the interview transcripts for evidence of this inﬂuence, it became apparent that

156

the impact of the family microsystem on participation is indirect because of the role the
people in that microsystem play in shaping students’ ideas about the purpose of college.
Peer Inﬂuence

The use of the PPCT model to examine peer inﬂuence within the college setting is
not new. Renn and Arnold (2003) used the PPCT model to study “peer inﬂuence on racial
identity of mixed-race students and talent development of high-school valedictorians and
American Rhodes Scholars” (p. 263). The influence of peers in this current study was
described by the interview participants as having a more direct impact on participation
than the inﬂuence of parents and family members. Within the model, I represent this
impact within the environment. For example, Bryan’s story about going to the opera was
a result of peers on his ﬂoor encouraging him to go. The availability of an instant peer
group was also attractive to students who chose to participate in the LBS. In many cases,
the peer inﬂuence was a result of the ecological niches that had been constructed by the
institution.
The state of Michigan

There were two speciﬁc ways in which Michigan, as the context for this study,
had an impact on the ﬁndings: the postsecondary education opportunities in Michigan
and the economic situation in Michigan. There are 15 public four-year institutions, 28
public two-year institutions, and over 50 private institutions in the state of Michigan.
Several students mentioned the types of institutions they had considered and the role that
the LBS played in their decision to attend MSU. Many participants were looking at both
the U of M and MSU as an option for college. Several participants commented that LBS

added to the educational opportunities at MSU in a way that exceeded the opportunities

157

available at the U of M (the prestige factor). This phenomenon may be particular to states
that have two large public research universities, such as Michigan, Texas, and Iowa.
Students who were considering both large institutions, such as MSU, and smaller
institutions, cited the LBS as an enticing option that provided a small school atmosphere
on a large campus.

The economic status of Michigan had more of an indirect inﬂuence on how
students developed their reasons for attending college and made decisions about
educational opportunities. A few participants talked about how they did not want to work
in the blue collar industries in which their family members had worked. Some mentioned
that they were worried that the availability of these jobs was waning and others
mentioned that they wanted a different lifestyle than the one a blue collar job provided.
The ﬁnancial and educational background of participants’ families (potentially a function
of Michigan’s economic past and present) was apparent in both the survey and the
interview data. In the survey data both mother’s and father’s educational attainment had
an impact on learning community participation. In the interview data, ﬁnances had a
diminishing effect on participation.

Time — Generational Eﬂects

The ﬁnal aspect of the PPCT model, Time, has two components: the timing of
biological and social transitions within the individual’s lifespan and the historical time
period within which the person lives (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). The current generation of
traditional age college students, the Millennials (I-Iowe & Strauss, 2000, 2003), have
different characteristics from those of previous generations. These characteristics are

shaping how they approach higher education.

158

Participants discussed Meeting New People as one of the purposes of attending
college. Coomes (2004) pointed out that technological advances such as cell phones,
blogs, and instant messaging, have allowed Millennials to experience relationships and
connections in a different way from previous generations. This may be contributing to the
value they place on meeting new people. Howe and Strauss (2003) noted that, among
other things, Millennials are active in volunteer activities and have been brought up in
very busy and scheduled environments. These two characteristics were illustrated by the
focus participants placed on giving back and also their rationale for not getting too over-
involved but exploring non-academic involvement.

The current focus within higher education on retention issues and ﬁrst-year
programs also appears to be shaping how current students are thinking about college. I
was surprised by the transition awareness the interview participants displayed. A few
used terminology, such as ﬁrst year experience, that I assumed was only a part of the
rhetoric of higher education administrators. Others talked about the importance of the
ﬁrst few weeks of classes and the ﬁrst semester in creating a strong foundation for
success, a common theme in ﬁrst-year seminar or UNV 101 courses (transition to college
and success skills courses).

The PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995) provides a
useful ﬁamework for discussing the interview ﬁndings. The Process and Person aspects
of the PPCT model are useful in examining the inﬂuence on participation of students’
perceptions of the value of the LBS as a learning experience. The Context aspect is
helpful in understanding the role of parents and peers as well as Michigan as the context

for the study. Bronfenbrenner’s concept of Time in the PPCT model provides a lens for

159

understanding generation effects. In the next section, I will comment on students’
reﬂections on their survey answers.
How the interviews shed light on the survey answers

During the interviews, I asked participants to look at their survey answers and talk
about how well they thought those answers reﬂected their current reasons for attending
college. Because the interviews took place in the 12th week of classes, I was curious
about the impact that the college environment may have had on their ideas about the
purpose of college. Sixteen participants (70%) mentioned that they would change at least
one of their answers. A few mentioned that they were not sure why they had answered
the way they did and maybe they had just made a mistake. When reacting to his answer
for the item To gain a general education and appreciation of ideas, John remarked
“Yeah, that's a lie. I don't really care... This is something that people like to see, so I put
very important for it.” Although the issue of socially desirable responses is not
uncommon in survey research (DeVellis, 2003) and can be viewed as a threat to
reliability (Isaac & Michael, 1995), Astin (1993b) noted that “Measures that are relatively
unreliable on an individual basis can yield highly reliable results when the scores are
aggregated across a number of individuals” (p. 137). Thus, when aggregated, students’
responses to survey questions about their reasons to attend college are useful in creating a
broad picture of an entering class (such as those produced annually by the Cooperative
Institutional Research Program), but individual students’ answers may need to be
interpreted in a different way.

In some cases, students’ formulas for being a college student had an impact on

their answers to the survey. A few people commented that they had marked certain items,

160

such as To take advantage of leadership opportunities on campus, low thinking about
their freshman year, but that those items might be more important later in their college
careers. Although Natalie expressed an interest in getting involved in leadership at some
point during her college years, she explained her answer to the question above in this
way:

Oh, to take advantage of leadership opportunities on campus. I rated it pretty low,

somewhat important. And I did that just because I think your ﬁrst year especially,

I think is a lot about making connections with people around you... Yeah, so

that’s why I rated relationships before that [leadership].

The historical time period (Bronfenbrenner, 1995) within which the participants
ﬁlled out the survey and participated in the interviews also had an inﬂuence on the
students’ interpretations of their survey answers. The reaction to the item To become an
informed citizen and voter illustrates this inﬂuence. A few participants noted that they
had marked this item low but after experiencing the November elections, they would now
mark it as more important. For example, Bryan said, “It’s become a little bit more
important to me now since we voted just recently, but it wasn’t important to me then
[beginning of September].”

A couple of students noted that To become an informed citizen and voter was
important but that they did not associate it with going to college. Dan commented, “The
whole informed citizen thing, I think the best thing to do with that is look what's going on
around you now, rather than look in some book for an answer.” Mingmei remarked, “I

said of little importance, not because it’s not important to become an informed citizen

161

and voter, it’s just I don’t relate that to college a lot, I guess.” Dan made a similar
comment about the item To discover what kind of person I really want to be:

I don't think there's a day when you discover what you really wanna be, and I'm

not even sure that college helps you discover that. I think that's something that

changes as you go. And obviously, college will help me do that, but then again, so
will the day after college also. You know, every day does.

Eight people commented that they should have marked either To meet new people
or To establish meaningid relationships as more important than they had originally
indicated. This is consistent with the interview theme Meeting New People. Several
students mentioned that the importance they placed on meeting new people and forming
relationships had been shaped by their college experience thus far. Julie commented, “I
would make that [To meet new people] important, instead of somewhat important. Just
because I have met a lot of new people and it’s nice to make new relationships.” Jasmin
made a similar comment about another item, “To enjoy my college years before assuming
adult responsibilities, that’s important to me now that I’m here.”

The participants’ reﬂections on their survey answers struck me as noteworthy for
a number of reasons. Some students displayed a complex level of meaning-making in
their reﬂections, while others were guided by external expectations when they initially
completed the survey. Their comments illustrate that the salience of speciﬁc reasons for
attending college may change as students interact with the college environment. For
example, prior to matriculation the social aspects of college are not emphasized as
strongly as the academic aspects but the importance of social connections is revealed as

students transition to campus.

162

The participants’ comments about their survey answers also shed light on the
relationship between reasons for attending college and participation in curricular, co-
curricular, and extra-curricular activities. Doug’s reﬂection on his survey answers
illustrates how the environment shapes participation:

I think my general motivation for why I’m here has remained the same but I’ve

also learned a lot more about the opportunities that are available here that I didn’t

know about. I think deﬁnitely what I’m going to do while I’m here may have
changed but I think my general motivation for being here has stayed the same.

There’s a lot more, you don’t really realize how much there is to do here until

you’re actually submerged in it.

His comment also reinforces the role of the environment as a factor that ampliﬁes reasons
to attend college, as represented in the model I proposed in Chapter 6. Collecting both
survey and interview data helped me to better understand the relationship between
reasons to attend college and students’ decisions regarding participation in curricular, co-
curricular, and extra-curricular opportunities.

Limitations

As with any study, there are important limitations that must be addressed. By
design, this study only included participants from one institution. This limits the
applicability of the ﬁndings. In addition, I only surveyed students in one disciplinary
course, chemistry. Consequently, the factored subscales may be representative of students
interested in science, but a wider array of students should be surveyed to determine if the
subscales are also applicable to students in other areas of study. I did not survey students

in honors chemistry or in remedial math courses (there is a math prerequisite for the

163

chemistry course). High achieving and under-prepared students may have different
reasons for attending college.

Another limitation is the sample size for both the survey and the interviews. The
return rate for the survey was 19%. Although the survey respondents were
demographically similar to the population, caution should still be taken when
generalizing the results. Perhaps distributing the survey during summer orientation or
offering a more desirable participation incentive could have improved the response rate.
The interview sample size was relatively small as well. I interviewed 23 people. These 23
were from two groups, 15 from LBS and 8 non-LBS participants. Almost all of the
interview participants were either White or Asian American. Future research should
include a more racially and ethnically diverse sample.

Finally, the timing and duration of the study are limitations. The survey and
interviews occurred within one semester. The survey was distributed during the second
and third weeks of classes. Although this is still early in the semester, the survey
responses may reﬂect some effect of being on campus for a few weeks. The interviews
took place between the 12th and 14th weeks of classes. This did allow students to reﬂect
on their ﬁrst semester and talk about the types of activities within which they had already
become involved and those they were considering in the future. In many cases though,
the examples used within the model are students’ future plans and not necessarily what
they are doing right now. So, it would be beneﬁcial to check in with them at a later date

to see if they had participated in the programs in which they had expressed an interest.

164

Implications for Practice

In spite of the limitations addressed above, this study has a number of practical
implications for learning communities and other curricular, co—curricular, and extra-
curricular programs. In this section, I will focus on implications for the promotion,
design, and assessment of learning communities. Although the context of this study is
learning communities, the ﬁndings may also shed light on students’ decisions regarding
participation in other pedagogical innovations and programmatic initiatives. I will also
discuss the implications for acaderrric advising and ﬁrst-year seminar courses (e.g., UNV
101).

The Promotion of Learning Communities

In Chapter 2, I mentioned that learning community programs have become a
popular mechanism for addressing calls for accountability and an increasing focus on the
assessment of learning outcomes. I also noted that the case for the expansion of learning
community programs seems to operate under the assumption that increased offerings will
automatically translate into increased student participation and with increased
participation, increased learning outcomes. The ﬁndings from this study indicate that the
simple availability of learning community programs does not necessarily translate into
participation.

Those charged with promoting learning community programs should keep in
mind that the characteristics of the programs (e. g., location on campus, a common
disciplinary focus) may both encourage and discourage participation. Learning
community program coordinators should investigate how their programs are perceived by

both participants and non-participants to discern which characteristics are most inﬂuential

I65

in the decision whether or not to participate. The ﬁndings also show that the availability
of learning community programs can be a powerful marketing tool, particularly in states
where similar types of institutions (e.g., large, public, research institutions) are competing
for the same students.

Another implication for the promotion of learning community and other programs
is the importance of consistent communication about the availability and purpose of these
programs. This is particularly important in the case of students who change their majors
at some point during the admission/matriculation process. For example, Charlie noted
that he had considered the Engineering learning community (ROSES) because initially he
had declared engineering, but when he switched to a science major he was not notiﬁed
about the LBS.

The Design of Learning Communities

The ﬁndings from this study also have implications for the design of learning
communities. Residential learning community programs can act as ecological niches
(Bronfenbrenner, 1989) that provide students with opportunities to explore majors and
careers (i.e., Determine their calling), meet new people, and broaden their horizons.
Although these outcomes may happen simply as a result of students’ interaction with the
college environment, learning communities could also be intentionally structured to
encourage these interactions. As represented in the Model of the Relationship between
Reasons to Attend College and Participation, the environment can inﬂuence participation
on its own as well as amplify the impact of reasons to attend college on participation. An

important part of the design of intentional programming should be clear communication

166

to students that connects the programnring to their reasons for attending college so that
students perceive the programming as valuable.

An additional implication for the design of learning community programs is the
role that students’ formulas for being a college student can play in diminishing
participation. Several participants mentioned waiting to participate until they had
transitioned to college. In recent years, the growth of learning community programs has
been largely connected to ﬁrst-year experience initiatives (Smith et al., 2004). The
availability of learning community programs for sophomores might appeal to students
like Anya who chose to ﬁnd out more about the LBS program throughout her ﬁrst
semester before participating. Learning community program coordinators should consider
creating programs that are available to, or speciﬁcally designed for, second year and
upper-class students. These programs could be residential or non-residential in design and
might appeal to students who initially were hesitant to participate.

The Assessment of Learning Communities

Although this study was conducted over a short period of time, one semester, the
ﬁndings indicate potential implications for assessing the outcomes of participation in
learning communities, as well as other curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular
programs. The survey data showed very little difference between the learning community
participant and non-participant groups. If learning community participants exhibit more
growth in learning outcomes, this initial similarity could be cited as an indication that
participation in the learning community program had an impact on those outcomes. This
study also reinforces the utility of using reasons for attending college as an input variable

in assessing outcomes, as suggested by Coté and Levine (1997, 2000). In addition, the

167

ﬁndings support the importance of considering students’ perceptions regarding the value
of the learning experience, as proposed by Bloomer and Hodkinson (1997, 1999, 2000).
Implications for Academic Advising

As I mentioned in Chapter 3, the subjective lens that was most salient for me in
this research was my academic advisor lens. Consequently, I identiﬁed a number of
implications for academic advising throughout the study. I think the survey could serve as
a powerful learning and reﬂection tool to be used in advising. Advisors are in a unique
position to assist students in making sense of their college experience. Helping students
understand their own reasons for attending college could encourage them to engage more
purposefully in the opportunities provided by the college environment. Also, the Model
of the Relationship between Reasons to Attend College and Participation could be used in
advising sessions to illustrate how students’ reasons might be shaping their decisions
about participation. Additionally, academic advisors could focus not only on the
availability of curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular programs, but also on
students’ perceptions of the value of those opportunities in order to encourage
participation.

Implications for F irst- Year Seminar Courses

One of the curricular components that is commonly included in learning
community programs is a ﬁrst-year seminar or University 101 (UNV 101) course (Smith
et al., 2004). These courses often focus on issues that impact retention, such as: study
skills, time management, and strategies for academic success; career development and
academic major decisions; and connecting to faculty and peers. The interview ﬁndings

show that students are thinking about these issues as they matriculate and are likely to be

168

receptive to UNV 101 course content. The model illustrates that the formulas students
have developed for being a college student can both amplify and diminish participation in
various learning opportunities.

The challenge for UNV 101 instructors is to help students learn strategies for
college success while at the same time encouraging them to develop increasingly
complex ways of making meaning of their experience (i.e., cognitive development).
When students rely on authorities and external formulas they may be less likely to take
advantage of the wide array of opportunities provided by the college environment. For
example, Anne decided to end her volunteer work because what she was doing was not
an exact ﬁt with her formula for getting into dental school. In this section, I discussed the
practical implications of my ﬁndings for the promotion, design, and assessment of
learning communities. I also discussed implications for academic advising and ﬁrst-year
seminars. In the next section, I will suggest areas for future investigation generated by
this research.

Areas for Future Research

As noted previously, this study was designed to examine one learning community
program at one institution. Broadening the scope of this research to include students ﬁorn
different types of institutions and within different disciplines would provide a richer
understanding of the relationship between reasons for attending college and participation
in learning communities. In addition, participation in other types of curricular, co-
curricular, and extra-curricular programming could serve as the focus of future studies.

In addition to providing a richer understanding of the relationship between

reasons for attending college and participation in learning communities, broadening the

169

scope of the research would also allow for further testing and reﬁning of the Reasons for
Attending College scale. The insight provided by the interview participants could
potentially be used to modify the scale items to better represent students’ reasons for
attending college. Also, the strength of the subscales could be examined by looking at the
responses of students from different disciplines and different types of institutions.

The Model of the Relationship between Reasons to Attend College and
Participation is a source of areas for future research. I am especially interested in
exploring in more depth students’ formulas for reaching their college goals because these
formulas had both an amplifying and diminishing effect on participation. I would
speculate that prior to matriculation students’ formulas are shaped by similar influences
as those that shaped their reasons (parents, peers, teachers, etc.). What was only hinted at
in my data was the role that the college environment played in shaping students’
formulas. As I mentioned above, retention efforts, such as UNV 101 courses, provide
students with success strategies. By providing these formulas for success, are institutions
reinforcing students’ reliance on formulas rather than encouraging more complex ways of
knowing (Baxter Magolda, 2001)? Several participants commented that they had used the
institutions’ and other websites to develop their formulas for preparing for medical and/or
graduate school. Is there a way that institutions could present this information so that
participation in curricular, co—curricular, and extra-curricular activities is encouraged
rather than discouraged by the formulas students develop using the information available
on the web?

Finally, a more detailed model of the relationship between reasons for attending

college and participation in curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular activities could

170

be developed through a longitudinal study. As noted above, several of the examples used
within the model are students’ future plans and not necessarily what they are doing right
now. It would be useful to investigate the decisions these students’ make regarding those
plans and to explore the factors that shape those decisions. It would also be interesting to
see whether, and how, the environment continues to shape students’ ideas about the
purpose of college and the value of various learning opportunities.
Conclusions

The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between reasons
for attending college and learning community participation. The results support the
contention that reasons for attending college do shape participation. In addition, the
results show that students’ decisions regarding participation in curricular, co-curricular,
and extra-curricular opportunities are shaped by not only their reasons for attending
college, but also a number of other factors, such as: the environment; the students’
formulas for being a college student and for getting into medical and/or graduate school;
and students’ characteristics, ﬁnances, previous experiences, and interests. Finally, the
results illustrate the strong inﬂuence that students’ perceptions of the value of the
learning opportunity have on their participation in that learning opportunity. In an age of
increased accountability for student learning outcomes, a better understanding of how
students shape their own learning environments by the decisions they make regarding
participation could help educators develop a more nuanced picture of why a common
learning experience might result in a variety of learning outcomes. In addition, helping
students understand their own reasons for attending college could encourage them to

engage more purposefully in the opportunities provided by the college experience.

171

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT

For questions 1 to 30, please use the following scale to indicate how important or true the
reason for attending college is to you:

A = not important / not true

B = of little importance / a little bit true

C = somewhat important / somewhat true

D = important / true ,

E = very important / very true

F = essential / absolutely true

1. I basically had no choice but to come to college, it was expected of me
2. To be able to contribute to the welfare of others

3. To get into an interesting and satisfying career

4. To discover what kind of person 1 really want to be

5. I am in college because I didn‘t know what I wanted to do after high school
6. To meet new people

7. A mentor/role model encouraged me to go to college

8. To be able to contribute to the improvement of the human condition

9. To achieve personal success

10. To learn more about things that interest me

1 1. I am in college because there was nothing better to do

12. To take advantage of leadership opportunities on campus

13. My parent(s) would be very disappointed in me if I didn’t get a college degree
14. To develop skills to work effectively with different kinds of people
15. To prepare for graduate or professional school

16. To understand the complexities of life in the modern world

17. To get away from home

18. To become actively involved in student life and campus activities

19. To meet family expectations

20. To prepare for a life of meaningful participation in society

21. To be able to make more money

22. To develop an in-depth understanding of a speciﬁc ﬁeld of study

23. I am in college because I could not ﬁnd a job

24. To enjoy my college years before assuming adult responsibilities

25. To achieve a high GPA

26. To become an informed citizen and voter

27. To achieve a position of higher status in society

28. To gain a general education and appreciation of ideas

29. I often ask myself why I’m in college

30. To establish meaningful relationships

For questions 31 to 49, please use the following scale to indicate your participation in any of
the following programs (please mark only one response):

A = I’ve never heard of this program

B = I am currently participating in this program

C = I participated in this program in the past, but am not participating now

D = I plan to participate in this program in the future

E = I do NOT plan to participate in this program while at MSU

172

31. Honors College
32. Academic Scholars
33. Professorial Assistantship Program

34. College Achievement Admissions Program (CAAP)

35. College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)
36. Lyman Briggs School

37. Residential Initiative on the Study of the Environment (RISE)

38. Residential Option in Arts and Letters (ROIAL)

39. Residential Option for Science and Engineering Students (ROSES)

40. Connections

41. Bailey Scholars Program

42. Drew Laboratory Program

43. MD or OD Medical Scholars Program

44. Kellogg Biological Station Seminar in Environmental Studies

45. Freshmen Seminars Ahmad

46. PRO 101 Freshman Seminar

47. Undergraduate Research

48. Study Ahmad

49. Service Learning (through MSU)

50. Sex
A. Female
B. Male
C. Trans

51. How old were you on September 1,
2006?

A. 17 or younger
B. 18

C. 19

D. 20

E. 21

F. 22

G. 23

H. 24

I. 25

J. 26 or older

52. What was your high school GPA?
A. 4.0 or higher

B. 3.5-3.99

C. 3.0-3.49

D. 2.5-2.99

E. 2.0-2.49

F. l.5-1.99

G. 1.0-1.49

H. 00-099

53. From what kind of high scth did you

graduate?
A. Public School (not charter or magnet)

173

B. Public charter school

C. Public magnet school

D. Private religious/parochial school

B. Private independent college-prep school
F. Home school

54. When you applied to college, was MSU
youm

A. First choice

B. Second choice

C. Third choice

D. Less than third choice

55. In what year did you graduate from high
school?

A. I haven’t graduated yet

B. 2006

C. 2005

D. 2004

E. 2003 or earlier

56. First semester at MSU
A. Fall 2006

B. Summer 2006

C. Spring 2006

D. Fall 2005

E. Summer 2005

F. Spring 2005

G. Fall 2004

H. Summer 2004 or earlier

57. Are you a transfer student?
A. Yes
B. No

58. Enrollment this semester
A. Full-time (at least 12 credits)
B. Part-time (less than 12 credits)

59. Are you an International Student?
A. Yes
B. No

60. What is your racial or ethnic
identiﬁcation?

A. White/Caucasian Non-Hispanic

B. Black/African American Non-Hispanic
C. Chicano/Mexican American

D. Hispanic/Latino

E. American Indian/Alaskan Native

F. Asian/Paciﬁc Islander (Asian American)
G. Multiracial

H. Other

I. International Student

J. I prefer not to respond

61 & 62. Which College are you in? (please
mark only one answer for either question 61
or 62)

61A. Undergraduate University Division
(No-Preference)

61 B. Agriculture and Natural Resources
61C. Arts and Letters

61D. Business

61E. Communication Arts and Sciences

61 F. Education

61G. Engineering

61 H. James Madison College

611. Natural Science

6”. Nursing

62A. Social Science

62B. Veterinary Medicine

63. Which of the following best describes
your social class when you were growing
up?

A. Wealthy

B. Upper-middle or professional middle
class

174

C. Middle—class
D. Working-class
B. Low income or poor

64. What is the highest academic degree that
you plan to eventually earn?

A. None

B. Associate’s Degree

C. Bachelor's Degree

D. Master's Degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA,
MSW)

E. Doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.)

F. Medical Degree (e.g., M.D., D.O.,
D.D.S., D.V.M.)

G. Law Degree (e.g., JD)

H. I do not know yet

65. What is the highest level of education
that your MOTHER completed?

A. Did not ﬁnish high school

B. High school graduate or GED

C. Attended college but did not complete a
degree

D. Associate’s Degree

E. Bachelor’s Degree

F. Master's Degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA,
MSW)

G. Doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.)

H. Medical Degree (e.g., M.D., D.O.,
D.D.S., D.V.M.)

1. Law Degree (e.g., JD)

J. I do not know

66. What is the highest level of education
that your FATHER completed?

A. Did not ﬁnish high school

B. High school graduate or GED

C. Attended college but did not complete a
degree

D. Associate’s Degree

E. Bachelor's Degree

F. Master’s Degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA,
MSW)

G. Doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.)

H. Medical Degree (e.g., M.D., D.O.,
D.D.S., D.V.M.)

1. Law Degree (e.g., JD)

J. I do not know

10.

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

In your opinion, what is the purpose of college? How did you develop that opinion? What is
it based on? {pmhe role of family, peers, prior educational experience, mentors, work,
interactions with [institution], pop culture, societal messages}

Describe your reasons for attending college and what you hope to get out of the experience.

How did you come up with your reasons for attending college? {pmhe mle of family, peers,
prior educational experience, mentors, work, interactions with [institution], pop culture,
societal messages}

How did you come up with what you hope to get out of your college experience? {probe mle
of family, peers, prior educational experience, mentors, work, interactions with [institution],
pop culture, societal messages}

What did you hear about college from your friends, family members, teachers, and others?

Describe the choices you’ve made about your college experience so far. What factors have
inﬂuenced those choices?

What experiences or activities during college do you think will help you fulﬁll your reasons
for attending college? {probe curricular, co—curricular, extra-curricular}

What experiences or activities during college do you think will help you fulﬁll what you hope
to get out of your college experience? {pmhe curricular, co-curricular, extra-curricular}

In what ways has your ﬁrst few months of college met your expectations? Exceeded your
expectations? Not met your expectations?

How well do your answers on the survey represent how you currently view your college
experience?

For [Science Leaming Community] participants

1.

Describe how you came to be in the [Science Learning Community]. What factors inﬂuenced
your decision to participate?

What expectations do you have about the beneﬁts of participation in the [Science Learning
Community]?

In what ways do you expect your participation in the [Science Learning Community] to
contribute to the fulﬁllment of your reasons for attending college?

In what ways do you expect your participation in the [Science Learning Community] to
contribute to the fulﬁllment of what you hope to get out of your college experience?

For non-[Science Learning Community] participants

1.

2.

[Institution] offers a number of optional programs, such as Study Ahmad, Service Learning,
Student Government, Student Organizations, Learning Communities, Honors College, etc.
What are your plans regarding these opportunities?

One of your options as a College of Natural Science student was to enmll in the [Science
Learning Community]. Describe why you decided not to participate in this option.

175

APPENDIX C — SURVEY CONSENT FORM

College Students' Reasons to Attend College and Learning Community Participation
Survey Consent Form

You are invited to participate in a study that will explore what relationship, if any, exists between
students’ reasons to attend college and their decision whether or not to participate in a residential
learning community. The researcher is interested in the opinions of current MSU students
regarding why they’re in college and in which academic programs they are participating.

Your participation is voluntary. You can choose not to participate at all, or answer some
questions and not others. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by
completing and returning the attached survey.

The survey will take appmximately 10 minutes to complete take.

The risks associated with participation in this study are minimal. One beneﬁt of this study is that
it will provide you with the opportunity to reﬂect on your reasons for attending college and how
those reasons may have inﬂuenced your academic choices. All responses will be summarized.
Your identity will remain conﬁdential in all reporting of data. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent of the law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator: Jennifer Hodges, by
phone: (517)282-0874, email: Ehodges@msu.edu, or regular mail: G-68 Wilson Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48825. You may also contact the faculty advisor, Dr. Kristen Renn, Higher, Adult,
and Lifelong Education, by phone at (517) 353-5979, email: renn@msu.edu, or regular mail: 428
Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed
at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Subject Protection Programs at Michigan State
University, by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail:
202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823.

 

Please include your name and email address below to be included in a

drawing for one of four $50.00 gift certiﬁcates to the MSU Bookstore.

 

Name of Participant (please print)

 

Email of Participant (please print)

Thank you for your participation!

176

APPENDIX D — INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

College Students' Reasons to Attend College and Learning Community Participation
Interview Participant Consent Form

Study Description: You are invited to participate in a study that will explore what relationship, if any,
exists between Students’ reasons to attend college and their decision whether or not to participate in a
residential learning community. The researcher is interested in the opinions of current MSU students
regarding why they’re in college and how they perceive the usefulness of learning community pmgrarns.

Procedures: 1 am requesting that you participate in a forty-ﬁve minute interview. During the interview you
will be asked questions concerning your reasons for attending college and your reasons for choosing
various academic programs. With your consent, the interview will be audio recorded. If you agree that I
may do so, you may request at any time that the recorder be turned off. Recordings will be kept in a secure
location until the project is complete, at which time they will be erased.

Risks and Beneﬁts: The risks associated with participation in this study are minimal. One beneﬁt of this
study is that it will pmvide you with the opportunity to reﬂect on your reasons for attending college and
how those reasons may have inﬂuenced yorn' academic choices.

Payment: You will receive a $10.00 Spartan Bookstore gift certiﬁcate as compensation for your
participation in this study.

Subject’s Rights: Participation in this pmject is entirely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time, with
no penalty for doing so. You may also choose to not answer any individual question or leave the interview
when/if you see ﬁt. Your identity will remain conﬁdential in all reporting of data Only gender, learning
community participation, and major identiﬁers (ie. male LBS biology student, female non-LBS chemistry
major) will be used in reporting the data. No names will be associated with any comments or responses.
Your privacy will be pmtected to the maximum extent of the law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator: Jennifer Hodges, by phone:
(517) 282-0874, email: jphodgcs@msu.edu, or regular mail: G—68 Wilson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48825.
You may also contact the faculty advisor, Dr. Kristen Renn, Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education, by
phone at (517) 353-5979, email: renn@msu.edu, or regular mail: 428 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI
48824.

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time
with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.,
Director of the Human Subject Protection Programs at Michigan State University, by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irbgagmsuedu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

 

Signature of Participant Date

 

Name of Participant (please print)

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement that this interview he audio recorded.

 

 

Signature of Participant Date

 

Name of Participant (please print)

177

REFERENCES

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A new
vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Author.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2005). Liberal education outcomes:
A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, DC: Author.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1993a). An empirical typology of college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 34, 36-46.

Astin, A. W. (1993b). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Astin, A. W., Oseguera, L., Sax, L. J ., & Korn, W. S. (2002). The American freshman:
Thirty-ﬁve year trends, 1966-2001. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.

Astin, A. W., Parrott, S. A., Korn, W. S., & Sax, L. J. (1997). The American freshman:
Thirty year trends, 1966-1996. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute,
UCLA.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-eﬁ’icacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001 ). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming
higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2002). Epistemological reﬂection: The evolution of
epistemological assumptions from age 18 to 30. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich,
Personal epistemology, The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing
(pp. 89-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bloomer, M. (1996). Education for studentship. In J. Avis, M. Bloomer, G. Esland, D.
Gleeson, & P. Hodkinson, Knowledge and nationhood: Education, politics and
work (pp. 140-163). London: Cassell.

Bloomer, M, (1997). Curriculum making in post-I 6 education: The social conditions of
studentship. New York: Routledge.

Bloomer, M., & Hodkinson, P. (1997). Moving into FE: The voice of the learner.
London: Further Education Development Agency.

178

Bloomer, M., & Hodkinson, P. (1999). College life: The voice of the learner. London:
Further Education Development Agency.

Bloomer, M., & Hodkinson, P. (2000). Learning careers: Continuity and change in young
people’s dispositions to learning. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5),
583-597.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture.
London: Sage.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brieger, G. H. (1999) The plight of premedical education: Myths and misperceptions —
Part 1: The “premedical syndrome.” Academic Medicine, 74(8), 901-904.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Educational
Researcher, 5(9), 5-15.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of
development (pp. 187-249). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and
fugitive ﬁndings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds), Development in
context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future
perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & 1K. Luscher (Eds), Examining lives in
context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619-647).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cabrera, A. F., Burkum, K. R., & La Nasa, S. M. (2003, November). Pathways to a four-
year degree: Determinants of degree completion among socioeconomically
disadvantaged students. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education, Portland, OR

Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (Eds.) (2000). Understanding the college choice of
disadvantaged students. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107 (pp. 5-
22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Castro-Cedeno, M. H. (2005). A quantitative assessment of the beneﬁt of a learning

community environment. Proceeding of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference, F4C-10—F4C-1 3 .

179

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.

Church, M., Berg, K., & Robinson, A. (2006, September 20) Advising students interested
in medical school: What is the best appmach? The Mentor: An Academic Advising
Journal. Retrieved April 7, 2007, ﬁ'om
http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/060920mc.htm

Clark, B. R., & me, M. (1966). The organizational context. In T. Newcomb & E.
Wilson (Eds), College peer groups: Problems and prospects for research (pp.
17-70). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Coleman, J. S. (1998). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94(supplement), 95-120.

Conrad, P. (1986). The myth of cut-throats among premedical students: On the role of
stereotypes in justifying failure and success. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 27(2), 150-160.

Coomes, M. D. (2004). Understanding the historical and cultural inﬂuences that shape
generations. In M. D. Coomes & R. DeBard (Eds), Serving the Millennial
generation. New Directions for Student Services, 106 (pp. 17-31). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Coomes, M. 1)., & DeBard, R. (2004) A generational approach to understanding students.
In M. D. Coomes & R. DeBard (Eds), Serving the Millennial generation. New
Directions for Student Services, 106 (pp. 5-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Corbin, J ., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Coté, J. E. (1984). The identity crisis: A formulation and empirical test of Erikson ’s
theory of ego identity formation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. York
University, Toronto.

Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. (1997). Student motivations, learning environments, and human
capital acquisition: Toward an integrated paradigm of students development.
Journal of College Student Development, 38(3), 229-243.

Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2000). Attitude versus aptitude: Is intelligence of motivation

more important for positive higher-educational outcomes? Journal of Adolescent
Research, I 5(1), 58-80.

180

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutrnann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced
mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds),
Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209-240).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cross, K. P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus, 3(3), 4-11.

Dabney, D. A., Green, L., & Topalli, V. (2006). Freshmen learning communities in
criminology and criminal justice: An effective tool for enhancing student
recruitment and learning outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(1),
44-68.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Engel, M. (2005). Achieving narrative ﬂow: Pre-medical education as an essential
chapter of a physician's story. Journal of Medical Humanities, 26, 39—5 1.

Enhancing the student experience task force. (2006). Enhancing the student experience
task force report. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from
http://strategicpositioning.msu.edu/documents/BbDImperative1_002.pdf

Field, K. (2005a, September 30). Education department panel will develop a ‘National
Strategy’ for colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 9,
2005, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i06/O6a02902.htrn

Field, K. (2005b, October 14). Educators cast a wary eye at US. panel. Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved December 9, 2005, from
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i08/08a00101 .htrn

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New
York: Addison Wesley Longrnan.

Glicksman, G. (2000). “It’s déja vu all over again!” An advisor reﬂects on pre-medical
syndrome and on the pre-medical stereotype. The Advisor, 20(3), 15-21.

Hamrick, F. A., & Stage, F. K. (2004). College predisposition at high-minority, low-
income schools. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 151-168.

Hart, P. D. (2004). Summary of existing research on attitudes toward liberal education
outcomes for the Association of A merica Colleges and Universities. Washington,
DC: Peter D. Hart Research Associates. Retrieved December 2, 2005, from
http://aacu.org/advocacy/pdfs/HartExistingResearchReport.pdf

181

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities
and work environments (2nd ed.). Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Horowitz, H. L. (1987). Campus life: Undergraduate cultures ﬁom the end of the
eighteenth century to the present. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Hossler, D., Schmit, J ., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic,
and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New
York: Vintage Books.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. Great Falls, VA: American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers and LifeCourse
Associates.

Howell, K. M. (2006). An examination of the relationships between participation in
academic-centered peer interactions and students’ achievement and retention in
mathematics-based majors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park.

Inkelas, K. K., Brower, A. M., Crawford, 8., Hummel, M., Pope, D., & Zeller, W. J.
(2004). National study of living-learning programs: 2004 report of findings.
Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http://www.liveleamstudy.net/studyresults.html

Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student
outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning pmgrarns. Journal
of College Student Development, 44(3), 335-368.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation for education
and the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: EdITS.

Johnson, J ., & Duffett, A. (2005). Life after high school: Young people talk about their
hopes and prospects. New York: Public Agenda.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Jones, P. R., Levine Laufgraben, J ., & Morris, N. (2006). Developing an empirically
based typology of attitudes of entering students toward participation in learning
communities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 249-265.

Jones, S. R. (2002). (Re)writing the word: Methodological strategies and issues in
qualitative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 461 -473.

182

Katchadourian, H., & Boli, J. (1985). Careerism and intellectualism among college
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student
experience. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators (NASPA) and American College Personnel Association (ACPA).

Kelsey, K. D., & Sexten, A. (2003). A quasi-experiment of a residential learning
community for College of Agriculture ﬁeshmen. Journal of Southern Agricultural
Education Research, 52(1), 20-32.

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(2), 228-244.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J ., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005a). Assessing conditions to
enhance educational eﬂbctiveness: The inventory for student engagement and
success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J ., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J. & Associates. (2005b). Student success
in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levine Laufgraben, J. (2005). Learning communities. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, B.
O. Barefoot, & Associates, Challenging & supporting the ﬁrst-year student: A
handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 371 -390). San Francisco:

J ossey-Bass.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Light, J. (2005). Developing and assessing a holistic living-learning community for
engineering and science freshmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington
State University.

Lowery, J. W. (2001). The Millennials come to college: John Wesley Lowery talks with
William Strauss. About Campus, 6(3), 6—12.

Luo, J ., & Jarnieson-Drake, D. (2004, June). Linking student precollege characteristics to
college development outcomes: The search for a meaningful way to inform
institutional practice and policy. Paper presented at the 44'” Annual Forum of the
Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA.

Lyman Briggs School. (2006). About LBS. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from:
http://www.lymanbriggs.msu.edu/about_lbs/index.htrnl

Miles, M. B., & Huberrnan, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

183

Miller, T. E., Bender, B. E., Schuh, J. H., & Associates. (2005). Promoting reasonable
expectations: Aligning student and institutional views of the college experience.
San Francisco: J‘ossey-Bass.

Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of rrrixed methods and multimethod research design. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MSU Board of Trustees. (2005). Baldness by design. Retrieved June 4, 2006, ﬁom
http://strategicpositioningmsuedul

Norusis, M. J. (2003). SPSS 12.0 statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ofﬁce of Admissions, Michigan State University. (2006). The class of 2006. East
Lansing, MI: Author.

Office of Planning and Budgets, Michigan State University. (2006). Entering class and
student proﬁle reports. Retrieved October 7, 2006, ﬁ'om
http://opbweb.opb.msu.edu/

Office of the Secretary, Department of Education. (2005a, September 29). A national
dialogue: The secretary of education’s commission on the future of higher
education; Notice of establishment. Federal Register, 70(188). Retrieved
December 9, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2005-
3/092905b.pdf

Ofﬁce of the Secretary, Department of Education. (2005b, November 9). A national
dialogue: The secretary of education’s commission on the future of higher
education; Notice of meeting. Federal Register, 70(216). Retrieved December 9,
2005, ﬁ'om http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2005-4/1 10905b.pdf

Onwuegbuzie, A. J ., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed
methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds), Handbook of mixed
methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Ortiz, A. M. (2003). The ethnographic interview. In F. K. Stage & K. Manning (Eds),
Research in the college context: Approaches and methods (pp. 35-48). New York:
Brunner-Routledge.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college aﬂects students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college aﬂects students, Volume 2. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

184

Pema, L. W. (2000). Racial and ethnic group differences in college enrolhnent decisions.
In A. F. Cabrera & S. M. La Nasa aids), Understanding the college choice of
disadvantaged students. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107 (pp. 65-
83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, W. G. (1999). F arms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:
A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Porter, S. R. (2004). Raising response rates: What works? In S. R. Porter (Ed.),
Overcoming survey research problems. New Directions for Institutional Research,
121 (pp. 5-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Poulios, S. P. (2005). Academic success in college general chemistry. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Poindexter, S. (2003). The case for holistic learning. Change, 35(1), 24-30.

Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Lindhohn, J. A., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M.
(2005). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2005. Los Angeles:
Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed race college students through a
developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 383-
403.

Renn, K. A. (2004). Mixed race students in college: The ecology of race, identity, and
community. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on college student peer
culture. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 261-291 .

Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, 8., & Perez-Prado, A. (2003). Taking the next step:
Mixed methods research in organizational systems. Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 19-29.

Sanford, N. (1962). Developmental status of the entering freshman. In N. Sanford (Ed.),
The American college: A psychological and social interpretation of the higher
learning (pp. 253-282). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Sax, L. J. (2003). Our incoming students: What are they like? About Campus, 8(3), 15-
20.

185

Schneider, B., & Stevenson, D. (1999). The ambitious generation: America ’s teenagers,
motivated but directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schoem, D. (2002). Transforming undergraduate education: Moving beyond distinct
_ undergraduate initiatives. Change, 34(6), 50-55.

Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide
to wining, support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Simmons, A. (2005). Beyond the premedical syndrome: Premedical student attitudes
towards liberal education and implications for advising. NA CADA Journal, 25(1),
64—73.

Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J ., Matthews, R. S., & Gabelrrick, F. (2004). Learning
communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in
action. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Start, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Shaw, K. M., & Sossen, P. L. (1991). Student goals
exploration user ’3 manual: Institutional research guide. Ann Arbor, MI: National
Center for Research to Impmve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Stark, J. 8., Shaw, K. M., & Lowther, M. A. (1989). Student goals for college and
courses: A missing link in assessing and improving academic achievement
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6). Washington, DC: George

Washington University and Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Steffes, J. S. (2004). Creating powerful learning environments beyond the classroom.
Change, 36(3), 46-50.

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of American ’s future, 1584-
2069. New York: Morrow.

Tagg, J. (2004). Alignment for learning: Reorganizing classmoms and campuses. About
Campus, 9(2), 8-18.

Talburt, S., & Boyles, D. (2005). Reconsidering learning communities: Expanding the
discourse by challenging the discourse. The Journal of General Education, 54(3),
209-236.

Taylor, K., Moore, W. S., MacGregor, J ., & Lindblad, J. (2003). Learning community

research and assessment: What we know now. Olympia, WA: Washington Center
for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education.

186

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed
methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie
(Eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3-50).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Terenzini, P. T., & Reason, R. D. (2005, November). Parsing the first year of college: A
conceptual ﬁamework for studying college impacts. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Association'for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.

Thomson, G. (2006, March). New directions in the assessment of student development
and proficiencies. Paper presented at the meeting of the American College
Personnel Association, Indianapolis, IN.

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

Umbach, P. D. (2005). Getting back to the basics of survey research. In P. D. Umbach
(Ed.), Survey research: Emerging issues. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 127 (pp. 91 -1 00). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. C.

Smart (Ed.). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Volume 5 (pp.
289-322). New York: Agathon.

Yankelovich, D. (1972). Changing values on campus: Political and personal values of
today’s college students. New York: Washington Square Press.

187

L._-

 

 
 

|||||

1111111111

6 1044

\lijlﬁltjjjijjjj