USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Residential learning outcomes analysis using the college student experiences questionnaire at a large public research un...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Residential learning outcomes analysis using the college student experiences questionnaire at a large public research university
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Murphy, Cari
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Student development
Residence halls
Residence life
University
Dissertations, Academic -- Adult, Career & Higher Ed -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The creation of learning outcomes inside and outside of the classroom on college campuses has been a growing trend based on a variety of publications which encouraged the fostering of diverse types learning and the measurement of student learning outside of the classroom (ACPA, 1994; Keeling, 2004). The creation of the learning outcomes is a positive step, however, assessment of the learning outcomes must be conducted to determine what students are learning and what areas are to be improved otherwise the learning outcomes are meaningless. This study was conducted at a large public research university where the Department of Housing and Residential Education had recently identified its Residential Learning Outcomes. Consequentially an assessment of the over attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes, the impact the number of years a student resided on campus had on the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes and the impact the number of years a student was enrolled at the institution had on the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes may be useful to the university and the wider body of knowledge about residential education. Using targeted questions from the CSEQ the study found that there were significant levels of achievement for residential students for six of the seven Residential Learning Outcomes especially when isolating the Quality of Effort scales. When evaluating the number of years a student has been enrolled, however, no relationship was found.
Thesis:
Dissertation (PHD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Cari Murphy.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004538
usfldc handle - e14.4538
System ID:
SFS0027853:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004538
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Murphy, Cari.
0 245
Residential learning outcomes analysis using the college student experiences questionnaire at a large public research university
h [electronic resource] /
by Cari Murphy.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2010.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
502
Dissertation (PHD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
3 520
ABSTRACT: The creation of learning outcomes inside and outside of the classroom on college campuses has been a growing trend based on a variety of publications which encouraged the fostering of diverse types learning and the measurement of student learning outside of the classroom (ACPA, 1994; Keeling, 2004). The creation of the learning outcomes is a positive step, however, assessment of the learning outcomes must be conducted to determine what students are learning and what areas are to be improved otherwise the learning outcomes are meaningless. This study was conducted at a large public research university where the Department of Housing and Residential Education had recently identified its Residential Learning Outcomes. Consequentially an assessment of the over attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes, the impact the number of years a student resided on campus had on the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes and the impact the number of years a student was enrolled at the institution had on the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes may be useful to the university and the wider body of knowledge about residential education. Using targeted questions from the CSEQ the study found that there were significant levels of achievement for residential students for six of the seven Residential Learning Outcomes especially when isolating the Quality of Effort scales. When evaluating the number of years a student has been enrolled, however, no relationship was found.
590
Advisor: Thomas E. Miller, Ed. D.
653
Student development
Residence halls
Residence life
University
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Adult, Career & Higher Ed
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4538



PAGE 1

Residential Le arning Outcomes : Analysis Using t he College Student Experiences Questionnaire a t a Large Public Research University by Cari Murphy Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosop hy Department of Adult, Career and Higher Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas E. Miller, Ed.D. Robert Sullins, Ed.D. William Young, Ed.D. Donald Dellow, Ed.D. Date of Approval: June 1, 2010 Keyword s: student development, residence halls, residence life, university Copyright 2010 Cari Murphy

PAGE 2

DEDICATION My love and unending appreciation must first be extended to my husband Tom and to my daughters Emily and Madeline who were incredibly patien t, supportive and always believed in me. I could not have accomplished this goal without you, thank you for everything! To my mentors Dr. Tom Miller and Dr. Carole Obermeyer you have shaped my professional self in ways that m not sure that I can thank you enough for all of your support, encouragement, advice, hand holding and tissues. Also, I appreciate the fact that you push me when I need it. I have been blessed to receive incredible amounts of support from my friends, prof essional associates, Resident Advisors, CSA students, and so many others. Thank you for pushing me and encouraging me our future is bright together!

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Special appreciation is extended to the administration of the Department of Housing and Residential Education. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the committee that created th e Learning Outcomes and for giving me permission to conduct the study prior to the implementation of the Learning Outcomes initiatives. Additionally I would like to extend my sincere appreciation t o my study experts Dr. Tracy Tyree and Dr. Charlene Herreid I appreciate the time and attention to detail that you both provided to the project. Thank you for being a continuing resource for me. Finally, t hank you to the Division of Student Affairs which provided its support to this study in a variety of ways ; most significantly for allowing me to use the College Student Experiences Questionnaire data.

PAGE 4

i TABLE OF CONTENTS C HAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ................................ .................... 1 Learning ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 2 Residence Life ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3 Learning Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 Institution Information ................................ ................................ ............................. 5 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ......................... 7 Operational Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ .............. 8 CSEQ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 8 CSXQ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 8 Learning ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 9 Learning Outcome ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy ................................ ................................ ........... 9 LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence ................................ ................................ .................... 9 LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence ................................ .............. 10 LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life ................................ .......................... 10 LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase

PAGE 5

ii Cultural Competence ................................ ................................ ...................... 10 LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities ................................ ........... 10 LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety .............................. 10 Student Development ................................ ................................ ....................... 11 Student Development Theory ................................ ................................ .......... 1 1 Residentia l Year ................................ ................................ ............................... 11 Academic Year ................................ ................................ ................................ 11 FTIC ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 11 NASPA ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 11 ACPA ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 11 ACE /ACHE ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 11 AAC&U ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 11 Delimitation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 12 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1 3 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ 14 Overview of Methodology ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 5 Organization of Dissertation ................................ ................................ .................. 16 CHAPTER TWO : REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................ ........... 17 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 17 Historical Context ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 Learning ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 21 Residence Life ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 23

PAGE 6

iii Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 Peer Environment Out of Class Experiences ................................ ............... 2 9 Student Learning Outcomes ................................ ................................ .................. 33 Residential Learning Outcomes ................................ ............................. 35 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 36 CHAPTER THREE : RESEARCH DE SIGN AND METHODOLOGY .......................... 3 8 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 38 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 9 Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ................... 39 Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 40 Instrument College Student E xperiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) ...................... 40 Reliability and Valid ity ................................ ................................ .................... 46 Self Reported Information ................................ ................................ ........ 46 Data Collection Procedu res ................................ ................................ ................... 50 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 51 CHAPTER FOUR : ANALYSIS OF DATA ................................ ................................ ..... 53 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 53 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ......................... 53 Original Analysis Introduction ................................ ................................ ........ 53 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 54 Original Analysis Findings ................................ ................................ ............. 58 Adjusted Analysis Introduction ................................ ................................ ...... 61 Adjusted Analysis Findi ngs ................................ ................................ ............ 64

PAGE 7

iv Original and Adjusted Analysis Summary ................................ ..................... 67 Research Question Two ................................ ................................ ........................ 67 Original Analysis Introduction ................................ ................................ ........ 67 Original Analysis Findings ................................ ................................ ............. 68 Adjusted Analysis Introduction ................................ ................................ ...... 72 Adjusted Analysis Findings ................................ ................................ ............ 72 Original and Adjusted Analysis Summ ary ................................ ..................... 77 Research Question Three ................................ ................................ ...................... 79 Original Analysis Introduction ................................ ................................ ........ 79 Original Analysis Findings ................................ ................................ ............. 80 Adjusted Analysis Introduction ................................ ................................ ...... 83 Adjusted Analysis Findings ................................ ................................ ............ 83 Original and Adjusted Analysis Summary ................................ ..................... 86 CHAPTER FIVE : FINDINGS, IMPLICATION S AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 89 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 89 Method s ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 91 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 92 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 93 Research Question One ................................ ................................ .................... 9 3 Research Question Two ................................ ................................ ................... 94 Research Question Three ................................ ................................ ................. 95 College Student Experie nces Questionnaire Instrument ................................ ........ 95 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ....................... 97

PAGE 8

v Re commendations for Future Research ................................ .............................. 1 04 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 107 A P P E N D I X A: Learning Objectives and Outcomes for the Live On Requirement. ..... 115 A P P E N D I X B: College Student E xpectations Questionnaire ................................ ......... 120 A P P E N D I X C: Questions within Quality of Effort Scales Questions that Measure Each R esidential Learning Outcome ................................ ................................ .. 128 A P P E N D I X D: Questions within Estimate of Gains Scales Questions that Measure Eac h R esidential Learning Outcome ................................ ................................ .. 13 0 A P P E N D I X E: Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcomes Sorted by Questionnaire ................................ ............................. 131 A P P E N D I X F: Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcomes Sorted by Learn ing Outcome ................................ ................................ ............ 136 A P P E N D I X G : Adjusted Questions from the CSEQ Used to Me asure Residential Learning Outcomes Sorted by Questionnaire ................................ .................. 144 A P P E N D I X H : Adjusted Questions that Measure Ea c h Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learn i ng Outcome ................................ ........................... 146 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ................................ ................................ ...................... End Page

PAGE 9

vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 CSXQ Historical Data ................................ ................................ .................... 13 TABLE 2 Residential Learning Outcomes ................................ ................................ ..... 36 TABLE 3 Quality of Effort Scales ................................ ................................ .................. 42 TABLE 4 College Environme nt Scales ................................ ................................ ........... 42 TABLE 5 Estimate of Gains Scales ................................ ................................ ............... 44 TABLE 6 College Environment and Estimate of Gains Scale ................................ ........ 45 TABLE 7 Residential Learning Outcomes with Coordinating Scales ............................ 48 TABLE 8 Residential Learning Outcomes with Total Possible Scores .......................... 49 TABLE 9 Racial or Ethnic Identification ................................ ................................ ........ 54 TABLE 1 0 Age and Gender of Participants ................................ ................................ ...... 55 TABLE 1 1 Work Habits On and Off Campus ................................ ................................ .. 55 TABLE 1 2 Work Interference with School ................................ ................................ ...... 56 TABLE 1 3 Analysis of Participants ................................ ................................ .................. 56 TABLE 14 Residential Learning Outcome 1 with Descrip tive Analysis ......................... 58 TABLE 15 Residential Learning Outcome 2 with Descriptive Analysis ......................... 59 TABLE 16 Residential Learning Outcome 3 with Descriptive Analysis ......................... 59 TABLE 17 Residential Learning Outcome 4 with Descriptive Analysis ......................... 5 9 TABLE 18 Residential Learnin g Outcome 5 with Descriptive Analysis ........................ 60 TABLE 19 Residential Learning Outcome 6 with Descriptive Analysis ......................... 60

PAGE 10

vii TABLE 20 Residential Learning Outcome 7 with Descriptive Analysis ......................... 60 TABLE 21 ADJUSTED Questions that Measure each Residential Learning Outcom e .. 63 TABLE 22 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 1 with Descriptive Analysis .... 64 TABLE 23 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 2 with Descriptive Analysis .... 64 TABLE 24 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 3 with Descriptive Analysis .... 65 TABLE 25 ADJ USTED Residential Learning Outcome 4 with Descriptive Analysis .... 65 TABLE 26 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 5 with Descriptive Analysis ... 65 TABLE 27 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 6 with Descriptive Analysis .... 66 TABLE 28 ADJUSTED Residential L earning Outcome 7 with Descriptive Analysis .... 66 TABLE 2 9 Residential Learning Outcomes with Residential Relationship Analysis ...... 69 TABLE 30 Residential Learning Outcome with Y Intercept and Slope Based on Years Resided on Campus ................................ ................................ .............. 70 TABLE 31 ADJUSTED Resi dential Learning Outcomes with Residential Relationship Analysis ................................ ................................ .................... 73 TABLE 32 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome with Y Intercept and Slope Based on Years Resided on Campus ................................ ................... 75 TABLE 33 Residential Learning Outcomes with Enrollment Relatio nship Analysis ...... 80 TABLE 34 Residential Learning Outcome with Y Intercept and Slope Based on Years Enrolled ................................ ................................ ................................ 81 TABLE 35 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcomes with Enrollment Relationship Analysis ................................ ................................ ..................... 84 TABLE 36 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome with Y Intercept and Slope Based on Years Enrolled ................................ ................................ ...... 85

PAGE 11

viii L IST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Terenzini and Reason (2005) Col lege Student Experience Model .......... 14, 28 FIGURE 2 Years Resided on Campus, CSEQ Population vs. Total Population .............. 57 FIGURE 3 Linear Equations Residential Years, Original Total Scores Based o n Years Resided on Campus ................................ ................................ ......... 7 1 FIGURE 4 Linear Equations Residential Years, ADJUSTED Statistically Significant Total Scores ................................ ................................ ............... 7 5 FIGURE 5 Linear Equations Years Enrolled, Original Total Scores Based on Years Resided on Campus ................................ ................................ .............. 82 FIGURE 6 Linear Equations Years Enrolled, ADJUSTED Statistically Significant Total Scores ................................ ................................ ................ 85

PAGE 12

ix Residential Le arning Outcomes: Analysis Using t he College Student Exp eriences Questionnaire at a Large Public Research University Cari Murphy ABSTRACT The creation of learning outcomes inside and outside of the classroom on college campuses has been a growing trend based on a variety of publications which encourag ed the fostering of diverse types learning and the measurement of student learning outside of the classroom (ACPA, 1994; Keeling, 2004). The creation of the learning outcomes is a positive step, however, assessment of the learning outcomes must be conducted to d etermine what students are learning and what areas are to be improved otherwise the learning outcomes are meaningless This study was conducted at a large public research university where the Department of Housing and Residential Education ha d recently id entified its Residential Learning Outcomes Consequentially an assessment of the over attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes the impact the number of years a student resided on campus had on the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes and the impact the number of years a student was enrolled at the institution had on the attainment of the

PAGE 13

x Residential Learning Outcomes may be useful to the u niversity and the wider body of knowledge about residential education. Using targeted questions from the CSEQ the study found that there were significant levels of achievement for residential students for six of the seven Residential Learning Outcomes especially when isolating the Quality of Effort scales. When evaluating the number of years a student h as been enrolled however, no relationship was found.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY The experience of living on campus, while changing in many significant ways throughout history, has continually aimed to t each young students responsibilit y and provid e growth opportunities beyond the classroom as the students shared various real life situations and personal development. common decency and the sense of self respect which taught responsibility. In t he dormitory young men talked deep into the night deeply about deep matters. A revival might be spared in the dormitory, where under the influence of a wiser chum a young (R udolph, 1990 p 96 ). The importance of the residential community and life outside of the classroom can be shown through various statements by u niversity presidents and professional organizations throughout the development of American higher education. For example, President Porter of Yale and President Wilson of Princeton both spoke of the imp ortance of residential living on the development of the student and the community of the campus (Rudolph, 1990; Wilson, 1902). Three developments within the conte xt of student affairs work have been critical to current best practices: the definition of learning including outside of the classroom contexts, student development theory, and learning outcomes for student affairs work. For most residence life professiona ls their work is based in psychosocial student

PAGE 15

2 development theory aimed at fostering the growth of the whole student. B ased upon the definitions of learning r esidential communities at higher educational institutions are also learning environment s Therefo re, the learning that takes place within the residential environment can and should be measured This study analyze d seven specific Residential Learning Outcomes the impact the length of time within the residential environment and the length of time at th e u niversity has on the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes Learn ing The need to foster the development of the whole student in addition to the intellectual development of the student through curricular and non curricular programming was do cumented in publications by th e American Council of Higher Education The publication entitled T he Student Personnel Point of View was first published in 1937 and updated in 1949 (AC E, 1937, 1949). In 1994 learning was broadly defined to include terms su ch as cognitive competence, intrapersonal competence, interpersonal competence and practical competence within The Student Learning Imperative published by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) The Student Learning Imperative was among the ea rliest signature works that called student affairs professionals to think differently about learning, to collaborat e with faculty and redefin e the outcomes of the work done by student affairs professionals (ACPA, 1994). Learning Reconsidered : A Campus Wide Focus on the Student Experience including in class

PAGE 16

3 and out of class knowledge and is therefore not limited to academic instruction or disciplinary content (Keeling, 2004). Further, despite the more active or inclusive definition of learning, academic content is obviously not excluded from the term learning. Learning Reconsidered w as the work of student affairs professionals representing t wo professional organizations, the National Association of Student Persona l Administrators (NASPA) and ACPA in 2004. In 2006 the American Association of Colleges and Universities ( AAC&U ) published a similar definition to that of NASPA and ACPA. The AAC&U said that l earning is an intentional process across t he curriculum: general education, electives, major s and minors. Also must be t he co curriculu m and student programming which are not bound by the borders of the campus The engaged student should be aware of the goals or outcomes of his or her education, be adaptable about the content and be able to connect seemingly disparate ideas ( Leskes & Mil ler 2006, p 2). Residence Life The movement of American higher education institutions toward faculty specialization ultimately removed the faculty from the residential environment at most colleges and universities. A new specialization relating specifical ly to the outside of the classroom behavior of students evolved due to t he specialization of faculty along with the study and res earch of college student psycho social development ( Piaget, 1964; Sanford, 1966, 1968; Chickering, 1969 ; Perry, 1970; Astin, 198 5; Schlossberg, 1989; Baxter Magolda, 1992; Kitchener and King 1994; Zhao and Kuh, 2004)

PAGE 17

4 Student affairs programs are most commonly responsible for and concerned with the development of the whole student focusing primarily on outside of the classroom mat ters. Many of the theories used by student affairs professionals are based in psychosocial research rather than cognitive theory, however, they relate to the development and betterment of the student experience as a whole. The professionalization and speci alization of the field has promoted the role of student affairs professionals as educators and experts outside of the classroo m (NASPA & ACPA, 1997). The development of student affairs as a profession ultimately resulted in the specialization of the staff, including, for example, residence life. Residence l ife, as a functional area of s tudent a ffairs on a residential campus, has multiple areas of responsibility; one area include s enhancing the physical elements of the residential environment while anoth er critical area of responsibility includes developing community. Community building within the residence halls is a critical element to the successful transition of college students as demonstrated through a variety of student development theories includ I nvolvement theory (1985) M attering theory (1989) R eadiness theory (1966, 1968) Residential students are often shown to perform better and to be more involved in the life of the university when compared to their c ommuting counterparts (Winston Anchors & Associates 1993). C ommunity development and psychosocial development of the residential student are among the many responsibilities of the residence life staff within the residence halls.

PAGE 18

5 Based upon the ir research Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) concluded that living on campus had a consistent positive impact on the collegiate experience. The y also found that residential students are more likely to p Learning Outcomes Learn ing Reconsidered 2: Implementing a Campus Wide Focus on the Student Experience ( Keeling, 2006) indicate d that since learning occurs across the curriculum and throughout the collegiate environment learning outcomes should also be used across the environmen t to measure the learning that has occurred Further, l earning outcomes should not be hidden; rather students should be well aware of the goals and practical ways to achieve them. Similar to the learning outcomes listed on a course syllabus, learning outco mes for outside of the classroom learning should also be disclosed to students so that s tudents are a ble to identify progress The learning outcomes should be understandable to all entities and feedback should be provided (Fried, 2006). Learning outcome s, according to Purposeful Pathways: Helping Students Achieve Key Learning Outcomes ( Leskes & Miller, 2006) published by the AAC&U s hould focus on integrative learning, inquiry learning, glob al learning and civic learning. Additionally, the authors highl that cross the curriculum and the co curriculum (Leskes & Miller, 2006, p 3). Institution Information T his study is being conducted on the largest campus of a large public metropolitan u niversity located in the Southeastern United States. The U niv ersity began

PAGE 19

6 as a regional institution; however, it has rapidly grown into one of the largest u niversities i n the country serving more than 46,000 students on four campuses. The largest campus houses approximately 5 400 residential students in six residential complexes. During the Fall of 2008 the Department of Housing and Residential Education at the Universit y was in the planning stages of implementing a major policy change the requirement of all first year students to live on campus as of the Fall of 2009. T he department created a committee to aid in the strategic thi nking and implementation of the u niversi ty policy; the committee was called the First Year Live On Requirement Implementation Team The committee was asked to make recommendations o n a variety of topics including contractual changes, communication (all constituents), policy, and student learning in the residence halls. The recommendation team included the following stat ement in its final report as the learning objective: the University will experience a successful transition to the u niversity through in volvement in a supportive yet challenging living/learning environment. Residents will engage in campus programs and events that will enhance their interpersonal skills, understanding of self, intellectual competence, appreciation of diversity, knowledge o f majors and careers, knowledge of campus and community dynamics, and understanding of health, wellness, On Requirement Implementation Team, 2009). The recommendation team then identif ied seven unique Learning O utcomes f or the residential environment at the u niversity Include d in the identification of the learning O utcome was a definitio n of its meaning, the ways the O utcome can be measured and

PAGE 20

7 some possible programs that support th e Learning O utcome. It should be noted that all of the programs used for the program examples were existing programs at the u niversity and no new programs were suggested to support a Learning O utcome. Problem Statement The creation of learning o utcomes inside and outside of the classroom on co llege campuses has been a growing trend based on a variety of publications encouraging the fostering of learning outside of the classroom and the measurement of student learning outcomes outside of the classroom (ACPA, 1994; Keeling, 2004,2006; Kuh Gonyea & Williams 2005; Leskes & Miller, 2006) The assessment of stude nt learning outcomes, however, has not always been conducted. Now that the Department of Housing and Residentia l Education has identified its Residential Learning Outcomes an assessment may be useful to the u niversity and the body of knowledge about residential education. Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine to what extent the Residential Learning Outcomes (LO1 LO7) are being achieved at the u niversity Further, this study eva luated i f the number of years a student has resided on campus (Residential Years range 0 3) impacts the level of attainment for each of th e Residential Learning Outcomes and if the number of years a st udent has been enrolled at the u niversity (Academic Yea rs range 1 3) impacts the level of attainment for each of the Residential Learning Outcomes S ignificance of the Study Pascarella and Terenzini wrote and out of cl ass lives are interconnected in

PAGE 21

8 complex ways we are o 603). While there is a significant body of research regarding the collegiate environment in th Pascarella and Terenzini, p 601). T he existing research can be categorized similar to the ways that Pascarella and Terenzini categorized the research in How College Affects Students (2005), residence, major fields of study, academic experience, interpersonal involvement, extracurricular involvement, and academic achievement. The literature related to the research on learning outcomes specific to the residential learning environment is an area that has not been well researched This study attempt s to add to that body of literature. Operational Definition of Terms CSEQ College Student Experiences Questionnaire is housed and administered through the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University. The CSEQ was first developed in the 1970 institutional tool in 1979. The instrument uses self reported data from three dimensions, the Quality of Effort college environment and Estimate of Gains college. The C was used for this study as secondary data. CSXQ College Student Expectations Questionnaire is housed and administered through the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University. The CSXQ was fi rst developed in 1997 as a companion instrument to the CSEQ. The CSXQ is a multi to matriculating. The CSXQ shares over 85 questions with the CSEQ and measures a s

PAGE 22

9 environment. The CSXQ was administered at the University to the incoming FTIC classes of 2006, 2007 and 2008. The availability of personally identifiable CSXQ records from the th ree classes of students who participated in the administration of the CSXQ is an inclusion criterion study. However, neither the CSXQ nor the data obtained from the CSXQ are being utilized w ithin this study. Learning Learning Reconsidered define d transformative activity that integrates academic learning and student development, process that have often been considered separate, and even independent of ea (Keeling, 2004, p 2 ). Learning Outcome Learning Reconsidered 2 indicate d that learning outcomes should of the concrete and practical dimensions of goal achie vement, and able to identify numerous places in their lives where progress can be made toward achievement (Fried, 2006, p 7). LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development Develop meaningful collaborations and interactions with peers and faculty; develop a sens e of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a balance between technological and social interactions; practice community responsibility (First Year Live On Requirement Implementation Team, 2009). LO 2 : Develop Persona l Identity and Philosophy Increase levels of personal responsibility; explore values and beliefs; make ethical choices; realize personal impact

PAGE 23

10 on others; strengthen life skills; develop a sense of purpose (First Year Live On Requirement Implementation T eam, 2009). LO 3 : Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active reading; engage in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increa se exposure to intellectual, scientific, and artistic work; increase technological skills (First Year Live On Requirement Implementation Team, 2009). LO 4 : Engage in Civic and Campus Life Learn to navigate the u niversity (services & departments, policies & procedures); use curricular and co curricular resources; enhance communication skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities (First Year Live On Requirement Implementation Team, 2009). LO 5 : Develop Understanding of Human Diversi ty and Increase Cultural Competence Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc. (First Year Live On Requirement Implementation Team, 2009). LO 6 : Ex plore Academic & Career Opportunities Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academ ic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies (First Year Live On Requirement Implementation Team, 2009). LO 7 : Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health, nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental health, coping mechanisms, advocacy, campus safety, personal safety, spirituality and relationship dynamics (First Year Live On Requirement Implementation Team, 2009).

PAGE 24

11 Student D evelopment Development is conceptualized as a process whereby students grow and change in response to dealing with novel situations that create a mismatch ( Baxter Magolda, 1992; Kitchener and King 1994; Perry, 1970) or induce disequilibrium (Piaget, 1964) into their routine ways of responding (Zhao and Kuh, 2004, p 118). Student Development Theory A set of theories that define the ways in which college st udents develop while in college or after college. There are many foundation al student development theories : the theories referred to within this study include Involvement t heory (1985) Mattering t heory (1989) Sanford t he ory (1966, 1968) Residential Year A student was counted as having resided on campus for an academic year based on the information from the Fall semester. The u niversity Department of Housing and Residential Education utilizes annual residential contra cts. Academic Year A student was counted as having been enrolled for an academic year based on the information from the Fall semeste r The final Fall count, also known as the Board file, was used for the enrollment data. An academic year, for the purpose s of this study, only include d the Fall and Spring semesters. FTIC First time in college students who are enrolled full time at the u niversity. NASPA National Association of Student Personnel Administrators ACPA American College Personnel Associatio n ACE /ACHE American Council on Education /American Council of Higher Education AAC&U American Association of Colleges & Universities

PAGE 25

12 D elimitation This study uses secondary data from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) collected by the included comparing student expectations to student experiences using data collected from two instruments, the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) and the CSEQ. Between 2006 and 2008, the University administered the CSXQ to all first time in college students (FTIC) during the new student orientation process The CSXQ provides inside and outside of the classroom an d is used in various research and analysis regarding potential student success and satisfaction. The College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), which was used in this study, uses self reported data to measure how students perceive their experiences and personal growth while at the institution. The first administration of the CSEQ took place at the end of the Spring 2009 semester. In order for the university t o be able to correlate the CSXQ data with the CSEQ data for the primary study the sample for the CSEQ could only include the students whose CSXQ results are personally identifiable and remain enrolled at the University. Consequentially, the study is delimited to Spring 2009 freshman, sophomores, and juniors who participated in the CSXQ during the ir FTIC new student orientation process and provided personally identifiable data. The number of personally identifiable records available from each year the CSXQ was administered is shown below in Table 1

PAGE 26

13 Table 1: CSXQ Historical Data Identifiabl e CSXQ Population Size % of Population Current Year 2006 98 8 2,161 45.7 % Junior 2007 2,678 3,294 81.3 % Sophomore 2008 3,986 4,090 97.5 % Freshman Table 1 CSXQ Historical Data (C. Herreid, Personal Correspondence, April, 2009) The CSXQ, while importa primary study, is not relevant to this study as only the data from the CSEQ along with housing and enrollment records were used to determine the attainment of Residential Learning Outcomes Limitations Th e study is limited by the following: 1. The Residential Learning Outcomes were authored during the Fall 2008 semester and have not been marketed to the students. Therefore, students have not been purposefully working towards the goals that are being measured. 2. The study is only being conducted on one campus and uses the specific learning outcomes of the campus therefore limiting the generalizability of the study. T heoretical Framework Terenzini and Reason published a model as shown in Figure 1 related to the college student experience in 2005. The model consists of four main components : pre collegiate demographics and experiences, institutional experiences, peer experiences and learning outcomes. Essentially the model indicates that the pre collegiate experien ces impact the collegiate expe riences and the outcomes. The Collegiate E xperiences category includes institutional culture, academic and co curricular programs and the faculty. These

PAGE 27

14 collegiate experiences impact the peer environment and the outcomes. The peer environment consist s of classroom experiences, out of class experiences and curricular experiences. Again, the peer experiences impact the outcomes ( Reason, Terenzini and Domingo 2007 ). Research Questions 1. To what extent are each of the seven Reside ntial L earning O utcomes being attained irrespective of residential status ? 2. What is the relationship between student attainment of each of the seven Residential L earning O utcomes and the number of years residing on campus? 3. What is the relationship between s tudent attainment of each of the seven Residential L earning O utcomes and the number of years enrolled at the University ? Figure 1 : The College Experiences Model (Terenzini &Reason, 2005)

PAGE 28

15 O verview of Methodology T his study use d secondary data gathered by the institution during the implementation of the College Student E xperiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), and utilize d a cross sectional design T h e purposeful sample included 1,500 students during the Spring 2009 semester To be considered for the study the student must have completed the College Student Expectations Questionn aire (CSXQ) during his/her FTIC new student orientation experience and provided personally identifiable data on the CSXQ. Based on the eligibility criteria, only freshmen, sophomores and juniors were included in the study as the University began its admin istration of the CSXQ in 2006 Despite its relevance in the sampling, the data from the CSXQ regarding student expectations did not factor into this study. The assessment process consisted of a student responding to an electronic invitation to particip ate in the College Student Experiences Questionnaire Assessment. The CSEQ survey is eight pages long and takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. Each student asked to participate was given a unique password which allowed the student to stop out of the assessment and return without losing any data. The questionnaire was available for students to complete during a five week window at the onset of April 2009. An analysis of the CSEQ was conducted to determine to what degree the length of time residing on c ampus and length of enrollment at the University impacts the attainment of the specific Residential Learning Outcomes Descriptive statistics have been calculated to describe the sample including the length of time students have been residing on campus by cohort. Additionally, the length of time students have been

PAGE 29

16 enrolled at the institution, regardless of residential statu s, have been evaluated SAS software was used for computer based calculations. O rganization of Dissertation Chapter 1 as written above contains an introduction to the study, a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, a definition of key terms, the conceptual framework, research questions, overview of methodology, and the organization of the dissertation. Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive review of the literature and integrates the literature to form a foundation for new research. Chapter 3 describes the general methodological approach, research setting, population and sample, instrumentation and data gathering strategies, and analytical procedures to be used. Chapter 4 present s the results of the data analyses. Chapter 5 include s a summary, conclusions, implications of the study, and finally recommendations for future research.

PAGE 30

17 C HAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LI TERATURE Int roduction The literature review for this study follows the ways in which student affairs and more specifically residence life has shaped the collegiate environment. Within this chapter t he definition of learning will be tracked over time as it has become more inclusive of behavior and activities that occur outside of the classroom Student development theories, such as Chickering (1969 ), Chickering & Reisser ( 1993), Perry (1968, 1981), Astin (1985, 1999), Sanford (1966, 1968, 2006), and Schlossberg (1989) provided the research and the framework to support the practice of student affairs professionals. Over time student affairs professionals, researchers, administrators and faculty were working towards a shared understanding that all types of learning usi ng a variety of activities and settings can be beneficial to student development. In the most recent past the introduction of learning outcomes into student affairs work has elevated the expectations regarding learning outside of the classroom. Addition ally within this chapter a thorough discussion of the peer environment with an emphasis on the residential environment are presented Also, a n overview of student development theory, the impact of community, and various studies o n the benefits of bei ng a r esidential student are provided Finally, a discussion of learning outcomes including the Residential Learning Outcomes created by the Department of Housing and Residential Education and used for this study will take place.

PAGE 31

18 H istorical Context The term collegiate way has been used to describe the American residential phenomenon. Rudolph (1990) indicated that collegiate way was more appropriate than the term tradition as tradition undervalues the importance of life on campus. The collegiate way is t he concept that a college or university is greater than the sum of any its parts and greater than its education alone. The collegiate way fundamentally envisions a dining halls (p 87). Rudolph postulated that every American college is familiar with the collegiate way as institutions have been successful in attaining it chosen to reject it or sought to recapture its essence. For the colonial colleges the dormitory provided a pl ace for young boys to develop into young men under the guidance of their faculty and tutors. Modeled after Oxford and Cambridge the living quarters on campus in the early colleges were both practical and developmental as the institutions were removed from city and the young men were learning responsibility away from home for the first time For many this was viewed as another lesson to be learned in the university setting (Rudolph, 1990). Rudolph in The American College and University: A History, provided an in depth historical account of the birth and development of the American system of higher education. Rudolph and other historians highlighted that the new American system was originally modeled after the English system; therefore living on campus with the President, faculty and tutors was a significant part of the educational experience (Rudolph, 1990; Brubacher &Willis, 1997). The American system of higher education

PAGE 32

19 would eventually become a hybrid of the English and German models of higher education T he foundational residential environment, which ensured a primary focus on undergraduate education while simultaneously specializing in graduate education, laid the groundwork for a higher education system that is uniquely American. The Yale Report of 182 8, most well known for its defense of the Yale curriculum, also defended the close community and residential arrangements of the traditional American college. The Yale R eport reflected the best practices of the era, a time when university faculty and staff acted as surrogate parents to their students much younger than the modern student. In regar ds to life on campus T he Yale Report called for the students to be collected together in suitable buildings so that they may act as one family ( Yale Report 1828). During his inaugural address as the President of Princeton University in October of 1902, Woodrow Wilson announced his plans to build a notable graduate college. Wilson remark ed : students but also a college of residence, where men shall live together in the close and wholesome comradeships of learning. We shall build it, not apart, but as nearly as may be at the very heart, the geographical heart, of the university ould be a community, a place of close, natural intimate association, not only of the young men . but also of young men with older men . of teachers with pupils, outside of the classroom as well as inside of it As the American model of higher edu cation was formalized over time to include undergraduate and graduate levels of education and faculty specialization the need for professional staff members focusing on the outside of the class needs of the students

PAGE 33

20 created a new field, the student perso nnel administrator. This new genre of professional staff would ultimately generate more research and new knowledge specifically related to college students, their needs, behavior patterns, and the ways to best serve the college student population. Similar to the statements made decades ear lier by President Wilson, T he Student Personnel Point of View of 1937 placed emphasis on the development of the student in addition to classroom learning (ACE, 1937). However, T he Student Personnel Point of View differs f rom the earlier statements in that the report provides a variety of recommendations that focus primarily on the types of accommodations that would result in the development of the whole person. The recommendations from the 1937 report included providing an d supervising an adequate housing program, providing academic advising within the residence halls taking into account vocational and personal interests, and supervising and developing the social life and interests of students (ACE, 1937). The American Cou ncil on Education publis hed an updated version of T he Student Personnel Point of View in 1949, which built upon the core values and foundations from the 1937 version. Fundamental to both reports is the concept that students should learn inside and outside of the formal curriculum (ACE, 1949). The work of student affairs professionals has grown from the very concepts outlined within T he Student Personnel Point of View : the notion of developing students in the co curriculum aspects of the institution often f ocusing on psychosocial aspects of development rather than cognitive development. As the profession has grown and gained credibility, the

PAGE 34

21 affairs professionals as teachers and consult ants outside the classroom of equal value to The Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs (1997) taking a cue from the cornerstone academic work of Chickering and Gamson, Principles f or Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (1987), outlined seven principles of best practices for student affairs professionals. The seven principles that describe good practice in student affairs are: engaging students in active learning, help ing studen ts develop coherent values and ethical standards, set ting and communicat ing high expectations for student learning, us ing systematic inquiry to improve student and institutional performance, us ing resources effectively to achieve institutional missions and goals, forg ing educational partnerships that advance student learning, and build ing supportive and inclusive communities (NASPA & ACPA, 1997). L earning The Student Learning Imperative (1994) broadly defined learning including terms such as cognitive comp etence, intrapersonal competence, interpersonal competence and practical competence. The Student Learning Imperative is based upon a series of assumptions. One of the assumptions is related to student experiences and indicates that almost all student exper iences (on and off campus, in and out of class) contribute to learning and therefore devel opment. Further, student engagement in an activity provides the optimal conditions for learning and development. A second assumption related to the collegiate environ ment which includes other people, physical spaces and the campus culture contributes to learning and development Ultimately the assumption s indicated that learning and development would take place as a result of the interactions between the

PAGE 35

22 individual and the various environments which should be intentionally designed to promote student learning (ACPA, 1994). In 2004 NASPA and ACPA published Learning Reconsidered transformative education a holistic process of learning that places the st udent at the process that integrates both the work of student development professionals and the learning that occurs within the classroom. Learning, therefore, is not limite d to academic instruction or disciplinary content. Further, academic content is obviously not excluded from the term learning. Rather, learning is inclusive of academic initiativ es and of the outside of the classroom initiatives fostered by student affairs and other professionals. and identity formation can no longer be considered as separate 2004, pg 8). Purposeful Pathways, Helping Students Achiev e Key Learning Outcomes published in 2006 by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) indicated that learning is an intentional process across all parts of the curriculum: general education, electives, major and minors. Also included process must be the co curriculum and student programming which are not bound by the borders of the campus. The engaged student should be aware of the goals or outcomes of his or her education, be adaptable about the con tent and be able to connect seemi ngly disparate ideas (Leskes & Miller, 2006, p 2).

PAGE 36

23 While collaboration between academic and student affairs departments would likely produce the best results biased opinions, territoriality and ego unfortunately slow the p rogress. The AAC&U stated in Purposeful Pathways that, barriers and sends misleading messages to both students and tea chers about knowledge and the kinds of learning that are most important. All too and learning occurs only in & Miller, 2006, p 25). Residence Life American colleges and universities have taken on a variety of forms includin g community colleges, private and p ublic colleges and universities The concept of the residence hall, formerly known as a dormitory, for college students is something that is distinctly American and has helped differentiate the American collegiate model from the European higher education system (B rubacher & Willis, 1997). Many of the above mentioned higher education institut ional models have a residential student population on campus with the lone exception of the community college. However, residential living at community colleges is a growing trend. Residence life as a functional area of student affairs has multiple areas of responsibility. In the broadest of generalities there are at least three areas of responsibility within a typical residence life operation including administration/housing, fiscal management, and residence life. Each of these broad areas has many clear ly divided and critical specializations For example, within the residence life category of responsibilities

PAGE 37

24 would be the selection, training and ongoing development of the r esident a dvisor (RA) staff. As important as each of these categories and subcatego ries are to the department of residence life and to the larger institution, they can only exist within the confines of residence halls and therefore the design of the building cannot be overlooked. The dormitories that were built as part of the Housing Ac t of 1950 and the Higher Education Facilities Act (HEFA) of 1963 were built without an understanding of a of the future technological advanc es and needs (Frederiksen 1993; Bliming, 1999). One of the trends of residence life work is to re place the stereotypical ster environment with a residence hall environment where a student can thrive and live happily. According to legend, a dorm is an unwelcoming, empty and sterile place to sleep. Whereas the term residence hall connotes a home away from home with many of the comforts of home including cable, high speed computer connections, comfortable living spaces and a supportive community of peers aiding in successf ul student transform and break the mold of the high (Clemons, Banning & McKelfresh, 2004) As a result of all of t he new comforts being retrofitted into older residence halls or built into new structures, residence life professionals are experiencing new challenges. One such challenge is often referred to as cocooning tech college student s ha ve the ability to eat, sleep, study, chat (online and via cell phone), and in modern construction, bathe within the confines of their residence hall room or suite. The result is a loss of community on the greater floor or hall and therefore the residence

PAGE 38

25 l ife team is challenged to bring the students out of their very comfortable cocoons to socialize with their peers (Komives & Petersen, 1997) According to Schro e der and Jackson ( 1987 ) the design of the residence hall is important and when possible needs to be carefully constructed, or altered, to best meet the needs of the students. However, shaping student development within the residential environment does not end with building structure. Rather the interactions between staff, floor mates, roommates, fr iends and others all factor into the development of the student. Schro e der and Jackson specifically refer to the challenges and support that are unique to living within the residence halls ; included a mong the sources of challenges that the authors list are the building design and roommate conflicts Students receive support from structured programming and activities that creative or enhance relationships among peers. As indicated in Chapter O ne, r esidential students are often shown to perform better and t o be more involved in the life of the university as compared to their commuting counterparts (Winston Anchors & A ssociates 1993). The community building that occurs within the residence halls, facilitated by the residence hall staff, relates directly to the successful transition of college students as demonstrated through a variety of student development theories. While the living environment has always been central to the American higher education institution the staffing of the residence hall has varie d greatly overtime. For the colonial institution th e faculty, tutors and even the p resident of the institution were the staff members living in residence providing guidance and acting as surrogate parents (Rudolph, 1990). During the faculty specialization movement the faculty were replaced

PAGE 39

26 grandmotherly voices of reason; these women often reported to a D ean of M en or a Dean of Women (Winston & Anchors, 1993; Bierman & Ca rpenter, 1994) During the rapid increase in construction during the 1950s and 1960s many departments reported to the business affairs departments until student unrest, protests, sit ins and other student concerns formalized student affairs as a professio nal unit at many institutions (Filo, 1970; Rudolph, 1990; Trillin, 1991; Frederiksen, 1993). In addition, a variety of court cases and federal policies have impacted the campus culture and college student F or example the GI Bill, National Defense Educatio n Act (NDEA) of 1958, Brown v. Board of Education of 1954, Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education of 1961, Higher Education Act of 1965, the Family Educational Rights to Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974, and Title IX passed in 1973 all had significant impact s on the collegiate student and the residential environment. The professionalization of student affairs also led to the current staffing model which includes a greater number of undergraduate (or graduate) students serving as RAs who live among the stude reduced in number and put into a supervisory role for the RAs. While there is general consistency in RA position descriptions the type of supervisor and the role of the supervisor varies wide ly depending on the type of institution, number of residents and type of residence hall (Bierman & Carpenter, 1994). The Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) in Higher Education (2006) stated that Housing and Residential Life programs must integr ate learning into the departmental mission which should be supportive of the institutional curriculum and co

PAGE 40

27 curriculum. CAS provided sixteen possible learning outcome categories and potential ctual growth, effective communication, enhanced self esteem, realistic self appraisal, clarified values, career choices, leadership development, healthy behavior, meaningful interpersonal relationships, independence, collaboration, social responsibility, s atisfying and productive lifestyles, appreciating diversity, spiritual awareness and personal a nd educational goals To achieve these learning outcomes CAS suggested a variety of initiatives that are well integrated includ e faculty in the programming, cre at e openness to new ideas and develop well rounded individuals. Within a residential setting certain conditions provide the optimum conditions for achieving the desired learning outcomes F or example, the learning outcomes or goals of the program should be clearly conceptualized and marketed to the students, the values and developmental ideation of the department should be clear to everyone prior to seeking housing, and the staff should have high expectations and follow up with those who do not meet those e xpectations (Winston & Anchors, 1993). T heoretical Framework Reason, Terenzini and Domingo (2007) conducted a stud y related to the outcomes of the first year of college. The model used for the study, as shown in Figure 1 was t Environment Output model and the National Study of Student Learning. The model consists of four main components pre collegiate demographics and experiences, institutional experiences, peer experiences and learning outcomes and according to the authors c ould be used to study an array of student learning outcomes and persistence (Terenzini & Reason, 2005).

PAGE 41

28 The peer group likely has the largest impact o n the student experience and development while in college, however, what the model outlines is that peer i nteraction and influence does not happen in isolation. Simultaneously there are organizational or culture may have a smaller effect it should n o t be overlooked. The mode l also takes into account pre collegiate experiences that impact the collegiate experiences. All of these factors independently and collectively create growth and outcomes (Reason, Terenzini, and Domingo, 2007). For the purposes of this study the framewo rk focus es development of social and personal competence as defined by the Residential Learning Outcomes by the Department of Housing and Residential Education at the u niversity Based on the framework the development is a function of the out of class experience within the peer environment or co curricular programming. Figure 1 : The College Experiences Model (Terenzini &Reason, 2005)

PAGE 42

29 P eer Environment Out of Class Experience Wolf Wendel and Ruel (1999) indicated that institutions of higher education have direction of student affairs professionals in outside of the classroom activities. Student affairs professionals have concentrated on activities such as residence hall programming, peer mentor programs, new student orient ation, student governance, student clubs, Greek life, career and personal counseling, on campus work opportunities, and community service activities that are grounded in student development theory. The types of activities to which Wolf Wendel and Ruel ref erred are supported by (1985) theory of involvement. According to Astin stated simply: Students learn by becoming involved (1985) defined positive involvement as not only outside of the classroom activ ities such as student organizations and programming but also involves devotion to studies and regular interaction with faculty members and other students. Further, Astin (1985) indicated that living on campus, joining a social Greek organization, particip ating in athletics, participating in ROTC, joining the honors programs, or actively participating in undergraduate research with a faculty member all have positive effects on persistence To highlight the importance of learning outside the classroom Kuh (1 995) environment, it is not the only source of learning on campus. Kuh found in his study that man y out of class experiences demand that students become competent in critical thinking, relational and organizational skills helping to foster the development of the

PAGE 43

30 whol e student. Research has shown that t he more students get involved the more they benefit However, involvement is not an easily defined or measured term and all students do not have similar experiences while in college Some of the mitigating factors include that involvement requires the expenditure of energy and not everyone will invest the same amount of energy Further, there are many ways to measure involvement and the benefits of involvement have more to do with quality than quantity Finally active engagement is critical component to success but the components of active engagement will vary based upon what the student chooses to participate in Further, Kuh indicated that the benefits of participation appear to accrue for any student willing to invest time and energy in educationally purposeful activities and suggested the best way for a n institution to foster student involvement was by creating an environment where students would want to get involved an d would seek such opportunities Similar to the findings of Kuh (1995) and Astin (1985) Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) indicated that t he effort that a student puts into his/her collegiate experience is one of the greatest determinates for the level of impact the college will have on the student. ut rather bear major p 602). Sanford psychosocial development will not progress until a certain stage of readiness is a chieved. Afterwards an appropriate balance of challenge and support will create the optimum developmental conditions. If a student perceives an environment is too challenging the student may not engage, may feel a sense of failure or may leave the institut ion, therefore, it is beholden upon the institution to provide various types of support to counterbalance the stressful

PAGE 44

31 and challenging situations. Conversely, if a student does not perceive any challenge a lack of development or stagnation will also occu r ( Sanford 1966, 1968). What then are the elements of the residential environment that may ultimately provide the type of challenge and support that Sanford calls for? Wagner (2008) argued that community Utopian state or a s an individual support system rather he contends that community is shared responsibility for the betterment of everyone Wagner included the following items among his lists of attributes of community: communication, engagement, sustainability, leadership diversity, integrity and ethical behavior. Other essential elements of community include engagement, interconnectedness, leadership and diversity. Engagement relates to the students being active and participatory members in the community. Interconnectedn ess is defined by the responsibility that all members of the community have to one another as the actions of one member may have an effect on other members of the community. Leadership roles within a community do not need to be formal nor do they need to be active, however, genuine leadership is necessary. Diversity is more than demographics or tolerance for others but a journey to seek out various characteristics that can teach everyone within the community (Wagner, 2008). Through actions, events and word s institutions need to communicate the openness of the community to diverse ideas, expression and values of diversity or differences (Wagner, 2008). If these elements of community do not already exist then the difficult conversations must be had openly, c ivilly and respectfully among all levels students,

PAGE 45

32 faculty, staff and administrators to create an institutional culture where diverse ideas and opinions can be shared without fear of retribution. Schlossberg (1989) defined marginality as the feeling of not fitting to the point of depression, self consciousness and/or irritability and mattering is simply the belief that one matters to someone else. For freshmen entering a new environment these feelings of marginality may be temporary once they matter. Schlossberg stressed that to aid in the effective transition and engagement of students the personnel of higher education intuitions need to make students feel like they mat ter Residence life staff members are responsible for building a positive reside ntial community centered simultaneously on academics and social engagement. RAs are asked to know all of their residents, report any unusual behavior of residents within their building have proactive conversations with students who may not be attending cl ass and among other things RAs serve as resources to the countless resources on campus (Bowman & Bowman, 1995; Dodge, 1990). Multiple studies have indicated that residential students show greater gains in student development during their collegiate years as compared to their commuting counterparts, even when controlled for gender, race, socio economic status high school achievement, and academic ability (Inman & Pascarella, 1997). One particular study by Inman and Pascarella found that resident students s how a significant increase in critical thinking R esidence status plays a pervasive role in the experience of college students particularly in academic and social systems S ocial integration with faculty and other students improves self concept, and relati onships with faculty contribute to self perceived intellectual and personal development (1997). Residential students are often shown to

PAGE 46

33 perform better and to be more involved in the life of the university as compared to their commuting counterparts (Winsto n Anchors & Associates 1993). One could argue this is due to the sense of belonging mattering that develops within the residential community. S tudent Learning O utcomes Building upon the foundational student development theories developed primarily fr Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) conducted extensive research of college students and their peers who did not attend college, their findings were first published in 1991. The study evaluated the ch anges during college and the long term effects of college in the areas of learning and cognitive changes, psychosocial changes, attitudes and values, and moral development. Their study also evaluated the between college effects and the within college effects. The between colle ge effect factors were two year versus four year colleges, college quality, college type, college size, college racial and gender composition, and college environment. The within college effect factors were residential status, major, academic experience, i nterpersonal involvement, extracurricular involvement, and academic achievement. Related to net effects of college in the area of learning and cognitive changes Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) concluded that college had a statistically significant effect on nearly all dimensions studied over a freshman to senior year change. Critical thinking, analytical skills and use of reason and evidence in decision making were all areas that showed a positive effect as a result of attending college, results that coul d not be explained away by maturity intelligence testing or other factors.

PAGE 47

34 As a result of the within Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) concluded that : t within college significantly increased the likelihood of persisting in college and earning a off campus influenced ei ther knowledge acquisition or general cognitive 603). Learning Reconsidered 2 (2006) discussed the practical ways to infuse learning outcomes into the culture of the entire campus. Fried (2006) indicated that for learning outcomes to be succes sful ly embedded in the entire environment Meaning students should be aware of the goals they are working towards and the entire campus should be integrated into the learning plan for the campus. Further, the learning outcomes shoul d provide specific ways to be attained and sources of feedback so that students know if they are successful. The leaning outcomes should be readily available, posted in multiple locations or distributed through an aggressive marketing plan. Finally, there needs to be some type of assessment conducted so that all participating members are aware of the success of the pro cess Fried (2006) also provided some guidance about the construction of learning outcomes recognizing the limitation that publications rega rding learning outcomes are written for the classroom. Ultimately Fried gave credit to Wiggins and McTighe (2002) with the following advice regarding constructing learning outcomes: 1. Indentify desired results knowledge, context, big ideas, enduring unders tandings, and transfer of learning;

PAGE 48

35 2. Determine acceptable evidence through performance of what authentic tasks will students demonstrate success? What evidence support s this demonstration (e.g. journals, tests, discussion)? 3. Design appropriate learning exp eriences and instruction what will students do in order to learn designated skills and knowledge, and be able to apply them to real life situations? (Fried, 2006, p 9). Leskes and Miller (2006) on behalf of the Association of American Colleges & Univers ities indicate d that learning outcomes should focus on integrative learning, inquiry learning, glo bal learning and civic learning Integrative learning involves building the skills necessary to connect knowledge across experiences or disciplines. Inquiry l earning relates to the student developing the ability to formulate complex questions. Global learning involves understanding and relating to diverse communities. Civic learning relates to the student learning how to participate in a democratic society. R esidential Learning Outcomes As indicated in chapter one, the Department of Housing and Residential Education at the University was in the planning stages of implementing the requirement of all first year students to live on campus as of the Fall 2009 a m ajor University policy change T he First Year Live On Requirement Implementation Team ultimately recommended seven student learning outcomes for the residential community a s outlined in below in Table 4. Further, the committee included a residential learni ng objective, as introduced in chapter one, grounded in student development theory and best practices (Schlossberg 1989 ; Sanford, 2006; Dean 2006; NASPA & ACPA 1997) The committee also identified seven unique learning outcomes for the residential env ironment at the institution Included within each learning outcome shown in full text

PAGE 49

36 in Appendix A, is a definition of its meaning, the ways the outcome can be measured and some possible programs that support the learning outcome. It should be noted that all of the programs included were existing programs at the u niversity and no new programs were suggested The title of each of the seven Residential Learning Outcomes and the working definition of each residential learning outcome can be found within the definition section of this document or can be found below in Table 2 Table 2: Residential Learning O utcomes LO1 Enhance Interpersonal Development Develop meaningful collaborations and interactions with peers and faculty; develop a sense of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a balance between technological and social interactions; practice community responsibility LO2 Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy Increase levels of personal responsibility; explor e values and beliefs; make ethical choices; realize personal impact on others; strengthen life skills; develop a sense of purpose LO3 Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active reading; engage in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increase exposure to intellectual, scientific, and artistic work; increase technological skills LO4 Engage in Civic and Campus Life Learn to navi gate the University (services & departments, policies & procedures); use curricular and co curricular resources; enhance communication skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities LO5 Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc. LO6 Explore Academic & Career Opportunities Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies LO7 Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental health, coping mechanisms, advocacy, campus safety, personal safety, spirituality, and relationship dynamics Table 2 Residential Learning Outcomes ; ( First Year Live On Requirement Implementation Team, 2009) Con clusion The collegiate environment is fundamentally about learning, regardless of how institutions and students have changed over time or the type of institution a student

PAGE 50

37 chooses to atten d. Learning, as defined by The Student Learning Imperative (1994) an d Learning Reconsidered (2004) has also changed overtime broadening the collegiate definition and becoming inclusive of the learning that takes place outside of the traditional classroom setting. With new definitions of learning there was also a new call for accountability and asse ssment, a way to prove that learning occurs in all contexts ( Kuh, 1995; Leskes & Miller, 2006; NASPA and ACPA, 2006) As a result learning outcomes were expanded from their classroom use and found functional definitions in the c o curricular. A functional area within the collegiate environment that has played a key role in the development of young people since the colonial days is residence life ( Yale Report 1828; Wilson, 1902; Rudolph, 1990; Winston Anchors & Associates 1993; Brubacher & Willis, 1997) Again, while changing significantly over time the core value s of community development and student development remain foundational to many residence life departments (ACE, 1937, 1949; Astin, 1985; Rudolph, 1990; Frederiksen, 199 3; NASPA & ACPA, 1997; Bliming, 1999 ; Wolf Wendel & Ruel, 1999 ) Therefore having learning outcomes that can measure the learning that occurs within the residential population would be among the best practices (CAS, 2006) Finally the assessment of those learning outcomes is necessary (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005)

PAGE 51

38 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction Within this chapter the reader will find a discussion of the research design, the population and sampling methods, and the var iables that were studied Further, the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), the instrument used for this study, is discussed at length. In addition information related to the reliability and validity of the CSEQ is provided related to how the CSEQ will be used to m easure the residential leaning outcomes as defined earlier in this document Finally the data collection procedures are outlined and the plan for data analysis is defined The data used in this study are secondary data. The CSEQ i s a survey instrument th at the University implemented towards the conclusion of the Spring 2009 semester to obtain data related to the similarities and/or differences between student expectations and experiences while at the University T herefore, it was ess ential that a student within the CSEQ sample had provided a personally identifiable record when he/she had taken the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) during his/her FTIC new student orientation process. Despite its relevance in the samplin g, the data from the CSXQ regarding student expectations did not factor into this study.

PAGE 52

39 Research Design This study employed a cross sectional design as it allow ed for the simultaneous sampling of the three cohorts of students who have had varying le ngth of time and experiences at the u niversity The advantages of a cross sectional design include one time sampling via a questionnaire to an audience that has similarities yet varies by class. A potential drawback to a cross sectional design is the attri tion of subjects overtime (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007). However, the remaining population of students who provided personally identifiable data on the CSXQ, a prerequisite for this study as described above wa s large enough to draw a reliable sample. Further, the ability to measure the experiences of subjects based on their number of completed academic years and residential years in residence outweighs the potential drawback. Population and Sample The sample for the study was a random sampl e of 1,500 stude nts at the university To be considered for the study the student must have completed the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) during his/her FTIC new student orientation experience and provided personally identifiable data on the CSXQ. Based on the eligibility criteria, only freshmen, sophomores and juniors were included in the eligible population as the institution began its administration of the CSXQ in 2006. To fulfill the power demands of the primary study a total sample of 1,500 students 500 per cohort, was included in the database prepared. A response rate of 35% was expected based upon feedback from the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University and previous trends at the institution when online surveys were administered t o the student body (J Williams Personal Correspondence February, 2009

PAGE 53

40 & D Paine, Personal Correspondence February, 2009). If 35% of each cohort responded the return rate would yield 175 surveys per cohort for a total of 525 responses which would gener ate the power necessary for the primary study However, the survey yielded only 240 complete responses and 64 partial responses. While potentially problematic for the primary study for the purposes of this study the number of responses yielded provide sig nificant data to evaluate the Residential Learning Outcomes Variables The variables studied include the number of years a student resided on campus, the number of years a student was enrolled at the university and the attainment of the Residential Lear ning Outcomes The independent variables, number of residential years on campus and number of academic years enrolled, are measures of time and are both ratio level measurements. For residential years the minimum value is 0 and the maximum value is 3 year s For academic years the minimum value is 1 and the maximum value is 3 years. The dependent variable, attainment of Residential Learning Outcomes will be measured via a total score of the Likert scores per applicable question on the CSEQ (see Table 9 ) T herefore, the dependent variable is an ordinal level of measurement. Instrument & Measures : College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) The Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University is the home of two collegiate questionnaires, the Coll ege Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) and the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). The CSEQ is a survey

PAGE 54

41 experiences over the same dimensions as the C SXQ while within the collegiate setting. These instruments can be used for the assessment of programs and an analysis of the degree to which the institution is successfully meeting the expectations of students (Center for Postsecondary Research, 2007). P rior to understanding the intricate details unique to this study it is important to understand the measurement elements that comprise the questionnaire. Therefore, each of the scales within the CSEQ will be discussed and then the selection process used to determine the questions used to measure each of the seven Learning Outcome will be discussed. One of the measure s within the CSEQ is the Quality of Effort (QE) on behalf of the student. The Quality of Effort ies and resources provided by the university. The QE is measured by the CSEQ over a variety of dimensions that a student interacts with during his/her collegiate experience. The QE scales, which are measured on the CSEQ using a 4 point Likert type scale (v ery often, often, occasionally, nev er), are shown below in Table 3 (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, Muthiah & Thomas, 2003). Kuh and the researchers at Indiana University (2007) have argued that the effort a student puts into his or her collegiate experience is the gre atest predictor of success and satisfaction in college, this notion is well supported by student development research by Astin (1985) and Pascarella & Terenzini (2005). Among other uses, the CSEQ can be used to measure student learning outcomes, program ef fectiveness and the impact of the residential environment (Center for Postsecondary Research, 2007).

PAGE 55

42 Table 3: CSEQ Quality of Effort Scales SCALES DIMENSIONS LIB Library Experiences COMPUT Computer and Information Technology COURSE Course Learning WRITE Writing Experiences FAC Experiences with Faculty AMT Art, Music, and Theater FACIL Campus Facilities CLUBS Clubs and Organizations PERS Personal Experiences STACQ Student Acquaintances SCI Scientific and Quantitative Experiences CONT PS To pics of Conversation CONINF Information in Conversations Table 3 CSEQ Quality of Effort Scales (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, Muthiah & Thomas, 2003) The Quality of Effort scales, which provide a variety of measurable outcomes, can be directly related to the Res idential Learning Outcomes as shown in Table 7 In addition to the QE scales the CSEQ measures the College Environment (CE) Questionnaire, pg 7). This College Environment s ec tion of the instrument is a 7 point Likert scale (7 = strong emphasis 1 = weak emphasis). The CE scales address the following topics: Table 4: CSEQ College Environment Scales CE SCALES DIMENSIONS CE 1. academic, scholarly and intellectual qualities; CE 2. aesthe tic, expressive and creative qualities; CE 3. critical evaluative and analytical qualities; CE 4. understanding and appreciation of human diversity; CE 5. developing information literacy skills (computers & other information resources); CE 6. vocational and occupationa l competence; CE 7. personal relevance and practical value of courses CE 8. relationships with other students CE 9. relationships with administration personnel and offices CE 10. relationships with faculty members Table 4 CSEQ College Environment Scales (CSEQ Questionna ire, pg 7).

PAGE 56

43 There are three questions within the CE section (CE 8, 9, 10) of the instrument relating specifically to relationships the student has with people at the institution. As indicated within the literature related to the importance of community w ithin the residential environment, these questions provide an opportunity to determine how or if residential students are forming positive relationships with other students, administrative personnel and members of the faculty (CSEQ Questionnaire, pg 7). Th e areas within the College Environment section can be related to the Residential Learning Outcomes as shown in Table 7 The final section of the instrument, called the Estimate of Gains (EOG), asks the y experience up to now, to what provides a different outlook at the outcomes of the collegiate experience because it specifically asks the participant to consider how much he or she has gained or improved as a result of his or her collegiate experience. The 4 point Likert type scale (very much, quite a bit, some, very little) addresses the areas shown in Table 5.

PAGE 57

44 Table 5: CSEQ Estimate of Gains Scales EOG SCALES DIMENSI ONS GNVOC Acquiring knowledge and skills applicable to a specific job or type of work (vocational preparation) GN SPEC Acquiring background and specialization for further education in a professional, scientific, or scholarly field GNGENLED Gaining a br oad general education about different fields of knowledge GN CAREER Gaining a range of information that may be relevant to a career GN ARTS Developing an understanding and enjoyment of art, music, and drama GN LIT Broadening your acquaintance with and e njoyment of literature GN HIST Seeing the importance of history for understanding the present as well as the past GN WORLD Gaining knowledge about other parts of the world and other people (Asia, Africa, South America, etc.) GN WRITE Writing clearly a nd effectively GN SPEAK Presenting ideas and information effectively when speaking to others GN CMPTS Using computers and other information technologies GN PHILS Becoming aware of different philosophies, cultures, and ways of life GN VALUES Developing your own values and ethical standards GN SELF Understanding yourself, your abilities, interests, and personality GN OTHERS Developing the ability to get along with different kinds of people GN TEAM Developing the ability to function as a member of a tea m GN HEALTH Developing good health habits and physical fitness GN SCI Understanding the nature of science and experimentation GN TECH Understanding new developments in science and technology GN CONSQ Becoming aware of the consequences (benefits, hazard s, dangers) of new applications of science and technology GN ANALY Thinking analytically and logically GN QUANT Analyzing quantitative problems (understanding probabilities, proportions, etc.) GN SYNTH Putting ideas together, seeing relationships, simil arities, and differences between ideas GN INQ Learning on your own, pursuing ideas, and finding information you need GN ADAPT Learning to adapt to change (new technologies, different jobs or personal circumstances, etc.) Table 5 CSEQ Estimate of Gains S cales (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, Muthiah & Thomas, 2003) The dimensions measured within the Estimate of Gains section can also be related to the Residential Learning Outcomes as shown in Table 7 below. According to the CSEQ Norms guide a factor analysis was con ducted by the researchers at Indiana University of the 10 College Environment items within the CSEQ produced three factors. A factor analysis of the 25 Estimate of Gains items were reduced

PAGE 58

45 to five factors, both are shown below in Table 6 (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh Muthiah & Thomas, 2003) Table 6: CSEQ College Environment and Estimate of Gains Scales College Environment Factors CE A. Scholarly & Intellectual Emphasis CE B. Vocational & Practical Emphasis CE C. Quality of Personal Relations CE 1 CE 4 CE 8 C E 2 CE 5 CE 9 CE 3 CE 6 CE 10 CE 7 Estimate of Gains Factors EOG A. Personal/Social Development EOG B. Science & Technology EOG C. General Education EOG D. Vocational Preparation EOG F. Intellectual Skills GNVALUES GNSCI GNARTS GNVOC GNWRITE GNSELF GNTECH GNLIT GNSPEC GNSPEAK GNOTHERS GNCONSQ GNHIST GNCAREER GNCMPTS GNTEAM GNQUANT GNWORLD GNHEALTH GNADAPT GNPHILS GNANALY GNGENLED GNSYNTH GNINQ Table 6 CSEQ College Environment and Estimate of Gains Scales (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, Mu thiah & Thomas, 2003) According to the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University the Quality of Effort scales do not generally correlate highly with the College Environment scales whereas the Estimate of Gains factors are very well correlat ed with the Quality of Effort scales ( Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, Muthiah & Thomas, 2003 ). As indicated above, the College Environment section of the CSEQ is scored on a seven point Likert scale, however, the Quality of Effort and Estimate of Gains sections are sco red on a four point Likert scale. As a result the College Environment scales were not included within the analysis of this study. To determine which questions from within the CSEQ should be used to assess each Residential Learning Outcome the researcher n eeded to determine which

PAGE 59

46 experiences would best measure the attainment of the Learning Outcomes. The researcher evaluated each question in the CSEQ instrument looking for key words from the Learning Outcome definition s within the each CSEQ question When a key word or potential relationship was found within a CSEQ question the researcher placed the number of that Learning Outcome next to the CSEQ question. After all seven Residential Learning Outcomes were completed the findings were sent to two experts for review. The designated association between the dimensions within the CSEQ and the Residential Learning Outcomes, as indicated in Table 7 were evaluated by two experts within the field. Feedback from the experts was incorporated into the study as appropri ate. Reliability & V alidity The College Student Expectations Questionnaire was developed by C. Robert Pace at the University of California Los Angeles in the 1970s and then reformatted into a multi institutional survey in 1979. Since 1979 the CSEQ has bee n revised three times in 1983, 1990 and most recently in 1998. The fourth and current model has been widely tested and implemented having been used at over 200 institutions. The CSEQ, like other student surveys, uses self reported information based upon t The validity of self reported information is based upon five conditions: (a) the respondents know the answers to the questions; (b) the questions are phrased clearly and unambiguously; (c) the quest ions ask about recent activities; (d) the questions prompt a serious and thoughtful response from the respondents; and (e) the respondents will answer in a desirable way if they do not feel threatened, embarrassed, or a violation of privacy (Hu & Kuh, 2002 2003). items satisfy all of these conditions. The questions are clearly worded, well defined, have

PAGE 60

47 high face validity, and ask students to reflect on what they are putting into and getting out of their college experience. The questions refer t o what students have done during the current school year . The format of most response options is a simple rating scale that 2003, p 323). The National Center for Educ ational Statistics (1994) published a report high to moderate potential for assessing student behavior and aspects of the college environment associated with desired o 1997)

PAGE 61

48 Table 7: Residential Learning Outcomes with Coordinating Quality of Effort and Estimate of Gains Scales Residential Learning Outcomes Quality of Effort Scales Estimate of Gains LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Develop ment Develop meaningful collaborations and interactions with peers and faculty; develop a sense of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a balance between technological and social interactions; practice community r esponsibility LIB COMPUT WRITE FAC AMT FACIL CLUBS PERS STACQ CONTPS CONINF EOG A LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy Increase levels of personal responsibility; explore values and beliefs; make ethical choices; realize personal impact on other s; strengthen life skills; develop a sense of purpose LIB COURSE FAC CLUBS PERS STACQ SCI CONINF EOG A LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active readi ng; engage in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increase exposure to intellectual, scientific, and artistic work; increase technological skills LIB COMPUT COURSE WRITE FAC AMT FACIL SCI CONINF EOG A EOG B LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life Learn to navigate the University (services & departments, policies & procedures); use curricular and co curricular resources; enhance communication skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities LIB WRITE F AC FACIL CLUBS EOG A EOG F LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc STACQ CONTPS CONINF EOG A EOG C LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies COURSE FAC PERS EOG D LO7: Increase Knowled ge of Health, Wellness, & Safety Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health, nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental health, coping mechanisms, advocacy, campus safety, personal safety, spiritua lity, and relationship dynamics FACIL PERS EOG F Table 7 Residential Learning Outcomes with Coordinating Quality of Effort, College Environment and Estimate of Gains Scales (pg 1of 1 )

PAGE 62

49 Table 8 : Residential Learning Outcomes with Learning Outcome Score Ra nge Residential Learning Outcomes Quality of Effort Scales Estimate of Gains LO Score Range LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development Develop meaningful collaborations and interactions with peers and faculty; develop a sense of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a balance between technological and social interactions; practice community responsibility 48 Questions Included Highest Score: 192 Lowest Score: 4 8 2 Questions Included Highest Score: 8 Lowest Score: 2 Hi ghest Possible Score: 200 Lowest Possible Score: 50 LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy Increase levels of personal responsibility; explore values and beliefs; make ethical choices; realize personal impact on others; strengthen life skills; deve lop a sense of purpose 2 8 Questions Included Highest Score: 1 12 Lowest Score: 2 8 2 Questions Included Highest Score: 8 Lowest Score: 2 Highest Possible Score: 120 Lowest Possible Score: 30 LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active reading; engage in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increase exposure to intellectual, scientific, and artistic work; increase technolog ical skills 49 Questions Included Highest Score: 196 Lowest Score: 4 9 2 Questions Included Highest Score: 8 Lowest Score: 2 Highest Possible Score: 204 Lowest Possible Score: 51 LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life Learn to navigate the University (ser vices & departments, policies & procedures); use curricular and co curricular resources; enhance communication skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities 19 Questions Included Highest Score: 76 Lowest Score: 19 2 Questions Inc luded Highest Score: 8 Lowest Score: 2 Highest Possible Score: 84 Lowest Possible Score: 21 LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc. 15 Questions Included Highest Score: 60 Lowest Score: 15 3 Questions Included Highest Score: 12 Lowest Score: 3 Highest Possible Score: 72 Lowest Possible Score: 18 LO6: Explore Academi c & Career Opportunities Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies 5 Questions Included Highest Score: 2 0 Lowest Score: 5 2 Questions Included Highest Score: 8 Lowest Score: 2 Highest Possible Score: 28 Lowest Possible Score: 7 LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health, nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental health, coping mechanisms, advocacy, campus safety, personal safety, spirituality, and relationship dynamics 9 Questions Included Highest Score: 36 Lowest Score: 9 1 Questions Included Highest Score: 4 Lowest Score: 1 Highest Possible Score: 40 Lo west Possible Score: 10 Table 8 Residential Learning Outcomes with Learning Outcome Score Range (pg 1 of 1)

PAGE 63

50 Data Collection Procedures The assessment process was conducted by stude nt affairs administrators at the University in conjunction with the Cente r for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University. The Director of Student Affairs Planning, Evaluation and Assessment, who also is responsible for the CSXQ database, excluded records for students who had not been continuously enrolled or had not provided personally identifiable data on the CSXQ. As there were still over 500 records within each of the three cohorts the Director of Students Affairs Planning, Evaluation and Assessment then randomly sampled the CSXQ to obtain the desired 1,500 participants The administration of the questionnaire consisted of each selected student receiving an electronic invitation to participate in the College Student Experiences Questionnaire Assessment. While Indiana University administered the survey the invitation to par ticipate was sent by the Associate Vice President of Student Affairs from the University The CSEQ survey is eight pages long and takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. Each student asked to participate was given a unique password which allowed the s tudent to stop out of the assessment and return without losing any data. The assessment was available for students to complete during a five week window beginning in early April 2009. The gathering of personally identifiable institutional data regarding th e number of residential years r esiding on campus and academic years enrolled at the institution was coordinated by the Director of Student Affairs Planning, Evaluation and Assessment to

PAGE 64

51 ensure that records are protected and appropriately matched with the C SXQ and CSEQ data. Data Analysis An analysis of the CSEQ was conducted to determine to what degree the length of time residing on campus a nd length of enrollment at the u niversity impact the attainment of the specific Residential Learning Outcomes SAS so ftware was used for computer based calculations. To analyze Research Question One, descriptive statistics were calculated including the mean, median, mode, range, maximum score and percentage of maximum score attained. Each of the descriptive statistics w as calculated by Residential Learning Outcome, therefore, there are seven sets of descriptive statistics. To answer Research Questions Two and Three, a linear regression analysis was run using each of the Residential Learning Outcomes as the dependent var iable resulting in seven regression analyses for Research Question Two and seven regression analyses for Research Question Three as the independent variables differ Hatcher, and Stepanski ( 2005 ) discuss at length the data obtained from running re gression equations. (p 412) Statistical significance is measured by the p value wh ere the smaller the p value the greater the significance. In this study a p value of less than or equal to 0.01 was used to establish significance Therefore, a Learning Outcome that yielded a p value of <0.01 would have an r 2 value that is statistically s ignifican t The r 2 value indicates the amount of variance the independent variable or predictor variables account for in the dependent

PAGE 65

52 variable. That means that in this study the r 2 value would indicate how much variance the number of years living on campu s accounts for the attainment of each of Residential difference between a significant amount of variance (a low p value) and a meaningful amount of variance. The autho rs recommend reviewing previous studies to determine what r 2 should be expected. Since this study is new, particularly in regards to residential life, there are not comparable r 2 values and therefore the findings will be meaningful as a baseline study.

PAGE 66

53 CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction I n this chapter are the results of the study and the analysis of the data that ensued. As indicated in Table 10, presented in Chapter Three there is a wide variety of questions within the CSEQ tha t are capab le of measuring the Residential Learning O utcomes as defined within this study. The flexibility in question selection may be du e to the versatility of the CSEQ or due to the broad language used within the Learning O utcomes. Due to the number of variables i ncluded in the original statistical analysis there was not strong statistical significance for the majority of the L earning O utcomes Research Question One 1. To wha t extent are each of the seven Learning O utcomes being attained irrespective of residential status? Original Analysis Introduction The first research question calls for an analysis of a variety of basic statistical measures. Question 1 evaluates the attainment of the seven Residential Learning Outcomes regardless of residential status or enrollm e nt status which are factors in Q uestions 2 and 3 respectively. Therefore, to determine attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes for Question 1 the entire study population was included in the analysis. The original analysis plan will be presented fi rst followed by the adjusted

PAGE 67

54 analysis. A summary of the findings for both the original and the adjusted analysis plans can be found after the adjusted analysis set of findings. Demographics The College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) as ks the stud ent to complete demographic questions at the onset of the instrument. While the demographic information collected and provided here is not core to the questions within this study it will provide the reader with an overview of the type of student assessed a t this institution and may guide future research efforts. Table 9: Racial or Ethnic Identification Racial or Ethnic Identification Frequency (N) Percent University Comparison American Indian/Native American 0 0% <1% Asian or Pacific Islander 19 8% 6% B lack or African American 18 8% 11% Caucasian (non Hispanic) 148 62% 64% Mexican American 5 2% 13% Puerto Rican 8 3% Other Hispanic 20 8% Multiracial 15 6% Other 6 3% 6% Table 9 Racial or Ethnic Identification (pg 1 of 1)

PAGE 68

5 5 Table 10: Gender and Age of Participants Gender Frequency (N) Percent University Comparison Male 83 31.9% 41.3% Female 177 67.7% 58.7% Age Frequency (N) Percent Under 19 128 49.2% 20 23 131 50.4% 24 29 1 0.4% 30 39 0 0 % Table 10 Age and Gender of Participan ts (pg 1 of 1) Demographic data about the student respondents obtained from the CSEQ, some of which is shown above, indicates that the student population at the host institution is traditionally aged, predomina ntly white and has a larger percentage of fem ale students than male students Additionally two thirds of the students come from households where at least one parent has a college degree. Table 11: Work Habits On and Off Campus Hours On Campus Employment Frequency (N) Percent None; No Job 207 86% 1 10 Hours/Week 9 4% 11 20 Hours/Week 15 6% 21 30 Hours/Week 7 3% 31 40 Hours/Week 2 1% More than 40 Hours/Week 0 0% Hours Off Campus Employment Frequency (N) Percent None; No Job 133 55% 1 10 Hours/Week 27 11% 11 20 Hours/Week 33 14% 21 30 Hours/ Week 35 15% 31 40 Hours/Week 11 5% More than 40 Hours/Week 1 0% Table 1 1 Work Habits On and Off Campus (pg 1 of 1)

PAGE 69

56 Table 12: Work Interference with School Level of Interference Frequency (N) Percent 112 47% Job does not interfere with school 42 18% Job takes some time from school 74 31% Job takes a lot of time from school 12 5% Table 1 2 Work Interference with School (pg 1 of 1) The 86% of students reported they did not work on campus and 55% of the students reported they did not work an off campus job either. However, over 30% of students reported working between 1 and 30 hours in an off campus job. Of those students who worked almost 30% reported that their job took time away from school. This information is relevant as th e time away from campus not only impact s ability to prepare adequately for class but it also prevents the student from engaging in the social atmosphere of the University. Table 13: Analysis of Participants Years Enrolled Frequency (N) Perce nt Cumulative Frequency (N) 1 ( 08 cohort) 94 36.15% 94 2 ( 07 cohort) 88 33.85% 182 3 ( 06 cohort) 78 30.00% 260 Years Resided on Campus Frequency (N) Percent Cumulative Frequency (N) 0 120 46.15% 120 1 99 38.08% 219 2 35 13.46% 254 3 6 2.31% 260 Table 1 3 Analysis of Participants (pg 1 of 1) A total of 260 undergraduate students completed the CSEQ during the Spring 2009 semester. The sample was drawn from a population of first time in college (FTIC)

PAGE 70

57 students who completed the College Student Expectations Survey (CSXQ) during their freshman orientation process. There were three cohorts of students included in the sample, the freshman classes of 2006, 2007 and 2008. As shown above in Table 1 3 the three cohorts have good balance within t he sample, the freshman class during the sampling (2008 cohort) represents 36% of the sample, the sophomore class (2007 cohort) represents 34% of the sample and the junior class (2006 cohort) represents 30% of the sample. The participants were further analyzed regarding the number of years that a student had resided on campus. This data is summed as a total number of years lived on campus and not tracked by which year(s) the student resided on campus. A student who has resided on campus for one year ma y have resided on campus during his or her freshman year or his or her junior year and no differentiation is made. The range of years a student could have resided on campus is from zero years, meaning a student never 43.23% 40.90% 13.64% 2.23% 46.15% 38.08% 13.46% 2.31% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% 0 1 2 3 Total Population CSEQ Population Years P a r t i c i p a n t s Figure 2 Years Resided on Campus, CSEQ and Total Population Years Resided on Campus CSEQ Population vs Total Residential Population

PAGE 71

58 resided on campus, to three years, mean ing a student has lived on campus during his or her entire time at the institution. Predictably there is not balance among the participants in regards to the number of years they have resided on campus As shown in Figure 2 46.15% have never lived on cam pus, 38.08% have lived on campus for one year, 13.46% have lived on campus for two years, and only 2.31% have lived on campus for three years. F igure 2 also shows comparative data to the total number of students who were enrolled at the University during t he same timeframe as the study and their total number of years in residence As illustrated ab ove the sample population is representative of the total population. Original Analysis Findings The following Table s, 1 4 2 0 provide a summary of descript ive sta tistics for each of the Residential Learning O utcomes. The analysis in these tables is based upon the total number of applicable CSEQ q uestions as indicated in Table 8 in Chapter Three Table 14: Residential Learning Outcome 1 with Descriptive Analysis R esidential Learning Outcomes LO1 TOTAL LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development N= 216 Mean Median Mode 118.88 115.00 107.00 Max Min Range 189 67.00 122 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 24.12 0.53 0.03 % of Attainment of Max Score 62.90% Table 1 4 Residential Learning Outcome 1 with Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1)

PAGE 72

59 Table 15: Residential Learning Outcome 2 with Descriptive Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes LO2 TOTAL LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy N=216 Mean Median Mode 71.62 70.5 72.00 Max Min Range 117.0 40.0 77.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 15.67 0.63 0.06 % of Attainment of Max Score 61.21% Table 1 5 Residential Learning Outcome 2 with Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) Table 16: Residen tial Learning Outcome 3 with Descriptive Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes LO3 TOTAL LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence N=215 Mean Median Mode 127.41 127.0 122.0 Max Min Range 187 77 110.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 21. 82 0.18 0.08 % of Attainment of Max Score 68.16% Table 16 Residential Learning Outcome 3 with Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) Table 17: Residential Learning Outcome 4 with Descriptive Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes LO4 TOTAL LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life N=221 Mean Median Mode 42.96 42.0 54.0 Max Min Range 84 24 60 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 11.18 0.75 0.63 % of Attainment of Max Score 51.14% Table 1 7 Residential Learning Outcome 4 with Descriptive Analysi s (pg 1 of 1)

PAGE 73

60 Table 18: Residential Learning Outcome 5 with Descriptive Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes LO5 TOTAL LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence N=219 Mean Median Mode 48.06 47.0 39.00 Max M in Range 72.0 23.0 49.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 10.66 0.16 0.49 % of Attainment of Max Score 66.75% Table 18 Residential Learning Outcome 5 with Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) Table 19: Residential Learning Outcome 6 with Descripti ve Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes LO6 TOTAL LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities N=223 Mean Median Mode 17.08 16.0 15.0 Max Min Range 28.0 8.0 20.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 4.26 0.47 0.14 % of Attainment of Max Sc ore 61.0% Table 19 Residential Learning Outcome 6 with Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) Table 20: Residential Learning Outcome 7 with Descriptive Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes LO7 TOTAL LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety N=218 Mean Median Mode 22.49 22.0 18.0 Max Min Range 40.0 11.0 29.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 6.37 0.45 0.15 % of Attainment of Max Score 56.23% Table 2 0 Residential Learning Outcome 7 with Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) The n umber of questions included in the analysis of each Learning Outcome drives the minimum score, all seven of the Residential Learning Outcomes are normally skewed and within a normal range for kurtosis values. Using the original analysis the

PAGE 74

61 seven Residenti al Learning Outcomes are not easily compared to one another given the great size differential. One statistic from Tables 1 4 2 0 that is comparable among the Learning Outcomes is the percentage of the attainment of the maximum score. When looking at the at tainment of the maximum score for each of the seven Residential Learning Outcomes the overall achievement is strong with the lowest percentage of attainment reaching just over 51% and the highest level of attainment reaching just over 68%. In general the a ttainment of each Learning Outcome should be assessed individually when using the original analysis plan Adjusted Analysis Introduction As stated in the introduction at the beginning of this chapter due to the number of variables included in the origin al statistical analysis there was not strong statistical significance for the majority of the Learning Outcomes. As a result, additional statistical analysis was conducted using fewer questions from the CSEQ for each Learning Outcome to increase the power of the testing and to determine if statistical significance could be found for more of the Learning Outcomes. Only CSEQ questions included in the original analysis for each of the Residential Learning Outcomes were potentially included in the adjusted ana lysis. Two steps were taken to determine which questions should be included in the adjusted analysis. First, if multiple questions were originally chosen from one grouping of questions in the Quality of Effort section of the questionnaire (i.e. CLUBS) then the higher numbered items were removed and the lower numbered questions were further analyzed. This decision was based upon the format of the questionnaire; throughout the Quality of Effort section of the CSEQ questionnaire the amount of effort required b y the student increases with each item within a grouping of

PAGE 75

62 questions. For example, achieving a 3 or 4 score on the CLUBS 5 question would require more effort by a student tha n achieving a 3 or 4 score on the CLUBS 1 question. Second, a correlation analysi s was conducted to determine which of the CSEQ questions had the strongest relationships with the number of years enrolled or the number of years resided on campus. The strongest correlations were considered for the adjusted analysis. The CSEQ abbreviation s which reference the specific questions selected for the adjusted analysis can be found in Table 2 1 and the full text of the specific questions can be found using Appendices G and H. The analysis for research Question One resulting from the plan outlined in Table 8 of Chapter Three was just described; the following analysis uses a reduced number of questions within the linear regression to increase the statistical power. Table 2 1 below, lists the CSEQ questions used for each learning outcome in the adjus ted analysis. Further, full text of the specific questions can be found in Appendices G and H.

PAGE 76

63 Table 21 : ADJUSTED Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcomes ADJUSTED Questions that Measure the Residential L earning Outcomes LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development Develop meaningful collaborations and interactions with peers and faculty; develop a sense of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a balance between technol ogical and social interactions; practice community responsibility FACIL 2, 3 CLUBS 1 STACQ 1 GNOTHERS LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy Increase levels of personal responsibility; explore values and beliefs; make ethical choices; realize personal impact on others; strengthen life skills; develop a sense of purpose COURSE 8 CLUBS 1, 2 PERS 4 GNSELF LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active reading; engage in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increase exposure to intellectual, scientific, and artistic work; increase technological skills FAC 4 AMT 4 FACIL 5, 8 GNGENLED LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life Learn to navigate the University (services & departments, policies & procedures); use curricular and co curricular resources; enhance communication skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities FACIL 1, 2 CLUBS 1, 2, 4, 5 GNTEAM LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc. STACQ 1, 2, 4, 6 GNWORLD LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies FAC 2, 4 CLUBS 1 PERS 4 GNCAREER LO7: Increase Kno wledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health, nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental health, coping mechanisms, advocacy, campus safety, personal safety, spir ituality, and relationship dynamics FACIL 6, 7, 8 PERS 1, 3, 8 GNHEALTH Table 2 1 ADJUSTED Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (pg 1 of 1)

PAGE 77

64 Adjusted Analysis Findings The following Tables, 2 2 28 provide a summary of descrip tive statistics for each of the Residential Learning Outcomes using the adjusted analysis model. The analysis in these tables is based upon the adjusted number of applicable CSEQ questions as indicated in Table 2 1 above Table 22: ADJUSTED Residential Lea rning Outcome 1 Residential Learning Outcomes LO1 TOTAL LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development N= 223 Mean Median Mode 12.77 13.0 11.0 Max Min Range 20.0 6.0 14.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 3.13 0.29 0.51 % of Attainment of Max Sc ore 63.85% Table 2 2 Residential Learning Outcome 1 with ADJUSTED Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) Table 23: ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 2 Residential Learning Outcomes LO 2 TOTAL LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy N=222 Mean Median Mode 11.69 11.00 10.0 Max Min Range 20.0 6.0 14.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 3.21 0.62 0.26 % of Attainment of Max Score 58.45% Table 2 3 Residential Learning Outcome 2 with ADJUSTED Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1)

PAGE 78

65 Table 2 4: ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 3 Residential Learning Outcomes LO 3 TOTAL LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence N=226 Mean Median Mode 11.13 11.0 11.0 Max Min Range 20.0 6.0 14.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 2.69 0.64 0 .53 % of Attainment of Max Score 55.65% Table 2 4 Residential Learning Outcome 3 with ADJUSTED Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) Table 25: ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 4 Residential Learning Outcomes LO 4 TOTAL LO4: Engage in Civic and Camp us Life N=22 3 Mean Median Mode 13.29 13.0 9.0 Max Min Range 24.0 7.0 17.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 4.14 0.69 0.15 % of Attainment of Max Score 55.34% Table 2 5 Residential Learning Outcome 4 with Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) Table 26: ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 5 Residential Learning Outcomes LO5 TOTAL LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence N=2 25 Mean Median Mode 13.85 14.0 13.0 Max Min Range 20.0 5.0 15.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 3.39 0.10 0.48 % of Attainment of Max Score 69.25% Table 2 6 Residential Learning Outcome 5 with ADJUSTED Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1)

PAGE 79

66 Table 27 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 6 Residential Learning Outco mes LO 6 TOTAL LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities N=22 9 Mean Median Mode 11.49 11.0 11.0 Max Min Range 20.0 5.0 15.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 3.21 0.56 0.01 % of Attainment of Max Score 57.45% Table 2 7 Residential Lear ning Outcome 6 with ADJUSTED Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) Table 28: ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcome 7 Residential Learning Outcomes LO7 TOTAL LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety N=21 9 Mean Median Mode 15.61 15.0 13.0 Max Min Range 28.0 7.0 21.0 Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 4.61 0.35 0.43 % of Attainment of Max Score 55.75% Table 28 Residential Learning Outcome 7 with ADJUSTED Descriptive Analysis (pg 1 of 1) The number of questions included in the an alysis of each Learning Outcome drives the minimum score, all seven of the Residential Learning Outcomes are also normally skewed and within a normal range for kurtosis values. Using the adjusted analysis model the seven Residential Learning Outcomes are m ore easily compared to one another as they each have approximately the same minimum and maximum value. T he mean scores range from a low of 11.19 to a high of 15.61 Another statistic from Tables 2 2 28 that is comparable among the Learning Outcomes is the percentage of the attainment of the maximum score. T he overall achievement is strong with the lowest percentage of attainment reaching just over 55% and the highest level of attainment reaching just over 69%.

PAGE 80

67 Original and Adjusted Analysis Summary The population sampled, while not as large as would have been desired, does present an accurate sampling of the freshman, sophomore and junior classes at the time of sampling. The three cohorts within the sample were evenly balanced each providing approximate ly 33% of the sample. The residential population was not balanced; however, the percentages are compatible with the rate of years in residency at the University. When evaluating basic statistical measures for the original model all of the Residential Learn ing Outcomes were found to be within normal limits for kurtosis and were normally skewed. In the original analysis plan the seven Residential Learning Outcomes are not easily compared as there is a wide variety in the maximum possible score The percentage of maximum score attainment provides the only opportunity to compare the seven Learning Outcomes; however, they are best analyzed individually I n the adjusted analysis plan the maximum scores for the seven Learning Outcomes are all approximately the sam e making the comparison of the descriptive statistics more relevant. Further, w hen evaluating basic statistical measures for the adjusted model all of the Residential Learning Outcomes were found to be within normal limits for kurtosis and were normally sk ewed. Research Question Two 2. What is the relationship between student a ttainment of each of the seven Learning O utcomes and the number of years residing on campus? Original Analysis Introduction Research Q uestion T wo aims to address the potential relatio nship between the number of years a student ha s lived on ca mpus and the attainment of the seven R esidential L earning O utcomes. As stated in Chapter Three, this study used a p value of

PAGE 81

68 less than or equal to 0.01 to establish significance. Therefore, a Learn ing Outcome that yielded a p value of <0.01 would have an r 2 value that is statistically significant. The r 2 value indicates the amount of variance the independent variable or predictor variables account for in the dependent variable. Therefore, for Resear ch Question Two, the r 2 value would indicate how much variance the number of years living on campus accounts for the attainment of each of Residential Learning Outcomes. A summary of the findings for both the original and the adjusted analysis plans will f ollow both sets of findings. Original Analysis Findings Table 29 provides a summary of the r 2 values for each of the Residential Learning Outcomes and the corresponding p values Table 3 0 provides the intercept and slope data, and Figure 4 presents a visu al representation of statistically significant linear relationships. The analysis in these tables is based upon the total number of applicable CSEQ qu estions as indicated in Table 8 as shown in Chapter Three.

PAGE 82

69 Table 29: Residential Learning Outcomes with Residential Relationship Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes Quality of Effort r 2 Value p value Estimate of Gains r 2 Value p value LO Total r 2 Value p value LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development 0.0014 0.5707 0.0027 0.4514 0.0009 0.6535 LO2: Develo p Personal Identity and Philosophy 0.0021 0.4928 0.0006 0.7180 0.0007 0.6936 LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence 0.0001 0.8819 0.0015 0.5739 0.0001 0.8725 LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life 0.0377 0.0016* 0.0023 0.4815 0.0257 0.0171* LO5: Dev elop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence 0.0011 0.6158 0.0002 0.8300 0.0009 0.6636 LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities 0.0030 0.3904 0.0002 0.847 0.0005 0.7365 LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety 0 .0324 0.0044* 0.0128 0.1378 0.0251 0.0193* Table 29 Residential Learning Outcomes with Residential Relationship Analysis (pg 1 of 1) *p < 0.01 When isolating the Quality of E ffort scales using the original analysis plan two of the seven Residential Lea rning Outcomes have a statistically significant relationship with the number of years a student has resided on campus. Specifically, the criteria used to evaluate the Learning O utcomes were shown to account for 3.77% of the variance in LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life; and 3.24% of the variance in LO7: Increase Knowledge of Hea lth, Wellness, & Safety When isolating for the Estimate of G ains none

PAGE 83

70 of the learning outcomes were shown to be statistically significant. W hen the Estimate of Gains and the Qual ity of E ffort sco res were combined to yield the Total Learning O utcome score there were two Residential Learning O utcomes that have significant relationships, LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety T he relationship between residential status and LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life accounted for 2.57% of the variance and 2.51% of the variance in LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, W ellness, & Safety. Table 30: Residential Learning Outcomes with Y Inter cept and Slope Based on Years Resided on Campus Residential Learning Outcomes Y Intercept Slope Percent Change LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development 118.21 0.94 2.33% LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy 71.24 0.53 2.18% LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence 127.19 0.30 0.70% LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life 41.35 2.25 14.03% LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence 47.77 0.40 2.45% LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities 16.99 0.12 2.08 % LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety 21.56 1.27 15.02% Table 3 0 Residential Learning Outcomes with Y Intercept and Slope (pg 1 of 1) *p < 0.01

PAGE 84

71 While only two of the learning outcomes had statistically significant outcomes for the total scores the linear relationship should be considered to determine the impact of each additional year a student resided on campus As shown in Table 3 0 LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health & Wellness have the largest percentage of change s when considering the slope of the line and the intercept. That means that residential students will make the fastest gains in their attainment scores with LO4 and LO7 LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development also showed r elatively impressive attainment gains when evaluated on a per year in residence basis, however, the per centage of change over time for LO1 was not as great due to the number of questions or variables included within the Learning Outcome 1. A depiction of the linear r elationships is shown above in F igure 3 for the statistically significant Learning Outcomes. As shown, both of the statistically significant total scores were found to have positive linear relationships. In fact, all of the relationships, even those without significant p values generated positive linear 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years= 0 Years = 1 Years = 2 Years = 3 LO4* LO7* Linear Equations Residential Years Original Total Scores Based on Years Resided on Campus Figure 3 Linear Equations Residen tial Years Non adjusted Total Scores *p < 0.01

PAGE 85

72 relationships. Further analysis of both the original and adjusted analysis findings will take place in the summary section following the adjusted analysis for research Question Two below. Adjuste d Analysis Introduction As indicated earlier in this chapter additional analysis was conducted for each of the Learning O utcomes to determine if greater statistical significance could be found using fewer questions from the CSEQ. The analysis for research Q uestion T wo resulting from the plan outlined in Table 8 of Chapter Three was just described; the following analysis uses a reduced number of questions within the linear regression to increase the statistical power. Only the CSEQ questions originally incl uded within the linear regression model for each Learning O utcome were used within the reduced model. The specific questions used for each Learning Outcome in the adjusted analysis are shown above in Table 2 1 When using the reduced model for research Q ues tion T wo more statistically significant results were found. Similar to the full analysis the Q uality of E ffort scales produced more significant relationships than did the E stimate of G ains or the total possible score. When isolating the Q uality of E ffort scale six of the seven Residential L earning O utcomes have statistically significant outcomes. A djusted Analysis Finding s As shown in Table 2 1 all of the variables or questions used to measure the Learning Outcomes were drastically reduced. Five of the sev en Learning Outcomes would be measured using only four Quality of Effort questions and one Estimate of Gains question in the adjusted model while Learning Outcome s 4 and 7 would be measured

PAGE 86

73 using six Quality of Effort questions and one Estimate of Gains qu estion. When isolating the Quality of Effort scales in the adjusted model six of the seven Learning Outcomes were found to be statistically significant and to have large r r 2 values that in the original analysis model. Table 31: ADJUSTED R esidential Lear ning Outcomes with Residential Relationship Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes Quality of Effort r 2 Value P value Estimate of Gains r 2 Value P value LO Total r 2 Value P value LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0 .0332 0.0042* 0.0041 0.3404 0.0302 0.0093* LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0283 0.0073* 0.0002 0.8391 0.0159 0.0605 LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0237 0. 0125* 0.0081 0.1774 0.0077 0.1896 LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life QOE: 6 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0412 0.0009* 0.0014 0.5722 0.0277 0.0129* LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Qu estions 0.0072 0.1859 0.0043 0.3248 0.0029 0.4191 LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0282 0.0073* 0.0016 0.5463 0.0183 0.0424 LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety QOE: 6 Questions EOG: 1 Ques tions 0.0536 0.0002* 0.0306 0.0093* 0.0444 0.0017* Table 3 1 Residential Learning Outcomes with Residential Relationship Analysis ADJUSTED (pg 1 of 1) p<0.01

PAGE 87

74 When using the adjusted analysis model t he Quality of Effort (QOE) scales, when isolated, yi elded lower p values for all seven of the Residential Learning Outcomes. Even LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence, the only Learning Outcome without a significant p value, had a much stronger p value (0.1859 ) in t he adjusted model as compared to the original model (0.6158). The remaining six Learning Outcomes that yielded significant p values were at or below 0.0 1 When isolating the QOE scales LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life and LO7: Increase Knowledge of He alth, Wellness and Safety accounted for the greatest percentages of variance between the Learning Outcome and the number of years a student resided on campus, each accounting for 4.13% and 5.36% respectively. The remaining significant Learning Outcomes eac h accounted for between 2% and 3% of the variance in the relationship between attainment of Learning Outcomes and the number of years a student resided on campus (LO1: 3.32%, LO2: 2.83, LO3: 2.37%, LO6: 2.82%). When isolating for the E stimate of G ains (EO G) only o ne of the learning outcomes was shown to be statistically significant. The EOG scale for LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness & Safety was measured using one question, GNHEALTH, yielding a r 2 value was 0.0306 or 3.06% of the variance in the relationship between the attainment of LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety and the number of years a student has lived on campus. When the E stimate of G ains and the Quality of E ffort scores were combined to yield the Total Learning O utcome score there were three Residential L earning O utcomes that have sig nificant relationships with the number of years a student resided on campus :

PAGE 88

75 LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development yielded a p value of 0.0093 and a r 2 value of 3.02%; LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life yielded a p value of 0.0129 and a r 2 value of 2. 77 % ; and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety yielded a p value of 0.0017 and a r 2 value of 4.44%. Table 32: ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcomes with Y Intercept and Slope Based on Years Resided on Campus Residential Learning Outcomes Y Intercept Slope Percent Change LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development 12.28 0.69 14.43% LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy 11.33 0.51 11.89% LO3: Achieve Greater Intelle ctual Competence 10.91 0.30 7.62% LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life 14.03 0.99 17.48 % LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence 13.68 0.23 10.94% LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities 11.10 0.55 12.94% LO7 : Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety 14.72 1.22 19.91% Table 3 2 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcomes with Y Intercept and Slope (pg 1 of 1) *p < 0.01 10 15 20 Years = 0 Years = 1 Years = 2 Years = 3 LO1* LO4* LO7* Linear Equations Residential Years Statistically Significant Adjusted Total Scores Figure 4 Linear Equations Residential Years Significant Adjusted Total Scores p<0.01

PAGE 89

76 While only three of the Learning O utcomes had statistically significant outcomes f or the total scores the linear relationship should be considered to determine the impact of each additional year that a student resided on campus. As shown in Table 3 2 LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development, LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life and LO7: I ncrease Knowledge of Health & Wellness have the largest percentage of changes in the attainment scores when considering the slope of the line and the intercept. Therefore, r esiden tial students will make the great est gains in attainment in the areas of inte rpersonal development, engagement with civic and campus life and areas relating to health and wellness over a one year period and over a three year period of growth. A depiction of the linear relationships is shown above in Figure 5 for the statistically significant Learning Outcomes. As shown, all of the statistically significant total scores were found to have positive linear relationships. In fact, all of the relationships, even those without significant p values generated positive line ar relationships. F or all of the Residential Learning Outcomes living on campus had a positive impact on the attainment of Learning Outcomes. The rise in attainment scores per year w as lower in the adjusted model; however, the total Learning Outcome score was also lower a s the total number of questions included in the model was greatly reduced. As a result the percent change in the attainment scores using the adjusted model was much higher yielding values as high as 19.91 %. Even LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversit y and Increase Cultural Competence which did not yield a significant p value yielded a positive linear relationship and a percent change in the attainment score of just under 11%.

PAGE 90

77 Original and Adjusted Analysis Summary In summary, when using the origi nal model to measure the attainment of the L earning O utcomes as related to residen tial status there are only two Learning O utcomes LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety, that yield statistical sign ificance Each of these Learning Outcomes account for approximately 3% of variance in the relationship between the attainment of the Residential L earning O utcome and the length of time a student has resided on campus Additionally, both LO4: Engage in Civi c and Campus Life and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety have a positive linear relationship indicating that utcome will rise with each year the student resides on campus. LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life will improve by 14.03% over a three year period that a student resides on campus and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety will improve by 15.02% over a three year period that a student resides on campus in the original model Better results were obtained w hen using the adjusted analysis to measure the attainment of the Residential Learning O utcomes as related to re sidential status T here we re six Residential Learning O utcomes that yielded significant p values when isolating the Quality of Effort scale, one Learning O utcome that had a significan t p value when isolating the Estimate of Gains scale and three Learning O utcomes that had significant p values when analyzing the t otal scale scores. The six significant Q uality of E ffort scales had r 2 val u es that range from 2.37% to 5.36% LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety was the only significant E stimate of G ains score and yielded a r 2 of 3%. The three L earning O utcomes that yielded statistically significant p values when

PAGE 91

78 evaluating the total score have r 2 val u es that range from 2.56% to 4.44%. Additionally, LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety had positive linear relatio nship s : LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development improve d by 14.43% over a three year period that a student reside d on campus ; LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life improve d by 17.48% over a three year period ; and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety improve d by 19.91% over a three year period that a student reside d on campus. The adjusted analysis produced more meaningful results for each of the Residential Learning Outcomes and evidence of a positive relationship for six of the seven Learnin g Outcomes Further, all the relationships were positive linear relationships, meaning that for all of the Residential Learning Outcomes living on campus had a positive impact on the attainment of Learning Outcomes. T he percent change in the attainment sco res using t he adjusted model yield ed values as high as 2 0 %. The results of the analysis indicate that the longer a student has resided on campus the greater his or her attainment of the R esidentia l L earning O utcomes. This was particularly true for the L e arning O utcomes that measured interpersonal development (LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development), engagement in civic and campus life (LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life) and knowledge of health, wellness and safety (LO7: Increase Knowledge of He alth, We llness, & Safety). The Q uality of E ffort scales were particularly impactful for the attainment of the R esidential L earning O utcomes based upon the number of years a student ha d been a resident student, yielding six of seven statistically significant result s in the adjusted scale Within the CSEQ the QOE scales

PAGE 92

79 measure the amount of effort that the student is putting into his or her various experiences while at the institution. These findings, while new because of the nature of the study, support the previou s research of Astin (1999). Astin reported that students who become engaged and involved show stronger levels of student development. Similarly the findings of this study show that the students who showed higher levels of effort, or engagement with the un iversity, attained higher levels of achievement on the R esidential Learning O utcomes. Research Question Three 3. What is the relationship between student attainment of each of the seven L earning O utcomes and the number of years enrolled at the University? Or iginal Analysis Introduction Research Q uestion T hree aims to address the potential relationship between the number of years that a student has been enrolled at the university and the attainment of the seven Residential Learning O utcomes. As stated in Chapt er Three, this study utilized a p value of less than or equal to 0.01 to establish significance. Therefore, a Learning Outcome that yielded a p value of <0.01 would have an r 2 value that is statistically significant. The r 2 value indicates the amount of va riance the independent variable or predictor variables account for in the dependent variable. Therefore, for Research Question Three, the r 2 value would indicate how much variance the number of years enrolled at the university accounts for the attainment o f each of Residential Learning Outcomes. The dependent variable for these calculations is the respective Residential Learning Outcome and the independent variable is the number of years enrolled at the institution. The original analysis plan will be presen ted first followed by the adjusted

PAGE 93

80 analysis. A summary of the findings for both the original and the adjusted analysis plans will follow both sets of findings. Original Analysis Findings Table 3 3 is a summary of the r 2 values for each of the Residential L earning Outcomes and the corresponding p values Table 36 provides the intercept and slope data and Figure 6 presents a visual representation of the linear relationships. The analysis in these tables is based upon the total number of applicable CSEQ questi ons as indicated in Table 8 as shown in Chapter Three. Table 33: Residential Learning Outcomes with Enrollment Relationship Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes Quality of Effort r 2 Value p value Estimate of Gains r 2 Value p value LO Total r 2 Value p value LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development 0.0001 0.8827 0.0326 0.0078* 0.0015 0.5697 LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy 0.0069 0.2129 0.0001 0.8942 0.0101 0.1412 LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence 0.0016 0.5464 0.0032 0.4080 0.00 2 9 0.4300 LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life 0.0003 0.7779 0.0168 0.0552 0.0000 0.9563 LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence 0.0029 0.4205 0.0000 0.9382 0.0055 0.2728 LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunitie s 0.0025 0.4309 0.0289 0.0127* 0.0079 0.1872 LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety 0.0000 0.9713 0.0000 0.9361 0.0004 0.7801 Table 3 3 Residential Learning Outcomes with Enrollment Relationship Analysis (pg 1 of 1) *p < 0.01

PAGE 94

81 When isolati ng the various scales only the Estimate of Gains scale was found to have any a statistically significant relationship with LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development and LO 6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities Within the EOG, the criteria used to evalua te the Learning Outcomes were shown to account for 3.26% of the variance between LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development and the number of years enrolled and 2.89% of the variance with LO 6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities No other relationships wer e statistically significant when isolated f or the Quality of Effort scales and the number of years a student was enrolled. Further, when the Estimate of Gains and the Quality of Effort scores were combine to yield the Total Learning Outcome score there wer e no statistically significant outcomes found. Table 34: Residential Learning Outcomes with Y Intercept and Slope Based on Years Enrolled at the Institution Residential Learning Outcomes Y Intercept Slope Percent Change LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Deve lopment 116.67 1.15 1.93 % LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy 67.88 1.94 5.41 % LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence 124.64 1.43 2.24 % LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life 42.87 0.05 0.23 % LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence 46.18 0.97 4.03 % LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities 16.19 0.46 5.38 % LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety 22.2 0.15 1.33 % Table 3 4 Residential Learning Outcomes with Y Intercept and Slope Ba sed on Years Enrolled (pg 1 of 1) *p < 0.01

PAGE 95

82 While none of the Learning O utcomes had statistically significant outcomes for the total scores the linear relationship can depict the potential impact that the number of years enrolled at the institution has on the total score. LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy and LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities had the largest potential impact. The slope for LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy is 1.94 meaning that each year a student is enrolled at the institution his or her total attainment score will rise by 1.94. While the slope, or attainment score gained per year for LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities is not as high, only 0.46 per year, the percentage of change over a thre e year period is great at 5.38% due to a lower number of questions yielding a lower total value. A depiction of the linear relationships is shown above in Figure 6 for all of the Learning Outcomes. As shown, all of the total scores were found to have posi tive linear relationships. Further analysis of both the original and adjusted analysis findings will take 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Years = 1 Years = 2 Years = 3 LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4 LO5 LO6 LO7 Linear Equations Years Enrolled Original Total Scores Figure 5 Linear Equations Yea r s Enrolled Non adjusted values

PAGE 96

83 place in the summary section following the adjusted analysis for research Question Three below. Adjusted Analysis Introduction As indicated earlier in this chapter additional analysis was conducted for each of the Learning Outcomes to determine if greater statistical significance could be found using fewer questions from the CSEQ. The analysis for research Question Three resulting from the original ana lysis plan as outlined in Table 8 of Chapter Three was just described; the following analysis uses a reduced number of questions within the linear regression to increase the statistical power. Only the CSEQ questions originally included within the linear r egression model for each L earning O utcome were used within the reduced model. The specific questions used for each Learning Outcome in the adjust ed analysis are shown in Table 2 1 When using the reduced model for research Question Three there were no signi ficant results found. Adjusted Analysis Finding s As shown in Table 2 1 all of the variables or questions used to measure the Learning Outcomes were drastically reduced. Five of the seven Learning Outcomes would be me asured using only four Quality of Effort questions and one Estimate of Gains question in the adjusted model while Learning Outcomes 4 and 7 would be measured using six Quality of Effort questions and one Estimate of Gains question.

PAGE 97

84 The adjusted model when evaluating for the impact the number of years enrolled at the institution would have, showed no evidence of significance in any of the sc ales. In fact, some of the r 2 values read 0.00 while the p values approached the 1.0 mark. Despite the overall dismal results there were a few glimmers of potential within the Estimate of Gains Scale While still not significant these numbers drastically d ifferent than most Table 35: ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcomes with Enroll ment Relationship Analysis Residential Learning Outcomes Quality of Effort r 2 Value p value Estimate of Gains r 2 Value p value LO Total r 2 Value p value LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0005 0.7384 0.0142 0.0747 0.0000 0.9824 LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0067 0.1930 0.0002 0.8274 0.0054 0.2742 LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence 0.0016 0.5143 0.0059 0.2504 0.0057 0.2581 LO4: Engage in Civic and Camp us Life QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0004 0.7622 0.0142 0.0747 0.0030 0.4124 LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0016 0.5365 0.0091 0.1550 0.0006 0.7128 LO6: Explore Ac ademic & Career Opportunities QOE: 4 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0001 0.8636 0.0185 0.0405 0.0004 0.7622 LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety QOE: 6 Questions EOG: 1 Questions 0.0001 0.8910 0.0006 0.7166 0.0000 0.9627 Table 3 5 Residenti al Learning Outcomes with Enrollment Relationship Analysis ADJUSTED (pg 1 of 1) p<0.01

PAGE 98

85 others in the adjusted model when evaluating the years enrolled: LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development yielded a p value of 0.0747 and a r 2 of 0.0141 LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life yielded a p value of 0.0747 and a r 2 of 0.0141 an d LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities yielded a p value of 0.0405 and a r 2 of 0.0185 Table 36: ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcomes with Y Intercept and Slope Residential Learning Outcomes Y Intercept Slope Percent Change LO1: Enhance Interpe rsonal Development 12.28 0. 006 0.09 % LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy 11.33 0. 29 4.95 % LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence 10.91 0.25 4.50 % LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life 14.03 0.103 1.49 % LO5: Develop Understanding of Hum an Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence 13.68 0.06 4.10 % LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities 11.10 0.08 1.39 % LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety 14.72 0.02 0.29 % Table 3 6 ADJUSTED Residential Learning Outcomes with Y Intercept and Slope Based on Years Enrolled (pg 1 of 1) *p < 0.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Years = 1 Years = 2 Years = 3 LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4 LO5 LO6 LO7 Linear Equations Years Enrolled Adjusted Total Scores Figure 6 Linear Equations Years Enrolled Adjusted values

PAGE 99

86 While none of the Learning Outcomes yielded statistically significant p values for the total scores the linear relationship can depict the potential impact that the number of years enrolled at the institution has on the total score. LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy and LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity & Increase Cultural Competence had the largest potential impact each yielding a potential percentage of cha nge of 4% over a 3 year enrollment period. However, LO3: Achiever Greater Intellectual Competence and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness & Safety had negative linear relationships meaning the attainment scores for the Learning Outcome s would actua lly lower with each year the student was enrolled at the institution 4.50 % change in the attainment score over a three year period for LO3 and 0 .2 9% change over a three year period year for LO7. A depiction of the linear relation ships is shown above in Figure 6 for all of the Learning Outcomes. As shown, five of the total scores were found to have positive linear relationships and two of the total scores have a negative linear relationship Original and Adjusted Analysis Summaries In summary, within th e original model the attainment of the Learning O utcomes as related to the number of years a student has been enrolled at the institution did not produce sign ificant results for either the Q uality of E ffort scales or the total scores However, within the original model w hen isolating the Estimate of G ains scales there were two statistically significant results LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development and LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities The two significant E stimate of G ains scales have r 2 vales of 3.26% and 2.89% respectively. The EOG scales measure a

PAGE 100

87 some logical sense that the longer a student has been enrolled at the university the more he or she woul d perceive personal growth especially in the areas of interpersonal development (LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development) and academic and career opportunities (LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities). For the five remaining Learning O utcomes the p val ues were generally high Additionally, LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy and LO 6 : Explore Academic and Career Opportunities have the strongest positive linear relationships when analyzing the original model showing an improvement of 5% over ti me For the adjusted model no relationship was found between the number of years a student was enrolled at the university and the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes. The reduced number of questions in the adjusted model did not seem to favor the relationship between the Residential Learning Outcomes and the number of years a student has been enrolled at the institution as was the case in Research Question Two. The original model, while lacking statistical power, does look at the study with a w ide lens allowing the researcher to include many questions from the CSEQ to determine which questions are potentially impactful for each research question. The statistical power of the adjusted model is derived from the narrowing of the questions within th e model. The adjusted model proves to be effective for Research Question Two ; however, there is not a relationship with Research Question Three. The difference is the specific questions that were chosen for the adjusted model. In general, the questions sel ected from the CSEQ relate to activities (CLUBS), pla ces (FACIL) and people (STACQ), when evaluating the Learning Outcomes for students that had lived in the residence halls

PAGE 101

88 factors that occurred outside of the formal classroom and outside of the tradition al academic day proved to be most impactful. During the process of creating the adjusted model, questions that may gather information related to traditional classroom based relationships were likely dropped due to a lack of correlation. However, the relati onship in Research Question Three is based upon the number of years a student has been enrolled at the university which is likely based upon the traditional classroom experience. Therefore, the high p values and low r 2 values in the adjusted model are to b e expected as the questions in the adjusted model are searching for relationship s in non traditional formats And ultimately a relationship was found among many of the Residential Learning Outcomes in the adjusted model. It is possible that if an adjusted model was created centered around the traditional classroom environment a positive relationship could be attained for years enrolled however, that was not the focus of this study.

PAGE 102

89 CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overview Sinc e the inception of higher education in the United States the residential environment has been an important factor in the development of the whole student. The value of the residential environment is shown through its historical significance in American hig foundational years of the colonial colleges. While some would argue that the living space at the colonial colleges was built due to necessity rather than importance the statements by Pres idents Wilson and Porter indicate instead that living among peers and scholars was critical to the collegiate experience. Throughout history there have been many changes in the staffin g structures and living space of college students, however, the positive impact of the residential environment remain in evidence A significant and relatively recent trend within higher education is the establishment and measurement of learning outcomes. Learning outcomes were first used within the academic context of the c ollegiate environment to help measure whether a student was learning the appropriate material. The creation of learning outcomes for a course can serve as a guide during the construction of the course, essentially the outline for a well designed course. In impact of student affairs work on college campuses led to the notion of developing and assessing learning outcomes in non academic contexts (ACPA, 1994). The student affairs

PAGE 103

90 learning outcomes concept became more popular after the publication of Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004) and Learning Reconsidered 2 (Keeling, 2006) Learning Reconsidered first introduced the idea of using learning outcomes outside of the formal classroom and expanded upon the notions presented in various student development theories Learning outcomes can help put theory into action and help create more measurable and attainable goals that are specific to each department. Learning Reconsidered 2 was a follow up text that prov ided guidance related to the construction and assessment of learning outcomes in student affairs work. Despite the guidance provided by the Learning Reconsidered series and other student affairs publications related to learning outside of the classroom, th e assessment of learning outcomes and/or the documentation of the impact of learning outcome assessment is not in evidence in a variety of functional areas including residence life. M any residence life departments base their work in a variety of psychos ocial student development theor ies (Piaget, 1964; Sanford, 1966, 1968; Chickering, 1969; Perry, 1970; Astin, 1985; Schlossberg, 1989; Baxter Magolda, 1992; Kitchener & King 1994; Zhao and Kuh, 2004) aimed at fostering the growth of the whole student. Base d upon the evolution of the definition of learning residential communities at higher educational institutions should be considered learning environments (Leskes & Miller, 2006). As a result the learning that takes plac e within the residential environment can and should be measured. This study analyzed seven specific Residential Learning Outcomes generated by the Department of Residential Life and Housing at the host institution. The study addresses three questions, the overall attainment of each of the Residential Learning

PAGE 104

91 Outcomes regardless of residential status or the length of time enrolled at the university, the impact that the length of time in the residential environment had on the attainment of the Learning O utc omes and finally, the impact that the length of time enrolled at the university ha d on the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes The overall attainment of the Learning O utcomes was evaluated using des criptive statistics. Research Questions Two and T hree which evaluate the impact of years in residence and years enrolled were evaluated using linear regression. Method s This study utilized s econdary data from an administration of t he College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) during the Spri ng 2009 semester. Due to the constraints of the primary study t he sample was composed of students who had participated in the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) during the ir new student orientation process. There were three cohorts of studen ts included in the sampling process, the classes entering in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Only students who provided personally identifiable data on the CSXQ were included in the sampling. Questions were chosen from the CSEQ that were considered to be measures f or each of the seven Residential Learning O utcomes ; the total number of questions original ly selected as measures f or the Learning O utcomes can be found in Table 7 in Chapter Three and the specific questions can be found using appendices C through F. Due to an absence of statistical significan ce in the original analysis plan and a high level of variability because of the number of questions included in the analysis an adjusted analysis model was created and implemented. The intent in the adjusted analysi s plan was to utilize fewer questions from the CSEQ for each Learning Outcome to increase the

PAGE 105

92 power of the testing and to determine if statistical significance could be found for more of the Learning Outcomes. Only CSEQ questions included in the original analysis for each of the Residential Learning Outcomes were included in the adjusted analysis. The process for creating the adjusted analysis is fully described in Chapter Four. The CSEQ abbreviations which reference the specific questions selected for the adjusted analysis can be found in Table 2 1 of Chapter Four and the full text of the specific questions can be found using Appendices G and H. Limitations As defined in Chapter One the researcher recognized two limitations prior to conducting the study A fter conducting the study the researcher found one additional limitation which is listed as limitation number 3. 1. The Residential Learning Outcomes were authored during the Fall 2008 semester and have not been marketed to the students. Therefore, students h ave not been purposefully working towards the goals that are being measured. 2. The study is only being conducted on one campus and uses the specific learning outcomes of the campus therefore limiting the generalizability of the study. 3. There were a higher pe rcentage of female participants within the sample as compared to the University population (67 .7 % within the sample and 58.7% at the University). The literature regarding Learning Outcomes suggests that students be aware of the goals they are striving tow ards ( Fried, 2006; Wiggins & McTighe, 2002) Since the Residential Learning Outcomes were authored in the semester prior to the administration of the CSEQ the marketing campaign regarding the Learning Outcomes had not taken place. While this can be seen as a potential limitation to the study, it also means that the

PAGE 106

93 results of the study can serve as a benchmark for the Department and an indicator of the The second and third limitations, the study only being conducted on one campus and the higher proportion of female students, ultimately suggest that more study is necessary but do not significantly hamper the study or potentially invalidate the results. Findings Research Que stion One 1. To what extent are each of the seven Residential Learning Outcomes being attained irrespective of residential status? The sample population, while not as large as would have been desired because the constraints of the primary study, does present an accurate sampling of the three cohorts within the sample. The freshman, sophomore and junior classes within the sample were evenly balanced each providing approximately 33% of the sample. The residential population was not balanced; however, the percen tages are consistent with the number of years in residency by students at the University. Further, the demographics of the sample adequately represent the university as a predomin antly traditionally aged white undergraduate institution which has more wom en than men. Interestingly, in both the original model and the adjusted model the Residential Learning Outcomes that have the highest values in the percentage of the maximum score attainment are the Learning Outcomes that are ultimately found not to be s tatistically significant when evaluating research Question Two. Additionally, the Learning Outcomes that had the lowest percentage of maximum score attainment are ultimately

PAGE 107

94 found to be statistically significant for research Question Two. This finding work s against what the researcher would expect as a higher total score would mean the student had attained a higher level of attainment for each Learning Outcome. Research Question Two 2. What is the relationship between student attainment of each of the seven R esidential Learning Outcomes and the number of years residing on campus? When evaluating the impact that the number of residential years had on the attainment of the L earning O utcomes the adjusted model produced more statistical signific ance higher r 2 v alues and positive linear relationships. When isolating the Q uality of E ffort scales in the adjusted model it was determined that six of the seven Learning O utcomes had statistical significance and that the years residing on campus accounted for between 2 .37% and 5.36% of the variance of the Learning O utcomes. When isolating the Estimate of Gains scales only the p value for LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety was statistically si gnificant. When evaluating the Total Scores three of the Lea rning O utcomes were statistically significant, LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety Ultimately this means that the number of years a student resided on campu s ha d the greatest impact on enhancing personal development, engaging in civic and campus life and increasing the knowledge of health, well ness and safety. Each of these Learning O utcomes also had positive linear relationship s The attainment score of LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development improve d by 14.43% over a three year period that a student reside d on campus ; LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life improve d by 17.48% over a three year period; and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health,

PAGE 108

95 Wellness, & Safety imp rove d by 19.91% over a three year period that a student reside d on campus. Research Question Three 3. What is the relationship between student attainment of each of the seven Residential Learning Outcomes and the number of years enrolled at the University? Th e attainment of the Learning O utcomes as related to the number of years a student ha d been enrolled at the institution did not produce significant results for either the Quality of Effort scales or the Total Scores regardless of the model. The original ana lysis model did show statistical significance for two of the seven Learning O utcomes when isolating the Estimate of Gains scales. LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development yielded an r 2 value of 3.26% and LO 6 : Explore Academic & Career Opportunities produced an r 2 value of 2.89 %. When analyzing the impact over time, LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy and LO6: Explore Academic and Career Opportunities ha d the strongest positive linear relationships when using the original model showing an improvement of 5% over three years. Using the adjusted model, none of the Learning Outcomes showed a strong linear relationship; in fact, LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence and LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety were shown to have a negat ive linear relationship reducing the total attainment score by 4.50% over three years for LO3 and 0.29% over three years that a student is enrolled for LO7. College Student Experiences Questionnaire Instrument The findings of this study further validate previous works and publications related to the use of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) which argue that the

PAGE 109

96 CSEQ is a valid measure for learning outcomes. As stated in Chapter Three, among other uses, the Center for Post Secondary Rese arch at Indiana University has stated that the CSEQ can be used to measure student learning outcomes, program effectiveness and the impact of the residential environment (2007). Kuh and the researchers at Indiana University (2007) have argued that the effo rt a student puts into his or her collegiate experience is the greatest predictor of success and satisfaction in college, this notion is supported by the findings of this study as well as by student development research by Astin (1985) and Pascarella & Ter enzini (2005). When the CSEQ was selected as the instrument for this study the researcher and an independent expert each analyzed the CSEQ questions from the Quality of Effort, Estimate of Gains and College Environment sections in relation to the seven un ique Residential Learning Outcomes to determine which, if any, CSEQ questions would be used as measures for each Learning Outcome. Both the researcher and the expert found multiple questions within each section that had the potential to measure each of the Learning Outcomes. The versatility or the questionnaire in combination with the broad language used within the Learning Outcomes resulted in too many questions being used in the original analysis resulting in a lack of statistical significance most likely due to a lack of power. As a result, the adjust analysis model was created utilized fewer questions to measure each Learning Outcome. Ultimately, the CSEQ was shown to be capable of measuring learning outcomes that were unique to the host institution. Fur ther, the data supports previous research, although in a ne w way, that residential students are more engaged than their commuter student counterparts through the Quality of Effort scales and the Learning Outcome results

PAGE 110

97 Implications for Practice The ne ed for proper assessment within higher education is ever growing, demanded by accreditation agencies, state agencies, trustees, donors, parents, students and the public. Assessment is often used in decision making and policy implementation at the local, st ate and national level. Consequentially, the writing of learning outcomes for non academic areas is an excellent first step H owever, without proper assessment of the learning that is taking place the learning outcomes are meaningless. While t here is plen ty of research that supports the benefits of living within the residential environment there is a void in the literature regarding the assessment of student affairs based learning outcomes, particularly for the area of residence life. This study not only looks at the attainment of Residential Learning Outcomes by students who have resided within the residence halls it also evaluates the attainment of the same Learning Outcomes when looking only at the length of time the students ha ve been enrolled at the institution. T he values presented within the Residential Learning Outcomes are proficiencies the institution would want all students to improve upon throughout their tenure in higher education This study is then able to determine if the resi dential studen ts reach higher attainment scores on the Learning Outcomes as compared to their commuter student counterparts As reported in Chapter Two, multiple studies have indicated that residential students show greater gains in student development during their col legiate years as compared to their commuting counterparts, even when controlled for gender, race, socio economic status, high school achievement, and academic ability (Inman &

PAGE 111

98 Pascarella, 1997). Further, Inman and Pascarella found that resident students sh ow a significant increase in critical thinking. Residence status plays a pervasive role in the experience of college students parti cularly in academic and social environment s. Social integration with faculty and other students improves self concept, and re lationships with faculty contribute to self perceived intellectual and personal development (1997). Residential students are often shown to perform better and to be more involved in the life of the university as compared to their commuting counterparts (Wi nston Anchors & Associates 1993). One could argue this is due to the sense of belonging mattering that develops within the residential community. The results of this study support this previous research as the analysis indicate s that the longer a st udent has resided on campus the greater his or her attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes A dditionally the same improvements in attainment scores could not be reported based upon a the length of time a student has been enrolled at the university This was particularly true for the Learning O utcomes that measured interpersonal development ( LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development ) engagement in civic and campus life ( LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life ) and knowledge of health, wellness and safety ( LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety ). T he Quality of Effort scales were particularly impactful for the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes based upon the number of years a student has been a resident student yielding six of seven statistically significant results Within the CSEQ t he QOE scales measure the amount of effort that the student is putting into his or her various experiences while at the institution.

PAGE 112

99 This study not only celebrates the work of residence life prof essionals in a new way it also supports the work of previous researchers. Astin (1999) reported that students who become engaged and involved show stronger levels of student development. Similarly in this study the students who showed higher levels of eff ort, or engagement with the university, attained higher levels of achievement on the Residential Learning Outcomes. Students learn by becoming involved involvement as not only outside of the classroom activities such as student organizations and programming but also involves devotion to studies and regular interaction with faculty members and other students. Further, Astin (1985) indicated that living on campus, joining a social Greek organization, participating in athletics, participating in ROTC, joining the honors programs, and actively participating in undergraduate re search with a faculty member each have positive effects on persistence. Therefore, while t his study focuses on the learning gained while living within the residential environment a similar study could be designed using learning outcomes and questions specific to any number of concentrated areas within the institution. To highlight the importance of learning outside the classroom Kuh (1995) environment, it is not the only source of learning on campus. Kuh found in his study that many out of class experiences demand that students become competent in critical thinking relational skills and organizational skills which help to foster student

PAGE 113

100 development The more that students get invo lved the more they benefit However, complicating factors include that involvement requires the expenditure of energy and not everyone will invest the same amount of energy Further there are many ways to measure involvement and the benefits of involvemen t have more to do with quality than quantity Finally engagement must be active to have the best effect Kuh indicated that the benefits of participation appear to accrue for any student willing to invest time and energy in educationally purposeful activi ties and suggested the best way for an institution to foster student involvement was by creating an environment where students would want to get involved and would seek such opportunities. Similar to the findings of Kuh (1995) and Astin (1985), Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) indicated that the effort that a student puts into his/her collegiate experience is one of the greatest determinates for the level of institutional ef This study supports the previous work of many celebrated authors cited throughout this document. Of particular importance is the findings that residential students showed the highest level of attainment within the Quality of Effort scales. Additionally, the greatest attainment scores occurred for residential students and the largest percent changes over time occurr ed for students who remained within the residential environment for more than one year. Therefore, this study adds s upport in a new way (1995) findings that the longer a student participates the greater the outcome and to Pascarella and Terenzin i

PAGE 114

101 Conversely the only statistically significant results that could be found when analyzing the number of years a student has been enrolled were found using the Estimate of Gains scales. The EOG scales measur while at the institution. As a result it makes some logical sense that the longer a student has been enrolled at the university the more he or she would perceive personal growth especially in the areas of i nterpersonal development ( LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development ) and academic and career opportunities ( LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities ). It is worth stating again that the adjusted model did not favor the relationship between the Residential Learning Outcomes and the number of years a student has been enrolled at the institution Further study could be conducted with different questions selected in the adjusted analysis that focus on classroom behavior to determine if a relationship exists. Another of the findings wort h discussing is LO5: Develop Un derstanding of Human Diversity & Increase Cultural Competence. LO5 is the one Learning Outcome that was unique in a variety of ways: it was not statistically significant in the adjusted model for Question Two when isolated for the Quality of Effort scales and in both the original and adjusted models LO5 had the highest Percentage of Max Score Attained. Despite such promising results in Question One, LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity & I ncrease Cultural Competence would not prove statistically significant in any of the models. However, when evaluating the linear relationships LO5 always showed a high percentage of positive linear improvement over a three year period showing as much as 10. 94% growth over a three year period for the adjusted residential model There are

PAGE 115

102 l ikely a variety of possibilities for these results including the wrong questions were div ersity achievements. This could easily happen due to the variety of questions within the CSEQ that can measure diversity. Further, the researcher has an administrative which may have pre sented an unusually strong bias towards this question Another potential and perhaps the most likely, explanation for the LO5 results is the im mersion of residential students into a diverse environment yielding significant increases in their Learning Outc ome scores over time but not a significant p value. However, the commuting students do not experience the same levels of growth over time in their LO5 values. This is likely because they only experience a diverse environment for short periods of time, perh aps an hour or so within the classroom, before moving onto another diverse environment in their next class. The commuter student then returns to his or her home environment which has not changed from his or her high school experience and will not challenge the student to find comfort in diverse situations for prolonged periods As a result the commuting students show a growth rate of 4% over three years whereas residential students show a growth rate of nearly 11% over three years. The findings of this res earch suggest that r esidential l ife departments should write learning outcomes, assess the outcomes and then implement training and programming based upon the needs of the students. Residence life departments often train both the paraprofessional resident advisors and the professional staff at length. T he training models that have been used for years will likely need to be updated to incorporate the concepts of the specific learning outcomes generated by the department As the

PAGE 116

103 assessment continues and the n eeds and successes of the residential students become clearer to the residential s taff the programming provided to the students should continue to evolve as will the training provided to the residence life staff. Depending on the type of the institution, number of students in residence, and the physical design of the residence halls, the r esidence l ife department may have more opportunities to study the impact of the learning outcomes within the residential environment. Smaller institutions and/or smaller residential environments will likely be more limited in their ability to assess the learning outcomes in a variety of ways, how ever, larger institutions with larger residential populations may be able to determine if specific learning communities have gre ater impacts on the attainment of the learning outcomes Once implemented the potential for this type of research is virtually endless, for example, a department may use learning outcome assessments to test a new initiative that has only been implemented i n selected buildings. The findings of this study indicate that assessment of student learning outcomes in non academic areas should be conducted and published with greater frequency to support the work of student affairs practitioners. The publicat ion of assessment results will aid more departments with the writing of learning outcomes and the creation of solid assessment plans. As residence life departments continue to refine their programming and training plans publications will be necessary to e stablish a model for new best practices in residence life based upon the effective use of learning outcomes

PAGE 117

104 Recommendations for Further Study There is a variety of ways in which this study yield s future research possibilities. First, the study could and probably should be conducted again at the host institution using a larger dataset. The primary study being conducted by the university hampered the collection of a large sample; however, interesting information related to the se cohort s was gathered Us ing a larger sample size would allow for the possibility of finding more significance when using the original analysis plan, however, the adjusted analysis plan will likely also yield greater significance as there are fewer variables in the regression equa tion. If conducting the analysis again the researcher would have the opportunity to determine if the same CSEQ questions result in statistical significance or if there are factors that are potentially unique to various classes of students. The refinement of the questions used wi thin the model may possibly provide more guidance to the residence life professionals working with the students as higher scores indicate higher levels of engagement. Another factor that could be added to the analysis is the class standing of the students who resided within the residence halls and whether residing on campus during the freshman year was more impactful than residing on campus during the sophomore or junior years. Similarly the research could include the type of resid ential environment (s) the student lived in to determine if the style of residence hall had any bearing on the attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes Moving forward, repeating the study at the host institution and including these factors would be a critical as the university implemented a first year student housing requirement the Fall after this study was

PAGE 118

105 conducted. Further, a comparative analysis of the first year students that were exempted from the residency requirement as compared to their res idential counterparts would also prove productive not only to the host university but also the many institutions with similar policies. The CSEQ is a national survey used at hundreds of institutions each year which allows for the use of a national datase t for analysis. The researcher would have to determine if the Residential Learning Outcomes defined within this study would be the best learning outcomes for analysis or if a compilation of national learning outcomes should be used. The Learning Reconsider ed broad desired 2004, p. 20) which includes recommended student experiences and proficiencies Further the Learning Reconsidered 2 (Keeling, 2006) text provides a variety of learning outcomes and lea rning outcome templates that are s pecific to functional areas. Many of the learning outcomes provided in Learning Reconsidered 2 were provided by colleges and universities that began writing and assessing learning outcomes after the publication of Learning Reconsidered in 2004. If the researcher is interested in using learning outcomes that are functional area specific, for example residence life, and driven by the best practices instead of general national norms the researcher may consider working with pro fessional organizations such as Association of College and University Housing Officers International (ACUHO I), National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and/or the Association of College Personnel Administrations (ACPA). Finally, the researcher would have to de termine which types of schools sh ould be included in analysis as there is a wide variety of institutions represented i n the CSEQ national dataset.

PAGE 119

106 On either the local or national level the researcher could examine a variety of demographic factors including gender, race, high school grade point average and/or socio economic standing to determine if personal factors influenced the level of attainment of the Residential Learning Outcomes As established in Chapter Two, t hese fac tors were included in previous student development studies with success, however, these factors were not considered in this study. While this study focused on the learning attainment of residential students the study could be used as a guide for any numbe r of specializations in higher education to duplicate the study. Specifically the areas of athletics, Greek Life, student organizations, student government, honors organizations, or other areas where student demographics are tracked are prime areas for stu dy. The area of specialization could use the same learning outcomes as many of them represent universal desires in higher education. However, most departments would need to write their own learning outcomes to produce meaningful research. The researcher wo uld also need to replicate the question selection process unique to their area of specialization. Given the lack of published research regarding learning outcomes, especially related to residence life, any or all of these supplemental research paths would likely provide guidance to the professionals in the field. T his researcher would like to see the study conducted using the national dataset and either the same set of Residential Learning Outcomes or a compilation or normative learning outcomes. The combin ation of this study and the national study would provide the most guidance to residence life professionals have the most impact for funding, and gain positive administrative attention

PAGE 120

107 REFERENCES American College Personnel Association. (1974). A Student Development Model for ashington D.C. American College Personnel Association. (1994). The Student Learning Imperative: Lessons for Student Affairs. Washington D.C. American Council on Education. (1937). Stud ent Personnel Point of View, Series I, 1 (3), 1 3. Washington D.C. American Council on Education. (1949). Student Personnel Point of View, Series XI, 13 (13), 1 11. Washington D.C. Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving education excellence: A critical assessment of priorities and practices in higher education San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT, 40 518 529. Baxter Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Beirman, S. E., & Carpenter, D. S. (1994). An analysis of resident assistant work motivation. Journal of College Student Development, 35 467 474. Blimling, G. (1999). The Resident Assistant: Applications and Strategies with College Students in Residence Halls Fifth Edition. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

PAGE 121

108 Bowman, R., and Bowman, V. (1995, January/February). Academic Courses to Tr ain Resident Assistants. Journal of College Student Development 36, 39 46. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+). ( May, 2002 ) The National Center for Public Policy Research. Washington D.C. ww w.nationalcenter.org Brubacher, J and Willis, R. (1997). Higher Education in Transition: A History of American Colleges and Universities. Transaction Publishers: New Jersey. Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University. (2007) The College Stu dent Experiences Questionnaire Assessment Program. Retrieved January 24, 2009 from http://cseq.iub.edu/index.cfm Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Chickering, A.W. & Ga mson, Z.F. (1987, June). Principles for good practice in undergraduate education [Special insert to The Wingspread Journal, June 1987]. Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation. Chickering, A.W. & Reisser, L. (1993) Education and identity (2 nd ed.). San Francisco: J ossey Bass. Clemons, S.A., Banning, J.H., & McKelfresh, D.A. (2004). Importance of sense of place and sense of self in residence hall room design. Journal of Student Affairs 13, 8 6. Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2006). The book of professional standards for higher education (6 th ed .). Washington, DC: Author. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F. & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A General Power Analysis Program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 28 (1), 1 11. Dean, L .A. (Ed.) (2006). CAS Professional Standards for Higher Education (6 th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

PAGE 122

109 Dodge, S. (1990). The Demanding Job of Resident Assistant: Has it Grown Too Big for Students? The Chronicle of Higher Education February 21, 1990. Filo, J. (May 4, 1970). Kent State Massacre. The Digital Journalist. [Online]. www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0005/filo.htm [April 1, 2005]. Frederiksen, C.F. (1993). A brief history of collegia te housing. In R. B. Winston, S. Anchors, and Associates (Eds.), Student Housing and Residential Life (pp. 167 183) San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Fried, J. (2006). Rethinking Learning. In Keeling, R.P. (Ed). Learning Reconsidered 2: Implementing a Campus Wide Focus on the Student Experience. (pp. 3 9). Washington D.C.: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), American College Personnel Association (ACPA), Association of College and University Housing Officers International (ACUHO I), Association of College Unions International (ACUI), National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), National Association for Campus Activities (NACA) and National Intramural Recreation Sports Association (NIRSA). Gall, M., Gall, J. & Borg, W. (2007). Educational Research: An Introduction (8 th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Gardner, J. N. (1996). Reflections on the first year residential experience. In W. J. Zeller, Association of College and University Housing Officers International, National Re source Center for The Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition & University of South Carolina (Eds.), Residence life programs and the first year experience (pp. 1 10) Association of Housing Officers International; National Resource Center for th e Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition, University of South Carolina. Glass, G. & Hopkins, K. (1996). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (3 rd Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Co.

PAGE 123

110 Gonyea, R.M., Kish, K.A., Kuh, G.D., Mu thiah, R.N., & Thomas, A.D. (2003). College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Norms for the Fourth Edition Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Policy, and Planning. Hu, S. & Kuh, G.D. (2002). Being (Dis)engaged in educa tionally purposeful activities: the influences of student and institutional characteristics Research in Higher Education Vol. 43, No. 5. ( October 2002), pp 555 575 Hu, S. & Kuh, G.D. (2003). Diversity Experiences and College Student Learning and Per sonal Development. Journal of College Student Development Vol. 44, No. 3 (May/June 2003), pp. 320 334. Inman, P., & Pascarella, E. T. (1997). The impact of college residence on the development of critical thinking skills in college freshmen ASHE Annual M eeting Paper November 1997. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15 /2b/02.pdf Keeling, R.P. (Ed). (2004). Learning Reconsidered: A Campus Wide Focus on the Student Experience. Washington D.C.: Nationa l Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and American College Personnel Association (ACPA). Keeling, R.P. (Ed). (2006). Learning Reconsidered 2: Implementing a Campus Wide Focus on the Student Experience. Washington D.C.: National Associat ion of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), American College Personnel Association (ACPA), Association of College and University Housing Officers International (ACUHO I), Association of College Unions International (ACUI), National Academic Advising A ssociation (NACADA), National Association for Campus Activities (NACA) and National Intramural Recreation Sports Association (NIRSA). Kitchener, K. S., & King, P.M. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

PAGE 124

111 Komives ,S.R.& Petersen, R.J. (1997). Values and Principles Guiding Technology Decision Making for the Future. New Directions for Student Services no. 78, Summer 1997 San Francisc o: Jossey Bass Publishers Kuh, G.D. (1993). In Their Own Words: What Students Learn outside the Classroom American Educational Research Journal Vol. 30, No. 2 (Summer, 19 93), pp. 277 304. Kuh, G.D. (1995). The Other Curriculum: Out of Class Experiences Associated with Student Learning. Journal of Higher Education Vol. 66, No. 2, pp.123 155 Kuh, G.D., Gonyea, R.M., & Will iams, J.M. (2005). What Student Expect from College and What They Get. In Miller, T.E., Bender, B.E. & Schuh, J.H. (Eds). Promoting Reasonable Expectations: Aligning Student and Institutional View of the College Experience (pp. 34 64). San Francisco: Joss ey Bass. Kuh, G.D. & Schuh, J.H. (Eds) (1991). The Role and Contributions of Student Affairs in Involving Colleges. Washington D.C.: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Kuh, G.D. & Vesper, N. (1997). A Comparison of Student Experience s with Good Practices in Undergraduate Education Between 1990 and 1994. The Review of Higher Education Vol. 21, No. 1, pp 43 61. Kurotsuchi Inkelas, K., Vogt, K.E., Longerbeam, S.D., Owen, J. & Johnson, D. (2006). Measuring Outcomes of Living learning Pro grams: Examining College Environments and Student Learning and Development. The Journal of General Education, 55, 40 76. Leskes, A. & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful Pathways: Helping Students Achieve Key Learning Outcomes Association of American Colleges & Greater Expectations Monograph Series, Vol. 8.

PAGE 125

112 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College Personnel Association. (1997). Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs. Washington, D.C. National Cente r for Educational Statistics (1994). A Preliminary Study of the Feasibility Undergraduate Education. Washington, DC. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Departm ent of Education. National Defense Education Act. The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001 04. www.bartleby.com/65/ [April 20, 2005]. Hatcher, L & Stepanski E.J ( 2005 ) A S tep by S tep A pproach to U sing SAS for U nivariate and M ultivariate S tatistics ( 2nd edition ) Cary, NC : SAS Institute and Wiley. Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1994). The impact of residential life on students. In C. C. Sc hroeder, P. Mable, & Associates (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls (pp. 23 52). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How College Affect Students: A Third Decade of Research (Vol. 2) San Francis co: Jossey Bass Perry, W.G., Jr. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A schem e New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Perry, W.G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A.W. Chickering & Associates, The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 76 116). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

PAGE 126

113 Piaget, J. (1964). Judgment and reasoning in the child Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Reason, R.D., Terenzini, P.T., Domingo, R.J. (2007). Developing Social and Personal Competence in the First Year of College. T he Review of Higher Education. 30 (3). Spring 1997, pp. 271 299. Rudolph, F. (1990). The American College and University: A History. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Ryan, M. (1992). Residential colleges: A Legacy of Living and Learning Together. Chan ge, 24 (5), September, 1992, pgs 26 35. Sanford, N. (1966). Self & society. Atherton Press. Sanford, N. (1968). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Sanford, N. (2006). Self & society: Social chan ge and individual development. Aldine De Gruyter. Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. Designing Campus Activities to Foster a Sense of Community (New Directions for Student Services), 48. Schroeder, C. C., & Jackson, S. G. (1987). Creating conditions for student development in campus living environments. NASPA Journal, 25 45 53. Terenzini, P.T. & Reason, R.D. (2005, November). Parsing the First Year of College: A conceptual Framework for Studying Colleg e Impacts. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Philadelphia, PA. Trillin, C. (1991). An Education in Georgia. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

PAGE 127

114 Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N. (1989). The freshm an year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Wagner, J.W. (200 8). The Practice of Community Journal of College & Character Vol. IX No. 4 April 2008 (pg 1 6 ). Whitt, E.J. (Ed.) (1999). Student Learning as Student Affairs Work: Responding to Our Imperative National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) Monograph series, Vol. 23. Wiggins, G & McTighe, J. (2002). An introduction to understanding by design In Keel ing, R.P. (Ed). (2006). Learning Reconsidered 2: Implementing a Campus Wide Focus on the Student Experience. Washington D.C : National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). delivered on the occasion of his inauguration as president of Princeton University. October 25, 1902. Printed Not Published by Princeton. Winston, R.B., Anchors, S. & Associates. (1993). Student Housing and Residential Life: A Handbook for Professionals C ommitted to Student Development Goals. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Wolf Wendel, L & Reuel, M. (1999). Developing the Whole Student: The Collegiate Ideal. New Directions for Higher Education no. 105, Spring 1999. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Yale Report. ( 1828). New Haven, CT: Hezekiah Howe. Zhao, C M. & Kuh, G.D. (2004). Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 45, No. 2, March 2004 (pg 115 138).

PAGE 128

115 APPENDICES

PAGE 129

Appendix A 116 Last Modified: January 27, 2009 Learning Objective : Students in the residential community at the University will experience a successful transition to the University through involvement in a supportive yet challenging living/learning environment. Residents will enga ge in campus programs and events that will enhance their interpersonal skills, understanding of self, intellectual competence, appreciation of diversity, knowledge of majors and careers, knowledge of campus and community dynamics, and understanding of heal th, wellness, and safety issues. Outcomes : 1) Enhance Interpersonal Development a) Develop meaningful collaborations and interactions with peers and faculty; develop a sense of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a b alance between technological and social interactions; practice community responsibility b) Measure : Attendance at and evaluation of H&RE programs, personal relationships with RAs (Bullpen data), CSEQ responses, EBI Data c) Program Examples : i) Many Academic Init iative programs including Food for Thoughts and Lunch & Learns with Faculty in Residence ii) RHA / Building Council meetings and programs (1) Res Fest (2) Dance Marathon (3) Relay for Life (4) All Hall Meetings/floor meetings iii) Team Wellness Programs iv) Programs put on by a specif ic college v) Get Smart Study Skills Workshops vi) LLC programming (1) Dinner with Dean & Faculty vii) First Year Mentoring Program viii) Community building programs (floor meetings, ice breakers, movies on the lawn, Week of Welcome events ex. Round up) ix) House Calls Program x) UCon nect

PAGE 130

Appendix A Continued 117 2) Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy a) Increase levels of personal responsibility; explore values and beliefs; make ethical choices; realize personal impact on others; strengthen life skills; develop a sense of purpose b) Measure : Attendance at and evaluation of H&RE programs, CSEQ responses, EBI Data c) Program Examples : i) Roommate Agreement, Community Standards meetings on floors ii) Programs that show different points of view and cultures ex. PRIDE meeting/programs, cultural dinners, World Hunger Wee k events iii) RA programs on homesickness iv) Counseling Center for Human Development workshops and programs 3) Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence a) Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active reading; enga ge in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increase exposure to intellectual, scientific, and artistic work; increase technological skills b) Measure : Attendance at and evaluation of H&RE programs, CSEQ responses, EBI Data c) P rogram Examples : i) Get Smart Study Skills Workshops ii) Lunch and Learns iii) Achieve a Bull iv) Final Exam Reviews v) Just Desserts for High Achievers vi) Programs on the importance of academic advising and FACTS teaching the residents about graduation requirements vii) Visual & Performing Arts Events viii) ix) ULS Programs 4) Engage in Civic and Campus Life a) Learn to navigate the University (services & departments, policies & procedures); use curricular and co curricular resources; enhance communi cation skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities b) Measure : Attendance at and evaluation of H&RE programs, CSEQ responses, EBI Data c) Program Examples : i) Campus Activities Board events ii) Homecoming

PAGE 131

Appendix A Continued 118 iii) Movies on the Lawn iv) Round Up v) Week o f Welcome vi) Leadership Training and Programs vii) LLC Programming (1) Improvisation sessions (2) Community mentoring viii) Alternative Spring Break ix) Blood drives x) Food drives xi) Stampede of Service xii) xiii) Community building programs (floor meetings, ice breakers, movies on the lawn, Week of Welcome events, Round up, UConnect) xiv) RHA / Building Council meetings and programs (1) Dance Marathon (2) Relay for Life xv) RHA/RAAB/NRHH Leadership Retreat 5) Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Comp etence a) Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc. b) Measure : Attendance at and evaluation of H&RE programs, CSEQ responses, EBI Data c) Program Examples : i) Six Week Challenge Programs in Diversity ii) Tunnel of Oppression iii) Pride meetings iv) Hillel Programs & Events v) Programs that are co sponsored by cultural based clubs or organizations on campus. vi) Office of Multicultural Affairs events and workshops vii) ULS Programs 6) E xplore Academic & Career Opportunities a) Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies b) Measure : Attendance at and evaluation of H&RE programs, CSEQ responses, EBI Data c) Prog ram Examples : i) Programs from the Career Services Center

PAGE 132

Appendix A Continued 119 (1) Dress for Success (2) Job Fair (3) Etiquette Dinner (4) Resume building workshops ii) LLC Programs (1) Dinner with faculty (2) Company tours (3) Alumni panels iii) Lunch & Learn iv) Academic Success Programs v) CAA Major Fair 7) Increase Know ledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety a) Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health, nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental health, coping mechanisms, advocacy, campus safety, personal safety, spiri tuality, and relationship dynamics b) Measure : Attendance at and evaluation of H&RE programs, CSEQ responses, EBI Data c) Program Examples : i) Counseling Center for Human Development workshops and programs ii) Team Wellness Programs including programming for Wellness Hall LLC iii) Student Health Services / Peer Health Educator Programs iv) Spiritual/Religious Organizations / Campus Ministries v) Advocacy Program Presentations and Events vi) Police Officer Presentations vii) Adopt a Cop viii) Self Defense Classes ix) All Campus Recreation Programs (1) Indoor recreation (2) Outdoor recreation (3) Intramural Sports Teams

PAGE 133

Appendix B 120

PAGE 134

Appendix B Continued 121

PAGE 135

Appendix B Continued 122

PAGE 136

Appendix B Continued 123

PAGE 137

Appendix B Continued 124

PAGE 138

Appendix B Continued 125

PAGE 139

Appendix B Continued 126

PAGE 140

Appendix B Continued 127

PAGE 141

Appendix C 128 Quality of Effort Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcomes Quality of Effort Scales Individual Questions that Meas ure the LO LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development Develop meaningful collaborations and interactions with peers and faculty; develop a sense of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a balance between technological and social interactions; practice community responsibility LIB Library o 3 COMPUT Computer and Information Technology o 2, 4 COURSE Course Learning o 7, 10 WRITE Writing Experiences o 6 FAC Experiences with Faculty o 1 4, 6 8, 10 AMT Art, Music, Theater o 1, 2, 4 FACIL Campus Facilities o 2, 3, 7 CLUBS Clubs and Organizations o 1, 2, 4, 5 PERS Personal Experiences o 2, 8 STACQ Student Acquaintances o 1 10 CONTPS Topics of Conversation o 1 10 CONINF Information in Conversations o 5,6 LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy Increase levels of personal responsibility; explore values and beliefs; make ethical choices; realize personal impact on others; strengthen life skills; develop a sense of purpose QE 1 Library o 8 QE 3 Course Learning o 5, 8 QE 5 Experiences with Faculty o 5, 9 QE 8 Clubs and Organizations o 1 5 QE 9 Personal Experiences o 1 4, 6 8 QE 10 Student Acquaintances o 6 10 QE 12 Topics of Conversation o 1, 2, 8, 10 QE 13 Information in Conversations o 5, 6 LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectua l Competence Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active reading; engage in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increase exposure to intellectual, scientific, and a rtistic work; increase technological skills QE 1 Library o 1, 3 8 QE 2 Computer and Information Technology o 1 3 8 QE 3 Course Learning o 1 3, 5 8, 10 QE 4 Writing Experiences o 1, 4 QE 5 Experiences with Faculty o 4,10 QE 6 Art, Music, Theater o 1 7 QE 7 Campus Facilities o 5 8 QE 11 Scientific and Quantitative Experiences o 1 10 QE 13 Information in Conversations o 1 4 Appendix C : Table 11 Quality of Effort Scales Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (pg 1 of 2)

PAGE 142

Appendix C Continued 129 Quality of Effort Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcomes Quality of Effort Scales Individual Questions that Meas ure the LO LO4: Engage in C ivic and Campus Life Learn to navigate the University (services & departments, policies & procedures); use curricular and co curricular resources; enhance communication skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities LIB Library o 1 3 WRITE Writing Experiences o 6 FAC Experiences with Faculty o 2, 4, 10 FACIL Campus Facilities o 1 8 CLUBS Clubs and Organizations o 1 5 LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc. STACQ Student Acquaintances o 1 10 CONTPS Topics of Conversations o 1, 2 10 CONINF I nformation in Conversations o 5, 6 LO6: Explore Academi c & Career Opportunities Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies COURSE Course Learning o 8 FAC Experiences with Faculty o 2, 4 PERS Personal Learning o 4, 6 LO7: I ncrease Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health, nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental health, coping mechanisms, advocacy, campus safety, personal s afety, spirituality, and relationship dynamics FAC Campus Facilities o 6 8 PERS Personal Learning o 1 4, 6, 8 Appendix C Table 11 Quality of Effort Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (pg 2 of 2)

PAGE 143

Appendix D 130 Estimate of Gains Questions that Me asure Each Residential Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcomes Estimate of Gains Scales Individual Questions that Measure the LO LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development Develop meaningful collaborations and interactions with peers and faculty; deve lop a sense of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a balance between technological and social interactions; practice community responsibility EOG A Personal/Social Development o GNOTHERS GNTEAM LO2: Develop Pe rsonal Identity and Philosophy Increase levels of personal responsibility; explore values and beliefs; make ethical choices; realize personal impact on others; strengthen life skills; develop a sense of purpose EOG A Personal/Social Development o GNVALUES GNSELF LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active reading; engage in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increase e xposure to intellectual, scientific, and artistic work; increase technological skills EOG A Personal/Social Development o GNGENLED EOG B Science & Technology o GNARTS LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life Learn to navigate the University (services & depart ments, policies & procedures); use curricular and co curricular resources; enhance communication skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities EOG A Personal/Social Development o GNTEAM EOG F Intellectual Skills o GNSPEAK LO5: De velop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc. EOG A Personal/Social Developme nt o GNOTHERS EOG C General Education o GNWORLD GNPHILS LO6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies EOG D Vocational Prepar ation o GNVOC GNCAREER LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health, nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental health, coping mechanisms, advoc acy, campus safety, personal safety, spirituality, and relationship dynamics EOG F Intellectual Skills o GNHEALTH Appendix D Table 12 Estimate of Gains Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (pg 1 of 1)

PAGE 144

Appendix E 131 Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcome s College Student Experiences Questionnaire Selected Questions Section Code LO Measured Used the library as a quiet place to read or study material you brought with you. QE LIB 1 3, 4 Asked a librarian or staff membe r for help in finding information on some topic. QE LIB 3 1, 3, 4 Read assigned materials other than textbooks in the library (reserve readings, etc) QE LIB 4 3 Used an index or database (computer, card catalog, etc) to fin material on some topic QE LIB 5 3 Developed a bibliography or reference list for a term paper or other report QE LIB 6 3 Gone back to read a basic reference or document that other others referred to QE LIB 7 3 Made a judgment about the quality of information obtained from the libra ry. World Wide Web or other sources QE LIB 8 2, 3 Used a computer or word processor to prepare reports or papers QE COMPUT 1 3 Used e mail to communicate with an instructor or other students QE COMPUT 2 1 Used a computer tutorial to learn material for a course or developmental/material program QE COMPUT 3 3 Participated in class discussions using an electronic medium (e mail, list serve, chat group, etc) QE COMPUT 4 1 3 Searched the World Wide Web or internet for information related to a course QE COM PUT 5 3 Used a computer to retrieve materials from a library not at this institution QE COMPUT 6 3 Used a computer to produce visual displays of information (charts, graphs, spreadsheets, et) QE COMPUT 7 3 Used a computer to analyze data (statistics, fo recasting, etc) QE COMPUT 8 3 Completed the assigned readings for class QE COURSE 1 3 Took detailed notes during class QE COURSE 2 3 Contributed to class discussions QE COURSE 3 3 Tried to see how different facts and ideas fit together QE COURSE 5 2, 3 Summarized major points and information from your class noted or readings QE COURSE 6 3 Worked on a class assignment, project or presentation with other students QE COURSE 7 1, 3 Applied material learned in a class to other areas (your job or internshi p, other courses, relationships with friends, family, co workers, etc) QE COURSE 8 2, 3, 6 Tried to explain material from a course to someone else (another student, friend, co worker, family member) QE COURSE 10 1 3 Used a dictionary or thesaurus to loo k up the proper meaning of words QE WRITE 1 3 Appendix E Table 13 Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcomes (pg 1 of 5)

PAGE 145

Appendix E Continued 132 Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcome s College Student Experiences Questionnaire Selected Questions Section Code LO Measured Referred to a book or manual about writing style, grammar, etc QE WRITE 4 3 Asked an instructor or staff member for advice and help to improve your writing QE WRITE 6 1, 4 Talked with your instructor about information related to a course you were taking (grades, make up work, assignments, etc) QE FAC 1 1 Discussed your academic program or course selection with a faculty member QE FAC 2 1, 4, 6 Discussed ideas for a term paper or other class project with a faculty member QE FAC 3 1 Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member QE FAC 4 1, 3, 4, 6 Worked harder as a result of feedback fro m an instructor QE FAC 5 2 Socialized with a faculty member outside of class (had a snack or soft drink, etc) QE FAC 6 1 Participated with other students in a discussion with one or more faculty members outside of class QE FAC 7 1 Asked your instructor for comments and criticisms about your academic performance QE FAC 8 1 Worked harder than your thought you could to meet an QE FAC 9 2 Worked with a faculty member on a research project QE FAC 10 1, 3, 4 Talked ab out art (painting, sculpture, artists, etc) or the theater (plays, musicals, dance, etc) with other students, friends or family members QE AMT 1 1 3 Went to an art exhibit/gallery or a play, dance. Or other theater performance on or off the campus QE AMT 2 1 3 Participated in some art activity (painting, pottery, weaving, drawing, etc)or theater event or worked on some theatrical production (acted, danced, worked on scenery, etc) on or off the campus QE AMT 3 3 Talked about music or musicians (classica l, popular, etc) with other students, friends, or family members QE AMT 4 1 3 Attended a concert or other music event on or off the campus QE AMT 5 3 Participated in some music activity (orchestra, chorus, dance, etc) on or off the campus QE AMT 6 3 Re ad or discussed the opinions of art, music or drama critics QE AMT 7 3 Used a campus lounge to relax or study by yourself QE FACIL 1 4 Met other students at some campus location (campus center, etc) for a discussion QE FACIL 2 1, 4 Appendix E Table 13 Q uestions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcomes (pg 2 of 5)

PAGE 146

Appendix E Continued 133 Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcome s College Student Experiences Questionnaire Selected Questions Section Code LO Measured Attended a cultural or social event in the campus center or other campus location QE FACIL 3 1, 4 Went to a lecture or panel discussion QE FACIL 4 4 Used a campus learning lab or center to improve study or academic skills (reading, writing, etc) QE FACIL 5 3, 4 Used campus recreation facilities (pool, fitness equipment, courts, etc) QE FACIL 6 4, 7 Played a team sport (intramural, club, intercollegiate) QE FACIL 7 1, 4, 7 Followed a regular schedule of exercise or practice for some recreational sporting activity QE FACIL 8 3, 4, 7 Attended a meeting of a campus club, organization or student government group QE CLUBS 1 1, 2, 4 Worked on a campus committee, student organiz ation, or project (publications, student government, special event, etc) QE CLUBS 2 1, 2, 4 Worked on an off campus committee, organization, or project (civic group, church group, community event, etc) QE CLUBS 3 2, 4 Met with faculty member or staff adv isor to discuss the activities of a group or organization QE CLUBS 4 1, 2, 4 Managed or provided leadership for a club or organization, on or off the campus QE CLUBS 5 1, 2, 4 Told a friend of family member why you reacted to another person the way you d id QE PERS 1 2, 7 Discussed with another student, friend or family member why some people get along smoothly and other do not QE PERS 2 1, 2, 7 Asked a friend for help with a personal problem QE PERS 3 2, 7 Read articles or books about personal growth, self improvement, or social development QE PERS 4 2, 6, 7 Taken a test to measure your abilities, interests or attitudes QE PERS 6 2, 6, 7 Asked a friend to tell you what he or she really thought about you QE PERS 7 2 Talked with a faculty member, couns elor or other staff member about personal concerns QE PERS 8 1, 2, 7 Became acquainted with students whose interests were different from yours QE STACQ 1 1, 5 Became acquainted with students whose family background (economic, social) was different from y ours QE STACQ 2 1, 5 Became acquainted with students whose age was different from yours QE STACQ 3 1, 5 Became acquainted with students whose race or ethnic background was different from yours QE STACQ 4 1, 5 Became acquainted with students from another country QE STACQ 5 1, 5 Appendix E Table 13 Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcomes (pg 3 of 5)

PAGE 147

Appendix E Continued 134 Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcome s College Student Experiences Questionnaire Selected Questions Section Code LO Measured Had serious discussions with students whose philosophy of life or personal values were very different from your QE STACQ 6 1, 2 5 Had serious discussions with students whose political opinions were very different from yours QE STACQ 7 1, 2, 5 Had serious discussions with students whose religious beliefs were very different from yours QE STACQ 8 1, 2, 5 Had serious discussions with students whose race or ethnic background was very different from yours QE STACQ 9 1, 2, 5 Had serious discussions with students from a country different than yours QE STACQ 10 1, 2, 5 Memorized formulas, definitions, technical terms and concepts QE SCI 1 3 Used mathematical terms to express a set of relationships QE SCI 2 3 Explained your understanding of some scientific or mathematical theory, principle or concept to someone else (classmate, co worker) QE SCI 3 3 Read articles about scientific or mathematical theories or concepts In addition to those assigned for a class QE SCI 4 3 Completed an experiment or project using scientific methods QE SCI 5 3 Practiced to improve your skill in using a piece of laboratory equipment QE SCI 6 3 Showed som eone else how to use a piece of scientific equipment QE SCI 7 3 Explained an experimental procedure to someone else QE SCI 8 3 Compared the scientific method with other methods for gaining knowledge and understanding QE SCI 9 3 Explained to another pers on the scientific basis for concerns about scientific or environmental issues (pollution, recycling, alternative sources of energy, acid rain) or similar aspects of the world around you QE SCI 10 3 Current events in the news QE CONTPS 1 1, 2, 5 Social is sues such as peac3, justice, human rights, equality, race relations QE CONTPS 2 1, 2, 5 Different lifestyles, customs, and religions QE CONTPS 3 1 The ideas and views of other people such as writers, philosophers, historians QE CONTPS 4 1 The arts (pain tings, poetry, dance, theatrical production, symphony, movies, etc) QE CONTPS 5 1 Science (theories, experiments, methods, etc) QE CONTPS 6 1 Computers and other technologies QE CONTPS 7 1 Social and ethical issues related to science and technology such as energy, pollution, chemicals, genetics, military use QE CONTPS 8 1, 2 Appendix E Table 13 Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcomes (pg 4 of 5)

PAGE 148

Appendix E Continued 135 Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcome s College Student Experiences Questionnaire Selected Questions Section Code LO Measured The economy (employment, wealthy, poverty, debt, trade, etc) QE CONTPS 9 1 In ternational relations (human rights, free trade, military activities, political differences, etc) QE CONTPS 10 1, 2, 5 Referred to knowledge you acquired in your reading or classes QE CONINF 1 3 Explored different ways of thinking about the topic QE CON INF 2 3 Referred to something one of your instructions said about the topic QE CONINF 3 3 Subsequently read something that was related to the topic QE CONINF 4 3 Changed your opinion as a result of the knowledge or arguments presented by others QE CONI NF 5 1, 2, 5 Persuaded others to change their minds as a result of the knowledge or arguments your cited QE CONINF 6 1, 2, 5 Acquiring knowledge and skills applicable to a specific job or type of work (vocational preparation) EOG VOC 1 6 Gaining a broad general education about different fields of knowledge EOG GENLED 3 3 Gaining a range of information that may be relevant to a career EOG CAREER 4 6 Developing an understanding and enjoyment of art, music and drama EOG ARTS 5 3 Gaining knowledge about o ther parts of the world and other people (Asia, Africa, South America, etc) EOG WORLD 8 5 Presenting ideas and information effectively when speaking to others EOG SPEAK 10 4 Becoming aware of different philosophies, cultures and ways of life EOG PHILS 12 5 Developing your own values and ethical standards EOG VALUES 13 2 Understanding yourself, your abilities, interests and personality EOG SELF 14 2 Developing the ability to get along with different kinds of people EOG OTHERS 15 1, 5 Developing the ab ility to function as a member of a team EOG TEAM 16 1, 4 Developing good health habits and physical fitness EOG HEALTH 17 7 Appendix E Table 13 Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcomes (pg 5 of 5)

PAGE 149

Appendix F 136 Questions that Measure Eac h Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development Develop meaningful collaborations and interactions with peers and faculty; develop a se nse of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a balance between technological and social interactions; practice community responsibility LIB3 Asked a librarian or staff member for help in finding information on som e topic. COMPUT2 Used e mail to communicate with an instructor or other students COMPUT4 Participated in class discussions using an electronic medium (e mail, list serve, chat group, etc) COURSE7 Worked on a class assignment, project or presentation wit h other students COURSE10 Tried to explain material from a course to someone else (another student, friend, co worker, family member) WRITE6 Asked an instructor or staff member for advice and help to improve your writing FAC1 Talked with your instructor about information related to a course you were taking (grades, make up work, assignments, etc) FAC2 Discussed your academic program or course selection with a faculty member FAC3 Discussed ideas for a term paper or other class project with a faculty mem ber FAC4 Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member FAC6 Socialized with a faculty member outside of class (had a snack or soft drink, etc) FAC7 Participated with other students in a discussion with one or more faculty members outsi de of class FAC8 Asked your instructor for comments and criticisms about your academic performance FAC10 Worked with a faculty member on a research project AMT1 Talked about art (painting, sculpture, artists, etc) or the theater (plays, musicals, dance, etc) with other students, friends or family members AMT2 Went to an art exhibit/gallery or a play, dance. Or other theater performance on or off the campus AMT4 Talked about music or musicians (classical, popular, etc) with other students, friends, or f amily members FACIL2 Met other students at some campus location (campus center, etc) for a discussion FACIL3 Attended a cultural or social event in the campus center or other campus location FACIL7 Played a team sport (intramural, club, intercollegiate) CLUBS1 Attended a meeting of a campus club, organization or student government group CLUBS2 Worked on a campus committee, student organization, or project (publications, student government, special event, etc) CLUBS4 Met with faculty member or staff ad visor to discuss the activities of a group or organization CLUBS5 Managed or provided leadership for a club or organization, on or off the campus PERS2 Discussed with another student, friend or family member why some people get along smoothly and other d o not Appendix F Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (sorted by Learning Outcome) (pg 1 of 8 )

PAGE 150

Appendix F Continued 137 Questions that Measure Eac h Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text PERS8 Talked with a faculty member, counselor or other staff member about personal concerns STACQ1 Became acquainted with students whose i nterests were different from yours STACQ2 Became acquainted with students whose family background (economic, social) was different from yours STACQ3 Became acquainted with students whose age was different from yours STACQ4 Became acquainted with student s whose race or ethnic background was different from yours STACQ5 Became acquainted with students from another country STACQ6 Had serious discussions with students whose philosophy of life or personal values were very different from your STACQ7 Had seri ous discussions with students whose political opinions were very different from yours STACQ8 Had serious discussions with students whose religious beliefs were very different from yours STACQ9 Had serious discussions with students whose race or ethnic ba ckground was very different from yours STACQ10 Had serious discussions with students from a country different than yours CONTPS1 Current events in the news CONTPS2 Social issues such as peach, justice, human rights, equality, race relations CONTPS3 Dif ferent lifestyles, customs, and religions CONTPS4 The ideas and views of other people such as writers, philosophers, historians CONTPS5 The arts (paintings, poetry, dance, theatrical production, symphony, movies, etc) CONTPS6 Science (theories, experime nts, methods, etc) CONTPS7 Computers and other technologies CONTPS8 Social and ethical issues related to science and technology such as energy, pollution, chemicals, genetics, military use CONTPS9 The economy (employment, wealthy, poverty, debt, trade, etc) CONTPS10 International relations (human rights, free trade, military activities, political differences, etc) CONINF5 Changed your opinion as a result of the knowledge or arguments presented by others CONINF6 Persuaded others to change their minds a s a result of the knowledge or arguments your cited GNOTHERS Developing the ability to get along with different kinds of people GNTEAM Developing the ability to function as a member of a team LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy Increase level s of personal responsibility; explore values and beliefs; make ethical choices; realize personal impact on others; strengthen life skills; develop a sense of purpose LIB8 Made a judgment about the quality of information obtained from the library, World Wi de Web, or other sources. Appendix F Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (sorted by Learning Outcome) (pg 2 of 8 )

PAGE 151

Appendix F Continued 138 Questions that Measure Eac h Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text COURSE5 Tried to see how different facts and ideas fit together. COURSE8 Applied material learned in a class to other areas (your job, internship, interactions with others), in class discussions or assignments. FAC5 Worked harder as a result of feedback from an instructor FAC9 standards CLUBS1 Attended a meeting of a campus club, organization or student government group CLUBS2 Worked on a campus committee, student organization, or project (publications, student government, special event, etc) CLUBS3 Worked on an off campus committee, or ganization, or project (civic group, church group, community event, etc) CLUBS4 Met with faculty member or staff advisor to discuss the activities of a group or organization CLUBS5 Managed or provided leadership for a club or organization, on or off the campus PERS1 Told a friend of family member why you reacted to another person the way you did PERS2 Discussed with another student, friend or family member why some people get along smoothly and other do not PERS3 Asked a friend for help with a personal problem PERS4 Read articles or books about personal growth, self improvement, or social development PERS6 Taken a test to measure your abilities, interests or attitudes PERS7 Asked A friend to tell you what he or she really thought about you PERS8 Tal ked with a faculty member about personal concerns STACQ6 Had serious discussions with students whose philosophy of life or personal values were very different from your STACQ7 Had serious discussions with students whose political opinions were very diffe rent from yours STACQ8 Had serious discussions with students whose religious beliefs were very different from yours STACQ9 Had serious discussions with students whose race or ethnic background was very different from yours STACQ10 Had serious discussion s with students from a country different than yours CONTPS1 Current events in the news CONTPS2 Social issues such as peach, justice, human rights, equality, race relations CONTPS8 Social and ethical issues related to science and technology such as energ y, pollution, chemicals, genetics, military use CONTPS10 International relations (human rights, free trade, military activities, political differences, etc) CONINF5 Changed your opinion as a result of the knowledge or arguments presented by others Appen dix F Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (sorted by Learning Outcome) (pg 3 of 8 )

PAGE 152

Appendix F Continued 139 Questions that Measure Eac h Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text CONINF6 Persuaded others to change their minds as a result of the knowledge or arguments your cited GNVALUES Developing your own values and ethical st andards GNSELF Understanding yourself, your abilities, interests and personality LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active reading; engage in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increase exposure to intellectual, scientific, and artistic work; increase technological skills LIB1 Used the library as a quiet place to read or study material you brought with you. LIB3 Ask ed a librarian or staff member for help in finding information on some topic. LIB4 Read assigned materials other than textbooks in the library (reserve readings, etc) LIB5 Used an index or database (computer, card catalog, etc) to fin material on some to pic LIB6 Developed a bibliography or reference list for a term paper or other report LIB7 Gone back to read a basic reference or document that other others referred to LIB8 Made a judgment about the quality of information obtained from the library. Wor ld Wide Web or other sources COMPUT1 Used a computer or word processor to prepare reports or papers COMPUT3 Used a computer tutorial to learn material for a course or developmental/material program COMPUT4 Participated in class discussions using an elec tronic medium (e mail, list serve, chat group, etc) COMPUT5 Searched the World Wide Web or internet for information related to a course COMPUT6 Used a computer to retrieve materials from a library not at this institution COMPUT7 Used a computer to produ ce visual displays of information (charts, graphs, spreadsheets, et) COMPUT8 Used a computer to analyze data (statistics, forecasting, etc) COURSE1 Completed the assigned readings for class COURSE2 Took detailed notes during class COURSE3 Contributed t o class discussions COURSE5 Tried to see how different facts and ideas fit together COURSE6 Summarized major points and information from your class noted or readings COURSE7 Worked on a class assignment, project or presentation with other students COUR SE8 Applied material learned in a class to other areas (your job or internship, other courses, relationships with friends, family, co workers, etc) COURSE10 Tried to explain material from a course to someone else (another student, friend, co worker, famil y member) WRITE1 Used a dictionary or thesaurus to look up the proper meaning of words Appendix F Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (sorted by Learning Outcome) (pg 4 of 8 )

PAGE 153

Appendix F Continued 140 Questions that Measure Eac h Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text WRITE4 Referred to a book or manual about writing style, grammar, etc FAC4 Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member FAC10 Worked with a faculty member on a research project AMT1 Talked about art (painting, sculpture, artists, etc) or the theater (plays, musicals, dance, etc) with other students, friends or family members AMT2 Went to an art exhibit/gallery or a play, dance. Or other theater performance on or off the campus AMT3 Participated in some art activity (painting, pottery, weaving, drawing, etc)or theater event or worked on som e theatrical production (acted, danced, worked on scenery, etc) on or off the campus AMT4 Talked about music or musicians (classical, popular, etc) with other students, friends, or family members AMT5 Attended a concert or other music event on or off the campus AMT6 Participated in some music activity (orchestra, chorus, dance, etc) on or off the campus AMT7 Read or discussed the opinions of art, music or drama critics FACIL5 Used a campus learning lab or center to improve study or academic skills (rea ding, writing, etc.) FACIL8 Followed a regular schedule of exercise or practice for some recreational sporting activity SCI1 Memorized formulas, definitions, technical terms and concepts SCI2 Used mathematical terms to express a set of relationships SC I3 Explained your understanding of some scientific or mathematical theory, principle or concept to someone else (classmate, co worker) SCI4 Read articles about scientific or mathematical theories or concepts In addition to those assigned for a class SCI5 Completed an experiment or project using scientific methods SCI6 Practiced to improve your skill in using a piece of laboratory equipment SCI7 Showed someone else how to use a piece of scientific equipment SCI8 Explained an experimental procedure to so meone else SCI9 Compared the scientific method with other methods for gaining knowledge and understanding SCI10 Explained to another person the scientific basis for concerns about scientific or environmental issues (pollution, recycling, alternative sour ces of energy, acid rain) or similar aspects of the world around you CONINF1 Referred to knowledge you acquired in your reading or classes CONINF2 Explored different ways of thinking about the topic CONINF3 Referred to something one of your instruction s said about the topic CONINF4 Subsequently read something that was related to the topic GNGENLED Developing an understanding and enjoyment of art, music and drama Appendix F Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (sorted by Learning Outcome) (pg 5 of 8 )

PAGE 154

Appendix F Continued 141 Questions that Measure Eac h Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text GNARTS Gaining a broad general education about different fields of knowledge LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life Learn to navigate the University (services & departments, policies & procedures); use curricular and co curricular reso urces; enhance communication skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities LIB1 Used the library as a quiet place to read or study material you brought with you. LIB3 Asked a librarian or staff member for help in finding informa tion on some topic. WRITE6 Asked an instructor or staff member for advice and help to improve your writing FAC2 Discussed your academic program or course selection with a faculty member FAC4 Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty membe r FAC10 Worked with a faculty member on a research project FACIL1 Used a campus lounge to relax or study by yourself FACIL2 Met other students at some campus location (campus center, etc) for a discussion FACIL3 Attended a cultural or social event in t he campus center or other campus location FACIL4 Went to a lecture or panel discussion FACIL5 Used a campus learning lab or center to improve study or academic skills (reading, writing, etc) FACIL6 Used campus recreation facilities (pool, fitness equipm ent, courts, etc) FACIL7 Played a team sport (intramural, club, intercollegiate) FACIL8 Followed a regular schedule of exercise or practice for some recreational sporting activity CLUBS1 Attended a meeting of a campus club, organization or student gover nment group CLUBS2 Worked on a campus committee, student organization, or project (publications, student government, special event, etc) CLUBS3 Worked on an off campus committee, organization, or project (civic group, church group, community event, etc) CLUBS4 Met with faculty member or staff advisor to discuss the activities of a group or organization CLUBS5 Managed or provided leadership for a club or organization, on or off the campus GNSPEAK Presenting ideas and information effectively when speakin g to others GNTEAM Developing the ability to function as a member of a team LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc. STACQ1 Became acquainted with students whose interests were different from yours STACQ2 Became acquainted with students whose family background (economic, social) was different from yours STACQ3 Became acquainted with students whose age was different from yours Appendix F Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (sorted by Learning Outcome) (pg 6 of 8 )

PAGE 155

Appendix F Continued 142 Questions that Measure Eac h Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text STACQ4 Became acquainted with students whose race or ethnic background was different from yours STACQ5 Became acquainted with students from another country STACQ6 Had serious discussions with students whose philosophy of life or personal values were very different from your STACQ7 Had serious discussions with students whose political o pinions were very different from yours STACQ8 Had serious discussions with students whose religious beliefs were very different from yours STACQ9 Had serious discussions with students whose race or ethnic background was very different from yours STACQ10 Had serious discussions with students from a country different than yours CONTPS1 Current events in the news CONTPS2 Social issues such as peace, justice, human rights, equality, race relations CONTPS10 International relations (human rights, free trade military activities, political differences, etc) CONINF5 Changed your opinion as a result of the knowledge or arguments presented by others CONINF6 Persuaded others to change their minds as a result of the knowledge or arguments your cited GNWORLD Gai ning knowledge about other parts of the world and other people (Asia, Africa, South America, etc) GNPHILS Becoming aware of different philosophies, cultures and ways of life GNOTHERS Developing the ability to get along with different kinds of people LO 6: Explore Academic & Career Opportunities Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies COURSE8 Applied material learned in a class to other areas (your job or internship other courses, relationships with friends, family, co workers, etc) FAC2 Discussed your academic program or course selection with a faculty member FAC4 Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member PERS4 Read articles or books about personal growth, self improvement, or social development PERS6 Taken a test to measure your abilities, interests or attitudes GNVOC Acquiring knowledge and skills applicable to a specific job or type of work (vocational preparation) GNCAREER Gaining a r ange of information that may be relevant to a career LO7: Increase Knowledge of Health, Wellness, & Safety Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health, nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental he alth, coping mechanisms, advocacy, campus safety, personal safety, spirituality, and relationship dynamics FACIL6 Used campus recreation facilities (pool, fitness equipment, courts, etc) Appendix F Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (sorted by Learning Outcome) (pg 7 of 8 )

PAGE 156

Appendix F Continued 143 Questions that Measure Eac h Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text FACIL7 Played a team sport (intramural, club, intercollegiate) FACIL8 Followed a regular schedule of exercise or practice for some recreational sporting activity PERS1 Told a friend of family member why you reac ted to another person the way you did PERS2 Discussed with another student, friend or family member why some people get along smoothly and other do not PERS3 Asked a friend for help with a personal problem PERS4 Read articles or books about personal gro wth, self improvement, or social development PERS6 Taken a test to measure your abilities, interests or attitudes PERS8 Talked with a faculty member, counselor or other staff member about personal concerns GNHEALTH Developing good health habits and phys ical fitness Appendix F Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome (so rted by Learning Outcome) (pg 8of 8 )

PAGE 157

Appendix G 144 ADJUSTED Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcomes College Student Experiences Questionnaire Select ed Questions Section Code LO Measured Applied material learned in a class to other areas (your job or internship, other courses, relationships with friends, family, co workers, etc) QE COURSE 8 2 Discussed your academic program or course selection with a faculty member QE FAC 2 6 Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member QE FAC 4 3, 6 Talked about music or musicians (classical, popular, etc) with other students, friends, or family members QE AMT 4 3 6 Used a campus lounge to rela x or study by yourself QE FACIL 1 4 Met other students at some campus location (campus center, etc) for a discussion QE FACIL 2 1, 4 Attended a cultural or social event in the campus center or other campus location QE FACIL 3 1 Used a campus learning la b or center to improve study or academic skills (reading, writing, etc) QE FACIL 5 3 Used campus recreation facilities (pool, fitness equipment, courts, etc) QE FACIL 6 7 Played a team sport (intramural, club, intercollegiate) QE FACIL 7 7 Followed a r egular schedule of exercise or practice for some recreational sporting activity QE FACIL 8 3, 7 Attended a meeting of a campus club, organization or student government group QE CLUBS 1 1, 2, 4 6 Worked on a campus committee, student organization, or pro ject (publications, student government, special event, etc) QE CLUBS 2 2, 4 Met with faculty member or staff advisor to discuss the activities of a group or organization QE CLUBS 4 4 Managed or provided leadership for a club or organization, on or off t he campus QE CLUBS 5 4 Told a friend of family member why you reacted to another person the way you did QE PERS 1 7 Asked a friend for help with a personal problem QE PERS 3 7 Read articles or books about personal growth, self improvement, or social dev elopment QE PERS 4 2, 6 Talked with a faculty member, counselor or other staff member about personal concerns QE PERS 8 7 Became acquainted with students whose interests were different from yours QE STACQ 1 1, 5 Became acquainted with students whose fam ily background (economic, social) was different from yours QE STACQ 2 5 Became acquainted with students whose race or ethnic background was different from yours QE STACQ 4 5 Appendix G Table 13 ADJUSTED Questions from the CSEQ (pg 1 of 2)

PAGE 158

Appendi x G Continued 145 ADJUSTED Questions from the CSEQ Used to Measure Residential Learning Outcomes College Student Experiences Questionnaire Select ed Questions Section Code LO Measured Had serious d iscussions with students whose philosophy of life or personal values were very different from your QE STACQ 6 5 Gaining a broad general education about different fields of knowledge EOG GENLED 3 3 Gaining a range of information that may be relevant to a career EOG CAREER 4 6 Gaining knowledge about other parts of the world and other people (Asia, Africa, South America, etc) EOG WORLD 8 5 Understanding yourself, your abilities, interests and personality EOG SELF 14 2 Developing the ability to get along with different kinds of people EOG OTHERS 15 1 Developing the ability to function as a member of a team EOG TEAM 16 4 Developing good health habits and physical fitness EOG HEALTH 17 7 Appendix G Table 13 ADJUSTED Questions from the CSEQ (pg 2 of 2)

PAGE 159

Appendix H 146 ADJUSTED Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text LO1: Enhance Interpersonal Development Develop meaningful collaborations and interacti ons with peers and faculty; develop a sense of belonging; engage in positive relationships; learn conflict management; develop a balance between technological and social interactions; practice community responsibility FACIL2 Met other students at some cam pus location (campus center, etc) for a discussion FACIL3 Attended a cultural or social event in the campus center or other campus location CLUBS1 Attended a meeting of a campus club, organization or student government group STACQ1 Became acquainted wit h students whose interests were different from yours GNOTHERS Developing the ability to get along with different kinds of people LO2: Develop Personal Identity and Philosophy Increase levels of personal responsibility; explore values and beliefs; make e thical choices; realize personal impact on others; strengthen life skills; develop a sense of purpose COURSE8 Applied material learned in a class to other areas (your job, internship, interactions with others), in class discussions or assignments. CLUBS1 Attended a meeting of a campus club, organization or student government group CLUBS2 Worked on a campus committee, student organization, or project (publications, student government, special event, etc) PERS4 Read articles or books about personal growth self improvement, or social development GNSELF Understanding yourself, your abilities, interests and personality LO3: Achieve Greater Intellectual Competence Develop skills for problem solving, time management, effective study habits, note taking, and active reading; engage in academic advising; uphold academic integrity; develop research skills; increase exposure to intellectual, scientific, and artistic work; increase technological skills FAC4 Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member AMT4 Talked about music or musicians (classical, popular, etc) with other students, friends, or family members FACIL5 Used a campus learning lab or center to improve study or academic skills (reading, writing, etc.) FACIL8 Followed a regular sche dule of exercise or practice for some recreational sporting activity GNGENLED Developing an understanding and enjoyment of art, music and drama LO4: Engage in Civic and Campus Life Learn to navigate the University (services & departments, policies & proc edures); use curricular and co curricular resources; enhance communication skills; develop leadership skills; recognize community responsibilities FACIL2 Met other students at some campus location (campus center, etc) for a discussion CLUBS1 Attended a m eeting of a campus club, organization or student government group CLUBS2 Worked on a campus committee, student organization, or project (publications, student government, special event, etc) Appendix H ADJUSTED Questions S orted by Learning Outcome (p g 1of 2 )

PAGE 160

Appendix H Continued 147 ADJUSTED Questions that Measure Each Residential Learning Outcome Sorted by Learning Outcome Residential Learning Outcome Question Number Question Text CLUBS4 Met with faculty member or staff advisor to discuss the activities of a group or organization CLUBS5 Managed or provided leadership for a club or organization, on or off the campus GNTEAM Developing the ability to function as a member of a team LO5: Develop Understanding of Human Diversity and Increase Cultural Competence Develop a respect and tolerance for, and acceptance of, those from a different race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, background, etc. STACQ1 Became ac quainted with students whose interests were different from yours STACQ2 Became acquainted with students whose family background (economic, social) was different from yours STACQ4 Became acquainted with students whose race or ethnic background was differe nt from yours STACQ6 Had serious discussions with students whose philosophy of life or personal values were very different from your GNWORLD Gaining knowledge about other parts of the world and other people (Asia, Africa, South America, etc) LO6: Explor e Academic & Career Opportunities Explore and declare a major by 30 hours; engage in academic programs and organizations; develop job seeking tools and strategies FAC2 Discussed your academic program or course selection with a faculty member FAC4 Discus sed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member PERS4 Read articles or books about personal growth, self improvement, or social development GNCAREER Gaining a range of information that may be relevant to a career LO7: Increase Knowledge of Hea lth, Wellness, & Safety Develop knowledge of, and engage in positive behaviors regarding, alcohol & drug issues, sexual health, nutrition, sleep habits, exercise, mental health, coping mechanisms, advocacy, campus safety, personal safety, spirituality, and relationship dynamics FACIL6 Used campus recreation facilities (pool, fitness equipment, courts, etc) FACIL7 Played a team sport (intramural, club, intercollegiate) FACIL8 Followed a regular schedule of exercise or practice for some recreational sporti ng activity PERS1 Told a friend of family member why you reacted to another person the way you did PERS3 Asked a friend for help with a personal problem PERS8 Talked with a faculty member, counselor or other staff member about personal concerns GNHEALT H Developing good health habits and physical fitness Appendix H ADJUSTED Questions S orted by Learning Outcome (pg 2 of 2 )

PAGE 161

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Cari Murphy has well over a decade of progressive professional experience in student a ffairs administratio n at two different religiously affiliated institutions. In addition Cari also served as a teaching assistant working with the College Student Affairs program at the University of South Florida. Cari received a Master of Arts in Leadership Studies from L ewis University and a Bachelor of Science majoring in Biology and Chemistry also from Lewis University.