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-SFE0004540
Off-campus work and its relationship to student's experiences with faculty using the college student experiences questionnaire
h [electronic resource] /
by Cathy Hakes.
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
Dissertation (EDD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
ABSTRACT: Statistics on college students working have shown an increase as students cope with rising costs of education, decreasing financial aid, greater personal financial commitments, and the expectation that students should contribute to the cost of their own education. These facts combined with the students' need to secure employment upon graduation contribute to why they must work while attending college Whereas working may provide a means to address students' financial and employment concerns, it also limits the amount of time students have to interact with faculty outside of class. This form of student engagement enables students to become more comfortable with their academic environment and enhances their sense of belonging which contributes to their persistence. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the number of hours students worked off-campus and the frequency of their experiences with faculty as measured by the College Student Experiences Questionnaire 4th edition. Examples of students' interactions with faculty included actions such as talking with your instructor about your course grades and assignments; discussing career plans; socializing outside of class; asking for comments on academic performance; and working with a faculty member on a research project. The study also examined the relationship between work and gender and between work and class standing. v In examining the relationship between hours worked and the ten experiences with faculty, the research revealed those who worked 1-20 hours weekly participated in significantly more discussions outside of class with other students and faculty than students who did not work. Further, the researcher found a greater proportion of seniors worked compared to juniors but found no significant relationship between hours worked and gender. These findings resulted in several recommendations for future research which include studying the relationship between student engagement and variables such as: the nature of the students' work; students' time constraints and the students' academic major. Examining these may yield insights into the relationship work may have with other aspects of student engagement.
Advisor: Thomas E. Miller, Ed.D.
x Adult, Career & Higher Ed
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Off-Campus Work and Its Relationship to StudentsÂ’ Experiences with Faculty Using the College Student Experiences Questionnaire by Cathy J. Hakes A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Adult, Car eer and Higher Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas E. Miller, Ed.D. Donald A. Dellow, Ed.D. W. Robert Sullins, Ed.D. William H. Young, Ed.D. Date of Approval: June 15, 2010 Key Words: Engagement, Persis tence, Student Employment, Student-Faculty Interaction, Student Success Copyright 2010, Cathy J. Hakes
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout my professional career I have been ble ssed with many outstanding colleagues who have also become my good frie nds. So many of them have supported and cheered me on as I have continued on this long endeavor and I wish I could personally acknowledge and thank them all. First and foremost, I want to thank Dr. Tom Miller for taking a chance on a struggling doctoral candidate whom many thought would never finish, including me sometimes. You provided the unwaveri ng support, enthusiasm and words of encouragement that I needed to complete my study and enabled my dream come true. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Robert Sullins, Dr. Donald Dellow, and Dr. William Young for their assistance with the completion of this research project. I couldnÂ’t ha ve asked for a better Team. We did this together! I also wish to acknowledge the expertis e, wisdom, and resources provided me by my colleagues at Georgia Gwinnett College. I especially want to thank Dr. Stas Preczewski, Vice President for Academic & St udent Affairs for his encouragement and willingness to support my efforts to achieve th is goal. I would also like to express my gratitude to Mrs. Helen McDaniel for the administ rative support she provided.
I also greatly appreciate the cooperati on given me by Ms. Julie Williams and Dr. George Kuh at Indiana Univer sity Center for Postsecondary Research. Without their assistance this study would not have been possible. Last, but certainly not least, I wish to acknowledge and thank my husband, Bob and daughter, Sarah who lovingl y supported me through the many obstacles I faced to get to this point. I hope that I have proven to you that anything is possi ble when you put your mind to it. Thank you and I love you.
i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ii i LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...v CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................4 Need for the Study ...................................................................................................5 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................7 Research Questions ..................................................................................................8 Assumptions .............................................................................................................8 Limitations ...............................................................................................................9 Definition of Terms................................................................................................10 Classification in College ............................................................................10 College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) ................................10 Experiences with Faculty ...........................................................................11 Full-Time Employment ..............................................................................12 Full-Time Student ......................................................................................12 Gender ........................................................................................................12 Junior or Senior ..........................................................................................12 Involvement ...............................................................................................12 Off-Campus Employment ..........................................................................12 On-Campus Employment ..........................................................................13 Part-Time Em ployment ..............................................................................13 Persistence..................................................................................................13 Quality of Effort .........................................................................................13 Residence ...................................................................................................13 Retention ....................................................................................................14 Student Engagement ..................................................................................14 Student-Faculty Interaction ........................................................................14 Student Success ..........................................................................................15 Overview of Methodology .....................................................................................15 Organization of Remaining Chapters .....................................................................18 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..............................................................20 Introduction ............................................................................................................20 Student Retention, Persistence and Success ..........................................................21 Student Engagement ..............................................................................................28
ii Student-Faculty Interaction ....................................................................................28 Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................................30 Academic & Social Integration ..............................................................................33 Effective Educational Practices ............................................................................35 Historical Review of the Imp act of Student Employment .....................................36 Student Employment Statistics ..............................................................................41 Impact of Work While Enrolled ............................................................................42 College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) ............................................45 Summary ................................................................................................................46 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD ..................................................................48 Introduction ............................................................................................................48 Research Design .....................................................................................................49 Population and Sample ..........................................................................................50 Variables ................................................................................................................53 Data Source and Instrument ...................................................................................54 Instrument Administration .....................................................................................56 Reliability and Validity of Data Source .................................................................56 Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................58 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..........................................................................................61 Introduction ............................................................................................................61 Description of the Research Sample ......................................................................61 Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................62 Data Analysis and Research Results ......................................................................64 Research Question 1 ..................................................................................64 Research Question 2 ..................................................................................71 Research Question 3 ..................................................................................72 Summary of All Results .........................................................................................73 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................75 Introduction ............................................................................................................75 Summary of the Findings .......................................................................................77 Inferential Observations .........................................................................................79 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................83 Summary ................................................................................................................85 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................88 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................106 Appendix A College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) ...................107 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ....................................................................................... End Page
iii LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Descriptive Sta tistics: Student Responses to Experiences With Faculty........................................................................................................65 Table 4.2: Multiple Comparisons of Hours Worked and Experiences With Faculty........................................................................................................68 Table 4.3: Distribution of Hours Worked by Gender .................................................71 Table 4.4: Distribution of Hour s Worked by Class Standing .....................................72
iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Student Engagement Model Theoretical FrameworkÂ…Â…Â….. ..................32 Figure 2.2: Benchmarks of Eff ective Educational PracticeÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…. 37 Figure 3.1: CSEQ Experiences with FacultyÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…... 54 Figure 4.1: Percent of Full-Time Studen ts and Number of Hours Worked .................63 Figure 4.2: Means of StudentsÂ’ Re sponses Based Upon Work Hours .........................66
v Off-Campus Work and Its Relationship to St udentsÂ’ Experiences w ith Faculty Using the College Student Experiences Questionnaire Cathy J. Hakes ABSTRACT Statistics on the numbers of college st udents working have shown an increase as students cope with rising co sts of education, decreasing fi nancial aid, greater personal financial commitments, and the expectation that students should contribute to the cost of their own education. These facts combined with the studentsÂ’ need to secure employment upon graduation contribute to why they must work while attending college. Whereas working may provide a means to address studentsÂ’ financial and employment concerns, it also limits the amount of time students have to interact with faculty outside of class. This form of stude nt engagement enables students to become more comfortable with thei r academic environment and enhances their sense of belonging which contributes to their persistence. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the number of hours students worked off-campus and the freque ncy of their experien ces with faculty as measured by the College Student Experiences Questionnaire 4th Edition. Examples of studentsÂ’ interactions with f aculty included actions such as talking with your instructor about your course grades and assignments; disc ussing career plans; so cializing outside of class; asking for comments on academic pe rformance; and working with a faculty
vi member on a research project. The study also examined the relationships between gender and work and between class standing and work. In examining the relationship between hours worked and the ten experiences with faculty, those who worked 1-20 hours weekly participated in significantly more discussions outside of class with other st udents and faculty than students who did not work. The researcher suspects this may be true because students may be more inclined to gather together with peers outside of cl ass for study groups, lab projects, and group assignments that may involve the participation of faculty outside of class. These types of activities are usually associated with class requirements and students, regardless of their work schedules, must make time for them as they influence their grades in the course. In examining the relationship between gender and hours worked, the research revealed no significant relations hip existed for any of the work groups which included: no work, 1-20 hours per week, and over 20 hours per week. Further examination of the relationship between class st anding and hours worked show ed a greater proportion of seniors worked compared to juniors. These findings resulted in several reco mmendations for future research which include studying the relationshi p between student engagement and other variables such as: the nature of the studentsÂ’ work; time c onstraints i.e.; intercollegiate athletics or performing arts; and the student sÂ’ academic major. Examining these may yield insights into the relationship work may have with other aspects of student engagement.
1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION A common component of any mission and goals statement at an institution of higher learning traditionally includes the institu tion's desire to deliver enriched learning experiences that engage its students and promote student success. Though this seems straight forward, the implications and wo rking definition of student success are not always reflective of the same outcomes. So me researchers would point to grade point averages (GPA) and graduation rates to define student success while others would review placement rates among graduates, length of tim e to degree completion, and the level of debt at time of departure from college. Habl ey & Schuh in Kramer et al., (2007) stated Â“the current measures of inst itutional success are the percen tage of students who enroll, the percentage who stay, and the percentage who subsequently gr aduateÂ” (p. 359). This definition describes student success strictly from the perspective of the institution and its need to assess student success within its own reporting structure. As Habley and Schuh further pointe d, out the assumptions supporting these measures of success are flawed as not every student enrolls with the intent to earn a degree at that college. For these students, the definition of student success can be as simple as the desire to earn the necessary pr e-requisites to transfer to another institution or gain skills that will enable them to move up the employment ladder or secure employment in a new emerging field perhap s due to job loss. Additionally, not all students enter with the intent to finish on the institutionÂ’s prescribed timetable as many
2 work full-time and attend part-time while meeting family obligations. Some will stop out, either planned or unplanned, taki ng time off to handle family ma tters such as childcare or eldercare issues. Others will encounter workplace issues such as time conflicts with class schedules which prohibit enrollment and may ne ver return to finish their degrees. Some will find it necessary to withdraw due to financ ial matters that impact their ability to pay tuition. These and other situa tions often lead to longer time to completion. Based upon National Center for Educati on Statistics (NCES) data co llected for the period of 19951996 half (51%) of students who enrolled at f our-year institutions co mpleted a bachelorÂ’s degree within six years at the institution at which they started (Berkner, He, & Cataldi, 2002). Regardless of the studentsÂ’ reasons for dropping out or not re-enrolling, higher educational institutions are still held accountable for studentsÂ’ success. The accountability measures are imposed by vari ous governmental agencies, accrediting bodies, and others who define student success in terms of completers for meeting funding formulas and report student success in statis tical comparisons wher e graduation rates may be used for rankings. These measures traditi onally reflect student retention and degree completion statistics but donÂ’t necessarily represent student success. Faced with circumstances such as these, institutions must become more focused on Â“creating conditions that matterÂ” as, Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates (2005) suggested. These conditions are within the in stitutionÂ’s span of c ontrol. They reported that Â“What students do during college counts mo re for what they learn and whether they will persist in collegeÂ” (p. 8). They further a dvised that colleges must allocate sufficient resources and organize learning opportunitie s and services to en courage students to
3 become engaged to derive the benefits from such activities. Opportunities for students to more frequently interact with faculty, staff and their peers will help to foster student success. As Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, (2005) suggested, Â“Students learn firsthand to think about and solve practical problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside the classrooms. Through interactions w ith students, faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for conti nuous lifelong lear ningÂ” (p. 51). Studies conducted relative to college st udent development showed that the time and level of effort students devote to relate d educational ac tivities or as Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates (2005) describe d through their research Â“educational purposeful activitiesÂ” is the single best predictor of their learning and personal development. The degree of personal invol vement and the investment of time is a contributing factor to student retention and success. The level of student interaction can be impacted by numerous elements outside the control of the institution. One such elem ent is student employment while enrolled in college. College students are increasingl y likely to work while attending school. Researchers have reported similarly over th e past decade that approximately 57 percent of students work full or part-time (Broa dbridge & Swanson, 2005; Furr & Elling, 2000). In 2006, the American Council on Education (A CE) reported that Â“regardless of age, gender, race/ethnicity, dependency or marital st atus, enrollment status, types of institution attended, or even income or educational and living expe nses, 70-80 percent of students work while they are enrolledÂ” and Â“23 percent of full-time students work more than 35 or more hours per week while enrolledÂ” (p. 1-2) On average, employed students spend
4 almost 30 hours per week working while en rolled (ACE). The American Council on Education further reported that: Students are more likely to work than they are to live on campus, to study full time, to attend a four-year college or university, or to apply for or receive financial aid. Students work regardless of the type of institution they attend, their age or family responsibilities, or even their family income or educational living expenses. Working while enrolled is perhaps the single most common major activity among AmericaÂ’s diverse undergraduate population. (p. 2) Even though the value of work, either part -time or full-time, has been associated with numerous studies on student rete ntion, success and even employment upon graduation, there has been little research conducted that specifi cally examines the relationship between work off-campus and stude nt interactions with faculty. Kuh and Hu (2001) reported that Â“educators at all levels believe that freq uent, meaningful interactions between students and their teachers are impor tant to learning and personal developmentÂ” (p. 309). Fjortoft (1995) sugge sted that Â“how employment interacts and influences studentsÂ’ opportunities for activi ties that increase levels of integration with the campus need to be examinedÂ” (p. 3). Statement of the Problem The number of college students working off-campus has continued to grow as students are faced with decr easing financial aid, rising co sts of education, greater personal financial commitments, and the n eed to secure employment upon graduation (ACE, 2006; Boehner & McKeon, 2003; Miller, Danner, & Staten, 2008). These same students are also faced with decisions related to their level of involvement with collegiate
5 resources and activities that have been shown to support engagement, retention, and persistence. Whereas employment while enroll ed provides the means to address studentsÂ’ financial concerns, it also limits the amount of time students can devote to educationally purposeful activities such as interaction with faculty and peers inside and outside the classroom. This study examined the relati onship between the number of hours that students reported that they worked off-ca mpus and their perceptions of the campus environment, specifically experiences with faculty, as measured by the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), (Pace & Kuh, 1998). The CSEQ, developed by C. Robert Pace at the University of California and hosted by Indiana University Center for Posts econdary Research, is used to measure the quality and quantity of part icipant involvement on campus. Â“The CSEQ is based upon a simple but powerful premise related to student learning: The more effort students expend in using the resources and opportunities an institution provides fo r their learning and development, the more they benefitÂ” (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, Muthiah, & Thomas, 2003, p. 4). The Â“quality of effort,Â” a term coin ed by Pace and as measured by the CSEQ, describes the interaction between students and their college environment which is related to academic achievement and persistence (Pace & Kuh, 1998). Need for the Study Research related to stude nt employment, including both on and off-campus, over the past twenty years reported both the positive and negative effects of student employment citing correlations between sp ecific numbers of hours worked on studentsÂ’ GPAs, persistence, graduation rates, and level of debt upon graduation (Astin, 1993;
6 Bradburn, 2002; Furr & Elling, 2000; King, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pike, Kuh, McKinley, 2008). Research has also quantified the impact of on-campus student employment such as work-study and its relati onship to persistence and gr aduation. According to KingÂ’s 2002 study of 12,000 undergraduates, students w ho work more than 15 hours per week are less likely to graduate in four year s. King (as cited by Dundes & Marx, 2006, p. 108) also found that those who work fewer than 15 hours are actually more likely to graduate in four years than those who do not work at all. Further, students who work long hours may be more likely to drop out of school and never receive a college degree (Astin, 1993). Identifying the effects of work on coll ege students has many implications and even though there have been numerous studies done, little research could be found that examined the relationship between students who work and their level of interaction with faculty. It has been well documented that the more engaged students are, both inside and outside the classroom, the greater their opport unities to gain support and encouragement from faculty and staff (Astin, 1993). This e ngagement contributes to student success. Educational researchers have shown that fr equent, meaningful in teractions between students and their teachers are important to learning and personal development (e.g. Astin, 1977, 1985, 1993; Bean, 2005; Kuh, Kinz ie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1981; Tinto, 1993). As McCormick, Moore, & Kuh, (2009) suggested: Living away from campus, working off campus, and having substantial work commitments while enrolled full time raised concerns about the ability of students
7 to derive maximum benefit from the college experience. Of particular concern is the effect of these constraints on inte racting with faculty outside class, participating in cultural and co-curricu lar activities, and using campus academic and support resources. (p. 14) It can be hypothesized that anything that takes students off-campus and away from the supportive educationa l environment may influence studentsÂ’ access to engaging in activities such as interaction with facult y. Such activities support the studentsÂ’ quality of effort which has been positively linked to academic achievement, satisfaction, and persistence that ultimately results in re tention and graduation (Gonyea, et al., 2003). Purpose of the Study This study examined the relationship between employment (working off-campus) and studentsÂ’ frequency of involvement with specific educational opportunities (experiences with faculty). Through purposef ul selection of secondary data, the study explored the relationship betw een the number of hours stude nts worked off-campus (no work, part-time or full-time) while living o ff-campus, (in an apartment or house within walking or driving distance) and the frequency (never; occasionally; often; or very often) of studentsÂ’ experiences with f aculty with a variety of options (activities associated with Quality of Effort) as measured by the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). The CSEQ is comprised of multiple parts designed to measure the quality of effort associated with studentsÂ’ use of co llege resources. These resources are components of the college environment that have been shown to influence student performance and engagement. StudentsÂ’ responses are char acterized by the frequency and degree of
8 engagement in a variety of specific activiti es and use of various campus resources (Pace & Kuh, 1998). Research Questions This research focused on the relationsh ip between the number of hours students worked and their quality of effort as it re lated to their experiences with faculty. The research explored the relationship between th e variable of the numb er of hours worked off-campus and gender, and between the va riable of the number of hours worked offcampus and classification in college which is re ferred to as class standing in this study. The three research questions central to this study were: 1. Is there a relationship between the numb er of hours students work off-campus (independent variable) and st udentsÂ’ quality of effort as it relates to their reported experiences with faculty (dependent variable)? 2. Is there a relationship between the numb er of hours students work off-campus and their gender? 3. Is there a relationship between the numb er of hours students work off-campus and their class standing? In summary, the primary research ques tion asked was, does the number of hours worked by students off-campus add significantly to the explanation of the variation in the dependent variables (level of interaction with faculty)? Assumptions The author of this study assumed that: 1. The quality and quantity of the student engagement and persistence are related
9 to student involvement and therefore the study of the variable s associated with such engagement is valuable in und erstanding its relati onship to student actions that may inhibit or di scourage such involvement, 2. Working off-campus while enrolled in college has the potential to affect degree attainment and/or type of student engageme nt associated with the educational environment, and 3. The responses from students to the ques tionnaire represent an honest and valid representation of their behaviors associat ed with the activit ies being surveyed. Limitations 1. This study was a relational study utilizi ng differential analysis to examine potential relationships betw een variables and not a tr ue experimental design, thereby restricting any attempt to find or suggest a cause or e ffect relationship. 2. No data about the nature of employ ment were available for analysis. 3. No data representing other substantial time commitments by students such as intercollegiate athletics, drama, music, etc. were available for analysis. 4. The generalization of the findings is limited to large public colleges and universities whose geogra phical locations are in a large urban setting. 5. Further, the generalization of the findi ngs is limited to juniors and seniors enrolled full-time who live off-campus and work off-campus.
10 Definition of Terms Classification in College A term used to define the studentsÂ’ class st anding in this resear ch as self-reported on the CSEQ. It can be coded as freshman/fir st year, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate student or unclassified. Only st udents reporting their class sta nding as junior or senior are included in this study. College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) A survey instrument originally developed by C. Robert Pace at the University of California, Los Angeles in 1979 with re vised editions in 1983, 1990, and 1998. It measures student progress and the quantity and quality of student s experiences both inside and outside the classroom at various levels of their experience in their college career. The CSEQ consists of one hundred fi fty-one overall items that include eighteen background items. It is eight pages in length and takes approximately thirty minutes to complete. The survey collects responses rela ted to the frequency of engagement in a variety of collegiate activities as students ar e asked to reflect on their entire collegiate experiences. The CSEQ (4th ed.) measures three general aspects of a studentsÂ’ experience: College Activities, (13 items); Co llege Environment, (10 items) and Estimate of Gains, (25 items). Space is also provided for institutions to add twenty additional questions for student responses (Pace & Kuh, 1998). StudentsÂ’ responses to questions in the College Activities section related to expe riences with faculty are the ones of most interest in this study
11 Experiences with Faculty Within the College Activities section of the CSEQ, students are asked to respond to a series of ten behaviors related to their level of interaction with faculty. Using one of four frequency options: never; occasionally; of ten; or very often, students indicate how often they engage in the following specific activities relative to their experiences with faculty: 1. Talked with your instructor about info rmation related to a course you were taking (grades, make-up work, assignments, etc.). 2. Discussed your academic program or cour se selection with a faculty member. 3. Discussed ideas for a term paper or othe r class project with a faculty member. 4. Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member. 5. Worked harder as a result of feedback from an instructor. 6. Socialized with a faculty member outside of class (had a snack or soft drink, etc.). 7. Participated with other students in a discussion with one or more faculty members outside of class. 8. Asked your instructor for comments a nd criticisms about your academic performance. 9. Worked harder than you thought you could to meet the instructorÂ’s expectations and standards. 10. Worked with a faculty member on a research project (Pace & Kuh, 1998. CSEQ 4th ed., p. 4).
12 Full-Time Employment Paid work either on or off-campus that is 21 or more hours per week. Full-Time Student A student enrolled in 12 or more credits in a given semester or term. This is consistent with common practice in higher ed ucation and reflects the definition of fulltime enrollment for students re ceiving federal financial aid. Gender StudentsÂ’ sex as indicated by their response on the CSEQ. Junior or Senior Description used to categori ze the studentsÂ’ self-reporte d class standing in college and as described as classificat ion in college in the CSEQ. Involvement The intensity and frequency of activities in which students participate in college. This may include employment, student organi zations and activities, community service, and academic activities. This variable has b een found to have a positive relationship to retention rates (Astin, 1993; Ti nto, 1987). Involvement is defi ned, for the purposes of this study, as the amount of time that a student devot es to academic experiences, specifically related to activities that include interactions with faculty. Off-Campus Employment Any type of paid work where the place of employment is located off the campus of the institution that the student attend s and the employer is not the institution.
13 On-Campus Employment Any type of paid work where the place of employment is located on the campus where the student attends. Students reporting they work on-campus will not be included in this study. Part-Time Employment Paid work either on or off-campus th at is 20 hours or less per week. Persistence An important indicator of academic su ccess which leads to graduation and is commonly used to describe a studentÂ’s c ontinual re-enrollment through a prescribed course of study until earning a degree (ACE, 2006). Quality of Effort The degree of studentsÂ’ use of instituti onal resources and op portunities provided for their learning and development as reporte d in the College Activities section of the CSEQ. Residence The location where the student lives du ring the school year as reported on the CSEQ. Response options are dormitory or other campus housing; residence (house, apartment, etc.) within walking distance of the institution; residence (house, apartment, etc.) within driving distance; or fraternity or sorority house. Students reporting their residence was a dormitory, fraternity, soro rity, or other campus housing were not included in this study.
14 Retention A campus-based phenomenon used to describe the ability of a particular college or university to successfully graduate stude nts who initially enroll at that institution (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Tinto (1987) has also de fined retention as the percentage or number of students that remain at the same co llege or university from a specified point in their academic enrollment. It is common practice to measure retention from semester to semester from the point in which the student initially enters to the point he or she graduates or ceases to be enrolled without completing the prescribed course of study. Tinto examined and described various stages of retention and cause s for studentsÂ’ early departure from college. Student Engagement Defined by Kuh (2001) as Â“A domain of c onstructs that measures both time and energy students devote to educationally purpos eful activities, and how student perceive different facets of the institutional environmen t that facilitate and support their learningÂ” (p. 10) and in 2003 he added Â“the single best predictor of [student] learning and personal developmentÂ” (p. 24). Student-Faculty Interaction Defined by McCormick, Moore, & Kuh, 2009 as Â“The amount of a studentÂ’s reported contact with faculty members (for exam ple, discussing class topics with faculty outside class, working with faculty on resear ch projects or other ac tivities outside class, and receiving prompt feedback on assignmentsÂ” (p. 7).
15 Student Success There is no single definition for student success as it is reported using multiple dimensions which commonly reflect persistenc e rates and graduation rates (Henry, Wills, Nixon, 2005). For purposes of this study, student success is the result of the studentsÂ’ time and effort spent on activities, services and resources that promote and support their engagement within the learning environment (Kuh, 2005). Overview of Methodology This study utilized secondary da ta reported from the CSEQ (4th ed.) from 2005 to 2009 as collected by Indiana University Cent er for Postsecondary Research. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Scien ces (SPSS) software for computer based calculations; the study examined the relationshi p that studentsÂ’ self -reported levels of quality experiences with faculty have to student employment off-campus. A total of 1426 student cases were used in th is study. All cases included co mplete responses eliminating the need to impute missing values. In the Background Information collected on the CSEQ (4th ed.), students were asked to respond to a series of questions designed to establish some demographic parameters. Five of the eighteen background information questions used in this study included: 1) Sex; 2) What is your classification in colle ge? 3) Where do you live during the school year? 4) How many credit hours ar e you taking this term? and 5) During the time school is in session, about how many hours a week do you spend working on a job for pay? (p. 2-3). The first student response included in th e data analysis was the studentsÂ’ reported gender. This aspect was included in the st udy to build upon the research done by Kinzie,
16 Gonyea, Kuh, et al. (2007) who found that Â“men and women differ in terms of participating in activities that are positively li nked to higher levels of student learning and developmentÂ” (p. 6). Men, less frequently than women, engaged in academically challenging activities and participated less often in active and collaborative learning environments (p. 23). The second student response included in the study was the studentsÂ’ reported classification in college: freshman/first year sophomore junior senior graduate student unclassified Only students who reported their class standing as junior or senior we re included in this study to reduce the level of variability and to provide for a more homogeneous population. Previous studies conducted by ACE (2006) concl uded nearly 80 percent of undergraduates work while pursui ng a college education (p. 7). The third student response used in the data analysis was the location where students lived during the sc hool year with options fo r the following responses: dormitory or other campus housing residence (house or apartment. etc. ) within walking distance of the institution
17 residence (house or apartment, etc.) within dr iving distance fraternity or sorority house Only students who reported their residence was a house or apartment, etc. within walking or driving distance of the instit ution were included in this study. Research has shown that Â“students who live on campus are more enga ged overall compared with students who commuteÂ” (Kuh, Gonyea, & Palmer, 2001, p. 9). Proximity to campus makes a difference in commuter studentsÂ’ level of engagement Additionally, students who live on-campus are less likely to work off-campus due to the necessity for transporta tion to and from their place of employment. The fourth response included in this st udy identified the studentsÂ’ enrollment status by the number of credit s they were taking. Students in dicated the number of credit hours they were taking during the term by thei r selection of one of the following values: 6 or fewer 7 Â– 11 12 Â– 14 15 Â– 16 17 or more Only students who reported enrollment in 12 or more hours were incl uded in this study and were classified as full-time. The fifth student response used in the da ta analysis was the studentsÂ’ answers to the questions regarding whether they had a job; the location of the employment; and the number of hours per week they worked. Stude nts were asked to indicate the location as on-campus or off-campus and had the option to select both. Additionally, respondents
18 were asked to indicate the number of hours per week based upon the following response options: None, I donÂ’t have a job 1-10 hours a week 11-20 hours 21-30 hours 31-40 hours More than 40 hours a week. Only students who reported that their employme nt is solely off-campus or that they did not have a job were included to reduce the eff ect of variables that were not part of the study and to control for a mo re homogeneous population. Finally, within the CSEQ section titled Â“C ollege ActivitiesÂ” students must have responded to specific data elements within the subsection Â“Experiences with Faculty.Â” This section asked students to rate the frequency of their e xperiences with faculty during the current school year on a scale from never; occasionally; often; or very often with a series of ten questions with va rying levels and types of interaction with faculty (Pace, & Kuh, 1998). Organization of Remaining Chapters Chapter Two of this study provides a re view of relevant scholarly research focused on student retention, persistence and success; effective e ducational practices impacting student engagement; historical pe rspectives of student employment; and the impact of student-faculty interaction on st udent success. In addition, the survey
19 instrument, the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (4th ed.) is presented in greater detail. Chapter Three discusses the research design and methodology including the population and sample parameters; variables; th e CSEQ as the secondary data source, its reliability and validity as well as data analysis procedures. Chapter Three also provides a description of the data analysis procedures used to answer the research questions. Chapter Four presents the results of the research and discusse s their significance. Tables and figures are included to graphically represent the findings. Finally, Chapter Five provides a summary of the study and discusses in more detail the findings and how they relate to pr evious studies. Implicati ons and the impact of this study relative to current practices are supported by the findings. Recommendations for further research and pract ice are also recommended.
20 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The literature review for this study define s and describes the factors that research has shown to impact studentsÂ’ quantity and qua lity of effort relative to their higher educational experiences. Kuh, Gonyea, & Palm er (2001) in their studies on disengaged commuter students reference PascarellaÂ’s work when they stated, Â“what students gain from their college experience depends a lo t on how much time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities Â” (p. 1). Activities traditionally associated with learning, such as reading and writing, preparing for class, and interacting with instructors about various matters are all reflective of the studentsÂ’ quality of effort. The degree of quality of effo rt students put into these types of activities is what Kuh (2001) reported cont ributes to student engagement. The college environment, along with th e opportunity for and degree of student engagement, impacts the amount of time a nd energy students devote to the myriad of opportunities they encounter in college. They also influence the stude ntsÂ’ perceptions of their institutionÂ’s environment, and ultimately what the students perceive as gains from attending college. Within the discussion of stude nt engagement, its relationship to student persistence and success are pres ented. Other factors that have shown to influence student retention, persistence and success are also de scribed. Interaction with faculty is a key
21 component of student engagement and, from the literature revi ewed factors limiting student interaction with faculty are addressed. Chapter Two also provides an historical look at the impact of student employment on student engagement, persistence and academic success. Finally, the instrument used to collect the data for this study is introduced along with its at tributes and a review of its historical context. Student Retention, Persistence and Success Student retention, persistence and student success are commonly expressed terms in higher education when examining the re asons some students are more likely to complete the goal of earning a degree in hi gher education than others. The demand for research on these topics is fueled by institutions that are faced with budget deficits, high dropout rates, declining graduation rates, a nd increasing numbers of applicants at both public and private colleges and universitie s. These issues, com pounded by the increasing demand for assessment and accountability from accrediting organizations and political governing bodies, have forced institutions of higher education to examine their educational practices that contribute to st udent engagement which research has found impacts student retention, persistence and success. Tinto (2005) confirmed these concerns as the impetus for instituti ons of higher education findi ng useful models of student success that can guide their actions. There has been a voluminous amount of re search devoted to student retention which seeks to explain the reasons for st udent drop-outs, stop-outs and why some students persist and complete their course of study while others do not. Tinto (2005) suggested that retention has been one of the most widely studied topics in higher
22 education over the past thirty years. Be rger & Lyon (2005) noted Â“recent trends have seen retention increasingly r ecognized as the responsibility of all educators on campus, faculty and staff, even when there are speci alized staff members solely dedicated to improving campus retentionÂ” (p. 4). Findings in most studies point to the varying levels of personal commitment, academic preparati on, financial support, and the degree of student involvement (Braxton & Lien 2000; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda 1992; Horn & Kojaku 2001; Ishitani & DesJardins 2002; Nora & Cabrera 1996). With all the studies on student retention, researchers commonly reported that academic preparation, commitment, and involvement contributed to student retention (Braxton & Lien 2000; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda 1992). Another factor that has been shown to play a significant role in student retention is institutional commitment. Ti ntoÂ’s (1993) Â“principles of eff ective retentionÂ” described a broader commitment to the education of a ll students and emphasized the importance of social and intellectual community in the e ducation of students. These principles of institutional commitment to students; educational commitment; and social and intellectual community are the Â“secret of successful retentio nÂ” and describe an Â“enduring commitment to student welfare, a broader commitment to the education, and not mere retention, of all students, and an emphasis upon the importance of so cial and intellectual community in the education of studentsÂ” (p.145 ). As part of the so cial and intellectual community, Tinto (1993) reported that, Â“student learning best occurs in settings that involve students in the daily life and provides social and intellectual support for their individual effortsÂ” (p.147). This support can come from contact with students in a variety of settings but Tinto suggested that:
23 Institutions must consciously make an e ffort to reach out and establish personal bonds among students and between students, faculty, and staff members of the institution. Particularly im portant is the continuing emphasis upon frequent and rewarding contact between facu lty, staff, and students in a variety of settings both inside and outside the formal confines of the classroom and laboratories of intuitional life. (p.147) Student persistence is also a key elem ent leading to student success. Early research related to student persistence done by Pascarella and Terenzini (1979) found frequent contact with faculty to be an importa nt element in student persistence especially when the student faculty contact extends be yond the formal boundaries of the classroom. Â“The evidence for the effectiveness of such inte ractions is quite clear. The more frequent and rewarding the interactions are between students and othe r members of the institution, the more likely are individuals to stayÂ” (T into, 1987, p. 150). In TintoÂ’s (1993) studies, academic integration and social integration are the keys to student persistence and success. These experiences Â“serve to integrate individuals into the social and intellectual life of the institution. Generally, the more sati sfying those experiences are felt to be, the more likely are individuals to persist until degree completionÂ” (p. 50). FjortoftÂ’s (1995) research fu rther described persistence when he stated Â“student persistence is a longitudinal process that occu rs as a result of inte ractions between the student and the institutionÂ” ( p. 4). He explained student pe rsistence as a result of the match or Â“fitÂ” between student characteristic s and the institutionÂ’s academic and social characteristics. This match or fit, in turn, shapes studentsÂ’ commitmen ts to the institution itself and to the goal of college completion.
24 StrayhornÂ’s (2006) research regarding factors that influence academic achievement also found that both in-class a nd out-of-class college experiences impact studentsÂ’ persistence. In-cla ss experiences promote academic integration, which Â“relates to oneÂ’s satisfaction with the intellectual life of college that often takes place within the classroomÂ” (p. 85). Out-of-class experiences, whic h facilitate studentsÂ’ social integration with activities such as hours worked per week, also have a net impact on student achievement and persistence. Astin (1970) was one of the early reporter s of the impact of student involvement and its relationship to persis tence and student success. Hi s input-environment-outcome (I-E-O) model explained the influences of co llege on student outcomes. According to his model, (as cited by Pascarella and Terenzin i, 2005) there were three factors that contributed to why and how st udents changed as a result of their college experience: College outcomes are viewed as functions of three sets of elements: inputs the demographic characteristics, family b ackgrounds, and the academic and social experiences that student s bring to college; environment the full range of people, programs, policies, cultures, and experien ces that students encounter in college, whether on or off campus; and outcomes studentsÂ’ characteristics, knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, be liefs, and behaviors as they exist after college. (p. 53) Astin (1985) later built upon this mode l when he proposed his Â“theory of involvementÂ” to explain how students change as a result of their inte raction with college activities. He suggested that the amount of physical and psychological energy invested by students, along with the quant ity and quality of involvement and the capacity of the institutionsÂ’ policy to induce student involveme nt, all contributed to students learning by
25 becoming involved (as cited by Pascarella a nd Terenzini, 2005, p. 53). Astin (1985) in summary reflected: Â…the amount of student learning and pe rsonal development associated with any educational program is directly proportiona l to the quality and quantity of student involvement in the program. The effec tiveness of any edu cational policy or practice is directly related to the capacity of that policy or practice to increase student involvement. (p. 36) Tinto (2005) also outlined what he believe d to be the most important conditions institutions can demonstrate that contribute to student success. These conditions are institutional commitment, expectations, support, feedback, and involvement or engagement. The first condition, institutional co mmitment Â“is more than just words, more than just mission statements used in elaborate brochures; it is the willingness to invest the resources and provide the incen tives and rewards needed to enhance student successÂ” (p. 321). The second condition Tinto (2005) believed enhances student success is the establishment of high institutional expectati ons. He stated, Â“No students rise to low expectations. However expressed, research is clear that students quickly pick up expectations and are influenced by the degree to which those expect ations validate their presence on campusÂ” (p. 321). In addition to commitment and high exp ectations, Tinto sugges ted that Â“support is a condition that promotes student successÂ” (p. 322). This can be in the form of academic, social or financial support. Each of these type s of support must be accessible and relative
26 to studentsÂ’ needs. As Tinto pointed out, Â“support is most ef fective when it is connected to, not isolated from, the learning environmen t in which students are asked to learnÂ” (p. 323). The fourth condition that promotes stude nt success is feedback. Tinto (2005) concluded, Â“Students are more likely to succeed in settings that provide faculty, staff, and students frequent feedback about their perf ormanceÂ” (p. 323). This is inclusive of feedback, not only in the form of entry asse ssment of learning skills and early warning systems that identify at-risk students, but as Tinto pointed out, fee dback using techniques that enable students and faculty Â“to adjust their learning and teaching in ways that promote learningÂ” (p. 323). Finally, the fifth condition that promotes student success as Tinto suggested is involvement or what is frequently referred to as academic and social integration (e.g. Astin 1993; Strayhorn, 2006; Tint o 1993). Tinto (2005) stated: Â“Quite simply, the more students are academically and so cially involved, the more likely they are to persist and graduateÂ” (p. 323). Tinto believed that the cl assroom may be the onl y place students meet each other and the faculty because of the large numbers of students who commute to college and who work while in college. He further stated, Â“If involvement doesnÂ’t occur in those smaller places of engagement, it is unlikely it will easily occur elsewhereÂ” (p. 324). As Tinto has reported student succes s is highly dependent upon institutions that offer settings that are committed to provide resources and incentives; demonstrate high expectations for students; provide suppor t services and feed back; and facilitate involvement between students and faculty.
27 The acknowledgement of the institutional f actors that encourage and contribute to student involvement is only the fi rst step in identifying the el ements that promote or deter student success. Another critical component is the student and his or her response or lack thereof to the opportunities provided by the educational setting that encourages student involvement. The quality of effort students de vote to educationally purposeful activities impacts the studentÂ’s engagement and how they perceive different facets of the institutional environment that facilitate and support their learning (Kuh, 2001). Student engagement has also been positively linked to grades and persistence rates (Astin, 1977, 1985, 1993; Indiana University for Postsec ondary Research, 2002; Pike, Schroeder, Berry, 1997). It is considered to be among th e best predictors of learning and personal development. The more students study or prac tice a subject, the more they tend to learn about it (Kuh, 2003). The research of Kuh and others has also focused on student success in college and the links between student engagement and student success. Like TintoÂ’s research, additional studies have inves tigated factors that contribut e to student success and many reported student engagement as a positive c ontributing factor (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006; Kuh, Hu, & Vesper, 2000; Pike, 1999, 2000; Pike, Kuh, & Gonyea, 2003). The theory of student engagement originated with the work of Astin in 1984 and was supported by the work of Pace, 1984; Pas carella & Terenzini, 1991; and Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991. Even though these educational researchers used differing terminology to describe their concept of st udent engagement, they all agreed upon the simple but important point th at Â“students learn from what they do in collegeÂ” (Pike & Kuh, 2005).
28 Student Engagement The term student engagement, as dem onstrated by the studentÂ’s level of involvement, has been frequently linked to st udent retention, persis tence, and success. Student engagement represents the degree to which students are exposed to and take part in effective educational practi ces practices that have been empirically linked to learning outcomes (Kuh, 2001, 2003; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991). Among others researching student engagement, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) la beled it as the most important factor in student learning and personal developmen t while enrolled in college. Pike and Kuh (2005) and others (e.g. Gellin, 2003; Kuh, Hu, & Vesper, 2000; Pascarella et al. 1996; Pike, 1999, 2000) have shown thr ough their research that Â“engagement is positively related to objective and subjective m easures of gains in general abilities and critical thinkingÂ” (p. 186). The term student engagement has become synonymous with the activities and actions of students both inside and outside th e classroom. Kuh, et al. (2005) described the factors that contribute to student success in colleg e by acknowledging Â“Student Engagement as A Key to Student SuccessÂ” (p. 7). These same authors suggested that Â“What students do during college counts more for what they learn and whether they will persist in college than who they are or even where they go to collegeÂ” (p. 8). Student-Faculty Interaction Student-faculty contact has been cited numerous times by many researchers as another important factor in both persistence and retent ion. Moneta and Kuh (2005) suggest the frequency of stude nt-faculty contact has increase d slightly over the past two
29 decades perhaps because of the increased atte ntion brought to this important educational practice by a constant stream of reform reports since Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education by the National Institute of Education Study Group (1984). Despite initiatives to provide more student-faculty interaction, Moneta and Kuh (2005) reported based upon CSEQ data that Â“the proportions of st udents in recent years who say they at least Â“occasionallyÂ” soci alize with faculty members outside the classroom is about the same as it was in th e early 1980Â’sÂ” (p. 77). Th ey further reported that students who say that they do research wi th faculty or seek feedback from a faculty member regarding their career plans or clas s performance are comparable or slightly higher than in the 1980Â’s. Kuh and Hu (2001) beli eved it was because of the nature of the interactions. Moneta and Kuh (2005) confirmed this and interpreted their findings in later research when they stated: Â…this may be because the nature of such interactions is not focused on things that matter to desired learning outcomes. For example, talking with faculty members about writing has a negative effect on student satisfaction, perhaps because many students-especially the first year-interpr et faculty feedback on their writing as overwhelmingly critical, while faculty me mbers may intend their critique as a challenge to spur students to highe r levels of performance. (p. 77) Kuh and Hu (2001) found a significant am ount of higher education research referencing the unequivocal virtues of studentsÂ’ interaction with faculty as have others including Astin, 1977, 1985, 1993; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1981; Tinto, 1993. They further cited AstinÂ’s research when they stated
30 Â“the more contact between student and faculty both inside and outside the classroom, the greater the student developmen t and satisfactionÂ” (p. 300). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) reported that both the fr equency and the nature of the student-faculty interaction have impact on the degree and level of interaction between students and faculty. Interactions that are substantive in natu re and focus on such issues as career aspirations or future employment have a greater impact on the faculty-student interaction than those interactions that are casual or social in na ture only (Kuh and Hu, 2001). Kuh and Hu offer further explanation to meaningful student-faculty interaction by suggesting that as students become more comf ortable with their acad emic environment it will be easier for them to adopt institutional va lues and norms that ultimately lead to their sense of belonging and Â“fitÂ” with the institution (p. 310). Tinto (1993) reported that, Â“In the colleg iate setting, research has tended to support the conclusion that the establishment of supportive personal relationships Â– with faculty, peers and other signifi cant persons Â– enables students to better cope with the demands of the college environmentÂ” a nd Â…Â“this in turn, has positive impact upon student academic successÂ” (p. 122). Student i nvolvement in the collegiate environment provides opportunities for student sÂ’ meaningful interaction with both faculty and peers which leads to coherence in their academic work and contributes to their persistence (p. 132). Theoretical Framework Nora, Barlow, & Crisp (2005) pointed to numerous qualitative and quantitative studies over the past twenty years that have contributed to the literature base on student persistence including Braxton & Brier 1989; Hurtado & Carter 1997; and Pascarella &
31 Terenzini 1991. These studies along with those of Cabrera & Nora 1994; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda 1992; Nora 2002, 2004; and Nora & Cabrera 1996; lead to the culmination of a Student Engagement Model Theoretical Framework (Nora 2006). As depicted in Figure 2.1, NoraÂ’s model provides a theoretic al framework used in examining common factors that have shown to im pact withdrawal and persistenc e decisions of students after the first year of college. Among the factors cited in the diagram, Â“Pre-college Factors & Pull FactorsÂ” including family responsibilities, work re sponsibilities and commuti ng to college have been identified as contributing factors infl uencing studentsÂ’ commi tment to attending a specific institution. Nora, Barlow & Crisp (2004) also cited Â“Academic and Social ExperiencesÂ” that contribute to Â“Cognitive and Non-cognitive Ou tcomes.Â” Included within these are Â“Formal/Informal Academic Interactions with FacultyÂ” as well as other factors such as Â“Social Experiences, Campus Climates, Validating Experiences, and Mentoring ExperiencesÂ” all of which theoretically are shown to contribute to Â“Institutional Commitment, Educational Goal attainment and ultimately reenrollment in a Higher Education InstitutionÂ” (p. 131).
32 Figure 2.1 Student Engagement Mo del Theoretical Framework Nora, A., Barlow, L., & Crisp, G. (2006). An assessment of Hispanic students in fouryear institutions of higher education. In J. Castellanos, A.M. Gloria, & M. Kamimura, (Eds.), The Latina/0 pathway to the Ph.D. (pp. 55-78). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Reprinted with permission by the author A. Nora. Factors included within this theoretical framework formed the basis for this study which examined Environmental Pull Factors such as work and commuting to college and their relationship to Academic and Social Experiences. Included within Academic and Social Experiences are interaction with facu lty associated with a sense of belonging, reenrollment, academic performance, and degree attainment.
33 Academic and Social Integration Studies examining the reasons why student s prematurely depart college or dropout prior to finishing their degrees point to the level of academic and social and integration they experience. Aspects of academic integration include meeting the standards of the college or university as well as the studentsÂ’ affiliation with the structure of the academic system (Tinto, 1975). Social integration relates to the congruency between the student and the social systems that exist at the college or university. Â“Social integration reflects the studentÂ’s perception of his or her degree of congruency with the attitudes, values, beliefs, and norms of the social communities of a college or universityÂ” (Tinto, p. 107). In TintoÂ’s studies on stude nt departure from colle ge prior to graduation, he postulated that academic and social in tegration influence a studentÂ’s subsequent commitments to the institution and to the goal of college graduation (Tinto, 1993, p. 137). According to Tinto (1975): The greater the studentÂ’s level of academic integration, the greater the level of subsequent commitment to the goal of college graduation. Also, the greater the studentÂ’s level of social integration, the greater the leve l of subsequent commitment to the college or university. (p. 110) Tinto (1993) further suggested th at both social and intellectua l integration are essential to student persistence and that Â“evidence suggests that persistence is gr eatly enhanced when both forms of personal inte gration occurÂ” (p.137). Kuh & Hu (2001) supported TintoÂ’s integrat ion research when they suggested that when interactions in the educational envir onment between students and faculty become more comfortable, the more students are wil ling to adopt institutional norms and values.
34 This outcome increases their sense of bel onging and Â“fitÂ” within the institution, factors that are positively related to pe rsistence and grad uation (p. 310). The importance of social integrati on was also confirmed in a 1995 study conducted by Mayo, Marguia, and Padilla (a s cited by Henry, Wills, Nixon, 2005) which compared the college experience of African American students and white students. These authors found Â“that formal social integration (contact with re presentatives such as faculty members) had a greater effect on African Am erican studentsÂ’ academic performance at both historically black and traditional white institutionsÂ” (p. 198). Similarly, SanchezÂ’s (2003) research s uggested factors, such as academic and social integration, faculty-student inte raction, and support from other people exert significant indirect effects by acting on achievement and commitment. Because social and academic integration has such a great in fluence on persistence, it can be hypothesized that factors that pull students away from ca mpus activities or c onflict with studentsÂ’ ability to participate in e ducational opportunities that pr omote integration such an interacting with faculty should negatively impact studentsÂ’ overall level of involvement or engagement. Retention literature has shown this to be the case. Nora, Barlow, & Crisp (2005) further reported: Among those factors that have been found to impact student persistence, two major components include formal and informal academic and social experiences of students. The engagement of the stude nt in classroom discussion, collaborative learning experiences, student organizations, and contact wi th faculty are all part of the underlying process affecting the adju stment of student to college, their
35 academic performance, and their decisi ons to remain enrolled to graduation. (p.136) Bean (2005) supported the significant role that faculty members play in the academic integration of students. He found that faculty affect the studentsÂ’ self-image and self-efficacy by the way in which they stru cture the course and interact with their students. Just as powerful is the connecti on between professor a nd student outside of class. Bean stated: Â“When students feel f aculty members do not care about the studentsÂ’ development, their bonds to the institution weakenÂ” (p. 225). Effective Educational Practices Research by Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates (2005) studied the types of educational practices that impact student engagement which they term the Â“Key to Student SuccessÂ” (p.7). Thei r findings demonstrated dec lining graduation rates and greater numbers of four-year college students attending parttime which equated to a new graduation standard denominator of six years. Yet they acknowledged that Â“what students do during college counts more for what they learn and whether they will persist in college than who they are or even where they go to collegeÂ” (p. 8). They cite the research of Astin, 1991; Pace, 1980; and Pascarella & Tere nzini, 1991, 2005 that revealed that Â“the time and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activities is the single best predictor of their learning and personal developmentÂ” (p. 8). High levels of student engagement are components that contribute to student success (Kuh, Gonyea, & Palmer, 2001). The best -known set of engagement indicators is the Â“Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate EducationÂ” (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). These principles indicated that level of academic challenge, time on task,
36 and participating in other e ducationally purposeful activities directly influenced the quality of studentsÂ’ learning and their overall educational experiences (Pascarella, 2001). From these principles, Kuh, Gonyea, & Palmer id entified Â“five clusters of such activities they call Benchmarks of Effective Edu cational PracticeÂ” shown in Figure 2.2 which include such activitie s as student faculty contact, cooperation among students, active learning, prompt feedback, time on task, high ex pectations, and respec t for diverse talents and ways of learningÂ” (p. 3). The common el ement and key to all these principles is engagement which is heavily dependent upon the studentsÂ’ motivation and the amount of time that can be devoted to activities that promote and enhance such engagement. Historical Review of the Im pact of Student Employment The impact of student employment, bot h on and off-campus in a variety of settings including career and noncareer related has been heavily researched over the past twenty years or more. Researchers have di scussed both the positive and negative impact employment has on persistence, drop-out ra tes, graduation, attain ment of employment after graduation, and even the degr ee of debt after graduation. The academic benefits documented by rese archers have also associated college student employment with effective career decision making over the past two decades (Hammes & Haller, 1993; Stern & Nakata, 199 1; Van De Water, & Augenblick, 1987).
37 Figure 2.2 Benchmarks of Effe ctive Educational Practice Kuh, Gonyea, & Palmer. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or fiction? Commuter Perspectives, 27 (1), p. 3. Reprinted with permission by the author G. Kuh.
38 The majority of previous studies assumed th at students seek caree r-related employment mainly for financial incentives (e.g., Stem and Nakata, 1991; Ehrenberg and Sherman, 1987) but Mulugetta & Chavez (1996) found in their study that there were unidimensional motives for students seeking acad emic-year employment and job experience beyond the financial incentive motive. Beside s the initial motivator of money, students cited personal fulfillment as the second mo st common reason. Whether working or not, those responding to the study perceived acad emic work experiences as contributing positively to their educational experience and in providing opportunities to the job market and for developing th eir career plans. In later research studies conducted by ACE (2006), the reasons students cited for working changed little with the primary reas ons being to pay tuition and living expenses but did include an aspect not reported in earlier studies. Â“Another important influence on students who work is their pare nts. Sixty-three percent of dependent students who work stated that their parents exp ect them to work while enrolledÂ” (p. 3). The same study found that the parental expectation for the student to work did not vary by parental income. As Luzzo and Ward (1995) stated, "Earni ng while learning provides the student with both financial assistance to help meet college expens es and practical experience which may lead to enhanced opportunities for employment after graduation.Â” Luzzo (1996) further reported the benefits of co llege student employment clearly demonstrate the importance of student employment e xperiences in the career decision-making process Pascarella and Terenzini's (1991) early review of res earch related to employment while enrolled suggested similarly that Â“working dur ing college, particularly in a job related to one's major or initial career as pirations, has a positiv e net impact on career
39 choice, career attainment, and level of profe ssional responsibility attained early in one's career" (p. 480). Most recentl y, Pascarella and Terenzini (2 005) confirmed again that employment while enrolled influences caree r decision making, the development of career related job skills, and attainment of em ployment after college (p. 519-520). DennisÂ’ (1988) early res earch found that student em ployment programs not only offered the advantage of productive work for students; they also increased a studentÂ’s chance for completing college. From DennisÂ’ su rvey of 100 financial aid administrators from colleges and universities all over th e nation who represented 172,055 first-year students with a total enrollment of 833,790 stude nts, he reported that working during the freshman year does indeed have a Â“positive impact on first-year students because it provides students with an insi de view of the schoolÂ” (p. 37). Other early studies focusing on retention or persistence generally concluded that some work increases the chances of a st udent persisting through a degree (Murdock, 1987; Terkla, 1985; Voorhees, 1985). One study st ated that "research supports that the retention and success of student s are linked to meaningful involvements while in school. Work experience ranks as one of the mo st common productive involvements for all college students" (Bazin & Brooks, 1981, p. 25). Class standing in college was also studied by Wolniak and Pascarella (2007) who reported that working on or off-campus during the third year of college generally had a positive influence on intellectual integration and cognitive development. They further found that the positive effects of working lessened as the studentsÂ’ weekly work hours increased such that working off-campus for more than 16-20 hours per week had a negative impact on cognitive development.
40 Another factor that has been researched is the impact that financial resources have on student retention and persis tence. Some studies have c oncluded that Â“students who work to make money for college are likely to be more motivated to complete college than students who earn money to maintain their lifestylesÂ” (Bean, 2005). Over the years, repeated studies have l ooked at factors such as the impact of living off-campus, commuting and off-campus student employment. Nora, Barlow, & Crisp (2005) reported that students with on-campus jobs, which permitted the student to remain in close proximity to faculty and an academic environment, were more likely to persist well beyond the first year. Their finding s concluded that the studentsÂ’ ability to successfully engage in academic and so cial activities on campus impacts academic performance and the studentsÂ’ desire to continue to be enrolled. The growing cost of books, tuition, room a nd board and fees creates pressures for students who must balance work, school and home responsibilities. Th e stress of needing sufficient financial resources to remain in college was found to negatively impact studentsÂ’ decision to remain enrolled in co llege (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda 1992; Nora & Cabrera 1996; Nora, Cabrera, Hagedorn, & Pascarella 1996). This phenomenon added to the problem of retention forcing stude nts to choose between working to remain enrolled and limited their opportunities to engage in in-class and out-of-class experiences which contributed to the studentsÂ’ integrati on in the academic and social environment. The location of the work has also been studied relative to its impact on student engagement. In studies utiliz ing earlier versions of the CSEQ, Aper (1994) found that students who work in academic or career-re lated jobs on-campus tend to have higher interactions with faculty a nd be involved more in learning-related extracurricular
41 activities than those who work under other circumstances. Othe r research has shown that work on-campus provides students with opportuniti es to integrate into the culture of the institution thereby provid ing a supportive environment for simultaneous work and enrollment. Students prefer th is type of work environm ent because of convenience (Cheng & Alcantara, 2007, p. 306). Student Employment Statistics Regardless of the reasons for student s being employed while enrolled, the numbers of hours they work represent a si gnificant amount of time. Data from the 20032004 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPAS) conducted by the U.S. Department of Education found that during the 2003-04 academic year, 78 percent of undergraduates worked while they were en rolled an average of 30 hours per week. The NPAS data also showed about one-quarter of full-time students worked full-time. Results of their study concluded that regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, enrollment status, income or educational and living expenses, or institutional type, 70-80 percent of students worked while enrolled. ACE (2006) reported further from the 20032004 NPAS data Â“only one-third of working students spend 20 hours or fewer per w eek on the jobÂ” and Â“the vast majority of students work off-campus (91 percent)Â” (p. 4). Similarly, data compiled by the U.S. Depa rtment of Labor, National Center for Educational Statistics, (NCE S) for the same period of 2003-04 reported two-thirds of undergraduate students were employed with 25 percent of those working at least 35 hours per week.
42 More recent employment statistics show ed 46 percent of all four-year college students aged 16-24 and 57 percent of all twoyear college students aged 16-24 were employed in October 2008 (U.S. Department of Labor 2008). Department of Labor statistics further reported that 45 percent of full-time student s enrolled in colleges and 79 percent of part-time students en rolled in college were employed. Impact of Work While Enrolled The U.S. Department of Education (1998) reported the effects of working related to activities students typically engage in as part of their educational experience. Students included in this study reported working not onl y limited the number of classes they could enroll in but that it also limited their acce ss to the library and to classes they could include in their schedule due to time c onflicts. The study found th at the greater the number of hours worked the more their sche dule and options for classes were impacted. The American Council on Education (ACE) (2006) found similar limitations expressed by students when they surveyed the effects work has on students. With 78 percent of undergraduates wo rking during the 2003-04 academi c year, students reported that: work limits their class schedule (48 percen t), followed by the number of classes they take (40 percent), class choice ( 34 percent), and access to facilities (31 percent). Not surprisingly, the likeli hood that students experience these limitations increases with the number of hours that they work. Students who work off campus also are more likely to expe rience these limitations than those who work on campus. (p. 4)
43 The number of hours students work per w eek and its impact has been heavily researched with correlational studies linking it to a variety of factors impacting student success (Furr & Elling, 2000; Moore & Rago, 2007; Pike, Kuh, McKinley, 2008). There is evidence related to both the positive a nd negative impact that the number of hours worked has on student persistence, GPA attainment, and graduation rates (Beeson & Wessel, 2002; Choy & Berker, 2003; D undes & Marx, 2006; Moore & Rago, 2007, 2009; Rago, Moore, & Herreid, 2005; Stern & Nakata, 1991; Van de Water, 1996). Additionally research conduc ted by Nonis & Hudson, (2006) studied the influence of work on time spent studying and concluded Â“t he amount of time spent studying or at work had no direct influence on academic performanceÂ” (p. 151). Wolniak and Pascarella (2007) reported fr om the research of Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, and Terenzini that working on or off-campus during the third year of college generally had a positive influence on intellectual integration and cognitive development. They further found that the positive effects of working lessened as the studentsÂ’ weekly work hours increased such that working off campus for more than 16-20 hours per week had a negative impact on cognitive development. There is further evidence that support s the negative conse quence of student employment while in college. It has been found to reduce time to study, promote missed assignments and lectures, negatively impact GPA, inhibit the opport unity to attend fulltime or pose conflicts when registering fo r required courses (Ford, Bosworth, & Wilson 1995; DeSimone, 2008; Furr & Elling, 2000; Hunt, Lincoln, & Walker, 2004). Several analyses of nationa l databases have concluded that work can have a negative impact on persistence (Choy, 2002; Ehrenberg & Sherman, 1987; King, 2002)
44 while some smaller, more focused homogene ous studies have found the opposite to be true, and work has a positive impact on pe rsistence (Curtis & Nu mmer, 1991; Klum & Cramer, 2006). Studies have concluded that working above a certain th reshold of hours per week, usually part-time between 15 and 20 hours per week, has been found to negatively impact academic performance which in turn imp acts persistence and graduation (Harding & Harmon, 1999; King, 2002; Pascarella & Tere nzini, 1991; Perma, Cooper & Li, 2006; Stinebrickner & Stinebrickne r, 2003). Conversely, a study co nducted for the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board indica ted students working 15 to 20 hours per week tend to perform better academically than students who were not working or those working more than 20 hours per week (McCar tan, 1988) while other research has shown that working 15 to 20 hours per week has no effect (Bradley, 2006; Furr & Elling, 2000; High, 1999; Nonis & Hudson, 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).Tinto (1993) further reported: Â“It is quite evident that the external world of work and family are central to the experience of many students, es pecially those who commute, who work while in college and/or attend part-timeÂ” (p. 129). He warned that the impact of employment on the overall educational experience can be signi ficant. He concluded that Â“employment not only limits the time one has for academic studies, it also severely limits oneÂ’s opportunities for interaction with other stude nts and faculty. As a consequence, oneÂ’s social integration as well as oneÂ’s ac ademic performance suffersÂ” (p. 269).
45 College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) Numerous types of survey instruments have been employed over the years to assess the factors that contribu te to student persistence and success. One such instrument is the College Student Experience Questionnai re (CSEQ) which is used to measure the quality and quantity participan t involvement on campus. Devel oped by C. Robert Pace at the University of California, Los Angeles in 1979 and now in its 4th edition, the CSEQ has been administered by hundreds of highe r education institutions representing all institutional types to assess the quality of the undergraduate experience (Pace & Kuh, 1998). Based upon PaceÂ’s Â“quality of effortÂ” model, which suggested that students benefit in relation to the amount of time and energy they invest in educationally meaningful activities, the CS EQ demonstrates the studentsÂ’ time spent on task and energy devoted to activities. These activities representi ng the studentsÂ’ quality of effort can be used as an indicator of the quality of the studentsÂ’ educati onal experience which contributes to persistence and student su ccess (Kuh, Pace, & Vesper, 1997; Palomba & Banta, 1999). The CSEQ captures studen t self-reports relative to 151 items reflecting the studentsÂ’ experiences in three categories: (a) the amount of time and energy they devoted to various activities, and (b) their perceptions of several dimensions of their institutionÂ’s environment, and (c) what the student gain ed from attending college (Pace, 1990). Â“The comprehensive nature of the CSEQ makes it possible for researchers to identify different combinations of survey items that measure us eful constructs within the study of higher educationÂ” (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, Muthiah, & Thomas, 2003, p. 7).
46 Kuh, Gonyea, & Williams (2005) described th e purpose of the CSEQ is to assess the quality of effort students devote to e ducationally purposeful act ivities. They further suggested that Â“quality of effort is the singl e best predictor of what students gain from college; this measure can be used to estimate the effectiveness of an institution or its component organizations in promo ting student learningÂ” (p. 40). Schools administering the CSEQ generally do so in the spring of the academic year to enable students to be able to report on the types of activities they have engaged in during the past school term. Schools do not usua lly administer this test annually as the results may have greater significance if done bi-annually or tri-annua lly to be able to capture changes in student responses over time (Pace & Kuh, 1998). Summary As the literature demonstrates, factors impacting student retention, persistence and student success have been studied in higher education resear ch initiatives and through the use of student assessment survey s such as the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. Institutions of higher educat ion are extremely motiv ated to examine the reasons why some students are more likely to complete the goal of obtaining a degree than others. This interest is fueled by inst itutions faced with budget deficits, high dropout rates, declining graduation rates and increas ing pools of applicants. These concerns are compounded by the increasing demand for assess ment and accountability from external organizations such as accrediting bodies and political entities that hold the power to contribute to or control the future of such institutions. For these reasons, institutions of higher education have been forced to examine their educational practices that contribute
47 to student engagement which the resear ch has found impacts student retention, persistence, and success. As has been described, researched and surv eyed, the quality of effort displayed by students relative to their active engagement in the educational process is the key to their persistence and success. Factors that compet e with or inhibit st udentsÂ’ social and academic integration such as employment have an impact on student success. Even though there are many obstacles that students encounter in their quest for attainment of their educational goals, Miller (2005) suggested that Â“the careful observer of American higher education will not be surp rised that students en tering college expect to finish successfully and complete degr eesÂ” (p. 128). The litera ture review provides examples of the overwhelming influences that ultimately enhance or inhibit studentsÂ’ level of student engagement including faculty interaction and thereby impact their quality of effort and attainment of their educational goals. Even with such emphasis on the need to understand what the main influences are on student retention and pers istence, Vincent Tinto (1987) reported that Â“research conducted to date has done little to provide a model of student pers istence that provides guidelines to institutions creating policies, practices, and programs to enhance student successÂ” (p.86). It can be hypothesized that the relationship between student-faculty interaction and student employme nt may be one of the factors that institutions should be addressing relative to its impact to student retention, persistence and student success.
48 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD Introduction This chapter describes the research desi gn, including the research instrument, the College Student Experiences Questionnair e (Pace & Kuh, 1998) a nd data selection procedures. Further, Chapter Three descri bes the population, sampli ng methods, variables studied, and the form of data analysis employed. A quantitative study was conducted utilizi ng secondary data obtained from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) (4th ed.) provided by Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Resear ch. The Center supports the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and its affiliate surveys Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), Law School Survey of Student Engagement (LSSSE), Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BC SSE), and the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) assessment program that also includes its affiliate the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (C SXQ) (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research). The CSEQ measures the quality of student sÂ’ experiences insi de and outside the classroom, perceptions of the campus environment, and progress toward important educational goals and is usually administered near the end of th e first year or later in the college experience. The CSEQ assesses the qua lity of effort students expend in using institutional resources and oppor tunities provided for their learning and development.
49 Quality of effort is a key dimension for unde rstanding student satisfaction, persistence, and the effects of attending college. The more students engage in educational activities, the more they benefit in their lear ning and development (Pace & Kuh, 1998). Research Design A correlational study was conducted util izing secondary analysis. The data used in this study were initially coll ected by Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research through th e administration of the CSEQ (4th ed.) by a multiple number of institutions (N = 11) geographically located throughout the United States from 2005 through 2009. The opportuni ty to analyze data from various demographic regions of the United States enabled the sample size to be large enough to draw a reliable national sample. This research focused on the relation ship between the number of hours students worked and their quality of effort as it re lated to their experiences with faculty. The research explored the relationship between th e variable of the numb er of hours worked off-campus and gender and between the vari able of the number of hours worked offcampus and class standing. The three research questions were: 1. Is there a relationship between the nu mber of hours students work off-campus and studentsÂ’ quality of effort as it re lates to their reported experiences with faculty 2. Is there a relationship between the nu mber of hours students work off-campus and their gender?
50 3. Is there a relationship between the nu mber of hours students work off-campus and their class standing? Population and Sample This study utilized a purposeful samp le of 1426 studentsÂ’ responses to the CSEQ (4th ed.) collected between the years of 2005 and 2009 from eleven colleges and universities physically lo cated in different geographi c locations (e.g. Far West, Southeast, Plains, Great Lakes, Mid East) of the United States. A random sample of 1426 student cases provided by Indiana Univers ity Center for Postsecondary Research representing large public co lleges and universities was us ed to support the research. The actual student enrollment at each of the selected institutions exceeded 10,000 as reported on the intuitionÂ’s 2008 U. S. Department of EducationÂ’s National Center for Educational Statistics (NCE S) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) report. The sample was further defined by the incl usion of student responses solely from colleges and universities located in Â“large citi esÂ” or on the Â“urban fringe of a large cityÂ” geographically distributed throughout the Un ites States with a population of 250,000 or greater as noted by the National Center for Education Statistics a nd defined by the 2000 United States Census Bureau. Based upon common demographic factors such as population size it was highly predictable that th e location of the coll ege in a large urban, metropolitan area would provide greater opportun ities for students to gain employment off-campus than at colleges and universitie s whose geographical lo cation may be in a
51 rural area or small town where the educational institution may possibly be the primary employer. For the purposes of this study, responses to a purposefully se lected subset of questionnaire responses were analyzed. Within the CSEQ section titled Â“Background InformationÂ” students must have responded to specific data elements including: 1. Sex Reponses permitted the selection of one of the following (a) male, (b) female. 2. What is your classification in colleg e? Reponses permitted the selection of one of the following: (a) freshman/first year, (b) sophomore, (c) junior, (d) senior, (e) graduate student, or ( f) unclassified. For purposes of this study, only students who selected the op tion of junior or senior were included in this sample to reduce the level of variability and permit the study of a more homogeneous population. 3. Where do you live during the school year? Â– Responses permitted the selection of one of the following: (a ) dormitory of other campus housing; (b) residence (house, apartment, etc. ) within walking distance of the institution; (c) residence (house, apartment, etc.) w ithin driving distance; or (d) fraternity or sorority house. Fo r purposes of this study, only students who reported their residence was a house or apartment, etc. within walking distance or driving distance were in cluded in this sample because as research as shown proximity to campus makes a difference in the studentsÂ’ level of engagement (Kuh, Gonyea, & Palmer, 2001).
52 4. How many credit hours are you taking this term? Responses permitted the selection of one of the following: (a) 6 or fewer; (b) 7 Â– 11; (c) 12 Â– 14; (d) 15 Â– 16; or (e) 17 or more. For purposes of this study, only students who reported that they were enrolled fo r 12 or more hours (full-time) were included in this sample to control fo r variables that we re not included in this study. 5. During the time school is in sess ion, about how many hours a week do you usually spend working on a job for pay? To provide information about your work experiences on and off campus, f ill in one oval in each column. The student chose between the options rela tive to the location of their work by selecting worked on-campus or off-cam pus or both and also indicated by a numerical value the number of hours th ey do or do not work per week with one of the following options: (a) None; I donÂ’t have a job; (b) 1 to 10 hours per week; (c) 11-20 hours; (d ) 21-30 hours; (e) 31-40 hour s; and (f) more than 40 hours. For purposes of this study onl y students who reported that their employment is solely off-campus or that they did not have a job were included in this sample to eliminate variable s that were not pa rt of this study. Additionally, within the CSEQ section tit led Â“College ActivitiesÂ” students must have responded to the questions within the subsection Â“Experiences with Faculty.Â” This section asked students to rate the frequency of their experi ences with faculty during the current school year on a scale from never; occas ionally; often; or very often with a series of ten questions with varying levels and t ypes of interaction with faculty (Pace & Kuh, 1998).
53 Variables The independent variables studied included gender, class standing in college, and the number of hours students worked specifi cally off-campus. The dependent variables studied included the studentÂ’s perceived level of quality of effort as measured by their responses to the ten questions in the College Activities por tion of the CSEQ specifically linked to experiences with faculty. The first variable of gender represented the two possible responses of either male or female. The second variable of class standing in college represented one of two options in the study: (1) junior or (2) senior. Freshmen /first-year, sophomore, graduate students or those unclassified were also response options on the CSEQ but were not included in the sample. The third variable of time spent worki ng off-campus were measures of time represented three ratio measur ements of (1) not working, (2 ) working part-time 20 hours or less and (3) working full-time over 20 hour s per week. Those indicated that they worked 1-10 hours a week along with t hose who responded they worked 11-20 hours were grouped together and reported within th e definition of part-time employment. Those who responded that they worked 21-30 hours, 31-40 hours or more than 40 hours were grouped together and reported within the definition of full-time employment. The dependent variable of Experiences w ith Faculty included within the College Activities portion of the CSEQ was multidim ensional. The analysis of the responses using the scale and numerical values of 1 = neve r; 2 = occasionally; 3 = often; or 4 = very often examined each of the ten items descriptiv ely as a sub-scale as well as analyzing the
54 total score of all sub-scale responses. The response of the studentsÂ’ experiences with faculty during the current school year reflec ted their perceived le vels and types of interaction with faculty. The questions that students were asked to respond to in the Experiences with Faculty section of the CSEQ are included in Figure 3.1, CSEQ Experiences with Faculty Talked with your instructor about inform ation related to a course you were taking (grades, make-up work, assignments, etc.). Discussed your academic program or cour se selection with a faculty member. Discussed ideas for a term paper or othe r class project with a faculty member. Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member. Worked harder as a result of feedback from an instructor. Socialized with a faculty member outside of class (had a snack or soft drink, etc.). Participated with other stude nts in a discussion with one or more faculty members outside of class. Asked your instructor for comments and cri ticisms about your academic performance. Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructo rÂ’s expectations and standards. Worked with a faculty member on a research project. Figure 3.1 CSEQ Experiences with Faculty College Students Experiences Questionnaire (4th ed.) (Pace & Kuh, 1998, p. 4). Reprinted with permission from G. Kuh, Di rector, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Data Source and Instrument The College Student Expe riences Questionnaire (4th ed.), a survey instrument distributed by Indiana University Center fo r Postsecondary Research, was used as the data source. It is widely us ed by institutions interested in documenting, understanding, and improving the student experience (Pace & Kuh, 1998). The 1st edition of the CSEQ was developed and administered as a multiinstitutional survey in 1979 by Dr. C. Robe rt Pace from the Ce nter for the Study of Evaluation at the University of California, Los Angeles Graduate School of Education. In 1994, under the direction of George D. Kuh, the CSEQ Research program formally
55 moved its operation to Indi ana University Center for Postsecondary Research. The CSEQ has been revised three times. It was revised in 1983 (2nd edition) with a 3rd edition in 1990 followed by the 4th edition in 1998. The CSEQ has been administered to over 300,000 students at ov er 500 institutions representing all institutional types si nce 1979 with over 180,000 4th edition cases having been administered (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 2007). The College Student Experiences Questionnaire (Pace & Kuh, 1998) is offered for any college or university that desires to have an inventory of the campus experiences of its students. The Center hosts this instrument to measure student involvement in their educational experience and to elicit their vi ews related to the various aspects of their experiences within the collegiate setting. Th e CSEQ data has been cited in over 250 articles, books, and dissertations, and probabl y an equal number of institutional reports (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, Muthiah, & Thomas, 2003). The basis for the CSEQ is relative to Astin's student involvement theory in its focus on the level of effort students direct toward those activities associated with the learning environment (Aper, 1994). Â“All of th e questions on the CSEQ reflect student behaviors that are highly co rrelated with desirable lear ning and personal development outcomesÂ” (Kuh & Hu, 2001, p. 311). The questionna ire asks students to self-report on what they are putting into and getting out of their college experience. For example, the Estimate of Gains items ask students how much they think their college or university experience contributed to their growth and deve lopment. In this sens e, the progress that students say they make is a value-added judgment (Pace, 1990).
56 Instrument Administration The CSEQ survey instrument may be admi nistered by participating institutions in hard copy or on the computer based upon thei r individual administ ration schedule. The questionnaire is eight pages in length and can be answered in about th irty minutes or less. They survey is anonymous and therefore doe s not require that st udents reveal their identity but asks that they: provide thoughtful responses as the info rmation obtained from those taking the survey will help administrators, faculty members, student leaders, and others to improve conditions that cont ribute to your learning and development and to the quality of the experience of thos e who come after you. (Pace, & Kuh, 1998. CSEQ, p. 1) Institutions administering the CSEQ ma y chose when and the degree of frequency of which to capture student responses but it is traditionally done after the first semester in an academic year to allow for students to refl ect on their experiences (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research). Reliability and Validity of Data Source The CSEQ is a survey questionnaire based upon students self-reports of their activities, perceptions and gains. An examin ation of the validity of self-reports (Baird, 1976; Lowman and Williams, 1987; Pace, 1985; Pike, 1995; Turner and Martin, 1984) indicates that they are genera lly valid under five conditions: 1. the information requested is known to the respondents, 2. the questions are phrased clearly an d unambiguously (Laing, Sawyer, & Noble, 1988),
57 3. the questions refer to recent ac tivities (Converse & Presser, 1989), 4. the respondents think the questions merit a serious and thoughtful response (Pace, 1985), and 5. answering the questions does not threate n, embarrass, or violate the privacy of the respondent or encourage the responde nt to respond in socially desirable ways (Bradburn & Sudman, 1988). Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, et al. (2003) report ed that Â“experience over two decades indicates that these conditions are met with by the CSEQÂ” ( p. 25). They further cited the following to support their views on the use of the CSEQ as a self-re port data collection instrument when they stated: Students are asked to recall only what they have done during the current school year, and items for the Quality of Effort (QE) scales are carefully selected and worded so that students know almost im mediately whether they have done them. In pre-testing many of the items contained QE scales, students told Pace and his associates that they had no difficulty responding to them because of lack of clarity. (p. 25) Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, et al. (2003) reported that Â“the evidence suggests that students respond conscientiously to the questions because no item was left blank by more than 4% of respondentsÂ” (p. 25). The validity and reliability of the CSEQ ha s been reinforced by the research of Pace & Kuh, 1998; and Whitmire, 1999. Also, ev idence of content validity has been provided by the Guttman-scale analysis and factor analysis (Kuh, Vesper, Connolly, & Pace, 1997). Evidence of construct validity ha s been demonstrated by examining whether
58 the relationships between various measur es on the CSEQ and other variables are consistent with relevant research. CSEQ resu lts have been found to be highly correlated with academic performance and other desire d outcomes of college enrollment (Pike, 1995). The degree of reliability and validity make the CSEQ an appropriate source of data for this study. The data used in this st udy are a subset of responses to the CSEQ and satisfy all these conditions. Further, student responses to the Activities and Gains section of the CSEQ are approximately normally distributed and the ps ychometric properties of the instrument indicate it is reliable. CSEQ Estimate of Gain scores are generally consistent with evidence of actual gains, such as results from achievement tests (Pace, 1985; Pike, 1995). Further, studies indicated that self-reported gains could be considered as proxies for outcome measures, although they cannot substitute for traditional achievement. Data Analysis Procedures Utilizing the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software the methodology employed for the data analysis cons isted of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); the post-hoc test of Tukey HSD test; and Pearson Chi-Square Test of Independence. To address the first research question: Is there a relationship between the number of hours students work off-cam pus and studentsÂ’ quality of e ffort as it related to their reported experiences with faculty, oneway ANOVAÂ’s were used. ANOVA, a widelyused statistical procedure, compares the ratio of between-groups vari ance in individualÂ’s scores with the amount of within-groups variance. Should the results reveal a
59 significantly high ratio, this w ould indicate that there is a greater difference between the groups than within groups for a particul ar variable (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996). Based upon the statistical power analysis table provided by Gall, Borg, & Gall, p. 189, using a sample size of 774 student cases would provide statistic al significance at the .05 level with a statistical power of .7 to reject a false null hypothesis utilizing ANOVA for three groups. The sample size of 1426 student cases used in this study was large enough to feel confiden t that if a difference existed, it would be detected. The sample assumed a significance =.05 level, and a small effect size (.1), with statistical power of .93. Further, only student cases that included complete responses were used in this study thereby eliminating the need to impute missing values. One-way analyses of variance (ANO VAs) were conducted to examine the relationship between hours worked off-campus pe r week as represented by three distinct groups: no work, part-time work; or full-time wo rk and the studentsÂ’ ten experiences with faculty as measured by the CSEQ. Based on the significance of the ANOVAs, a post-hoc multiple comparison analysis, Tukey HSD, (honestly significant di fference) test was used for all possible pairwise comparisons. This procedure establis hes a set of simultaneous intervals for each pair of population means and enables the resear cher to ferret out where the differences lie. Stevens (1999) recommends the HSD pr ocedure because Â“the Tukey procedure examines a focused, meaningful, and easily in terpreted set of comparisons, that is, all paired comparisonsÂ… and is fair ly powerful procedure for de tecting differenceÂ” (p. 86). The Tukey procedure enabled the researcher to examine all pairwise group comparisons with the overall level held in check.
60 To address the second research question: Is there a relationship between the number of hours students work off-campus and their gender; and the third research question: Is there a relationship between th e number of hours students work off-campus and their class standing; Pearson Chi-Square Tests of Independence were performed to determine the relationship between the variab les of class standing and work off-campus as well as the relationship between gender a nd work off-campus. The Pearson Chi-Square Test is a widely used statis tical procedure to compare two components of categorical data (Agresti, 1996).
61 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Introduction This chapter describes the research sample and study results. It is divided into four sections: (1) a description of the research sample; (2) descriptive statistics; (3) data analysis and research results; and (4) a summary of all results. Essential data are presented in table form and the results for each research question are presented separately. Description of the Research Sample The research sample consisted of 1426 juniors and seniors living off-campus who were enrolled in 12 or more credit hour s and who completed the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (4th ed.) between 2005 and 2009. The random sample of student responses to the CSEQ (4th ed.) was provided by Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research from their CSEQ database. The eleven institutions represented by the studentsÂ’ self-reports were large public colleges and universi ties with enrollments in excess of 10,000 unduplicated headcount for 2008 as reported on the intuitionÂ’s 2008 U. S. Department of EducationÂ’s National Center for Educa tional Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IP EDS) report. The institutions were primarily colleges and universities gran ting baccalaureate and masters degrees ( N = 8) but also included a small number of doctoral and research universities ( N = 3) which
62 were physically located in different geogr aphic regions of the United States as reported by the CSEQ (e.g. Far West, South east, Plains, Great Lakes, Mid East). Further, the colleges and universities were lo cated in Â“large citiesÂ” or on the Â“urban fringe of a large cityÂ” geographically dist ributed throughout the Unites States with a population of 250,000 or greater as noted by the National Center for Education Statistics and defined by the 2000 United States Census. The sample was further limited to students who reported that th ey were enrolled in 12 or more hours; classified themselves as junior or seniors; re ported that they lived off-campus; and either did not work or worked solely off-campus. Specifically, the variables representing the amount of work off-campus were defined by three ordinal measurements: (1) not working, (2) working 20 hours or less and (3) working over 20 hours per week. The sample also included the studentsÂ’ re sponses to a series of 10 questions on their Â“Experiences with FacultyÂ” within the CSEQ section titled Â“College Activities.Â” This section asked students to rate the frequency of their e xperiences with faculty during the current school year on a scale from ne ver; occasionally; ofte n; or very often. Responses for these activities were coded as follows: 1 = never; 2 = occasionally; 3 = often; and 4 = very often. Descriptive Statistics The specific research sample characterist ics presented in the tables and figures include gender; classification in college; th e number of hours worked off-campus per week; and studentsÂ’ frequency of experiences with faculty. The sample of 1426 students included more females ( N = 912, 64.0%) than males ( N = 514, 36.0%). Relative to the
63 studentsÂ’ self-reported classifi cation in college, the sample included more than twice as many seniors ( N = 975, 68.4%) as juniors ( N = 451, 31.6%). There were minimal differences among the three categories of those not working ( N = 510, 35.8%); those worki ng 1-20 hours per week ( N = 439, 30.8%); and those working greater than 20 hours per week ( N = 477, 33.4%). The proportion of all students working ( N = 916, 64.2%) to those not working ( N = 510, 35.8%) represented a ratio of nearly 2 to 1. Figure 4.1 illustrates the per cent of full-time students by the number of hours worked including those who reporte d that they did not work at all. Figure 4.1 Percent of Full-Time Students and Number of Hours Worked
64 Data Analysis and Research Results This section reports the statistical treatm ent and the findings from the analysis of the data. In all statistical analyses, results were considered significant at Research Question 1 Is there a relationship between the number of hours students work off-campus and studentsÂ’ quality of effort as it related to their reported experiences with faculty? Prior to examining any potential relations hip, a test to examine the reliability of the variances between the dependent variables of expe riences with faculty was conducted. The reliability check used CronbachÂ’s Alpha to determine the correlation between the experiences with faculty ( N =10). A single score representative of the combined totals of experiences with faculty (dependent variab les) was created using a mean of their responses to the 10 items. The re liability for the item total was =.894 which reflected a high degree of intercorrela tion thereby showing a strong relationship between all variables. Further analysis examined the descriptive statistics associated with each variable in the study including the three categorie s of hours worked and each of the ten experiences with faculty survey items. Table 4.1 reports the descriptiv e statistics for the student responses to experiences with f aculty which is followed by Figure 4.2 which displays the means of studentsÂ’ responses to experiences with faculty based upon hours worked.
65 Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics: Student Responses To Experiences With Faculty Experiences with Faculty Work Hours Mean Std. Deviation N Kurtosis Skewness Talked with your instructor related to a course you were taking No work 2.80 .837 510 -.941 .024 1-20 hours weekly 2.81 .841 439 -1.009 .050 21 or more hours weekly 2.75 .807 477 -.973 .210 Total 2.79 .828 1426 -.979 .093 Discussed your academic program/course selection with faculty member No work 2.44 .881 510 -.635 .293 1-20 hours weekly 2.54 .880 439 -.747 .239 21 or more hours weekly 2.47 .911 477 -.776 .164 Total 2.48 .891 1426 -.720 .229 Discussed term paper or class project with faculty member No work 2.27 .899 510 -.604 .344 1-20 hours weekly 2.32 .871 439 -.471 .385 21 or more hours weekly 2.30 .861 477 -.442 .369 Total 2.30 .877 1426 -.515 .361 Discussed career plans and ambitions with faculty member No work 2.10 .910 510 -.490 .523 1-20 hours weekly 2.23 .918 439 -.591 .422 21 or more hours weekly 2.19 .913 477 -.496 .489 Total 2.17 .914 1426 -.533 .477 Worked harder as a result of feedback from an instructor No work 2.56 .921 510 -.829 -.045 1-20 hours weekly 2.59 .949 439 -.945 .014 21 or more hours weekly 2.50 .902 477 -.770 .003 Total 2.55 .923 1426 -.847 -.006 Socialized with faculty member outside of class No work 1.57 .809 510 1.244 1.381 1-20 hours weekly 1.56 .811 439 1.380 1.429 21 or more hours weekly 1.53 .787 477 1.609 1.483 Total 1.55 .802 1426 1.386 1.426 Participated with other students in a discussion with faculty outside of class No work 1.80 .891 510 -.027 .909 1-20 hours weekly 1.96 .950 439 -.490 .692 21 or more hours weekly 1.85 .968 477 -.155 .939 Total 1.86 .937 1426 -.231 .852 Asked instructor for comments and criticisms about your academic performance No work 2.04 .961 510 -.583 .611 1-20 hours weekly 2.07 .973 439 -.730 .539 21 or more hours weekly 1.99 .925 477 -.503 .622 Total 2.03 .953 1426 -.606 .593 Worked harder than you thought you could to meet instructorÂ’s expectations and standards No work 2.45 .944 510 -.895 .061 1-20 hours weekly 2.47 .999 439 -1.045 .128 21 or more hours weekly 2.36 .940 477 -.833 .205 Total 2.43 .961 1426 -.928 .134 Worked with faculty member on research project No work 1.49 .850 510 1.790 1.683 1-20 hours weekly 1.48 .862 439 2.108 1.770 21 or more hours weekly 1.48 .824 477 1.982 1.701 Total 1.48 .844 1426 1.940 1.715
66 Figure 4.2 Means of StudentsÂ’ Re sponses Based Upon Work Hours One way analyses of variance (ANOVAs ) were conducted to evaluate the relationship between the numbers of hours work ed and the studentsÂ’ responses to the ten experiences with faculty items from the CSEQ. The researcher noted that only one of the ten experiences with faculty items showed a degree of significance. Further analysis was done to study this item. 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Mean ResponseMeans of Students' Responses to Experiences With Faculty Based Upon Hours Worked No work 1-20 hours weekly 21 or more hours weekly Experiences With Faculty
67 The item: Participated with other studen ts in a discussion with one or more faculty outside of class differed significantly across work groups ( F (2, 1423) = 3.611, p = .027). Further analysis using Tukey revealed th at there were signi ficant differences within this item. Students who worked 1-20 hours weekly ( M= 1.96, SD = .950), participated in significantly more discussions with other students a nd faculty outside of class than students who did not work ( M= 1.80, SD = .891), p= 023. These results were previ ously displayed in Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics: Student Responses to Experiences with Facu lty and further noted in Table 4.2 Multiple Comparisons of Hours Worked and Experiences with Faculty.
68 Table 4.2 Multiple Comparisons of Hours Worked an0d Experiences with Faculty Tukey HSD Dependent Variable (I) Work Off-Campus (J) Work Off-Campus Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Talked with your instructor related to a course you were taking (grades, make-up work, assignments, etc.). No work 1-20 hours weekly -.007 .054 .992 -.13 .12 21 or more hours weekly .047 .053 .644 -.08 .17 1-20 hours weekly No work .007 .054 .992 -.12 .13 21 or more hours weekly .054 .055 .587 -.07 .18 21 or more hours weekly No work -.047 .053 .644 -.17 .08 1-20 hours weekly -.054 .055 .587 -.18 .07 Discussed your academic program or course selection with a faculty member. No work 1-20 hours weekly -.102 .058 .182 -.24 .03 21 or more hours weekly -.032 .057 .837 -.17 .10 1-20 hours weekly No work .102 .058 .182 -.03 .24 21 or more hours weekly .070 .059 .460 -.07 .21 21 or more hours weekly No work .032 .057 .837 -.10 .17 1-20 hours weekly -.070 .059 .460 -.21 .07 Discussed ideas for a term paper or class project with a faculty member. No work 1-20 hours weekly -.057 .057 .581 -.19 .08 21 or more hours weekly -.035 .056 .804 -.17 .10 1-20 hours weekly No work .057 .057 .581 -.08 .19 21 or more hours weekly .022 .058 .927 -.11 .16 21 or more hours weekly No work .035 .056 .804 -.10 .17 1-20 hours weekly -.022 .058 .927 -.16 .11 Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member. No work 1-20 hours weekly -.128 .059 .081 -.27 .01 21 or more hours weekly -.087 .058 .297 -.22 .05 1-20 hours weekly No work .128 .059 .081 -.01 .27 21 or more hours weekly .041 .060 .774 -.10 .18 21 or more hours weekly No work .087 .058 .297 -.05 .22 1-20 hours weekly -.041 .060 .774 -.18 .10
69 Table 4.2 Multiple Comparisons of Hours Worked and Experiences with Faculty cont. Tukey HSD Dependent Variable (I) Work Off-Campus (J) Work Off-Campus Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Worked harder as a result of feedback from an instructor. No work 1-20 hours weekly -.031 .060 .862 -.17 .11 21 or more hours weekly .060 .059 .566 -.08 .20 1-20 hours weekly No work .031 .060 .862 -.11 .17 21 or more hours weekly .091 .061 .296 -.05 .23 21 or more hours weekly No work -.060 .059 .566 -.20 .08 1-20 hours weekly -.091 .061 .296 -.23 .05 Socialized with a faculty member outside of class (had a snack or soft drink, etc.). No work 1-20 hours weekly .010 .052 .979 -.11 .13 21 or more hours weekly .040 .051 .711 -.08 .16 1-20 hours weekly No work -.010 .052 .979 -.13 .11 21 or more hours weekly .030 .053 .839 -.09 .15 21 or more hours weekly No work -.040 .051 .711 -.16 .08 1-20 hours weekly -.030 .053 .839 -.15 .09 Participated with other students in a discussion with one or more faculty outside of class. No work 1-20 hours weekly -.161 .061 .023 -.30 -.02 21 or more hours weekly -.049 .060 .690 -.19 .09 1-20 hours weekly No work .161 .061 .023 .02 .30 21 or more hours weekly .112 .062 .166 -.03 .26 21 or more hours weekly No work .049 .060 .690 -.09 .19 1-20 hours weekly -.112 .062 .166 -.26 .03 Asked your instructor for comments and criticisms about your academic performance. No work 1-20 hours weekly -.025 .062 .915 -.17 .12 21 or more hours weekly .056 .061 .628 -.09 .20 1-20 hours weekly No work .025 .062 .915 -.12 .17 21 or more hours weekly .081 .063 .406 -.07 .23 21 or more hours weekly No work -.056 .061 .628 -.20 .09 1-20 hours weekly -.081 .063 .406 -.23 .07
70 Table 4.2 Multiple Comparisons of Hours Worked and Experiences with Faculty cont. Tukey HSD Dependent Variable (I) Work Off-Campus (J) Work Off-Campus Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Worked harder than you thought you could to meet instructorÂ’s expectations and standards. No work 1-20 hours weekly -.029 .063 .890 -.18 .12 21 or more hours weekly .080 .061 .388 -.06 .22 1-20 hours weekly No work .029 .063 .890 -.12 .18 21 or more hours weekly .109 .064 .199 -.04 .26 21 or more hours weekly No work -.080 .061 .388 -.22 .06 1-20 hours weekly -.109 .064 .199 -.26 .04 Worked with a faculty member on a research project. No work 1-20 hours weekly .003 .055 .998 -.13 .13 21 or more hours weekly .008 .054 .987 -.12 .13 1-20 hours weekly No work -.003 .055 .998 -.13 .13 21 or more hours weekly .005 .056 .996 -.13 .14 21 or more hours weekly No work -.008 .054 .987 -.13 .12 1-20 hours weekly -.005 .056 .996 -.14 .13 *. The mean difference is signi ficant at the 0.05 level.
71 Research Question 2 Is there a relationship between the number of hours students work off-campus and gender? The distribution between work hours per week and gender showed differences between males not working ( N = 186, 36.2%); and females not working ( N = 324, 35.5%); between males working 1 to 20 hours per week ( N = 152, 29.6%) and females working 1 to 20 hours per week ( N = 287, 31.5%); and between males working more than 21 hours per week ( N = 176, 34.2%) and females working more than 21 hours per week ( N = 301, 33.0%). Based upon the sample a greater proportion of females worked ( N = 588, 64.5%); compared to the men ( N = 328, 63.8%). Table 4.3 represents the distribution of hours worked by gender. A Chi-Square Test of Independence revealed that these differences were not statistically significant 2(2, N = 1426) = .575, p = .750. Thus, there was no association between hours worked off-campus and gender. Table 4.3 Distribution of Hours Worked by Gender Work Off-Campus Sex Total Male Female Count % within sex Count % within sex Count % of Total No work 186 36.2% 324 35.5% 510 33.8% 1-20 hours 152 29.6% 287 31.5% 439 31.8% 21 and greater hours 176 34.2 % 301 33.0% 477 34.4% Total 514 100.0% 977 100.0% 1426 100.0%
72 Research Question 3 Is there a relationship between the number of hours students work off-campus and class standing? The distribution between work hours per week and class standing showed slight differences be tween juniors not working ( N = 193, 42.8%); and seniors not working ( N = 317, 32.5%); between juniors working 1 to 20 hours per week ( N = 128, 28.4%) and seniors working 1 to 20 hours per week ( N = 311, 31.9%); and between juniors working more than 21 hours per week ( N = 130, 28.8%) and seniors working more than 21 hours per week ( N = 347, 35.6%). Based upon the sample, a greater proportion of seniors worked ( N = 658 67.5%); compared to the juniors ( N = 258, 57.2%). Table 4.4 represents the di stribution of hours worked by class standing. A Chi-Square Test of Independence revealed a sign ificant relationship between hours worked and class standing 2(2, N = 1426) = 14.570, p = .001. Thus, there is an association between hours worked and class st anding with a greater proportion of seniors working. Table 4.4 Distribution of Hours Worked by Class Standing Work Off-Campus Class Standing Total Junior Senior Count % within class Count % within class Count % of Total No work 193 42.8% 317 32.5% 510 35.8% 1-20 hours 128 28.4% 311 31.9% 439 30.8% 21 and greater hours 130 28.8% 347 35.6% 477 33.5% Total 451 100.0% 975 100.0% 1426 100.0 %
73 Summary of All Results This section summarizes the procedures, data, and data analysis from this study that was conducted to determine if relati onships existed between the number of hours students worked and their quality of effort as it related to their experiences with faculty. Additionally the research explored the relatio nship between the variable of the number of hours worked off-campus and gender and between the variable of the number of hours worked off-campus and class standing. The data for this study were initially co llected by Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research through th e administration of the CSEQ (4th ed.) by eleven large public colleges and universities in stitutions geographi cally distributed throughout the Unites States in large citi es with a population of 250,000 or greater. This study utilized a purposeful sample of 1426 studentsÂ’ responses to the CSEQ collected between the years of 2005 and 2009. A random sample of 1426 student cases provided by The Center was used to support the secondary an alysis conducted in this research. A purposefully selected subset of CSEQ responses were analyzed which included: gender, classification in colleg e, location of reside nce, current term enrollment, number of hours worked per w eek, and quality of effort as measured by the studentsÂ’ responses to ten e xperiences with faculty questions. Research Question 1: Is there a relations hip between the number of hours students work off-campus and studentsÂ’ quality of effort as it related to their reported experiences with faculty was addressed by examining the relationship between hours worked and each of the ten experiences with faculty. Through the use of ANOVA and Tukey LSD, it was revealed that those st udents who worked 1-20 hours weekly participated in
74 significantly more discussions outside of class with other students and faculty than students who did not work. No other signi ficant findings were made concerning the remainder to the nine other questions related to experiences with faculty. Research Question 2: Is there a relations hip between the number of hours students work off-campus and gender was analyzed usin g a chi-square test of independence. The research revealed no significant relationshi p existed for any of the work groups which included: no work, 1-20 hours per week, and over 20 hours per week. Research Question 3: Is there a relationship between the number of hours worked off-campus and class standing was analyzed us ing a chi-square test of independence. The research revealed that ther e was a difference in the propor tions between the number of hours worked and the classificati ons of juniors and seniors. Seniors in this study worked in greater proportion to the juniors. A summary and discussion of the findi ngs, implications, and recommendations for future research is presented in Chapter Five.
75 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between employment (off-campus) and studentsÂ’ fr equency of involvement with specific educational opportunities (experiences with f aculty). Identifying the effects of work on college students has many implications a nd even though there have been numerous studies done, little research could be found that examined the relationship between students who work and their level of inte raction with faculty. It has been well documented that the more engaged students ar e, both inside and outside the classroom, the greater their opportunities to gain suppor t and encouragement from faculty and staff (Astin, 1993). This engagement contributes to student success. E ducational researchers have shown that frequent, meaningful interact ions between students and their teachers are important to learning and personal de velopment (e.g. Astin, 1977, 1985, 1993; Bean, 2005; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associat es, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1981; Tinto, 1993). It can be hypothesized that anything that takes students off-campus and away from the supportive educationa l environment may influence studentsÂ’ access to engaging in activities such as interaction with facult y. Such activities support the studentsÂ’ quality of effort which has been positively linked to academic achievement, satisfaction, and
76 persistence that ultimately results in retent ion and graduation (Gonyea, Kish, Kuh, et al., 2003). In order to conduct this study, a purpose ful selection of secondary data was randomly selected from the responses of students completing the College Students Experiences Questionnaire (4th ed.) at eleven large colleg es and universities that were geographically dispersed throughout the Unite d Sates. The sample was provided by the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research from the administration of the CSEQ (4th ed.) from 2005-2009. The study explored the relationship between the number of hours students worked off-campus (none, part-time or full-time) while living offcampus, (in an apartment or house within walk ing or driving distan ce) and the frequency (never; occasionally; often; or very often) of studentsÂ’ experiences with faculty with a variety of options (activities associated w ith Quality of Effort) as measured by the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. The primary goal of the study was to answer three research questions: 1. Is there a relationship between the number of hours students work offcampus (independent variable) and studentsÂ’ quality of effort as it relates to their reported experiences with faculty (dependent variable)? 2. Is there a relationship between the number of hours students work offcampus and their gender? 3. Is there a relationship between the number of hours students work offcampus and their class standing?
77 Summary of the Findings It is natural to assume that work takes away time students have to interact with faculty and their peers. Too much work has b een show to negatively impact the studentsÂ’ GPA, graduation rates, time to degree completion, and reduces the opportunity for students to interact with faculty. Studies th at have examined the degree of studentsÂ’ relationships and interactions with faculty have shown that students who are engaged with faculty demonstrate greater persistence wh ich impacts their reten tion and success. It was anticipated that the study results woul d show that students who had frequent interactions with faculty most of ten were students who did not work. Through the analysis of studentsÂ’ self-repor ted levels of engagement with faculty, this study found that the relationship between the number of hours juniors and seniors worked off-campus and their degree of i nvolvement with faculty did not produce the results anticipated as related to their level of interaction with faculty. Students in this study did not report a significant degree of i nvolvement with faculty on the CSEQ when compared to the amount of time working off-campus. These findings were not consistent with so me of the earlier re search discussed in the review of literature that reported students who worked tended to have less opportunities to engage with f aculty and that work negativel y impacted their persistence and graduation. The findings in this study ma y be the result of the nature of the institutions and the characteristics of the stud ents included in the study. It may be that the large, public colleges and univers ities, including research institutions represented in this study, may not be structured to facilitate significant levels of student-faculty interaction.
78 The findings may also be re presentative of a unique st udent population due to the limitation that only juniorÂ’s and seniorÂ’s responses were included in the study. Further, after analyzing each of the i ndividual ten experien ces with faculty represented on the CSEQ (4th ed.), the results of this study revealed that only one of the ten experiences with faculty demonstrated sign ificance. Specifically, the difference in the studentsÂ’ response to participat ing with other students in a discussion with one or more faculty members outside of class was found to be statistically si gnificant. Students who did not work were less likely than those who worked betw een 1 and 20 hours per week to participate in a discussion with other students and faculty outside of class. This finding is not necessarily what the researcher would have expected given the time constraints placed upon students who are working. Since th e remainder of the dependent variables ( N = 9) showed little significance, the research suggests that there must be other variables not included in this study that influence studentsÂ’ interaction with faculty. Even though the researcher was looking at the relati onship between hours worked and the level of faculty interaction, it is inte resting to note that th e means of two of the dependent variables related to interaction with faculty were rated extremely low by all respondents which caused the re searcher to consider possible reasons for the low frequency of interaction. Specifically, the que stion, socialized w ith a faculty member outside of class produced a mean score of 1.55 for all work groups including those who did not work. Additionally, the question, work ed with a faculty member on a research project produced a mean score of 1.34 for all work groups including those who did not work. The response options were frequency ratings from 1 to 5 where 1 represented never and 5 represented very often. It can be postulated that these results may reflect the
79 lack of opportunities for students to socialize with faculty members outside of class or work on a research projects with faculty. Additi onally, because of the types of institutions that are included in this study, undergradua tes may not be encouraged or given opportunities to participat e in research with f aculty. Likewise, faculty at large research institutions, such as those included in this study, may not be encour aged or rewarded for this form of student engagement. Further, a relationship between hours wo rked and gender was not found to be significant enough to support a finding that either males or females had greater involvement in work off-campus. Relative to class standing and its relationship to hours worked, the researcher found that a greater pe rcentage of seniors worked compared to juniors in this study. The expl anation for why these results arenÂ’t intuitive from what research shows, which is that student engage ment with faculty is highly correlated with student success, is discussed in the in ferential observations that follow. Inferential Observations Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, several inferential observations can be drawn which may explain why students who were part of this study did not self-report a signifi cant degree of involvement w ith faculty on the CSEQ when compared to the amount of time working off-campus. It is inherent that students who are employed while attending college have less time for out-of-class activities than thos e of their counterparts who do not work. Participation in out-of-class activities, such as interaction with faculty, staff and other students may be dependent upon how students va lue the opportunities and integrate them into their daily lives. It can be postulate d that because the students in this study
80 represented only junior and seniors, their ability to manage time and utilize college resources such as engagement with faculty has been honed over the c ourse of their years of enrollment. That is, their degree of enga gement with faculty may be dependent upon the time that the student has available; th e degree of need for resources; and the accessibility to faculty or college resources. These students may be engaged with faculty as time and situation requires. It also may be that students in this study formed more significant relationships with supervisors or employers which would reduc e their need to interact with faculty. For example, those employed in pre-professiona l positions such as accounting might find it more important to interact w ith their co-workers and superv isors in the work environment than with their accounting professors. Intera ctions with persons at work may cultivate important professional contacts for networki ng opportunities and help students gain professional experiences necessary for employment upon graduation. Further the developmental and maturity level of juniors and seniors may reflect their desire for reduced dependence upon facu lty. This may be a possible explanation for the lack of interaction with faculty as demons trated in this study. Junior and seniors may be seeking a reduced dependency upon faculty as students and greater independence as professionals in their chosen career fields. It can also be hypothesized th at the types of institutions such as those represented in this study, do not promote or value a high degree of student inte raction with faculty due to their size and mission. Further, resear ch institutions may not reward faculty for their level of interact ion with students and therefore st udents have fewer opportunities to engage with faculty outside the classroom such as participating in career discussions or
81 research. Also faculty need th e skills and training to mentor and advise students that may not be provided at their institution. It can be further hypothesized that because juniors and seniors have successfully navigated through three or more years of colle ge, they may have learned how to allocate their time and use of educational resources in such a way as to support their persistence. These same students may also be taking light er course loads or less demanding courses since their classes would be w ithin their major field of study by this point in time. This would give them greater opport unity to work and less need to interact with faculty outside of class. Additionally, the nature of the juniorsÂ’ and seniorsÂ’ work may be more career related or of an acad emically relevant nature. The findings relative to a gr eater proportion of seniors who were working in this study can be indicative of the need seniors have in securing empl oyment upon graduation to repay college loans. Additionally, they may recognize that work experience is necessary to compete in todayÂ’s job market. Since this study did not examine the ot her types of time commitments students may have in addition to working or in place of working, it may be possible that activities such as collegiate sports, drama, music, a nd student clubs and orga nizations may impact the time students have to be engaged in other educationally related activities. For example, students with commitments to interco llegiate athletics have little time to work and must focus their remaining time to acad emically related activities to meet GPA requirements for continued participation. Further, if this study were to be c onducted analyzing only the responses of freshman and sophomores, the results might refl ect much less interaction with faculty or
82 greater interaction with faculty dependi ng upon the studentsÂ’ residence and/or their location of work. Whether working or not, prior studies of freshmen or sophomoresÂ’ frequency and degree of interaction with f aculty have reported that these studentsÂ’ experiences with faculty may be more infreque nt. Researchers attribute this to the nature of the interaction which students may percei ve as negative because interaction with faculty at this level of th eir educational attainment us ually centers around student performance and generally faculty feedback tends to be less positive when related to grades and assessment of performance. Fres hmen and sophomores may be less likely to interact with faculty for this reason. Likewise, if this study were to be co nducted surveying only the responses of students who reside on-campus and work oncampus, the results might reflect greater degrees of involvement with faculty. This may be due to the easy acce ssibility to faculty and the familiarity and comfort level of stude nts with faculty and staff with whom they have more frequent contact. Working oncampus has been shown to promote a more nurturing and interactive environment with college faculty and staff and facilitates greater student-to-student interaction. Also, work ing off-campus may require transportation. Having a car provides the means to live off-campus and work off-campus which takes students away from the academic environment and its supportive services. Finally, since studentsÂ’ re sponses to hours worked we re clustered into three groups: no work; 1-20 hours per week; and gr eater than 20 hours per week, it can be hypothesized that these broad groups may ha ve limited the studyÂ’s findings. If the number of groups were to be expanded to reflect smaller ranges of hours worked, the study might yield different results.
83 Recommendations for Future Research The findings of this study did not prove to be intuitive and did not resonate with existing literature that links the impact of st udent employment to student interaction with faculty and ultimately their persistence. The results do make this an interesting study and one that is worthy of further attent ion. Based on the findings, a number of recommendations are proposed for future research as it relates to student employment and studentsÂ’ participation in activities that s upport student engagement and persistence. The researcher proposes the following: 1) Similar studies should be conducted to include the nature of the studentsÂ’ employment and its location, either on or offcampus. Inclusion of thes e aspects in future studies would provide valuable information re lated to the types of employment students are engaged in and provide in sight into how specific form s of employment and their location may relate to studentsÂ’ engagement and persistence. For example, students majoring in accounting may be employed in a business setting or accounting firm offcampus which furthers the studentsÂ’ applica tion of knowledge gained in the classroom and helps define their career options. This career-related opportunity may provide much more relative hands-on experi ence than a position on campus that may or may not be career related. 2) Similar studies should be conducted to identify the type and level of time commitments by students working or not work ing. Activities such as intercollegiate athletics, drama, music, and student clubs and organizations requi re significant time commitment on students and may limit thei r availability to hold employment.
84 3) Future studies related to the rela tionship between work hours and student engagement should expand the number of work groups to reflect smaller ranges of hours worked. Examining a greater number of work groups may reveal the point at which the number of hours worked dem onstrates greater significance. 4) Additional research related to the degr ee of student and facu lty interaction and its relationship to the studentsÂ’ classification in college should be expanded to include all classifications of students from freshmen to graduate students. This is suggested because limiting the study to just a sele ct group of student classifi cations such as juniors and seniors does not provide a broad enough spect rum to detect significant differences in their levels of interaction. For example, juni or and seniors may not require a significant amount of interaction with faculty as they wish to demonstrate greater independence where as freshman and sophomores may seek opportunities to gain feedback from instructors they view as s upportive and nurturing. The opposite may also be studied as freshman and sophomores may exhibit hesitatio n when seeking assistance from faculty. Studies have shown that if the nature of the interaction is vi ewed as corrective it may not be welcomed by the student. 5) Studies should be conducted to examin e the relationship of specific college majors to the level of engagement with facu lty. It can be hypothe sized that those with declared majors in the social or behavioral sciences may display a greater degree of interaction with faculty than those majoring in fields such as engine ering or chemistry as the social and behavioral sc iences are more focused upon human interaction and personal relationships.
85 6) Further research is needed to examin e the impact the Internet has related to students who are taking on-line courses and th eir degree of interaction with faculty. Distance learnersÂ’ opportunities for interaction with faculty are much more limited due to their mode of instruction. Future editions of the CSEQ need to modify the Background Information portion of the survey to collect da ta on the mode of in struction the students are engaged in. The ability to compare res ponses from both distan ce learners and those engaged in face-to-face instruction may yield some interesting results as it relates to their engagement and use of college resources. Summary Overall this study did not find a significant relationship between the studentsÂ’ level of off-campus employment and their self-r eported levels of inte raction with faculty as measured by the CSEQ (4th ed.). Significance between the variables of no work and part-time work (1-20 hours per week) was detected related to studentsÂ’ level of participation with other stude nts in a discussion with one or more faculty members outside of class. Students working 1-20 hours pe r week participated in significantly more discussions outside of class with other st udents and faculty than students who did not work. The researcher suspects this may be true because students may be more inclined to gather together with peer s outside class for study gr oups, lab projects, and group assignments that may involve the participation of faculty outside of class. These types of activities are usually associated with class requirements and students, regardless of their work schedules, must make time for them as they may influence their grade in the course. Students who are not working have great er time and access to campus resources including access to faculty be fore and after class which th ey may not consider to be
86 interaction with faculty as meas ured by the questions on the CSEQ. Further, this study also found that junior sÂ’ and seniorsÂ’ repor ted experiences with faculty showed no relationship to their level of employment. There we re no significant relationships found between hours spent working and levels of inter action with faculty regarding the discussion of pr ograms, course work, class pr ojects, grades, career plans, degree of effort or opportunity for socializat ion outside of class w ith other students or faculty. These findings suggest that there must be other, more significant variables other than work off-campus that impact studentsÂ’ engagement with faculty and ultimately their persistence. Even though the researcherÂ’s expect ation that work-off campus would result in a lesser frequency of out-of-class contacts with faculty did not prove to be true, the fact still remains that a large percentage of stude nts work at an ever increasing rate while enrolled. Further research re lated to the nature of th eir work, along with the time constraints of students who do not work but may be involved in other educational activities such as band, drama or sports, may yield insights into the relationship work has with other aspects of ed ucational engagement. The findings of this study and others that may build upon this research should guide practitioners as they assist students with coursework pl anning, career decision making, and participation in act ivities such as work that may take students away from educationally supportive activities. Understand ing the importance of student engagement as an educationally purposeful activity s hould serve to remind those mentoring and advising students about the need to make mo re informed decisions regarding out-of-class activities such as work and its impact on the studentsÂ’ educational success. Students want and deserve the best educationa l opportunities that will help them succeed. Educators and
87 those who support higher educational progr ams should be cognizant of the need for creating learning environments that build upon studentsÂ’ in-class and out-of-class experiences and foster relationships that promote student success.
88 REFERENCES Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. American Council on Education, ACE Ce nter for Policy Analysis. (2006). Working their way through college: Student employment and its impact on the college experience (Issue Brief May 2006). Wa shington, DC: Author. Aper, J. P. (1994, April). An investigation of the relati onship between student work experience and student outcomes Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Astin, A. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact (I). Sociology of Education, 43 223-254. Astin, A.W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmen tal theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 297-308. Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change 11 35-39. Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A.W. (1997). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
89 Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40 (5), 518. Baird, L. L. (1976) Using self-reports to pr edict student performance New York: College Board. Bazin, J. R., & Brooks, G. (1981). The work experience program: A collaborative effort between financial aid and the car eer planning and placement center. The Journal of Student Financial Aid 1Q .}, 25-29. Bean, J. (2005). Nine themes of colleg e student retention. In A. Seidman. (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-244). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Beeson, M., & Wessel, R. (2002). The impact of working on campus on the academic persistence of freshmen. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 32 37-45. Berger, J. B., & Lyon, S. C. (2005). Past to pr esent: A historical look at retention. In A. Seidman. (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 130). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Berkner, L., He, S., & Cataldi, E. F. (2002). Descriptive summary of 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary students: Si x years later (NCES 2003-151). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Boehner, J. A., & McKeon, H. P. (2003). The college cost crisis: A congressional analysis of college costs and implicati ons for America's higher education system. (ERIC document Reproductive Service No. ED479752 )
90 Bradburn, E. M. (2002). Short-term enrollment in posts econdary education: Student background and institutional differences in reasons for early departure, 1996-98. Postsecondary Education Descriptive An alysis Reports, Publication No. NCES2003-153.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Bradburn, N. M., & Sudman, S. (1988). Polls and surveys: Understanding what they tell us San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bradley, G. (2006). Work participation and acad emic performance: A test of alternative propositions. Journal of Education and Work, 19 (5), 481-501. Braxton, J. M. & Brier, E. (1989). Melding organizational a nd interactional theories of student attrition: A pa th analytic study. The Review of Higher Education 13 4761. Braxton, J. M., & Lien, L. A. (2000). The viab ility of academic integration as a central construct in TintoÂ’s interactionalist theo ry of college student departure. In J. Braxton, (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle 11-28. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Broadbridge, A., & Swanson, V. (2005). Earning and learning: how term-time employment impacts on students' adjustment to university life. Journal of Education and Work 18 (2), 235-249. Cabrera, A. F., & Nora, A. (1994). College studentsÂ’ perceptions of prejudice and discrimination and their fee lings of alienation: A cons truct validation approach. Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies 16 (3Â–4): 387Â–409.
91 Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda. (1992) The role of finances in the persistence process: A structural model. Research in Higher Education 33 571-593. Carini, R. M., Huh, G. D., Klein, S. P. (2006, February). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education 47 (1), 1-32. Cheng, D., & Alcantara, L. (2007, June). Assessing working studentsÂ’ college experiences: A grounded theory approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 32 (3), 301-311. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987) Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7. Choy, S. P. (2002). Access & persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal research on students Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Choy, S., & Berker, A. (2003). How families of lowand mi ddle-income undergraduates pay for college: Full-time de pendent students in 1999-00 (NCES 2003-162). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of E ducation, National Center for Education Statistics. Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1989). Survey questions, handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. CSEQ. The College Student Experiences Questionnaire Assessment Program Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://c seq.iub.edu/cseq_ge neralinfo.cfm. Cuccaro-Alamin, S., & Choy, S. (2004). Paying for college: Changes between 1990 and 2000 for full-time dependent under graduates (NCES Report 2004075). Washington, DC: Department of Educa tion, National Center for Education Statistics.
92 Curtis, G., & Nummer, C. E. (1991). To work or not to work: That is the question. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 21 (3), 16-26. Dennis, M. (1988, July). Federal student aid funding and first-year students. Presentation at the International C onference on the First-Year Experience, Cambridge, England. Cited in The Journal of Student Financial Aid 18 (3), 37-40. DeSimone, J. S. (2008, May). The impact of employment during school on college student academic performance. (NBER Working paper No/4006). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Dundes, L., & Marx, J. (2006). Balanci ng work and academics in college: Why do students working 10 to 19 hours per week excel. Journal of College Student Retention, 8 (1), 107-120. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Sherman, D. R. (1987) Employment while in college, academic achievement, and post-college outcomes: A summary of results. The Journal of Human Resources 22 (1), 1-23. Fjortoft, N. F. (1995, April). College student employment: Opportunity or deterrent? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Ford, J., Bosworth, D., & Wilson, R. (1995) Part-time work and full-time higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 20 (2), 187-202. Foreman, R. (1993). UPS study relates student employment to job hunting success after graduation. The Journal of Student Empl oyment. (Special Edition). Princeton, NJ: National Association of Student Employment Administrators.
93 Furr, S., & Elling, T. (2000). The influence of work on college student development. NASPA Journal, 37 (2), 454-470. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research an introduction sixth edition New York: Longman. Gellin, A. (2003, Nov.Dec.). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-ana lysis of the literature 1991-2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44 (6), 746-62. Gonyea, R. M., Kish, K. A., Kuh, G. D., Muthiah, R. N., & Thomas, A. D. (2003). College student experiences questionnaire: Norms for the fourth edition Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Cent er for Postsecondary Research, Policy, and Planning. Habley, W. R., & Schuh, J. H. (2007) Intervenin g to retain students. In Kramer, G. L. & Associates (Eds.), Fostering student success in the campus community (pp.343368). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hammes, J. F., & Haller, E. J. (1993). Maki ng ends meet: Some consequences of parttime work for college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24 529535. Harding, E., & Harmon, L. (1999). Higher education studentsÂ’ off-campus work patterns Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Henry, W. J., Wills, P., & Nixon, H. L. (2005). Institutional type and studentsÂ’ expectations. In Miller, T. E., Bender, B. E., Schuh, J. H., et al., (Eds.), Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning student and institutional view of the college experience (pp.190-203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
94 High, R. V. (1999). Employment of college students Rockville Center, NY: Molloy College, Department of Mathematics. Hood, A. G., Craig, A. R., & Ferguson, B. W. (1992). The impact of athletics, part-time employment, and other activities on academic achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 35 364-370. Horn, L., & Kojaku, L. K. (2001). High school academic curr iculum and persistence path through college. Persistence and trans fer behavior of undergraduates three years after entering four-year institutions Publication No. NCES 2001-163. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engage d in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student a nd institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education 43 (5), 555-575. Hunt, A., Lincoln, I., & Walker, A. ( 2004). Term-time employment and academic attainment: Evidence from a large-scale su rvey of undergraduates at Northumbria University. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28 (1), 3-18. Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. (1997). Effects of co llege transition and perceptions of campus racial climate on Latino college studentsÂ’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70 324-345. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2002). Bloomington: IN: Indiana University. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2007). Bloomington: IN: Indiana University.
95 Ishitani, T. T., & DesJardins, S. L. (2002, June). A longitudinal investigation of dropout from college in the United States Paper presented at symposium conducted at the Association for Instit utional Research, 42nd Annual Forum. Toronto, Canada. King, J. E., (2002). Crucial choices: How studentsÂ’ fi nancial decisions affect their academic success. Washington, DC: Center for Polic y Analysis at the American Council on Education. Kinzie, J., Gonyea, R., Kuh, G. D., Umb ach, P., Blaich, C., & Korkmaz, A. (2007, November 9). The Relationship between Gende r and Student Engagement in College. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual C onference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Louisville, KY. Klum, T. L., & Cramer, S. (2006) The relations hip of student employme nt to student role, family relationships, social in teractions and persistence. College Student Journal, 40 (4), 927-938. Kramer, G. L., & A ssociates. (2007). Fostering student success in the campus community San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning : Inside the national survey of student engagement. Change 33 (3), 10-17, 66. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What weÂ’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35 (2), 24-32. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2007, April). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on college grades and persistence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
96 Kuh, G. D., Gonyea, R. M., & Palmer, M. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or fiction? Commuter Perspectives, 27 (1), 2-5. Kuh, G. D., Gonyea, R. M., & Williams, J. M. (2005). What students expect from college and what they get. In T. E. Miller, B. E. Bender, and J. H. Schuh, et al., (Eds.), Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning student and institutional views of the college experience (pp. 34-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001, Spring). The eff ects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24 (3), 309-332. Kuh, G. D., Hu, S., & Vesper, N. (2000). Th ey shall be known by what they do: An activities based-typology for college students. Journal of College Student Development 41 228-244. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates, (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., Pace, C R., & Vesper, N. (1997). The development process indicators to estimate student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 38 (4), 435-454. Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates, (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering stude nt development and learning outside the classroom San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
97 Kuh, G. D., Vesper, N., Connolly, M., & Pace, C. R. (1997). College student experiences questionnaire: Revised norm s for the third edition Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research and Pl anning, Indiana University. Laing, J., Sawyer, R., & Noble, J. (1998). Accuracy of self-re ported activities and accomplishments of college-bound seniors. Journal of College Student Development, 29 362. Lowman, R. L., & Williams, R. E. (1987). Va lidity of self-ratings of abilities and competencies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31 (1), 1. Luzzo, D. A. (1996). Career decision-making benefits of college student employment. (Monograph). Student Employment: Linki ng College and the Workplace 23 2529. Luzzo, D. A., & Ward, B. (1995). The relative contribution of self-efficacy and locus of control to the prediction of vocational congruence. Journal of Career Developmen t, 21 307-317. Mayo, J., Murguia, E., & Padilla, R. (1995). Social integration and academic performance among minority university students. Journal of College Student Development, 36 542-552. McCartan, A. (1988, September/ October). Students who work. Change 11-22. McCormick, A. C., Moore, J. V., & Kuh, G. D. (2009). Working in college: its relationship to student engage ment and educational outcomes Unpublished manuscript.
98 Miller, T. E. (2005). Conclusion. In T. E. Mill er, B. E. Bender, J. H. Schuh, et al., (Eds.) Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning student and institutional views of the college experience (pp. 244-253). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miller, K., Danner, F., & Staten, R. (2008). Relationship of work hours with selected health behaviors and academic progress among a college student cohort. Journal of American College Health, 56 (6), 675-679. Moore, J. V, III, & Rago, M. A. (2007, June). The working studentÂ’s experience: The hidden costs of working on college stude nt success, engagement, and retention. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Forum of the Asso ciation of Institutional Research. Kansas City, MO. Moore, J. V, III, & Rago, M. A. (2009). Patterns in motivatio n and engagement among working students. Manuscript submitted for publication. Moneta, L., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). When expectations and realities collide: Environmental influences on student expectations and student experiences In T. E. Miller, B. E. Bender, J. H. Schuh, et al., (Eds.), Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning student and instituti onal views of the college experience (p. 77). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mulugetta, Y., & Chavez, D. (1996). Nationa l student employment survey: A review of why students choose to work and student sÂ’ overall perceptions of the academic work experience. In R. Kincaid, (Ed.), Student employment Linking college and the workplace (p.43-56). Columbia, SC: Univers ity of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience and Student s in Transition.
99 Murdock, T. A. (1987). The effect of financial aid on student persistence. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Hi gher Education Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA National Institute of Education Study Group. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American Higher Education Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Nonis, S. A., & Hudson, G. I. (2006). Acad emic performance of college students: Influence of time spent studying and working. Journal of Education for Business 81 (3), 151-159. Nora, A. (2002). A theoretical and practical view of student adjustment and academic achievement. In W. Tierney & L. Hagedorn. (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students 65Â–77. Albany: State University of New York Press. Nora, A. (2004). The role of habits a nd cultural capital in choosing a college, transitioning from high school to higher education, and persisting in college among minority and non-minority students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 3 (2), 180Â–208. Nora, A., Barlow, L., Crisp, G. (2005). Stude nt persistence and de gree attainment beyond the first year in college: The need for research. In A. Seidman, (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 129-153). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
100 Nora, A., Barlow, L., & Crisp, G. (2006). An assessment of Hispanic students in fouryear institutions of higher education. In J. Castellanos, A.M. Gloria, & M. Kamimura, (Eds.), The Latina/0 pathway to the Ph.D. (pp. 55-78). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education 67(2), 119Â–148. Nora, A., Cabrera, A., Hagedorn, L., & Pas carella, E. (1996). Diffe rential impacts of academic and social experiences of college-related outcomes across different ethnic and gender groups at four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 37 (4), 427-51. Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experi ences: An account of the development and use of the colleg e student experiences questionnaire Los Angeles: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute. Pace, C. R. (1985). The credibility of self-reports Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education. Pace. C. R. (1990). The undergraduates: A report of their activities and progress in college in the 1980Â’s Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education. Pace, C. R., & Kuh, G. D. (1998). College Student Experiences Questionnaire (4th ed.). Bloomington: IN: Indiana University, Center for Postsecondary Research.
101 Palomba, C., & Banta, T. (1999). Assessment essentials: planning, implementing and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Identifying excellen ce in undergraduate education: Are we even close? Change 33 (3), 19-23. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1979) Student-faculty informal contact and college persistence: A furt her investigation. Journal of Education Research 72 214-218. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. ( 1981). Residence arrangement, student/faculty relationships, and freshman -year education outcomes. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22 147-156. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Vol. 1. Findings and insights from twenty years of research San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2. A third decade of research San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., Whitt, E., Nora, A., Edison, M., Hagedorn, & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). What have we learned from the first year of the National Study of Student Learning? Journal of College Student Development, 37 (2), 182-192. Perma, L., Cooper, M. A., & Li, C. (2006). Improving educational opportunities for students who work Prepared for the Indiana Project on Academic Success. Bloomington, IN: Project on Academic Success. Pike, G. R. (1995). The relationship between self-reports of college experiences and achievement test scores. Research in Higher Education, 36, 1.
102 Pike. G. R. (1999, February). The constant error of the halo in educational outcomes research. Research in Higher Education, 40 (1), 61-86. Pike, G. R. (2000). The influence of fratern ity or sorority membership on studentsÂ’ college experiences and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 41 117-139. Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005, March). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46 (2), 185209. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G.D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The relationship between institutional mission and studentsÂ’ involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 44 (2), 241-261. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Ma ssa-McKinley, R. (2008). Firstyear studentsÂ’ employment, engagement, and academic achievement: Untangling the relationship between work and grades. NASPA Journal, 45 (4), 560-582. Pike, C. R., Schroeder, C. C., & Berry, T. R. (1997). Enhancing the educational impact of residence halls: The relationship between residential learning communities and first-year college experi ences and persistence. Journal of College Student Development 38 609Â–621. Rago, M.A., Moore, J.V., III, & Herreid, C. (2005, June). Disengaged and ignored: Are working students a lost cause? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutiona l Research, San Diego, CA.
103 Salisbury, M. H., Padgett, R. D., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009, June). The effects of work on the educational and liberal arts outcomes of fir st-year college students. Paper presented at the annual forum of the A ssociation for Institutional Research, Atlanta, GA. Sanchez, F. (2003). The impact of participation in a learning community on the academic success and involvement of academica lly underprepared college students (Doctoral dissertation, I ndiana University, 2003). Stern, D., & Nakata, Y. (1991). Paid employ ment among U.S. college students: Trends, effects, and possible causes. Journal of Higher Education 62 (1), 26-43. Stevens, J. P. (1999). Intermediate statistics: A modern Approach, 2nd Edition New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stinebrickner, R., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2003). Working during school and academic performance. Journal of Labor Economics, 21 (2), 473-491. Strayhorn, T. L., (2006). Fact ors influencing the academic achievement of firstgeneration college students. NASPA Journal, 43 (4), 82-111. Terkla, D. B. (1985). Does financial aid enhance undergradu ate persistence? The Journal of Student Financial Aid l .2ill, 11-18. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher educa tion: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research 45, 89-125. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college. Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (Second Edition). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
104 Tinto, V. (2005). Epilogue: Moving from th eory to action. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 317-334). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Turner, C. F., & Martin, E. (1984). Surveying subjective phenomena (1). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. U.S. Department of Educa tion, (2003-2004). Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). U.S. Department of Education (2008). National Center for E ducational Statistics (NCES) Washington, DC: Integrated Postseconda ry Education Data System (IPEDS). Retrieved April 5, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). Digest of education statistics (1997-2006). Washington, DC: National Center for E ducation Statistics (NCES). Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://n ces.ed.gov/programs/digest U.S. Department of Labor. (2009, April 28). Bu reau of labor statistics economic news release. College enrollment and work acti vity of 2008 high school graduates Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http ://www.bls.gov/news.rel ease/hsgec.nr0.htm Van de Water, G. (1996). The effect of part-time work on academic performance and progress: An examination of the Wash ington State work-study program. In R. Kincaid, (Ed.), Student employment: Linking college and the workplace Columbia, SC: University of South Caro lina: National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition, 57-67.
105 Van de Water, G., & Augenblick, J. (1987). Working while studying: Does it matter? An examination of the Washington State Work Study Program. Olympia, Washington: Washington State, Higher Education Coordinating Board. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED290356). Voorhees, R. A. (1985). Financial aid and pe rsistence: Do the federal campus based aid programs make a difference? The Journal of Student Financial Aid 15 (1), 21-30. Whitmire, E. (1999). Racial differences in the academic library experiences of undergraduates. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25 (1), 33-77. Wolniak, G., & Pascarella, E. (2007, Februa ry 1). Initial evid ence on the long-term impacts of work colleges. Research in Higher Education 48 (1), 39-71. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ748872).
107 APPENDIX A
108 APPENDIX A: (Continued)
109 APPENDIX A: (Continued)
110 APPENDIX A: (Continued)
111 APPENDIX A: (Continued)
112 APPENDIX A: (Continued)
113 APPENDIX A: (Continued)
114 APPENDIX A: (Continued) College Students Experiences Questionnaire (4th ed.) Reprinted with permission from G. Kuh, Director, Indiana University Ce nter for Postsecondary Research.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Cathy Jane Hakes was born and raised in St. Petersburg, Florida. Cathy attended public schools in Pinellas County, Florida. She attended St. Petersburg Junior College (presently known as St. Pete rsburg College) and graduated in 1971 with an Associate of Arts Degree in General Education. In 1973, sh e graduated from the University of South Florida (USF) with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Physical Educati on. She returned to USF and earned her Master of Arts degr ee in Physical Education in 1977 and her Doctorate of Education in Educational Leadership in 2010. Cathy Hakes began working in the fiel d of higher education in 1980 at St. Petersburg Junior College ( SPJC) as an adjunct instruct or. Throughout her 26 years with SPJC, she held several administrative positions within the student se rvices division. Her interest in student employment was sparked by her duties as the C oordinator of the Job Placement Center where she developed and s upervised several work-study programs, a cooperative education program, the Career Ce nter, and Volunteer Services. Cathy was also active in the National Association of Student Employment Administrators and served as its president from 1994-1995. From these experiences, she became a proponent of the value of student empl oyment and work experience. In 2006, Cathy and her family moved to Ge orgia where she is currently employed as the Director of Accredita tion and Certification Activities at Georgia Gwinnett College in Lawrenceville, GA.