Buchalski Budhram Carlson Waran Quantitative Assessment Proposal Fall 2011

8/3/2019 Buchalski Budhram Carlson Waran Quantitative Assessment Proposal Fall 2011

1/27

Running Head: ORIENTING STUDENTS TOWARDS SUCCESS 1

Orienting Students Towards Success through Involvement

Jon Buchalski, Devin Budhram, Adam Carlson, Ganesh Waran

Rutgers University


2/27

ORIENTING STUDENTS TOWARDS SUCCESS 2

Introduction

Much research has been completed as it pertains to college student involvement and its

link to the success of students in their college careers. However, there are no uniform

descriptions of what the terms involvementorsuccess consist of. Some researchers determine

involvement by examining only students academic pursuits in and out of the classroom, whereas

others are interested in the co-curricular activities in which students engage. To some, success is

determined by students persisting to graduation, whereas others believe that college student

success entails much more.

Literature Review

College orientation programs are designed to help students become acclimated to the

college environment, as well as help set them up for success during their college years.

However, the termsuccess is measured in different ways depending on the researcher. Svanum

and Bigatti (2009) are among the researchers who define college student success only in terms of

academics and degree attainment. They performed a study, where, based on their results, they

posited that students who are academically engaged are more likely to attain a degree and attain

it faster than those who are not academically engaged. They define academic engagement in

terms of (1) textbook reading, (2) study guide use, (3) lecture attendance, (4) attendance at

review sessions, and (5) hours spent preparing for tests. There are many limitations in this study,

found apparent in the research design, sampling, data collection, etc. For the purposes of our

research, the most pertinent limitation is the researchers failure in considering that student

success is indicated by more than academic course engagement and degree attainment.

There are many social interactions and involvement opportunities outside the academic

context that can contribute to college student learning. Schreiner (2010) posits that performing


3/27


well academically is only one part of being successful in college. Furthermore, she states that

there is a wide disparity between being successful, or thriving, in college as opposed to merely

surviving college. After performing qualitative research in the form of interviews and focus

groups with students, as well as utilizing existing research related to student success and

psychology, Schreiner (2010) finds that in order to have a successful college experience, students

must thrive, which consists of (1) engaged learning, (2) academic determination, (3) positive

perspective, (4) diverse citizenship, and (5) social connectedness (p. 4). Her research implies

that the thriving student is more likely to attain success, which she describes as having strong

social and professional relationships, having a sense of belonging to a community, having

confidence in contributing to their communities, having confidence in being able to overcome

challenges, etc. These skills, Schreiner (2010) believes, will not be as prevalent for students who

do not thrive but merely survive their college careers.

Astins (1999) theory of student involvement further supports Schreiners (2010) claims

that student success is impacted by more than only academic pursuits and degree attainment.

The theory posits that for college students, learning takes place more effectively when students

become involved in their overall college experience. Astin (1999) defines involvement as the

physical and psychological energy that students exert toward their academic experience, which

includes studying, time spent on campus, involvement in student organizations, etc. One

important implication of Astins (1999) work is that he states that, since learning occurs more

effectively when students are involved, faculty and student affairs professionals should pay

particular attention to the students who are more passive or unprepared for college, which are

factors that can indicate a lower tendency to get involved. Since one of the orientation

programs objectives is to open the path toward getting involved on-campus, it is important to


4/27


know whether or not and to what extent the orientation program might have influenced, directly

or indirectly, such students to begin considering involvement on campus.

One effort that schools employ toward promoting the holistic view of college student

success is the orientation program. Pascarella, Terenzini, and Wolfe (1986) performed a study

pertaining to the effects of freshman orientation on persistence. From their findings, Pascarella

et al. (1986) suggest that the largest benefit that students took from their orientation was the

ability to cope with an unfamiliar environment through social integration. One significant

finding in their study was that students strongly impacted by the exposure that they got to the

extent to which they could become involved on campus. It is important to note that, according to

Pascarella et al. (1986), the influence that orientation has on students is not direct; instead,

students choose to get involved on campus due to the things that they saw, heard, and felt during

their orientation.

There are several limitations in the above research, however. First, the sample of

students was representative only of the student body and orientation program of the particular

institution where their research study took place. Though the total number of student

participants was indicated, the overall student population was not indicated, so there is no way to

know whether or not their sample was generalizable. A description of the institutions

orientation program was not provided, so it is impossible to know the degree to which student

involvement was emphasized at the freshman orientation, and/or the effect that including or not

including emphasis had on involvement. For example, if involvement was emphasized too

much, students could have begun to tune out the message that involvement is important, thus

nullifying it. It is important for our research to know whether or not a glass ceiling effect could


5/27


have taken place, as co-curricular involvement was stressed at the Rutgers New Student

Orientation 2011.

A factor that affects the usefulness of the research of Astin (1999) and Pascarella et al.

(1986) are the time periods in which their studies took place as compared to present day. Since

the students of today may have different needs, interests, and behavioral trends than students

years ago, one must take into consideration the characteristics of students in this millennial

generation. Sax (2003) speaks about research related to current student trends obtained from the

Cooperative Institutional Research Program, which surveys about 350,000 college students from

about 700 institutions nationwide. She states that todays college students are more interested in

community service, volunteerism, politics, and are more determined academically. However,

these same students tend to dedicate less time toward studying. Millennial students are likely to

engage in extra-curricular activities that follow suit with their ambitions (DeBard, 2004).

Saxs (2003) study of Millennial students is very useful and appears to be very reliable

due to the breadth of its sample and the content of the survey. One significant shortcoming of

her research is that the survey asks for self-reported information from admitted full-time students

who have not yet started their college careers. Therefore, this study does not take into account

the changes that can occur for students attitudes, values, perceptions, behavioral patterns, etc.,

after a given amount of time has passed during their college career. Instead, the study gauges the

aforementioned variables with which students enter college.

The breadth of research pertaining to college orientation, to student involvement, and to

student success, independently, is vast. Through our review of literature, we have come to

realize that student involvement plays an integral part in a students pursuit toward gaining a

successful college experience. However, studies interested in discovering the link between


6/27


college orientation and student involvement is lacking. In our research study, we intend to spark

an interest in this realm of student success.

Research Question

Does attending New Student Orientation impact traditional first year students involvement in

extracurricular activities, during their first year in college?

In line with the research performed by Astin (1999) and Pascarella et al. (1986), as cited

above, student involvement can be effected in some capacity as a result of participation in a

college orientation program. We hypothesize that traditional first year students, who attend New

Student Orientation, will show higher levels of interest in getting involved, than those who do

not attend New Student Orientation. We further expect to see a higher level of actual

involvement in students who attend New Student Orientation based on our follow-up study, as

compared to those students who do not attend New Student Orientation.

Population/Sample

We planned to use a probability sampling method on undergraduate students at Rutgers

University. Our intention was administer the questionnaire to a large sample of students at

Rutgers University, without limiting the sample by any demographics. Rutgers University has a

student population of 29,095 undergraduate students that represent a wide variety of diverse

backgrounds (Rutgers Admissions website, 2011). In 2011, exactly fifty percent of the student

body was male and fifty percent female, and more than half of the newly incoming students

identified as non-Caucasian. We would aim to obtain responses from at least fifteen percent of

the total student population (at least 4,365 responses) in order to suggest generalizability and to

account for potential respondent attrition. Since Rutgers is a large public institution with a very


7/27


diverse student population, our sample is representative of students at a similar-sized institutions

where the makeup of the student body is diverse on many levels.

Design and Instrumentation

Design

Our initial plan was to use a brief questionnaire o gather information, in the form of a

nonequivalent-groups posttest-only design. Based on McMillans (2007) design for this type of

study, we intended to use the following structure:

Group Intervention Posttest

Undergraduate Students New Student Orientation O1

(Attended Orientation)

Undergraduate Students O1

(Did Not Attend Orientation)

The intervention, in this case, was ex-post facto. We had hoped to note the differences in

involvement between students that went through the New Student Orientation process, and those

that did not.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire was designed to target students after orientation had already been

completed for the academic year. Many items in the questionnaire were designed to ask about

the students out-of-classroom involvement. Items prompting responses that yield information

regarding the extent to which students are or plan to be involved in their out-of-classroom

student involvement activities were included in order to explore the question of involvement


8/27


quality versus involvement quantity, as questioned by Pascarella et al. (1986). Also, following

research by Gonzales-De Hass, Willems, and Holbein (2005) that suggests that parental

involvement impacts student success, items that asked for information related to parental interest

and parental involvement were also included.

The respondents of the pilot test were assigned to their groups based on whether or not

they attended New Student Orientation. The same questionnaire was administered to all

respondents. Our pilot test consisted of 23 graduate students at Rutgers University, who were

asked to participate in our study, keeping in mind that the survey would be distributed to

undergraduate students at Rutgers. See Appendix A.

Results

Our pilot test through out questionnaire yielded the following results:

Of the 22 respondents, 16 were female and six were male.

Of the 22 respondents, 90% (20 out of 22) of respondents agreed that it is important for a

student to be involved on campus.

Of the 77% respondents (17 out of 22) that stated they were involved on campus 76% (13 out

of 17) do plan to run for a leadership position in the future.

About 55% (12 out of 22) of the respondents did attend new student orientation and all of

those respondents were in their first two years of their college career.

About 45% (10 out of 22) of the respondent did not attend new student orientation and only

50% (5 out of 10) of these respondents were in their first two years of their college career.

83% (10 out of 12) of the respondents who attended orientation are already involved in some

form on campus and 25% (3 out of 12) of those student are holding leadership positions.


9/27


70% of the respondents (7 out of 10) who did not attend orientation are involved in some

form on campus and all of these students are currently holding leadership positions

All of the respondents, those who did or did not attend orientation, who are not currently

involved on campus do plan on becoming involved in some form in the future.

Figure 1: Overall respondents who are involved and students who believe involvement is

important by percentage

Figure 2: Involvement by NSO Attendance

In the present study, a higher percentage and frequency of students that attended New

Student Orientation, were also involved on campus. An overwhelming number of students

(90%) felt that involvement on campus played an important role in contributing to success in

college. Half of the students who did not attend orientation were upperclassmen (third and

fourth year students), whereas every student surveyed that did attend orientation was an

underclassman (first and second-year students). An interesting observation that we made based


10/27


on the results of our pilot study was that 100% of the respondents that did not attend orientation,

but were involved on campus, held leadership positions within their organizations. Of the

respondents who were involved on campus, and attended orientation, only 25% held leadership

positions in their respective organizations. Based on our results, we do not feel that we had

adequate data to conclude whether our hypothesis was true or false. Although a higher

percentage of respondents who attended orientation also showed to be involved on campus, the

difference between the two groups was not significant enough to consider a major influence.

Limitations

Our original design posed a number of potential threats to both internal and external

validity. We had planned to simply use a one-time questionnaire, distributed to a mixed sample

of students (varied in age, class rank). This design lent itself to creating the potential for several

extraneous variables, including, but not limited to, parental involvement, advertising from

organizations on campus outside of new student orientation, and peer influence. Additionally,

there were systematic differences between the upperclassmen and first-year students

participating in the study, as the New Student Orientation process had actually been modified

significantly on an annual basis over the past few years. After realizing that we would not be

able to control for these extraneous variables without changing the way we designed our study,

we decided to re-design our research into a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent group pretest,

post-test design (McMillan, 2007).

Discussion

Sample and Revisions

Considering the broad range of students in our sample, we found it very difficult to find

useful statistics on what were trying to discover (correlation between attending new student


11/27


orientation and likelihood to get involved and participate in extracurricular activities). Our pilot

test revealed some useful information that caused us to reconsider targeting such a large

population, in respect to our research question involving the correlation between new student

orientation and involvement. A significant threat to our internal validity was time; especially for

upperclassmen that were surveyed in our pilot test. After reviewing the results of our pilot test,

we realized that there may have been significant outside influences that arose over time,

considering that several semesters had passed since their attendance at new student orientation.

Our selection method, therefore threatened the internal validity of our study. Using McMillans

(2007) guide to effectively developing a probability sample, we have decided on revising our

sample to the following:

Our target population for our follow up study will be traditional first-year students. We

will focus on first-year students at Rutgers University. Our ideal sample size is 15% of the first

year class, which comes out to about 975 students.

Proposed Follow-up Design

Using McMillan (2007) as a guide, we developed the following revised design for this

study:

Group Pretest Treatment Posttest

First Year Students O1 New Student Orientation O2 Follow-up

(Attending orientation)

First Year Students O1 O2 Follow-up

(Not Attending Orientation)


12/27


Our study will now involve a pretest, which will be administered over the two weeks

prior to the Fall 2012 New Student Orientation, with two follow-up e-mails; one 5 days into the

survey, and one 10 days into the survey. The pre-test will seek to discover the rate of students 1)

planning to attend New Student Orientation, 2) not planning to attend New Student Orientation,

3) planning to get involved in extra-curricular activities, 4) not planning to get involved in extra-

curricular activities, and 5) how important, both students who plan to attend New Student

Orientation and those who do not plan to attend New Student Orientation, consider involvement

on campus.

The post-test will be administered over the course of two weeks, starting with the last day

of the 2012 Fall New Student Orientation, with one reminder e-mail sent 5 days after the first e-

mail, and a second reminder e-mail sent 10 days after the first e-mail. This post-test will seek to

discover the rates of students 1) planning to get involved on campus among students who

attended New Student Orientation as compared to students that did not attend New Student

Orientation, 2) whether students that attended New Student Orientation found the programs to

increase their interest in getting involved in extracurricular activities.

Our follow-up will take place throughout the first two weeks of the Spring 2013

semester, starting with the first day of class, followed by a reminder e-mail 5 days into the

survey, and another 10 days into the survey. The follow-up will seek to find out the rates of 1)

students actually involved in student organizations that attended New Student Orientation in Fall

2012 as compared to students that did not attend New Student Orientation in Fall 2012, and 2)

students who attended New Student Orientation in Fall, 2012 and still plan to get involved on

campus, compared to students that did not attend New Student Orientation in Fall 2012.


13/27


Our logic behind increasing the specificity of our population and adding the pre-test was

as follows:

Administering a pre-test to determine which students planned on attending orientation, as

well as their intention to get involved on campus, would provide us with a starting point

for determining whether the orientation process changes a students likelihood to get

involved on campus, and also establish our control and experimental groups.

Using only traditional first-year students would decrease the extraneous variable of

experiencing different orientation processes, posed by our initial decision to involve

upperclassmen as well.

Using only traditional first-year students would minimize any systematic differences

between the groups, as we would be focusing on the same population, separated only by

their decision to either attend or not attend new student orientation.

The results from this revised design would allow us to easily compare differences in

respondents intention to get involved, rate of participation in orientation, how many of

the respondents actually get involved, and the differences in rates of involvement

between the students that attended orientation and those that did not.

Revised Instrumentation

For our follow-up study, we made several revisions to our questionnaire. Our pilot test

revealed that there were a number of instructions throughout our questionnaire that were

confusing to some of the respondents. These were corrected; additionally, McMillan (2007)

recommends that items on questionnaires should be short, simple, and clear (p.161).

Coincidentally, we received some feedback that our word choice could be simplified, which we


14/27


took into consideration and went on to revise a few terms we had used, such as conscious

instead of aware. See Appendix B.

Implications for Future Research

The information with this study will not only give us an idea of trends in involvement

based on attendance in first-year orientation programs, but will also provide information for

universities across the country with some ideas to better promote student involvement and

improve their respective orientation programs. An interesting implication for future research that

was not effectively measured through our pilot test is the issue related to involvement quality

versus involvement quantity. Astin (1999) poses the question as to whether or not minor

involvement in multiple areas of college is as effective as heavier involvement on few areas of

college. Building on top of this, we are interested in looking at the issue of quality versus

quantity from the lens of the student affairs professional. Since the particular orientation

program at Rutgers University has a strong emphasis on student involvement, we are curious as

to whether there is a glass-ceiling effect is there a point after which repeated efforts in

communicating that students that they should get take advantage of on-campus involvement

opportunities eventually deafen them to the message? A stepping stone in truly helping students

capitalize on opportunities to get involved, lies in gaining a better understanding of how

orientation programs help lay the foundation for student success, starting with their initial

exposure to the college campus. We hope that future research will build on these curiosities, and

aim to uncover any significant correlations between orientation programs and student

involvement over time.


15/27


References

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of higher education, 40 (5), pp. 518-529.

Braxton, J. M., Braxton, A., & Hirschy, A. S. (2004). Understanding and reducing college

student departure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

DeBard, R. (2004). Millennials coming to college. New visions for student services, 2004 (106),

pp. 33-45.

Fischer, M. J. (2007). Settling into campus life: differences by race/ethnicity in college

involvement and outcomes. The journal of higher education, 78 (2), pp. 125-156.

McMillan, J.H. (2012). Educational Research: Fundamentals for the Consumer(6th

ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Wolfle, L. M. (1986). Orientation to college and freshman

year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Thejournal of higher education, 57(2), pp. 155-

175.

Rutgers, T. S. (2011, 10 2011). Facts and Figures. Retrieved from About Rutgers:

http://www.rutgers.edu/about-rutgers/facts-figures

Sax, L. J. (2003). Our incoming students: what are they like? About campus, 8 (3), pp. 15-20.

Schreiner, L. A. (2010). The thriving quotient: a new vision for student success. About campus,

15 (2), pp. 2-10.

Svanum, S., & Bigatti, S. M. (2009). Academic course engagement during one semester

forecasts college success: engaged students are more likely to earn a degree, do it faster,

and do it better. Journal of college student development, 50 (1), pp. 120-132.


16/27


Appendix A: Original Annotated Questionnaire

Please take a few moments to fill out our questionnaire. Please mark your sheet as indicatedafter each question.

1. Did you attend Rutgers New Student Orientation in the summer of 2011?Please check one: ___ Yes ___No

(Pascarella, Terenzini, and Wolfe, 1986, stated that one of the main goals of orientation

programs is to acquaint attendees with student organizations on campus.)

2. If yes, please answer the following question. If no, please skip to question 3:Which Orientation did you attend? (Please choose one):

___ 2-Day New Student Orientation Session___ 1-Day Transfer Orientation Session

___ 1-Day EOF Program Orientation Session

(The research group is focusing on the 2-Day New Student Orientation session for first-year students, so this question is designed as a screening tool.)

3. To what extent do you agree with the following statement:Rutgers New Student Orientation 2011 and/or information on the Orientation website

helped you become conscious of on-campus clubs, groups, organizations, and other

involvement opportunities at Rutgers?Please circle one:

1: Strongly disagree

2: Disagree3: Neither agree nor disagree4: Agree5: Strongly agree

(Braxton et al. 2004 emphasized the importance of providing students with theopportunity to interact with other students and faculty on multiple levels, including diverse

extracurricular activities. Their findings were used in constructing questions 3 and 4.)

4. To what extent do you agree with the following statement:Getting involved in on-campus organizations, clubs, teams, and student groups is an

important component of a students career at Rutgers.Please circle one:1: Strongly disagree

2: Disagree3: Neither agree nor disagree

4: Agree5: Strongly agree


17/27


(See description for question 3).

5. Did your parent(s) or legal guardian(s) attend the New Student Orientation ParentProgram in the summer of 2011?

Please check one:

___ Yes ___No

(In analyzing K-12 students, Gonzales-DeHass, Willems, and Holbein (2005) state that

parental involvement benefits students education (except, generally, in cases whereparents micro-manage their childrens school lives or provide extrinsic rewards as focal

motivators). Furthermore, DeBards (2004) study of millennials indicates thatmillennials parents tend to be highly involved in their lives. Since the K-12 students

during the time of their study are millennials and potentially reaching college age, thisinformation is likely applicable to college students. Therefore, parental involvement,

including presence at the Parent Orientation, might have an indirect influence onstudents (a) tendency to get involved on campus and (b) likelihood of attending Rutgers

New Student Orientation.)

6. To what extent do you agree with the following statement?My parent(s)/legal guardian(s) show interest in my decisions to participate or not

participate in student groups, clubs, and/or organizations at Rutgers.Circle one:

1: Strongly disagree2: Disagree

3: Neither agree nor disagree4: Agree

5: Strongly agree

(See description for question 5)

7. To what extent do you agree with the following statement?

My parent(s)/legal guardian(s) are involved in my decisions to participate or not

participate in student groups, clubs, and/or organizations at Rutgers.Circle one:

1: Strongly disagree2: Disagree


5: Strongly agree

(See description for question 5)

8. Are you involved in any Rutgers-affiliated student organizations, clubs, teams, etc.?Please check one:

___ Yes ___ NoIf yes, please answer questions 9 - 13. If you selected no, please skip to question 14.


18/27


(Pascarella et al. (1986) posit that orientation has a significant effect on students

likelihood to get involved on campus. For this question, we are aiming to see the numberof student respondents that report being involved in a student group, organization, club,

or team at Rutgers.)

9. How many organizations, clubs, teams, student groups, etc. are you involved with atRutgers?

___ 1___ 2

___ 3___ 4 or more

(Based on Pascarella et al.s (1986) aforementioned research, this question aims to

measure the level of involvement of student respondents in terms of the number oforganizations in which they participate. The data will be used to draw a correlation

between attendance at Orientation and the number of organizations that a student is likelyto join.)

10.Out of these organizations, in how many of them do you hold a leadership position (i.e.position on the executive board, team captain, high-ranking student position, etc.)?Please choose one:

___ 0___ 1

___ 2___ 3

___ 4 or more

(In addition to the number of organizations that a student joins, it will be important for usto know what level of involvement they hold in those organizations. For example,

whether a student holds low-level student positions in one or multiple organizationsversus highly involved positions in one or two organizations will give us information to

measure the relationship between student participation in orientation and their level ofinvolvement on campus.)

11.How likely are you to run for a leadership position within a student organization in thefuture?

1: Very unlikely2: Unlikely

3: Neutral4: Likely

5: Very Likely

(As stated above, Pascarela et al. (1986) posit that attending orientation effects astudents likelihoodto get involved. We want to get a sense of a students desire to attain


19/27


a highly involved position within a student group who might not have had the chanceyet.)

12.Please specify which type of organization, club, team, student group, etc. in which youare involved:

Please check all that apply. ___ Academic organization ___ Social organization ___ Community service organization ___ Social Action/Political club

___ Ethnic/cultural club ___ Special Interest Organization ___ Religious group ___ Sports- or athletic-oriented team or club

___ Residence Life (RA) ___ Student Government ___ Residence Hall Govenrment/Assoc. ___ Other (please specify):______________

(It will be useful for us to get a sense of the types of organizations in which students tend

to participate. In particular, we take special interest in student responses that indicateinvolvement in groups that were represented at New Student Orientation Summer 2011.)

13.How did you become aware of these organizations, clubs, teams, and student groups?Check each that applies: ___ Through a friend or peer ___ Involvement fair

___ Flyers/advertising ___ I sought the group(s) out due to interest ___ Word of mouth ___ A faculty member or advisor

___ New Student Orientation ___ Other (please specify): _____________________ Group is linked to your

academic major ordepartment

(According to Pascarella et al. (1986), college orientations influence on student

involvement is rarely direct. Instead, they get involved due to what they saw, heard, andfelt during orientation. This question is interested in (a) measuring how manyrespondents report being directly linked to their student organizations at New Student

Orientation Summer 2011 and (b) whether we can draw an indirect correlation betweenparticipation at orientation and how students became aware of the organizations in which

they are involved.)

14.If you selectedNo to question 8, how likely are you to get involved in a Rutgers-affiliatedstudent organization, club, team, student group, etc. in the future?

(Please circle one)1: Very unlikely

2: Unlikely3: Neutral

4: Likely5: Very Likely

(As stated above, Pascarela et al. (1986) posit that attending orientation affects a

students likelihoodto get involved. We want to get a sense of a students desire to getinvolved who might not have had the chance yet.)


20/27


15.If you selectedNo to question 8, how likely are you to get involved in an organization,club, team, or group outside of Rutgers? (Please circle one)1: Very unlikely

2: Unlikely

3: Neutral4: Likely5: Very Likely

(Similar to question 14, this question serves to get a sense of a students desire to get

involved in cases where they are not able or realistically able to get involved in aRutgers-affiliated organization. Students who fall into this category might include

commuters. However, we do want to measure whether or not these students have a desireto involve themselves in non-Rutgers-affiliated involvement opportunities, such as part-

time jobs or volunteer work.)

16.To what extent do you agree with the following statement:The information I received during New Student Orientation had a positive impact on mydecision to get involved in organizations, clubs, teams, student groups, etc. at Rutgers.

Please circle one:1: Strongly disagree


4: Agree5: Strongly Agree

(Braxton et al. (2004) emphasized the importance of providing students with the opportunity tointeract with other students and faculty on multiple levels, including diverse extracurricularactivities. Question 16 aims to determine whether the respondent believed that the opportunities

provided during the orientation process had an impact on their involvement.)

Participant Demographics

17.Gender (please check one): ___Male ___Female ___Transgender ___Do not wish to identify

(Kinzie et al. 2007 found that there were significant differences in the rates of campus

engagement between male and female undergraduate students. The research groupbelieves that noting the gender of respondents would be important, to determine whether

the correlation between attending orientation and becoming involved in campusorganizations is more significant between the various gender groups.)

18.Current Age (please check one):___17-19___ 19-21


21/27


___ 22-24___ 25 and older

19.For how years have you attended Rutgers?Please choose one:

___0___1___2

___3___4

___5 or more

(The research group is focusing on first-year students, because of the novelty of theRutgers summer orientation program. It would be useful to have other students input who have

gone through the older orientation program, so that we can measure any variances between thefeedback from first-year students versus that of returning students.)

20.With which of the following groups do you most ident ify? (Please check all that apply.)___White___Black or African American

___American Indian or Alaska Native___Hispanic/Latino

___Asian___Pacific Islander (Please Specify: ____________________)

___Other race (Please Specify: ____________________)

(Fischer (2007) pointed out that there are potential trends in levels of campus involvement and

how students get accustomed to campus life based on ethnicity. Her study was based on the ideathat the adjustment process varies among various ethnic groups.)


22/27


Appendix B: Revised Questionnaire

Please take a few moments to fill out our questionnaire. Please mark your sheet as indicated

after each question.

1. Did you attend Rutgers New Student Orientation in the summer of 2011?(Please check one)___ Yes ___No

If you answered Yes to question 1, please move on to question 2. If you answeredNo to

question 1, please skip to question 3:

2. Which Orientation did you attend? (Please check one):___ 2-Day New Student Orientation Session

___ 1-Day Transfer Orientation Session

___ 1-Day EOF Program Orientation Session

3. To what extent do you agree with the following statement (Please circle one):Rutgers New Student Orientation 2011 and/or information on the Orientation website

helped you become aware of on-campus clubs, groups, organizations, and other

involvement opportunities at Rutgers?



4: Agree

5: Strongly agree

4. To what extent do you agree with the following statement (Please circle one):Getting involved in on-campus organizations, clubs, teams, and student groups is an

important component of a students career at Rutgers.


2: Disagree


5: Strongly agree

5. Did your parent(s) or legal guardian(s) attend the New Student Orientation ParentProgram in the summer of 2011? (Please check one)___ Yes ___No


23/27


6. To what extent do you agree with the following statement? (Please circle one)My parent(s)/legal guardian(s) show interest in my decisions to participate or not

participate in student groups, clubs, and/or organizations at Rutgers.


2: Disagree

3: Neither agree nor disagree

4: Agree5: Strongly agree

7. To what extent do you agree with the following statement? (Please circle one)My parent(s)/legal guardian(s) are involved in my decisions to participate or not participate in

student groups, clubs, and/or organizations at Rutgers.

1: Strongly disagree2: Disagree3: Neither agree nor disagree

4: Agree

5: Strongly agree

8. Are you involved in any Rutgers-affiliated student organizations, clubs, teams, etc.?(Please check one)

___ Yes ___ No

If you answered Yes to question 8, please answer questions 9 - 13. If you answeredNo to

question 8, please skip to question 14.

9. How many organizations, clubs, teams, student groups, etc. are you involved with atRutgers? (Please check one)

___ 1

___ 2___ 3

___ 4 or more

10.Out of these organizations, in how many of them do you hold a leadership position (i.e.position on the executive board, team captain, high-ranking student position, etc.)?

(Please check one)___ 0

___ 1___ 2

___ 3

___ 4 or more


24/27


11.How likely are you to run for a leadership position within a student organization in thefuture? (Please circle one)


3: Neutral

4: Likely

5: Very Likely

12.Please specify which type of organization, club, team, student group, etc. in which youare involved (Please check all that apply):

___ Academic organization ___ Social organization

___ Community service organization ___ Social Action/Political club

___ Ethnic/cultural club ___ Special Interest Organization___ Religious group ___ Sports- or athletic-oriented team or club___ Residence Life (RA) ___ Student Government

___ Residence Hall Govenrment/Assoc. ___ Other (please specify):______________

13.How did you become aware of these organizations, clubs, teams, and student groups?(Please check all that apply)

___ Through a friend or peer ___ Involvement fair___ Flyers/advertising ___ I sought the group(s) out due to interest

___ Word of mouth ___ A faculty member or advisor

___ New Student Orientation ___ Other (please specify): _____________________ Group is linked to youracademic major or

department

If you answeredNo to question 8, please continue to question 9. If you selected Yes toquestion 8, please skip to question 16.

14.How likely are you to get involved in a Rutgers-affiliated student organization, club,team, student group, etc. in the future? (Please circle one)


3: Neutral4: Likely

5: Very Likely


25/27


15.If you selectedNo to question 8, how likely are you to get involved in an organization,club, team, or group outside of Rutgers? (Please circle one)

1: Very unlikely

2: Unlikely3: Neutral

4: Likely

5: Very Likely

16.To what extent do you agree with the following statement (Please circle one):The information I received during New Student Orientation had a positive impact on my

decision to get involved in organizations, clubs, teams, student groups, etc. at Rutgers.


2: Disagree

3: Neither agree nor disagree4: Agree5: Strongly Agree

Participant Demographics

17.Gender (please check one):___Male ___Female ___Transgender ___Do not wish to identify

18.Current Age (Please check one):___ 17 or Younger

___ 18___ 19___ 20 or Older

19.With which of the following groups do you identify with? (Please check all that apply)___White___Black or African American

___American Indian or Alaska Native

___Hispanic/Latino

___Asian___Pacific Islander

___Other race (Please Specify: ____________________)


26/27


Appendix C: Institutional Review Board Consent Form

Consent Form to Participate in a Research Study

Title of Study: Relationship between New Student Orientation and On-campus Involvement

Principal Investigator(s): Jon Buchalski, Devin Budhram, Adam Carlson and Ganesh Waran

INTRODUCTION

You are invited to participate in a research study that is being conducted by Higher

Education Researchers Jon Buchalski, Devin Budhram, Adam Carlson, and Ganesh Waran.

Before you agree to participate in this study, you should know enough about it to make an

informed decision. If you have any questions, ask the investigators. You should be satisfied

with their answers before you agree to be in the study.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSEThe purpose of this study is to attempt to find a correlation between first-year students

participation in Rutgers New Student Orientation (NSO) and their tendency to participate in

student involvement opportunities on campus.

INFORMATION/PROCDEDURES

Participants will be given the same questionnaire with 19 questions related to their experience

with New Student Orientation and their involvement on-campus with different organizations and

activities. The questionnaire will take about 10 to 15 minutes to complete. If you agree to takepart in the study, you will be assigned a random code number that will be used on each test and

the questionnaire. Your name will appear only on a list of subjects, and will not be linked to the

code number that is assigned to you. There will be no way to link your responses back to you.

Therefore, data collection is anonymous.

RISKS

There are no foreseeable risks associated with the participation in this study

BENEFITS

Participation in this study may not benefit you directly. However, the knowledge we hope to

obtain from your participation and the participation of others, may help us to better understand

the effect that New Student Orientation has on the amount of participation new students engage

in. Information gathered will assist in the planning, implementation, and assessment of future

New Student Orientations to include all types of students and increase the effectiveness of future

programs.

CONFIDENTIALITY

This research is anonymous. Anonymous means that I will record no information about you that

could identify you. This means that I will not record your name, address, phone number, date of

birth, etc. The research team and the Institutional Review Board at Rutgers University are the

only parties that will be allowed to see the data, except as may be required by law. If a report of


27/27


this study is published, or the results are presented at a professional conference, only group

results will be stated.

COMPENSATION

There is no compensation for participation in study.

CONTACT

If you have questions at any time about the research or the procedures, you may contact

the research group at [email protected]. If you have any questions about your rights

as a research subject, you may contact the Rutgers University IRB Administrator at:

Rutgers University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects

Office of Research and Sponsored Programs

3 Rutgers PlazaNew Brunswick, NJ 08901-8559

Tel: 848 932 4058

Email: [email protected]

PARTICIPATION

Your participation in this study is voluntary; you may decline to participate at any time

without penalty to you. If you decide to participate, you may withdraw from the study at

any time without penalty and without loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If

you withdraw from the study before data collection is completed your data will be removed

from the data set and destroyed.

Sign below if you agree to participate in this research study. You will be given a copy ofthis form to keep.

Subject's signature______________________________________________

Date _________________

Investigator's signature__________________________________________

Date _________________

Documents

Buchalski Budhram Carlson Waran Quantitative Assessment Proposal Fall 2011