Committee Members

Dr. James O’Hanlon, Chair

Dr. James Griesen, Member

Dr. Richard Hoover, Member

Dr. Susan Sheridan, Member

Statement of the Problem Importance of the first year of college (FY)

Flat retention and graduation rates & gaps for

underserved students

FY programs often disjointed & without clear

outcomes

Call for institutions to do more assessment of

own programs to guide improvement and

promote student success

Purpose of the Study To investigate how college sophomores perceived

personal development during the first year of college

against 10 specific competencies

To understand what first year experiences

contributed to reported developmental gains

To differences based on gender, residency, race or

ethnicity and participation in meaningful

involvements

Conceptual Framework

Student Development

Chickering’s Vectors (1969/1993)

Baxter-Magolda’s Theory of Self-Authorship

(LPM)

Research

Involvement & Engagement

Impacts of the First Year

Research Question #1Do sophomore college students report differences in

current level (CL) skill as compared to their entry level (EL) skill as first year college students in

speaking skills

writing skills

problem-solving

decision-making

self-knowledge

self-esteem/confidence

ability to work in a team

understanding of people who

are different

self-responsibility

community involvement?

Research Question #2

Do any significant differences exist in

reported skill level for any

competency area based on

• Gender?

• Residency?

• Race or Ethnicity?

Research Question #3Does student participation in University-

identified meaningful activities have any

effect on reported gains in any of the

competencies?• Do students who report involvement in at least one meaningful activity

report higher overall skill gains across the 10 competencies?

• Do students who report involvement in at least one meaningful activity

report higher skill gains in any of the 10 competency areas?

• Do students who report greater involvement, as measured by their number

of meaningful activities, report higher overall skill gains across the 10

competencies?

• Do students who report greater involvement, as measured by their number

of meaningful activities, report higher gains in any of the 10

competencies?

•

Research Question #4

Do any significant differences exist

in student participation in

University-identified meaningful activities based on

• Gender?

• Residency?

• Race or Ethnicity?

Research Question #5

For competency areas in which

students’ self-reports indicate gains in

skill, what first year experiences do

participants identify as contributing to

these gains?

Methodology

Quan

Concurrent, Nested

Quan Analysis of Findings Qual

Compare/Explain Results

QUAN

Qual

Methodology Data collected simultaneously via Sophomore

Survey – first week of fall 2010

Quantitative Data for RQ #1 to 4

Likert scales to measure EL and CL competencies

Likert scales to measure involvement level

Demographic questions

Created variables from data

Qualitative Data for RQ # 5

10 open-ended responses

Sampling Sample population (N=1077): all FY2009 students

who attained sophomore status for Fall 2010

Representative sample (n=340) created retroactively

from responses

Response rate of approximately 35%

Gender (72.4% female v. 61.6% in population)

Residency (68.8% campus residents v. 68.4% in pop.)

Race or Ethnicity (88.2% white v. 89 in popluation)

Variables Dependent:

10 competencies

Involvement in meaningful activities

Independent:

Gender

Residency in first year

Race or ethnicity

Involvement in meaningful actitivities

Quantitative Methods Descriptive statistics

Paired sample t tests to compare EL & CL scores

(RQ#1)

Repeated measures ANOVA tests to compare

demographic groups and involvement groups (RQ

#2 & 3)

Between group ANOVAs to compare involvement

based on demographic variables

Qualitative MethodsEmergent thematic coding by competency

Trustworthiness established by inter-rating

coding by 2others

Data presented by type of environmental

factor(curricular or co-curricular) &

development changes

Major Quantitative Findings t-tests revealed statistically significant gains for all 10 competencies

at p <0.001

Comp t Sig. (2 tail)

Esteem/Confidence -13.467 0.000

Speaking Skills -13.281 0.000

Self-knowledge -12.768 0.000

Writing Skills -12.441 0.000

Decision-Making -10.875 0.000

Und. Of Difference -10.604 0.000

Problem-Solving -10.478 0.000

Teamwork -9.556 0.000

Comm. Involvement -9.473 0.000

Self- Responsibility -6.800 0.000

Major Quantitative Findings Gender

t-tests revealed no significant gender differences in

gains on any competency

ANOVAs found that men had lower EL and CL community involvement scores than women, F (1,

337) = 8.372, p = .004

No significant difference was found in involvement

level in meaningful activities based on gender

Major Quantitative Findings Residency

t-tests found that campus residents reported significantly higher gains in understanding of difference, F (1,337) = 6.458, p = .011) and in writing skills, (F (1,336) = 4.367, p = .037) than commuters.

ANOVAs found that residents had higher EL and CL community involvement scores than commuters,F(1,337) = 8.023, p = .005

ANOVAs revealed that residents were significantly more involved in meaningful activities than their commuting peers, F (1, 339) = 29.552, p = .000.

Major Quantitative Findings Race or Ethnicity

t-tests found no significant differences in gains on any

competency based on race or ethnicity

ANOVAs revealed that students from racially or

ethnically diverse groups were more involved in

meaningful activities than their white peers, F (1, 339)

= 8.668, p = .003

Major Quantitative Findings Involvement in Meaningful Activities

ANOVAs found no impact of involvement on

competency gains, either overall or individually.

However, between group ANOVAs found students who

were involved in these activities reported higher

overall competency scores, F (1, 338) = 8.978, p =

.003 and higher overall scores on speaking, F(1, 338) =

10.952, p = .001, teamwork, F(1, 336) = 6.063, p = .014, and

community involvement, (F(1,1) = 44.314, p = .000.

Major Qualitative Findings Participants were largely able to identify the

environmental factors contributing to their gains in

individual competencies

Academic factors predominated as contributing to

writing skills and speaking skills with most

common themes of

Core curriculum courses

Frequency of practice

Effective instruction

Individual faculty attention.

Major Qualitative Findings Co-curricular factors predominated as contributing to

decision-making skill, self-knowledge, self-esteem/confidence, understanding of differenceand community involvement with most common themes of

Exp./responsibilities of being new college student

Getting to know others & building peer support network

Living independently

Taking time to reflect on self, interests & goals

Co-curricular involvements

Major Qualitative Findings Factors of both types contributed equally to

problem-solving, ability to work in a team and

self-responsibility with common themes of

Experience of working with others in & out of class

Recognition of need for self-responsibility for

successes and mistakes, in class & interpersonally

Learning from mistakes & building on successes

Major Qualitative Findings Students’ comments demonstrated strong levels of

personal change, including examples of their own

efforts to create those changes, in five competency

areas:

problem-solving

decision-making

self-knowledge *

self/esteem/confidence*

self-responsibility **

* 2 of 3 competencies with highest reported gains

** competency with the lowest reported gains

Conclusions• Students recognize growth to varying degrees

• Areas of greatest growth showed most complex

responses- still working things out

• Core curriculum is effective in supporting personal

development

• Environment played a big role – support, peer

culture & messaging to an extent

• Strong signs in key factors cited by Reason et al

(2007) look at psychosocial development in FY

Conclusions

• Saw evidence that they were asking key questions

Baxter Magolda cites- signs that many were at

crossroads & beginning to see self as author

• Evidence that most had through autonomy and that

some were developing more mature

interrelationships & beginning to develop their identity

Implications for Practice The results have several implications for practice at

the research site:

Current FY program efforts appear to be effective for most students, given that students perceived significant gains in all 10 competency areas, regardless of gender, residency, and race or ethnicity current FY program

However, because men and commuting students report both lower EL & CL scores on some competencies despite achieving significant gains, there is an opportunity for more focused efforts with these student populations to try to close their gaps over the first year.

Implications for Practice Results indicating significantly more involvement by

students of color than by white students provides

evidence to support current practices with this

population and may offer justification for increased

resources as this population grows

The study suggests that these effective practices

may be replicated successfully with other segments

of the population, including commuters and men to

encourage increased engagement.

Implications for Practice The results illustrate that intentional messaging

about the value of diversity are being heard and

taken to heart, but also imply the need for more

programming for commuters given that they reported

significantly lower growth in this competency.

In addition, the findings provide population specific

material for messaging at new student orientation to

both highlight areas of positive growth and those

where improvement might be called for.

Implications for Practice Given the uneven reporting of personal growth,

including personal efforts to affect change, across

the competencies, there are implications that the

institution might be well served by increasing

intentional conversations and partnerships with

students to support and challenge their growing self-

authorship

Recommendations for Study Longitudinal study of multiple FY cohorts is needed

both to verify the findings and validate the

instrument.

Given the lack of effect for involvement in meaningful

engagements warrants further research with the

population to determine if other meaningful

engagements should be studied.

Recommendations for Study Follow-up interviews or focus groups with other

administrations of the survey would allow for

improved understanding of the ways in which

students make connections between gains on the

various competencies. This would

Provide a more holistic view of individual development

Improve assessment of specific elements within the

environment

Enhance understanding of environmental factors

fostering engagement of students of color

Recommendations for Study Replication of the study controlling for other

variables relevant to the population, including hours

worked and time spent on campus by commuters,

might further explain differences for this population.

Replication of the study to ensure statistical

representation by gender may provide further insight

into differences between men and women

Recommendations for Study Comparison of results with NSSE data would

triangulate findings and increase their validity

The survey could be modified and used by other

institutions to examine first year student

development on their campuses. This would

contribute to the knowledge base about first year

student development

Limitations Combining race and ethnicity

Applicable at the research site, but cannot be

generalized

Gender findings may not be fully generalizeable

Only provides information on students who were

retained

Assumption that student self-reports are accurate

Additional testing is needed on the instrument