This is my dissertation defense presentation from April 2012.

2. Committee Members
Dr. James O’Hanlon, Chair
Dr. James Griesen, Member
Dr. Richard Hoover, Member
Dr. Susan Sheridan, Member

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Research Question #1
Do 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?

7. Research Question #2
Do any significant differences exist in
reported skill level for any
competency area based on
• Gender?
• Residency?
• Race or Ethnicity?

8. Research Question #3
Does 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?
•

9. Research Question #4
Do any significant differences exist
in student participation in
University-identified meaningful
activities based on
• Gender?
• Residency?
• Race or Ethnicity?

10. 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?

11. Methodology
Quan
Concurrent, Nested
Quan Analysis of Findings Qual
Compare/Explain Results
QUAN
Qual

12. 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

13. 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)

14. Variables
 Dependent:
 10 competencies
 Involvement in meaningful activities
 Independent:
 Gender
 Residency in first year
 Race or ethnicity
 Involvement in meaningful actitivities

15. 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

16. Qualitative Methods
 Emergent 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Major Qualitative Findings
 Co-curricular factors predominated as contributing to
decision-making skill, self-knowledge, self-
esteem/confidence, understanding of difference
and 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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